Are there new V20s coming out?

[Enid]

Only frame sets have been for sale for a while now. Are new ones coming out?

I tried to get a warehouse clearance bike, thought I bought it, but somehow never clicked through to purchase.

Man, would I love to see a V20 with some kind of suspension on the rear! It adds no weight but might reduce rolling resistance.

 

[Greg S]

I'm assuming there are and I'm hoping they've put it on a diet. If so, I'm pulling the trigger. My guess though is it'll be disc brakes (weight) and will likely weigh more than the current V (24 lbs). I hope I'm wrong. If I am, I'll continue enjoying my S40.

 

[Enid]

There is plenty of room for weight savings and some room for boom stiffness. The front boom can be actually triangulated and carbon with a few different sized booms and a slightly movable seat.

Anyway, I will take what I can get.

 

[DavidCH]

Only frame sets have been for sale for a while now. Are new ones coming out?

I tried to get a warehouse clearance bike, thought I bought it, but somehow never clicked through to purchase.

Man, would I love to see a V20 with some kind of suspension on the rear! It adds no weight but might reduce rolling resistance.

If you are running disc brakes you could use a 650b wheel and a 30mm tire... ultra comfy.

 

[M.J]

I would not wish for suspension on the V20. Squish absorbs power.

 

[Enid]

I would not wish for suspension on the V20. Squish absorbs power.

I'm not an engineer, but I believe that does not apply to recumbents. Rather, it reduces rolling resistance by reducing upward deflection of your body by road imperfections while not absorbing any of the power you are putting into the pedals. Bicycling Science is, believe it or not, a page turner and what got me interested in recumbents.

 

[chicorider]

I have both a Vendetta and an S30 (the one with rear suspension, but no front suspension). The V is not that much rougher than the S30.

 

[BJ686]

Flat mount disc brakes would be great and bring in line with current road bikes, but beyond that I'm not sure it needs too much improving or updating.

Maybe option for lower seat angle, although might have to extend the wheelbase for that. Or as noted above perhaps offer an option to buy carbon front triangle. Hard to imagine that changing the frame itself to carbon would be worth the cost as it is already pretty light.

New seat with upturn for shoulders that integrates with the frame would be nice, although Thor seats work great is the stock doesnt work for folks.

 

[Greg S]

Flat mount disc brakes would be great and bring in line with current road bikes, but beyond that I'm not sure it needs too much improving or updating.
Or as noted above perhaps offer an option to buy carbon front triangle.

I'd most definitely go for that.

 

[RojoRacing]

I'd like them to design in an under seat storage box into that open triangle of the rear stays, it would be in line to specialize's swat boxes. Enclosing that area of the frame also gives the bike a much sharper aero appearance.

 

[super slim]

i'd like a bolt on rear stiff triangle, so the bike can be transported at zero cost instead of $200/flight!

 

[3bs]

i think there are still quite a few interesting places for improvement.

1. i don't really see carbon as any great advantage in the main frame member unless they could create an more integrated seat, similar to how jm does a lot of his adjustable seats, fitting over the frame member.
2. i am totally with @RojoRacing with enclosing the little triangle and even the whole rear triangle and making a stash box in the little triangle i have played with some heat form plastics and actually think this could easily be sold as an option add that just clips on the frameset either in a lightweight durable plastic or carbon. i will do a couple this winter to show you what i mean. i think its kind of obvious. this could really clean up the air coming off the back.
3. flat mount disc brakes that will sit entirely within the enclosed rear triangle cover mentioned above.
4. solid axle option
5. improvements in the front triangle. i see lots of stuff that can be done here to clean up and simplify further, which could facilitate #6. this may be a place where carbon could help.
6. break down for standard air travel. i think the entire bike can be reduced to the l/w dimensions of a 700 c wheel or the front triangle plus a little and then width would just be the wheels, the triangle, the two frame pieces. and the seat.
7. target weight for the bike at 20 lbs, because that would be a 20% improvement over most current fast setups, so enough to matter. this is not super important to me right now but some day it may.

none of these ideas of course include my trike ideas or my low racer ideas......

 

[Kufman]

3bs,. I think your weight idea is incompatible with an easy to break down bike for travel. The ability to fold up or take apart requires the use of more clamps, hinges, etc. This comes at the cost of extra weight. I like both ideas but I think they are somewhat mutually exclusive.

 

[3bs]

@Kufman
agree as a binary choice, but i think there is some simplification that would make packing easier and clamps fewer, and that would translate to weight savings. if you consider that early s models were packable, the solution is out there.

 

[Kufman]

How much did they weigh? My QX is packable but weighs 37 lbs. What simplifications would you make to the front triangle, just curious.

 

[benphyr]

To answer the title updated models do not seem to happen at the same time so we will have to wait until after the Q at least.

But keep the ideas coming. This forum is where some of the improvements have come from.

 

[Robert Holler]

We are always watching...

 

[McWheels]

3bs,. I think your weight idea is incompatible with an easy to break down bike for travel. The ability to fold up or take apart requires the use of more clamps, hinges, etc. This comes at the cost of extra weight. I like both ideas but I think they are somewhat mutually exclusive.

This....this is why TRIZ exists and is an excellent opportunity for a short case study. Let's have a go...

What we have here is a contradiction, which is that we wish to:

• Improve the weight of the overall object (made of several components)
• Maintain strength
• Maintain aero profile
• Introduce Convenience of Use through changing the shape of the object for transport

Depending on which one you want to improve while not making the other worse, the potential inventive principles that could apply are:

25. Self service
2. Taking Out
13. The other way round
15. Dynamics
1. Segmentation
6. Universality
8. Anti-weight
35. Parameter Change
3. Local Quality
5. Merging
40. Composite materials

There isn't the time or inclination to go deep on all of them, but let's pick a couple of the less intuitive ones.

Self service: An object must service itself by performing auxiliary helpful functions; or use wasted (or lost) resources, energy or substances. Examples already out there might be: Regenerative braking, dissolvable stitches, condensing boiler, self-cleaning oven (pyrolitic); use pressure to reinforce seal action. The point being that functions could merge, or use something in a new way. Ideas might be welds that self-heal; replace welds with slots and tabs; use weight of rider/bike to hold a hinge closed so can use a lighter fastening.

Taking out: Extract the disturbing part or property; or extract only the necessary part/property of an object.

The other way round: Invert the action used to solve the problem e.g. cooling instead of heating. Make movable parts fixed, and fixed parts movable. Turn the object or process upside down. E.g. Wind tunnels, drive through bank, rotary engines, ketchup bottle. So lots of things on a bike already move - wheels, axels, brakes, chain, pedals, BB, cables, steering, frame flex, seat adjustment, handlebar position etc. So instead of making a new moving part, which bit that already moves needs to move a bit more or differntly to meet the space (& weight) requirement for transport? E.g. Use the steering column to fold back the front boom assembly and and QR the handlebars to slide in and have them vertical. QR the rear wheel and suddenly the total length isn't at all what it was.

What I like is that it forces you to examine the problem as it really is, not as we'd usually view it, and then helps by pointing you at how these problems have been solved previously in principle. A contradiction is a thing you want, since then you can attack it and innovate.

 

[Kufman]

E.g. Use the steering column to fold back the front boom assembly and and QR the handlebars to slide in and have them vertical. QR the rear wheel and suddenly the total length isn't at all what it was.

Interesting but it hasn't solved any of the key parameters. The frame itself is too long so folding the boom back doesn't help. The front and rear wheels are already QR but adding a QR to the handle bars will add weight and possibly flex. I am not understanding the concept.

 

[3bs]

1. places that can be cleaned up:
-front drop out, hanger, stay area. its pretty good, but it does not lend itself to quick tire change short of the zip strap hack. connection here would have to be a part of the transportability solution.
-bottom bracket stay boom connection area. it is pretty good, but it does have some issues with alignment, and i beleive this connection could be a critical element of the transportability solution.
-steer tube to boom connection i like the simplicity of it, but this would also be a critical point of the transportable solution.
- seat
-leading edge of seat to rear drop out area

i think the transportability solution is a three point issue.

1. size. fit maximum conventional airline size this becomes less important as airlines carry properly boxed bike for free, but as i guy who hates luggage, my bike box sucks.
2. simplicity of dis and re assembly
3. methodology that retains weight, rigidity, quality, cosmetics, and durability qualities, and is not too expensive to integrate into manufacturing process.

i have not done the exact measurements to see what the optimum distances are, but based on the time i have devoted to this over the last two years, i think the solution not changing very much is found in cutting the bike in two at a point under the seat in front of the rear triangle, and creating a joint there that allows the brakes and driveline and cables to remain attached.

this is a 3 piece solution. seat, bike front, bike back. your whole take down would be take off pedals (and maybe one crank arm, unhoook handlebar from boom so it can be sideways, collapse boom to steer tube, remove seat and headrest (and tailbox) decouple front and rear. i think an s and s type coupler would work, http://www.sandsmachine.com/ but i would envision one to follow the shape of the frame, not round and maybe a pair of studs and nuts but similar process on the joining faces, or a simpler sleeve system, and it may also be possible to use a seat mounting system to bring the seat mount to sleeve over that part of the frame to and fasten thru and thru to effectively add a splint over the joint. this is a mod that would not require any other change to the bike. so no change in tooling. CB could simply contract to add this as a frame option for x dollars.

i really need to have an extra v20 frame to test the ideas. i have a couple local guys who are much better fabbers and welders than i. maybe everyone should buy up my other bikes so i can fund buying a new v frameset.

if you did other changes to clean the bike up i could see some real options to make the bike smoother overall, and reduce weight and increase aero in general.

i think the most complicated issue to deal with is the rear hydraulic disc brake. can you make a flex point that allows the rear hose to be bent enough to put the two halves next to each other. i think you could make a little tiny metal flex tube to do this, but i don't see the current lines bending this much. quick release connections would lead to air and the need to bleed. i am not a hydraulic brake guy for bikes so this would not be an issue for me.