Are there new V20s coming out?

[McWheels]

Oooo, I'm enjoying this!

The frame is too long, even with the boom bent back and rear wheel removed? There may already be an answer partially waiting for us. The older S30 had what looked like a pivot on the lower rear triangle and the upper suspended on the seat on what looked like a titanium spring [I think I'm close but not perfectly right]. So instead of a suspension attachment, perhaps the SandS thing? Then the rear triangle can pivot under the rest of the frame and detach pretty easily. Conceptually it's got potential and already meets some of the strength and presentation requirements.

And we also want something that bends, and doesn't bend? But not necessarily at the same time. Segmentation might work. Cars have steel braid short flexible hoses around their suspension for the brake fluid, or maybe 2 half hydraulic systems with a mechanical connector?

I've actually been wondering if the whole steerer tube could detach from the front of the frame, sort of a tongue and groove thing witha couple of grub screws to stop anything falling out again. Needs lots of design but would be pretty simple once fabricated.

 

[super slim]

Oooo, I'm enjoying this!

The frame is too long, even with the boom bent back and rear wheel removed? There may already be an answer partially waiting for us. The older S30 had what looked like a pivot on the lower rear triangle and the upper suspended on the seat on what looked like a titanium spring [I think I'm close but not perfectly right]. So instead of a suspension attachment, perhaps the SandS thing? Then the rear triangle can pivot under the rest of the frame and detach pretty easily. Conceptually it's got potential and already meets some of the strength and presentation requirements.

And we also want something that bends, and doesn't bend? But not necessarily at the same time. Segmentation might work. Cars have steel braid short flexible hoses around their suspension for the brake fluid, or maybe 2 half hydraulic systems with a mechanical connector?

I've actually been wondering if the whole steerer tube could detach from the front of the frame, sort of a tongue and groove thing with a couple of grub screws to stop anything falling out again. Needs lots of design but would be pretty simple once fabricated.

I would think that the Silvio V2.0 rear bottom connection be used at the two frame connection points (70 mm wide at the bottom, and 35 mm narrow at the top connection) so the rear forks can be slid in sideways and clamped.
The Silvio V2.0 Titanium and CF bottom stay with three male connections(1 * 70 mm, 2 * 23 mm) be replaced with Oval AL stays and only 1 female clamp connection 70 mm wide on the stay, so the oval stays can be welded to it, with a rim brake cross piece. The 70 mm wide male part welded to the frame, to be as short as possible
The rear oval AL stay with the Titanium spring clamp at the top, have the spring clamp replaced with a female clamp for the frame male knob. The 35 mm wide male part welded to the frame, to be as short as possible

 

[M.J]

This reminds me of how the Ford Thunderbird debuted in the 50s (no, I wasn't alive... I just know the story). It came out as a two seat convertible sports car and people dug it. Ford surveyed owners over those first couple years asking how the T-Bird could be improved. People said they loved their sports car, but wouldn't it be great if it were a little more practical. A little more comfortable. Maybe had back seats. Those seats would be easier to access with back doors. And on and on.
Within a decade the Thunderbird was a fat luxo-cruiser.
A breakdown Cruzbike with suspension sounds great, but not as an update to the V20.

 

[super slim]

This reminds me of how the Ford Thunderbird debuted in the 50s (no, I wasn't alive... I just know the story). It came out as a two seat convertible sports car and people dug it. Ford surveyed owners over those first couple years asking how the T-Bird could be improved. People said they loved their sports car, but wouldn't it be great if it were a little more practical. A little more comfortable. Maybe had back seats. Those seats would be easier to access with back doors. And on and on.
Within a decade the Thunderbird was a fat luxo-cruiser.
A breakdown Cruzbike with suspension sounds great, but not as an update to the V20.

The rear stays are rigid NOT flexible! BUT are removable!

 

[benphyr]

A breakdown Cruzbike with suspension sounds great, but not as an update to the V20.

=Q45.

I also am not convinced that you want to add much to the V20. Improvements to disc brake mounts, Lighter if possible, more aero. The V20 should remain a no holds barred racing machine. That’s its job in my not so humble opinion.

I wouldn’t complain if the Q45 got a prettier, stiffer frame especially the rear and seat support, without losing the adjustability, foldability, large tire clearances, and took a diet too. But that is part of a different thread: https://forum.cruzbike.com/threads/new-q45-coming.13514/

 

[super slim]

=Q45.

I also am not convinced that you want to add much to the V20. Improvements to disc brake mounts, Lighter if possible, more aero. The V20 should remain a no holds barred racing machine. That’s its job in my not so humble opinion.

I wouldn’t complain if the Q45 got a prettier, stiffer frame especially the rear and seat support, without losing the adjustability, foldability, large tire clearances, and took a diet too. But that is part of a different thread: https://forum.cruzbike.com/threads/new-q45-coming.13514/

I agree but others have already listed Disk brake mounts to the new Road bike standards, new through Axles of the standard that most Tour de France teams use, allowing for 12 speed cassettes!

 

[Greg S]

I'm fully on board with the "V20 is the no holds barred racing machine" ethos. TdF bikes have shown you can have disc brakes and still have a light bike but I'd like to have the option for a non-disc bike to save a bit of weight. I'll admit though that the weight penalty for discs is smaller with the appropriate application of $$$.

 

[super slim]

I'm fully on board with the "V20 is the no holds barred racing machine" ethos. TdF bikes have shown you can have disc brakes and still have a light bike but I'd like to have the option for a non-disc bike to save a bit of weight. I'll admit though that the weight penalty for discs is smaller with the appropriate application of $$$.

I think the through bolt axles help reduce overall weight by stiffening the forks at the bottom, as I think the disk only add 100 gm per wheel, compared to 250 gm for TRP Spyre to Ultegra rim. The through axle MIGHT transfer some of the braking load up through the right fork, instead of only the left fork,, so the forks could be lighter!

 

[Mathew Fy]

I wouldn’t expect Cruzbike to do this, but an adventurous soul could have the stays on his V20 or S40 cut and fitted with couplers like on my Bike Friday Tikit with a drive belt.
This company modifies bikes for conversion to belt drive. The could allow disassembly into the smallest box or bag you might need for, say, train travel on the TGV in Europe (90 x 120 cm), and you don’t want an S30.

 

[McWheels]

I think we might be separating 2 things that don't need to be. I.e. complete racing machine and a degree of design that suits the consumer. Through his excellent work on the Magic, Larry has shown us that even the majestic V20 could, with the application of even more effort, become faster and lighter. Therefore the V20 is already a compromise between affordability, simplicity, convenience, ridability, manufacture costs, material choices, aesthetics and so on.

The exam question appeared to be; can we make it more convenient [to transport] without losing the essential qualities that make it the racing monster is already is? Could therefore such a modification become just part of the offering? All taken together, this is about increased sales, so maybe the real question is what could we get away with that maintains the psychological perception of single-issue focussed racing machine while hiding the compromises in plain sight?

 

[Greg S]

The exam question appeared to be; can we make it more convenient [to transport] without losing the essential qualities that make it the racing monster is already is?

A very related question, and I'm sure one Cruzbike has asked, is: "Do enough people travel with the V to justify the changes?".

I know that I would plan on traveling, a lot, with a V, but speaking for myself if it's a choice between making it a better traveler and making it 4 lbs lighter I'd go with the weight savings every time.

Not saying ease of travel wouldn't be terrific because I do travel both domestically and internationally with a bike, only that my priorities might be different than others and whether there are enough of us that travel to justify the changes is an important question.

 

[super slim]

A very related question, and I'm sure one Cruzbike has asked, is: "Do enough people travel with the V to justify the changes?".

I know that I would plan on traveling, a lot, with a V, but speaking for myself if it's a choice between making it a better traveler and making it 4 lbs lighter I'd go with the weight savings every time.

Not saying ease of travel wouldn't be terrific because I do travel both domestically and internationally with a bike, only that my priorities might be different than others and whether there are enough of us that travel to justify the changes is an important question.

The female clamps could be 70+2*23 long * 21*27 = 177 gms, the 3mm thick male part sticking out of the clamp is 20 mm long so 19 gm, and 3 M6 bolts with a 8 mm dia shoulder is 27 gms, so 223 gm total, not 4 lbs (1800 gms).
This 223 gm is not a large weight penalty to save $220 for every US flight!

 

[Greg S]

The female clamps could be 70+2*23 long * 21*27 = 177 gms, the 3mm thick male part sticking out of the clamp is 20 mm long so 19 gm, and 3 M6 bolts with a 8 mm dia shoulder is 27 gms, so 223 gm total, not 4 lbs (1800 gms).
This 223 gm is not a large weight penalty to save $220 for every US flight!

I think perhaps I wasn't clear. Said differently, my personal preference would be for Cruzbike to focus its attention on reducing the weight of the current V by 4 lbs rather than on making it more suitable to travel.

I completely admit that's a personal choice based on how I would anticipate using it. The majority of my air travel with a bike is international and although the additional charges add up they're generally dwarfed by the overall cost of the air fare. I think I could get the current V into a small enough case that I'd get a pass on the extra fee some of the time. I know from experience that does happen. I have an S&S coupled DF but I also travel a lot with a regular bike in a case that exceeds the 26x26x10 airline limit. Sometimes I get charged, most times I don't. I think I could get the V in a similar size case.

So I'd prefer 4 lbs off the current V and I'll take my chances ;-)

I freely admit others might feel differently.

 

[Kufman]

The female clamps could be 70+2*23 long * 21*27 = 177 gms, the 3mm thick male part sticking out of the clamp is 20 mm long so 19 gm, and 3 M6 bolts with a 8 mm dia shoulder is 27 gms, so 223 gm total, not 4 lbs (1800 gms).
This 223 gm is not a large weight penalty to save $220 for every US flight!

I think the counter point being that the bike is already a bit chunky for an elite road bike and any extra weight is not desired. If it can be done with no extra weight, it might be of interest. Maybe this can be done with a different frame/seat design but it would also be nice to be 20lbs.

 

[Frito Bandito]

S&S Couplers don't add much weight, but of course require round tubes. As much as I would like a feasible solution for being able to break V20 frames down in half without sacrificing the current aerodynamic shape and adding too much weight, it seems the only way to make them even a bit shorter is to have S&S Couplers on all of the stays while adding about a pound. Even then, I'm not sure if that would shorten it enough to get it in a case that meets the size limits for air travel, but if it did then I can imagine at least a few people would never shut up about their bike, including me.
It would require more welding and be more expensive to manufacture but perhaps the Coupler could be placed somewhere under the seat where the aero penalty would be less.

 

[chicorider]

All of the high-end travel frames with couplers that I've seen pictures of have been either steel or titanium. I wonder if aluminum is somehow poorly suited to that application.

 

[Greg S]

All of the high-end travel frames with couplers that I've seen pictures of have been either steel or titanium. I wonder if aluminum is somehow poorly suited to that application.

There are also S&S coupled carbon frames. I think you're correct though that aluminum can't be used with the couplers.

 

[paco1961]

4 lbs savings?
1) carbon chain stay - small gain
2) full carbon fork w thru axle to spread out stresses - pretty good savings
3) fixed length boom/steerer - eliminates unnecessary tube plus hardware - no brainer

Those 3 could get you to 2.5 or 3.0 lbs pretty quickly

4) if there was a carbon drop bar out there w mtb diameter you could switch to mtb brake levers and shifters for a good 200-250 gm savings.

Of course I could go back to the stock seat and pad rather than the Thor/Ventisit and save a bit more.

 

[Greg S]

4 lbs savings?
1) carbon chain stay - small gain
2) full carbon fork w thru axle to spread out stresses - pretty good savings
3) fixed length boom/steerer - eliminates unnecessary tube plus hardware - no brainer

Those 3 could get you to 2.5 or 3.0 lbs pretty quickly

4) if there was a carbon drop bar out there w mtb diameter you could switch to mtb brake levers and shifters for a good 200-250 gm savings.

Of course I could go back to the stock seat and pad rather than the Thor/Ventisit and save a bit more.

Carbon boom and steerer?

 

[Frito Bandito]

4 lbs savings?
1) carbon chain stay - small gain
2) full carbon fork w thru axle to spread out stresses - pretty good savings
3) fixed length boom/steerer - eliminates unnecessary tube plus hardware - no brainer

Those 3 could get you to 2.5 or 3.0 lbs pretty quickly

4) if there was a carbon drop bar out there w mtb diameter you could switch to mtb brake levers and shifters for a good 200-250 gm savings.

Of course I could go back to the stock seat and pad rather than the Thor/Ventisit and save a bit more.

I could go for the carbon fork and a carbon boom/steerer if it saved 2lbs.