Does anyone else have a design Wishlist for the next model of Q series?

[TylerWayne]

I’ve been pretty obsessed with my Q45 these last few months, and I am thoroughly loving the experience, but there are certain things I think can really take the bike to the next level of versatility without compromising performance too much.

1. More generous spacing for larger tires. Some features becoming common on gravel bikes that I wish was on the Q45. Tire sizes greater than 2.2 inches wide would open up rougher terrain while keeping a larger wheel diameter to help roll over bumps easier. This would also help with comfort as a side benefit.
(I am aware that the 24inch wheel set is now available to run some larger tire volumes, but have plus sized tires AND large wheel diameter would be ideal)
2. Seat options with a head rest for support, or even some type of attachment. You could conceivably design a bracket that goes where the bottlecage holes on the back of the standard seat are.
3. This one is more of a pipe dream coming from someone spoiled by ebikes: A Pinion Gearbox + Belt drive combo to give the most durable drivetrain possible. It’s a pipe dream because the Pinion system typically is frame-integrated, you’d need to design the whole bike around it, making it unlikely without creating a whole new series of recumbent. A nice benefit though is that you would get a marginal increase to traction on climbs, as more weight would be towards the front of the bike due to the heavier drivetrain.

 

[onmyback]

I view the ride as pretty cushy, with stock tires and suspension, even on dirt tracks and gravel. I would be concerned that fatter tires would slow the handling too much. My PR on a stretch of gravel (sometimes a bit loose) is on my Q45, rather than my USS SWB (Vision VR45) or highracers (Baron HR or Mystique).
My seat was almost as far reclined as it goes, but I never felt the need for a headrest.
I'm a big fan of IGH and belts. Super durable, especially in poor weather and chains last longer too. I've had Alfine 8, Alfine 11 and SA 8 on bikes and trikes and ridden a friends Rohloff. I think the Q45 is a good candidate, but I would use a hub rather than add the weight of a crank/BB gearbox on the end of an already heavy boom. It would require a custom boom, but that's easier than needing to completely redesign a DF frame.

 

[bret]

1. More generous spacing for larger tires. Some features becoming common on gravel bikes that I wish was on the Q45. Tire sizes greater than 2.2 inches wide would open up rougher terrain while keeping a larger wheel diameter to help roll over bumps easier. This would also help with comfort as a side benefit.

I replaced my 2021 Q45 rims with 26" as that permits 2.0" tires. I agree with the idea of wider tires - this is the 'adventure model'. Wider tires also provide notable suspension effects, and there is quite a bit of data showing they can provide lower rolling resistance as well.

. This one is more of a pipe dream coming from someone spoiled by ebikes: A Pinion Gearbox + Belt drive combo to give the most durable drivetrain

Some folks here in Perth worked with Quantum Bicycles here to put a Rohloff and Gates belt on a Q45. They are/were touring in Europe last I know, but I had a look before they went. The coincident wheel axis and chainstay axis on the newer Cruzbikes permits belt tension independent of the rider adjustment. I recall they found with their cog choices they were able to match a belt that provided the correct tension without an eccentric or other adjustment.

I recall they posted in the forum here about it - I don't have the link myself.

 

[TylerWayne]

I view the ride as pretty cushy, with stock tires and suspension, even on dirt tracks and gravel. I would be concerned that fatter tires would slow the handling too much. My PR on a stretch of gravel (sometimes a bit loose) is on my Q45, rather than my USS SWB (Vision VR45) or highracers (Baron HR or Mystique).
My seat was almost as far reclined as it goes, but I never felt the need for a headrest.
I'm a big fan of IGH and belts. Super durable, especially in poor weather and chains last longer too. I've had Alfine 8, Alfine 11 and SA 8 on bikes and trikes and ridden a friends Rohloff. I think the Q45 is a good candidate, but I would use a hub rather than add the weight of a crank/BB gearbox on the end of an already heavy boom. It would require a custom boom, but that's easier than needing to completely redesign a DF frame.

The point you made about internal gear hub vs BB gearbox makes a ton of sense. A hub would probably work better for the Q45’s design.

 

[Dudley]

Bret is correct about the Rohloff hub and Gates belt. We toured Europe (mostly Italy, Austria and Slovenia) on a couple of Q45s with Rohloff hubs and Gates belts. They were fantastic. The gear ratio we used was determined by the chainstay length and it suited us well. We are slow riders who enjoy the scenery but not the hills, so having a lower gear range than the stock standard worked well. But I'll leave the details to another post. Spoiler alert: it was a bit of pain installing the Rohloffs, but did prove to be a good learning experience.

I'd like to see the carbon fibre front end migrated to the Q45 as the current front end is very heavy.

I'd also like to see more flexible ways of attaching panniers. I rigged up some racks that lifted up our panniers up by a couple of inches as the racks that Cruzbike supply were a bit too low for our panniers. I also rigged up some racks that hung below the seat which allowed us to mount some smaller panniers under the seat. It meant that our centre of gravity was nice and low - ideal for touring. Again, something for another post.

 

[2whluge]

I started with a Q559 with a SRAM dual drive and thought that was front heavy. What would a Rohloff be like?

The stock seat is very basic in shape. Maybe they figure we’re just going to change it anyway? An easier system to change the angle (some kind of QR) to make easy changes on long rides.

 

[bret]

We toured Europe (mostly Italy, Austria and Slovenia) on a couple of Q45s with Rohloff hubs and Gates belts.

Pictures or it didn't happen!

 

[Robert Holler]

Following.

I can say that belts and internal hubs won't likely be a part of the stock options - particularly Gates - as frames designed for that system have to be vetted and go through their engineers and design group to be considered for OEM. Internal hubs... Ill likely focus on compatibility to be sure they can be used, but unless I were to see something earth shatteringly awesome standard components are always a better choice for OEM from a cost and availability standpoint. We will see nothing is never 100% "off the table."

At least right now as we are still dealing with covid-era supply chain issues (in some ways they are worse than even a few years ago and on others better.)

 

[veloc_h]

Hi @Robert Holler
A modern seat (angle similar to the existing, but a more ergonomic (e.g. lumbar or shoulder support) plus ventilated design wouldn't do any harm. On my up I do have and love Rohloff, but I think it's too heavy plus Rohloff torque support (stiffer or heavier frame). 50-559 with Schwalbe Big Ben or Continental Contact Urban on 3 bar would be nice, 50-622 would be great (for taller persons).
Edit: There are quite a lot of tyres available in 584mm now.

 

[Dudley]

Following.

I can say that belts and internal hubs won't likely be a part of the stock options - particularly Gates - as frames designed for that system have to be vetted and go through their engineers and design group to be considered for OEM. Internal hubs... Ill likely focus on compatibility to be sure they can be used, but unless I were to see something earth shatteringly awesome standard components are always a better choice for OEM from a cost and availability standpoint. We will see nothing is never 100% "off the table."

At least right now as we are still dealing with covid-era supply chain issues (in some ways they are worse than even a few years ago and on others better.)

Robert is right. The cost of jumping through the hoops is just not worth it unless there are a large number of people who want to go down that route. We had to get a Rohloff test kit and take measurements which we had to submit them to Rohloff before they would sell us the A12 through axle model. It really added to the cost both in terms of time and money. In the end our mechanic who did the work suggested that it would have been easier for him to just use a standard Rohloff hub and fabricate the necessary adaptors.

Making sure that the framesets are compatible should be fine.

 

[veloc_h]

another wish: rethinking the "pan" seat design. A design with ribs might prevent the cracks in the lower part of dorsum pan. Plus it would allow airing (like the seats of the Dutch Challenge recumbents). I would use more. but thinner knot plates instead of the present bigger frame parts (my seat, who has cracks, is beeing soldered in combination with additional knot plates.
The principle is to spread the forces: therefore e.g. one spanner (with quite smal diameter) for the back "pan" is not the very best solution...
The use of wood (a sandwhich construction like the composition of skis would be another possibility) could be interesting too. A friend of mine is in the development of wood constructions at the University of Biel/Bienne, Switzerland and he told me, that rain - depending on the construction and on the wood type - doesn't do any harm to plywood provided it can dry.
@Robert Holler: is Cruzbike using finite elements methods in developing? Good in order to save weight and to enforce or adopt the construction at the necessary positions....
Edit: use of oval instead of round tubes. May be replacement of round tubes by slimmer rectangular ones according to the forces..

 

[veloc_h]

easier for him to just use a standard Rohloff hub and fabricate the necessary adaptors.

may be easier, but I guess that the Rohloff designer would calculate every bit (proper "German" or "Swiss" way of construction).

 

[veloc_h]

More generous spacing for larger tires.

Use of larger 584 or 507 tires (a cross version with 60-507 tires)?

 

[TylerWayne]

Use of larger 584 or 507 tires (a cross version with 60-507 tires)?

The generous spacing comment was in reference to the, admittedly specific use case, of the 27.5 x 2.5 inch class of tires common on hard tail mtb’s, which are making their way into gravel and bikepacking specific bikes. I have been getting into bikepacking, and so far I have been getting great use out of some discounted Specialized Pathfinder Pro 2Bliss 650b x 47c tires. Those tires are juuust at the limit of what I feel comfortable squeezing into the frame though.
In the attached photos, you can see the clearance on the sides is most of the concern honestly.

 

[TylerWayne]

Use of larger 584 or 507 tires (a cross version with 60-507 tires)?

A great example of the tire clearance I am referencing is in the Surly Ghost Grappler. It’s a bike specifically made with bikepacking in mind, but the most relevant portion that could be implemented in future Q series bikes is the increased clearance on the sides of the forks.
Attached are some pictures of the front fork dimensions of the Ghost Grappler, to drive the point home.

Those tires are 27.5 x 2.5 Teravail Ehlines, and represent the use case for very rough terrain.

I don’t think the Q series needs quite that much clearance, but something in the 2.2 range of plus tires, or just compatibility to let you run those if you think you need them would be nice.

 

[pseudogrammaton]

An OEM headrest, please.

I would also suggest:

* A tunable monoshock.

* A bit more room for either fatter 507's or taller 700's - make it a more versatile platform bike. Just guessing that maybe in theory a 700c w/ a very low profile tire might fit in the stead of the existing 650's, the tolerance is probably too close at the top of the fork.

I'm loving my Q45 SO much, most fun I've had on a bike since I was a kid. Still getting my gams back into shape ... the gentle hills in Florida still hurt, LOL!
-- lee

 

[veloc_h]

mount of the seat:
instead of the round and small T
1) a broader mount in y geometrie (like the flevo mount, a change from round tubes to rectangular, U or oval tubes is also better regarding bending tensions.

https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/img_4571-jpg.148220/

2) instead of a solid round T upper thingie a broader T upper with a greater diameter, but thinner alloy. I would add two arms that form alltogether a Y as well.

 

[TylerWayne]

Another wishlist item, front suspension.
I legitimately think that a lefty suspension fork could be shoehorned onto the existing Q45, but using a smaller wheel may be necessary to get the suspension travel to where it won’t impact the frame.
Basically it would be groupset on the right + Lefty Suspension fork on the left. Loosen the hinge at the pedal side of the boom to allow freer movement.
Picture attached is the Cannondale Lefty Ocho, which I think may be the only single fork suspension right now. Obviously very expensive, but this whole sub post is just brainstorming what may be possible, not necessarily economical.

 

[TylerWayne]

Yet another item, inspired by my experience with cargo bikes: Double Leg Kickstand option. My initial thought was that such an option would be unwieldy, due to how high off the ground the frame sits. However, I believe there is potential in combining an under seat rack system with the double leg kickstand idea.
Attached is a quick sketch with Procreate illustrating the idea. I’m not a mechanical engineer, so the trusses pictured are just a mockup, not even an attempt at calculating static or dynamic forces was made.
The basic idea is to just beef up the underseat rack so that it can support a normal sized double kick stand on the bottom, that will swing directly in between the pannier rack, rather than have a side swinging leg try to go around.

 

[Robert Holler]

Yet another item, inspired by my experience with cargo bikes: Double Leg Kickstand option. My initial thought was that such an option would be unwieldy, due to how high off the ground the frame sits. However, I believe there is potential in combining an under seat rack system with the double leg kickstand idea.
Attached is a quick sketch with Procreate illustrating the idea. I’m not a mechanical engineer, so the trusses pictured are just a mockup, not even an attempt at calculating static or dynamic forces was made.
The basic idea is to just beef up the underseat rack so that it can support a normal sized double kick stand on the bottom, that will swing directly in between the pannier rack, rather than have a side swinging leg try to go around.

This is a good concept for a double stand - which is an item that I tried to work on for the stock bike for a few years to no avail. As you mentioned - the frame is too high and all attempts to create a workable stand were either insane expensive, heavy, way too long, could not collapse properly without interference, or were not very realistic or functional or aesthetically pleasing.

Also finding companies to even entertain the idea of helping with this sort of thing - yet alone make the small MOQ's of things like this that we would want (asking companies that are used to 10,000 - 15,000 MOQ's to make 100-200 of something is the fast track to being laughed out of the booth) - is financially prohibitive and nobody is going to buy a $250+ kickstand.

But as an added attachment for the underseat type of rack as a combo setup ... that would seem to get much closer to a realistic alternative.