Planning Ahead

[Kamatu]

XtraCruz.

I think the rest could be solved by selling the Freerider/Sofrider as frameset packages, if it is feasible to get them packed that way from the manufacturer. I think you could get away with no rear suspension with the longer length of bike. Transporting it (unless you have a truck like I do) other than pedaling might be a problem.

OTOH, I don't see a problem with some of the mountain bike racks like the Mountain Man ones.

 

[Mark B]

Kamatu wrote: XtraCruz.

I think the rest could be solved by selling the Freerider/Sofrider as frameset packages, if it is feasible to get them packed that way from the manufacturer. I think you could get away with no rear suspension with the longer length of bike. Transporting it (unless you have a truck like I do) other than pedaling might be a problem.

OTOH, I don't see a problem with some of the mountain bike racks like the Mountain Man ones.

My personal opinion, I kind of like the incorporated racks for a dedicated touring/commuting machine. They lend much more structural strength in the back end. I wouldn't be against stretching the wheelbase a little, I guess. This could actually be an area where some carbon fiber could be used to take some road buzz away.

I would probably shut up if the Sofrider were available as a frameset. I say "probably". I would prefer the seat to be a little lower, closer to that of the Silvio for my dream commuting machine. Shoot, if I had the coin, I would probably just set up a second Silvio with the OMM rack like others have done and forget about it. Maybe when when Silvio v 2.0 comes out, I can set my current one up as such. I still like the 26" wheel for everyday use and abuse, is the only thing.

Mark

 

[JonB]

If you do make a integral rack, why not keep it low. Possibly by putting a smaller wheel in the back. Like a BMX sized wheel. Why do the backwheel need to be 26" inches?

 

[Mark B]

JonB wrote: If you do make a integral rack, why not keep it low. Possibly by putting a smaller wheel in the back. Like a BMX sized wheel. Why do the backwheel need to be 26" inches?

That is certainly a possibility. I wouldn't personally like that because it would necessitate carrying two sizes of spare tubes. If you were cycle touring, you would likely have to carry two different spare tires. This is the same reason I went away from the 26" / 20" SWB configuration. Not that it's a big deal, Jon, just a personal pet peeve, for me. The other hassle is wheel buying. It's nice to be able to buy an off the shelf wheelset.

I do like the way you're thinking, Jon... You're right, the smaller diameter wheel would get the payload lower and it is just a drag wheel. It would probably work just peachy.

Mark

 

[Kamatu]

Yeah, I wish I could get my seat lower too, I can tell the difference when I shifted mine back and changed the angle some. The only thing I'd worry about is if there is some point on the way to a Cruzbike lowracer where control and/or weight balancing issues would come to play. You have to maintain some vertical downforce on the front wheel and the lower you go the less of that component you can directly apply from the rider's weight.

Rude thought for you. Maybe your wheel chirp has a component from moving your heavy butt lower down? :twisted: Do you get it just on the Silvio or on the Kit bike too?

Think physics. If I'm pushing on a stiff rod at a 45 degree angle, then half my force is going vertically and half horizontally. If I don't want the other end to move, then I have to have pressure both vertically and horizontally equal to half the pressure I'm exerting. Now if I move the bar to a higher degree of deflection (towards vertical) then I'm generating more vertical downforce and less horizontal and if I move it to a lower degree (towards horizontal) there is more horizontal than vertical force.

 

[Mark B]

Kamatu wrote: Yeah, I wish I could get my seat lower too, I can tell the difference when I shifted mine back and changed the angle some. The only thing I'd worry about is if there is some point on the way to a Cruzbike lowracer where control and/or weight balancing issues would come to play. You have to maintain some vertical downforce on the front wheel and the lower you go the less of that component you can directly apply from the rider's weight.

Rude thought for you. Maybe your wheel chirp has a component from moving your heavy butt lower down? :twisted: Do you get it just on the Silvio or on the Kit bike too?

Think physics.

I get more wheel slippage on Silvio, that's correct. The trade off to that is; side to side balance is much better the lower you are. I've noticed I feel top heavy on the kit bike, not so on the Silvio. Also, I've noticed the wind being more of an issue on the kit bike. It's hardly an issue on the Silvio.

Mark

 

[JonB]

Mark B wrote:

JonB wrote: If you do make a integral rack, why not keep it low. Possibly by putting a smaller wheel in the back. Like a BMX sized wheel. Why do the backwheel need to be 26" inches?

That is certainly a possibility. I wouldn't personally like that because it would necessitate carrying two sizes of spare tubes. If you were cycle touring, you would likely have to carry two different spare tires. This is the same reason I went away from the 26" / 20" SWB configuration. Not that it's a big deal, Jon, just a personal pet peeve, for me. The other hassle is wheel buying. It's nice to be able to buy an off the shelf wheelset.

I do like the way you're thinking, Jon... You're right, the smaller diameter wheel would get the payload lower and it is just a drag wheel. It would probably work just peachy.

Mark

Then how about this idea?

Put the rear wheel 2-3 feet further back? Then have a area there infront of the rear wheel but behind the seat where you can have things at the same height as the center of the wheels. Sort of like this bike http://www.mcsbike.com/htm/i_truck.html but i was not thinking that much space, only about a box length. I think the extra length will also allow you to drop the suspension. What you need is the same frame as the current cruzbike. Then you make some kind of extension that can go between the current front Y frame, and the rear frame that currently holds the rear wheel. The width is the same as the widest part of the current cruzbike. If you want it really aerodynamic you put something under the seat that leads the wind arround the cargo, put some sides on the cargo area and then after the cargo area you put something that leads the wind back into the wheel. Let me draw a few things.

 

[Mark B]

I think I follow your logic, Jon. Sort of an aero trunk incorporated into the frame. I like it! In fact, extending the wheelbase like you said, I think you would have to have something like that to keep the drag to a minimum.

Looking forward to your drawings!

Mark

 

[JonB]

Rough drawing of the Cruzbike Cargo.

The cargo area should be wide enough and big enough to hold 2 small children. If you want a shorter bike, put the rear wheel "into" the cargo area and have some sides protecting the cargo from reaching the wheel. But that makes the bike only suited for transporting not so big stuff.

One idea of reusing the existing frame is that Cruzbike Inc. can just make the extenting cargo area and sell it as an add on to existing and future cruzbikes.

 

[Mark B]

I was thinking about it while on lunch.

With the back end of a Silvio being pretty much modular, you could devise a whole new rear end that would bolt on and off the bike. What I'm thinking is about a carbon fiber box that would follow the contour of the seat back, maybe even bolt directly to it. It would move the back wheel back, say, ten inches. It could have a wheel well built right into it to keep cargo out of the wheel and be a built in fender of sorts. A lockable lid and you would have the ultimate commuting and touring rig with a ton of storage back there. When you were done touring, you could unbolt it and put your regular suspension rear end back on.

Mark

 

[JonB]

i think it would be expensive to do it with a silvio. The cruzbike frame would make this cheaper.

 

[John Tolhurst]

ooo I want one.
Probably the better touring platform is the Sofrider, on rough roads you can let the tire pressure down for a very secure ride without inducing pinch flats.
This is really a bob trailer type thing with a direct mounting to the frame in place of the rear swing arm. Or just the intervening element, as Jon suggested. Hmm interesting ain't it?

 

[Mark B]

johntolhurst wrote: ooo I want one.
Probably the better touring platform is the Sofrider, on rough roads you can let the tire pressure down for a very secure ride without inducing pinch flats.
This is really a bob trailer type thing with a direct mounting to the frame in place of the rear swing arm. Or just the intervening element, as Jon suggested. Hmm interesting ain't it?

I agree, but I still say it's doable with the Silvio.... Or my vision of the perfect commuter bike; a 26" wheeled Silvio / Sofrider hybrid urban assault vehicle. I wish I was a master of the carbon fiber..... I'd show ya!

Mark

 

[JonB]

johntolhurst wrote: ooo I want one.
Probably the better touring platform is the Sofrider, on rough roads you can let the tire pressure down for a very secure ride without inducing pinch flats.
This is really a bob trailer type thing with a direct mounting to the frame in place of the rear swing arm. Or just the intervening element, as Jon suggested. Hmm interesting ain't it?

Yes it is, but i dont know if enough people would buy it to justify the development costs, but that was why i choosed the sofrider/freerider frame as a base, because then much of the bike could be reused, and that would get the price down.

After having looked at what a bob trailer was, then i agree that it is just such a thing. http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php

 

[Mark B]

JonB wrote: Yes it is, but i dont know if enough people would buy it to justify the development costs, but that was why i choosed the sofrider/freerider frame as a base, because then much of the bike could be reused, and that would get the price down.

After having looked at what a bob trailer was, then i agree that it is just such a thing. http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php

For the sake of argument , you would be surprised if you saw how very little there is to the back end of a Silvio...

Besides, as I see it; in either platform, one could consider the rear end modular.. What I'm talking about is an option as opposed to a whole, new bike. I'm talking about a whole new rear end that in a matter of minutes, one could go from a suspended machine to an extended frame, rigid cargo hauling machine. The only hangup would be brakes, but a lot can be done with cable splitters, it could still be doable.

Mark

 

[John Tolhurst]

This is an interesting idea, with the right fittings it could lend itself to a stoker seat also, using the BB of the SR/FR V1/2. Ahhh, so that's what the spare BB is for!

 

[JonB]

yeah, thats true. You better start welding something together and test it out.

As for a "tandem" cruzbike. What if you removed the rear wheel and that frame part and then attached a 2. cruzbike without the teleskopic front tube. Attacted in the top to the seat tube, and in the bottom to the part that usually holds the wheels. And then you extend the chain to reach the new back wheel.

As for the rear brake, what if you had 2 "hooks" like this that could quickly and securely be attached to each other. http://www.lionfish.dk/HUNDEDELE/Karabin%20kat.jpg

 

[Mark B]

JonB wrote: As for the rear brake, what if you had 2 "hooks" like this that could quickly and securely be attached to each other. http://www.lionfish.dk/HUNDEDELE/Karabin%20kat.jpg

No need to reinvent the wheel. This is what I was talking about... Cable splitters.

You have a length of cable on each rear end that will mate up with the cable that remains on the forward end of the bike.

Mark

 

[JonB]

They look more expensive than a simple hook. And they might open themselves from vibration, or be so tight you need tools to twist them.

 

[Mark B]

JonB wrote: They look more expensive than a simple hook. And they might open themselves from vibration, or be so tight you need tools to twist them.

They are more expensive, no argument there. But, this is what they are designed for. There is a small o-ring on the threaded end that holds the part in tight. If you want to daydream about hooks, OK. I'll daydream about the correct part for the job, thank you! :roll: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, I was thinking about this on my ride to work this morning and I could get a little excited. The question arises; how big do you make it? For commuting purposes, you don't need quite so much capacity, while for touring, you might want good bit more. So I was thinking, once you had the jigs built, it shouldn't be that hard to make a couple sizes. A smaller size for commuting and light touring and a cavernous one for full-on loaded touring. And I still like the idea of making it an enclosed tail fairing looking unit. It will clean up the air coming off the back of the bike and would cause no loss in drag.

The tandem aspect is really cool, too. A two wheel drive tandem with independant pedaling. Wow! Where do I sign up?

Mark