The next generation Cruzbike?

Osiris

Osiris

Zen MBB Master
Count me in as another carbon fiber skeptic. I have three other bents in addition to my V20, and all of them have carbon fiber frames and forks. The aluminum framed/forked V20 gives me the smoothest ride of all of them. Weight savings? From my experience with mountain bikes, the weight savings by going to a CF frame is pretty small (~2 lbs), but the increase in price is enormous. The V20 featured on the Cruzbike website lists at $2700. That's $50 LESS than I paid just for the carbon fiber frameset for my M5 CHR. My Bacchetta CA2 listed new for around $4000, and it doesn't do anything as well as the V20. Then there's my carbon fiber Morciglio M1, which sold new five years ago for an eye watering $8000. As outrageous as that sounds, $8000 is not at all unusual these days for a mass production carbon fiber road bike.
 
PeteClark

PeteClark

Active Member
I think a fixed / rigid front triangle would reduce front end weight significantly and make the bikes easier to ride initially.

The adjustable front end is a great design which lets different size riders use one bike, but if the joints were simply welded in place, each joint could be lighter, the triangle wouldn’t come apart when changing the wheel, front derailleur mount would be simpler / lighter, etc.

An advantage of the adjustable triangle is that it keeps every riders weight in nearly the same location relative to the bike’s wheels. A fixed front triangle design could address this with S-M-L triangles. Manufacturing fixed triangles in 3 sizes might be more cost effective than adjustable triangles with 3 chainstay sizes.
 
PeteClark

PeteClark

Active Member
Initially, I really admired the elegant fit between the V’s carbon seat and the curves of the hydroformed frame. Nice and solid connection with just a bit of velcro.

Changing design to a fixed front triangle would require an adjustable seat position, so we would lose the solid connection to the frame. . . But many of us have done that anyway in search of a better fit. If the frame were designed to mount a Thor or similar seat with a few inches of fore-aft adjustment, it would be a simple extension of that design to include adjustable seat angle.
 
E

ElyDave

Guru
^^^^^ Wot Blair sez.

Except thru axles, until a standard emerges, i REALLY hate the proliferation of standards for no apparent purpose other than to separaet more riders from more money at regular intervals, rather than to solve an actual problem in real life.

Carbon fibre - can't see it being of added value for CB, they are already high end in prices, and with european import duties almost cost prohibitive as it is - I've spoken to several potential riders who just can't quite get themselves to push the button on an unknown, particularly with no UK dealer atm. Personally, I ended up selling my CF upwrong and keeping my Al frame/carbon fork for audax becasue 1) it was more comfortable, 2) it took mudguards and a rack and 3) it took wider tyres - up to 28mm.

You'll save weight on a CF frame, but I reckon you could save more and improve handling by working on the front end - that might be an area for strategic use of carbon? My M5 is cr-mo frame and CF fork.

Seats, yes, make the mounting tabs compatible with the thor/euro style seats. The tabs don't need to have any adjustment in them, you simply drill the holes in the seat to suit your own setup. In the case of the M5, you also need to adjust the front end by taking a semi circle out to avoid a clash with the frame. Those GF or CF seats can take multiple drillings without losing strength
 
K

KiwiGuy

Well-Known Member
super slim said:
Blair, I agree with most things, especially about NOT going to Carbon, except through axles, as right now there are 10 different standards 1 for each bike manufacturer!!!
Hopefully there will end up being one standard for road bikes!
Click to expand...

Dang! I hadn't realised that there were so many different thru-axle standards (can we even call them standards if there are 10 of them?)

Possibly the best time for Cruzbike to release their next-gen Vendetta would be in 2020 when Dura-Ace and Red 12-speed group-sets become available. Hopefully one thru-axle option will be more prevalent by then and the best way forward more obvious.

I think that would also mean there will be five years between new Vendetta model releases, which sounds about right. Most car manufacturers operate on a five year cycle, so it seems enough for a small manufacturer. And since Cruzbike have four models, they could be releasing an update to one of their models most years. That would be all I think a small business could handle, but would also nicely generate publicity most years for them.
 
dtseng

dtseng

Well-Known Member
Pedal steer is never a problem in MBB bikes. The problem is the patented one-size-fit-all construction of Cruzbike creates unusually large steering inertia, and therefore, the "learning curve" peculiar to Cruzbikes.
 
Last edited:
paco1961

paco1961

Zen MBB Master
I'm perfectly happy w the S40 alum frame. But do think dropping 3-4 lbs off the front triangle w carbon would be well worth it.
 
NeaL

NeaL

Guru
I'm not sure about what led to the design change but I liked how the boom fronts of earlier Vendettas color-coordinated with the rest of the frame. I'd like to see a return to that and maybe some chrome accents, like '50s style Detroit automotive tail fins.

Oh, and some up & down height adjustability for the handlebars.
 
benphyr

benphyr

Guru-me-not
I love the visual response Rick!

What the visual says to me is that in order to fit multiple leg length you have to have the seat pan stay in the same spot all else being equal. That seems solved by the current setup and would not change with your image.

However, in order to fit multiple upper body/arm length you have to either:
-current setup - fixed back/shoulders with adjust able boom that adjusts approximately along similar plane to the change in upper body length.
OR
-if you start changing the seat angle, you then have to be able to adjust the boom in and out AND up and down significantly to be able to have the appropriate reach from the shoulders to the handlebars. It would also change handling and centre of gravity significantly.

I think Larry's occasionally postulated suggestion of a cruzing position as the normal position with an air ride suspension that increases the seat angle by (20-30) degrees with the push of a button only used when necessary for starts and slow speed maneuvering within traffic might accomplish the best of both worlds.

To those who have Thor or otherwise removable seats: is there any movement / flex when attached?

The seat directly attached to the frame would seem, from an unexperienced thought process, to have much better power transfer. The standard seat-post to seat-back setup that I originally had on my conversion kit (and is found on sofriders and quests and to some degree are still found on the QX100 and Q45) compared to the "upgraded" version seat-back we made out of an old set of seat stays that are for all intents and purposes rigid to the rear axle (see grey from mid-seat-back to rear wheel axle in my avatar) made a huge difference in feel, handling and power transfer.

I am thinking that you would have to continue the hydroformed, engineered shape all the way to the rear axle to even have a hope of maintaining some of the stiffness that a couple light triangles do in the current models.
 
dtseng

dtseng

Well-Known Member
Rick Youngblood said:
Just an idea for a merge of the V20 and S40...The VS 15/40....
View attachment 6659
Click to expand...

Bravo! That simplifies the construction of the main frame. The adjustable seat makes the bike a lot more versatile. In fact, the main frame already exists as in T50. I would prefer a V20 front end combined with Quest rear end equipped with air-shock and cartridge bearing pivot.

super slim says, "ALL titanium is the way to go!!! "
Yes, the wonderful titanium, I already have the first hand experience. It'll eliminate the "learning curve" of MBB bikes.
​
 

Attachments

  • 2018-04-22 001.jpg
    2018-04-22 001.jpg
    257.2 KB · Views: 39
Last edited:
K

KiwiGuy

Well-Known Member
RojoRacing

RojoRacing

Donut Powered Wise-guy
KiwiGuy said:
On cue, Boyd Cycling release their new road disc wheel with a giant 22mm internal width (and 29mm external width) for road tires up to 30mm wide.
Details here: https://www.boydcycling.com/shop/pinnacle-series/36-road-disc-rear-wheel/ and here: https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/boyd-36-road-disc-pricing-weight-availability-52172/

The next-gen Vendetta needs to be able to run these wheels with 28mm or 30mm tires front and back imho.
Click to expand...

I already run enve AR wheels on the red V20 which have a 25mm ID 31mm OD and 28mm tires.
 
K

KiwiGuy

Well-Known Member
RojoRacing said:
I already run enve AR wheels on the red V20 which have a 25mm ID 31mm OD and 28mm tires.
Click to expand...

That's impressive, and unexpected. I run a 28mm tire on the back, but on a Wheelworks Maker carbon rim with a 17mm internal width it runs things close. I run 25mm on the front because my measurements suggest there would only be 2 to 2 mm clearance with a 28mm tire. Although I really would like to run 28mm on the front, I just think that is insufficient clearance to be practical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
visit our website visit our website
Top