vendetta evolution ideas

[hamishbarker]

I do enjoy my vendetta, and don't ride it nearly enough to justify thinking about how it could be a more efficient bike. Nevertheless, I keep having ideas about how to improve on the vendetta. I don't have enough spare time or skills to execute them, but thought they might entertain the denizens of the forum.

From least to most radical
1. Simplify and lighten the rear frame (from headset to rear dropouts).
The rear frame of the vendetta carries only gravity loads and perhaps a little torsion as the rider's hips perhaps push on alternate sides of the seat back. But the latter must be very minimal if the seat back can be secured with only velcro. Flex of the rear frame doesn't matter for the drivetrain. At certain road vibration modes, undamped springyness might be a problem, but I wonder if making the rear frame lighter and design for strength to weight ( not stiffness) might shave some grams. I have not weighed the rear part of my vendetta to see if the scope for weight reductions are too small to be worth it. Has anyone? Change of material to CFRP in an appropriate frame shape might also assist with such strength/weight optimisation.

2. Aerodynamic declutter of the front triangle.
The front end of the vendetta sees the full airflow with no shielding by the rider or wheels. There are two pairs of lower members (fork blades/ chainstays) plus the boom, plus the drivetrain. All making frontal area. Drivetrain frontal area can't really be reduced (except perhaps by a fairing over them, but that would probably just make for more frontal area, so not a help). I can see how Di2 shifting and cable elimination might be a good thing. Anything else?

3. change the seat design to eliminate the flanges on the seat pan (not on the seat back) because they probably make more drag than a smooth seat edge.

4. Mono stay front and/or rear stays.
Eliminate the multiple members below the fork crown and BB. Replace them with a single, monoblade from the BB to the front hub. Make the front hub run on a cantilevered axle (i.e. no left fork blade or left chainstay). Integrate the monoblade with the big boom. Support from the fork crown to midway along the big boom with a simple thin, short strut which is faired to the front of the head tube. Change the rear wheel to single sided monoblade fork also and cantilevered hub. Drum brakes on both hubs. The front forks and chainstays would be replaced by a single monoblade, while the rear four members (two "chainstays" and two seatstays) would be replaced by a single monoblade. The bike could be much lower drag, although option 4's cantilevered hubs, drum brakes and monoblade forks would be heavier. I need to make a sketch to post here for comment.

Anyone else got ideas for improvements to the V (or a V inspired homebuild?)

 

[JOSEPHWEISSERT]

I do enjoy my vendetta, and don't ride it nearly enough to justify thinking about how it could be a more efficient bike. Nevertheless, I keep having ideas about how to improve on the vendetta. I don't have enough spare time or skills to execute them, but thought they might entertain the denizens of the forum.

From least to most radical
1. Simplify and lighten the rear frame (from headset to rear dropouts).
The rear frame of the vendetta carries only gravity loads and perhaps a little torsion as the rider's hips perhaps push on alternate sides of the seat back. But the latter must be very minimal if the seat back can be secured with only velcro. Flex of the rear frame doesn't matter for the drivetrain. At certain road vibration modes, undamped springyness might be a problem, but I wonder if making the rear frame lighter and design for strength to weight ( not stiffness) might shave some grams. I have not weighed the rear part of my vendetta to see if the scope for weight reductions are too small to be worth it. Has anyone? Change of material to CFRP in an appropriate frame shape might also assist with such strength/weight optimisation.

2. Aerodynamic declutter of the front triangle.
The front end of the vendetta sees the full airflow with no shielding by the rider or wheels. There are two pairs of lower members (fork blades/ chainstays) plus the boom, plus the drivetrain. All making frontal area. Drivetrain frontal area can't really be reduced (except perhaps by a fairing over them, but that would probably just make for more frontal area, so not a help). I can see how Di2 shifting and cable elimination might be a good thing. Anything else?

3. change the seat design to eliminate the flanges on the seat pan (not on the seat back) because they probably make more drag than a smooth seat edge.

4. Mono stay front and/or rear stays.
Eliminate the multiple members below the fork crown and BB. Replace them with a single, monoblade from the BB to the front hub. Make the front hub run on a cantilevered axle (i.e. no left fork blade or left chainstay). Integrate the monoblade with the big boom. Support from the fork crown to midway along the big boom with a simple thin, short strut which is faired to the front of the head tube. Change the rear wheel to single sided monoblade fork also and cantilevered hub. Drum brakes on both hubs. The front forks and chainstays would be replaced by a single monoblade, while the rear four members (two "chainstays" and two seatstays) would be replaced by a single monoblade. The bike could be much lower drag, although option 4's cantilevered hubs, drum brakes and monoblade forks would be heavier. I need to make a sketch to post here for comment.

Anyone else got ideas for improvements to the V (or a V inspired homebuild?)

Yes, change the seat design so that it eliminates the vibration coming from the frame and going to the neck and head. Then integrate an adjustable neck rest with the seat. I have both now as modifications, since they are not stock options. They make a huge difference for me. (By the way, I borrowed the idea from Rick Youngblood.)

 

[MrSteve]

Yes.

Stiffen the front triangle by making it as compact as the rear triangle on a diamond frame bike.
Shorter tubes are both stiffer and lighter than are longer tubes.

Improve aerodynamics by moving the seat down, behind the front triangle and between the wheels.
Now, the bike is no longer a high racer: It's a mid racer.

Move the rear wheel back to make room for the rider.

This FWD MBB bike is no longer a Vendetta.
The redesign is pretty complete.

And it's my new, secret bike.
It's name is, "Mine."

 

[snilard]

4. Mono stay front and/or rear stays.
Eliminate the multiple members below the fork crown and BB. Replace them with a single, monoblade from the BB to the front hub. Make the front hub run on a cantilevered axle (i.e. no left fork blade or left chainstay). Integrate the monoblade with the big boom. Support from the fork crown to midway along the big boom with a simple thin, short strut which is faired to the front of the head tube. Change the rear wheel to single sided monoblade fork also and cantilevered hub. Drum brakes on both hubs. The front forks and chainstays would be replaced by a single monoblade, while the rear four members (two "chainstays" and two seatstays) would be replaced by a single monoblade. The bike could be much lower drag, although option 4's cantilevered hubs, drum brakes and monoblade forks would be heavier. I need to make a sketch to post here for comment.

I would say that going monoblade will decrease torsional stiffness a lot. Some M5 lowracers use monoblade fork. But it is used not because of aerodynamics but because of conflict between chain and right fork leg.

3. change the seat design to eliminate the flanges on the seat pan (not on the seat back) because they probably make more drag than a smooth seat edge.

Technically this is really easy to do. But will it change anything?

From my point of view there are two big steps how to improve V. Make it lighter. So make frame from carbon fibre. To lower aero drag you need to make it lower, so rider is more between wheels and rider share more frontal area with frame and wheels. And this is what Marlic from Zocra did with his Traction Directé bikes. http://www.zockra-factory.com/?page_id=64
I have read that Marlic are building some frames for customers somewhere here on Cruzbike forum, but I cannot remember where. I don't know if Marlic's bikes are faster but I would bet that they are lighter and much more expensive.

I think that well shaped tailbox would make V even faster. But it will not be as huge benefit as on lowracers where tailbox covers rear wheel.

 

[Rick Youngblood]

2. Aerodynamic declutter of the front triangle.
The front end of the vendetta sees the full airflow with no shielding by the rider or wheels. There are two pairs of lower members (fork blades/ chainstays) plus the boom, plus the drivetrain. All making frontal area. Drivetrain frontal area can't really be reduced (except perhaps by a fairing over them, but that would probably just make for more frontal area, so not a help). I can see how Di2 shifting and cable elimination might be a good thing. Anything else?

May not be noticeable...Use an aero chainring.

 

[SamP]

I suspect a small fairing for at least the crankset area would reduce the effective frontal area as well as turbulence caused by the moving parts, human and machine.

 

[Mwhwsmith]

Three thoughts ... all very trivial ...

1. Cable routing through the boom would be great, I found I had to zip-tie the various cables to the boom to avoid chaffing on my legs and they just look a bit unsightly. They also get in the way of a small bag that I want to hang under the boom. Bottle mount holes both above and below the boom would be great.

2. There is a lug at the BB to attach a light to ... however given most lights seem to mount of a handle bar diameter tube, it would be nice to have one of those (perhaps removeable) included or as a $cheap accessory for people like me who are too lazy to source / fabricate something

3. A better solution for storage behind the headrest. I ended up buying a small bracket that is normally to mount a bottle cage on the handle bars. I used this with a rub packing strip to attach to the headrest uprights and then had to cut a small hole in the headrest cover (which then needed stitching to prevent further fraying). I cn now attached almost anything to the bracket and it is very secure.

M

 

[ratz]

I have read that Marlic are building some frames for customers somewhere here on Cruzbike forum, but I cannot remember where.

Clarity and pure fanciful speculation follows:

Marlic got a high end day job and mothballed the bike operation

That's a shame because they had an interesting front wheel drive bike ready to go. John Morciglio had some very interesting speculation outline on the value of zockra as a buy it up entity to get the molds and the rights to the name assuming the molds exist. If the molds for that front wheel drive where all completed; It might be worth while for CB to buy up that design and the molds. (it was slated for production last September ((we where #4 and #5 on the waiting list)).

Without knowing what CB has in the chute for future releases; that's one where JP jumps on a plane goes to see Marlic tests that FWD prototype out and if it good scoops up the molds and the rights. Sell it as the Cruzbike "Z" and you have your mid racer class handled and a foray into Carbon; but you still have all the hassle of finding someone to lay up the carbon. Do you use expensive domestic labor or risk the low quality of the mass production engine in the east? That's just scratching at the idea, devils really in the details there. It's not an easy proposition full time job there for a product manager. The main problem is that FWD geometry is completely different than the CB model; and you have to know who and what you are as a business and that might be too far a field for CB. I'm not sure I'd take that chance if it was my small business; and I like to eat elephants...

More likely that we'll see the product line first condensed, streamlined, and optimized (removal of suspension forks). That should control cost and improve sales / profit raitos; from there some evolution in the current designs and probably a new entry to fill the gaps lefts by condensing, but with that new entry root more solidly in the Hyrdo frame family. The current bikes really have 2-3 more seasons in them before they get stale.

 

[ratz]

3. A better solution for storage behind the headrest. I ended up buying a small bracket that is normally to mount a bottle cage on the handle bars. I used this with a rub packing strip to attach to the headrest uprights and then had to cut a small hole in the headrest cover (which then needed stitching to prevent further fraying). I cn now attached almost anything to the bracket and it is very secure.

Ratz Place ear on ground; hums quietly and listens....

Yep Not much longer to wait on that one.

I know nothing you hear nothing we see nothing. These are not the solutions you are looking for.

 

[snilard]

More likely that we'll see the product line first condensed, streamlined, and optimized (removal of suspension forks). That should control cost and improve sales / profit raitos; from there some evolution in the current designs and probably a new entry to fill the gaps lefts by condensing, but with that new entry root more solidly in the Hyrdo frame family. The current bikes really have 2-3 more seasons in them before they get stale.

Are you talking about Cruzbike? Removing suspension form from Silvio and Quest? It does not make sence to me.

 

[Jeremy S]

Are you talking about Cruzbike? Removing suspension form from Silvio and Quest? It does not make sence to me.

The suspension fork was already removed from the Quest (rear suspension remains). The suspension fork on the Silvio is one of the heavier and maybe one of the more expensive parts of the bike, so removing it may make sense. Mostly I want suspension for my head, which is over the rear wheel.

 

[ratz]

Are you talking about Cruzbike? Removing suspension form from Silvio and Quest? It does not make sence to me.

Suspension on the fork is a carry over from the conversion kit days; when the y-foil style MTB frames made it all possible. MTB had front suspension so it carried forward. The Quest and Vendetta are suspension free now; and like Jeremy says that Silvio fork is expensive and heavy. Remove it; and lower the price of the bike $50-80 bucks. I suspect that's what we'll see just not sure if it will have any impact on pricing.

 

[mzweili]

Jeremy, Bob,
Did you hear something from the SILVETTA that was built last year if I remember correctly?

 

[scabinetguy]

Did someone say Silvetta?

 

[ratz]

Did someone say Silvetta?

Cool every time. just a enough dampener for the chip-seal.

 

[mzweili]

Did someone say Silvetta?

Does this baby still exist? How much weight saving with this modification?

 

[scabinetguy]

Does this baby still exist?

Yes it does, it's my bike for the hills. It's about a pound heavier than the Vendetta and 2-3 lbs. less than the Silvio. If it were possible I'd be willing to front the capital to make this an option. I think it would be well received.

 

[Rick Youngblood]

Yes it does, it's my bike for the hills. It's about a pound heavier than the Vendetta and 2-3 lbs. less than the Silvio. If it were possible I'd be willing to front the capital to make this an option. I think it would be well received.

I like this idea a lot.

I'm thinking that converting the newest Silvio generation 30 would be easy, if you could get your hands on the Vendetta fork and chain-stay, because the boom and sliders are now shared. Or at least the fork and an extension.

 

[SamP]

Clarity and pure fanciful speculation follows:...

Do you use expensive domestic labor or risk the low quality of the mass production engine in the east?

Didn't Cruzbike move all their production to a manufacturer in Taiwan last year?

 

[ratz]

Didn't Cruzbike move all their production to a manufacturer in Taiwan last year?

There was a change but I think that was all that was said. The thing about Carbon is when you do small volumes you can do it good or your can do it cheap; I haven't really heard of a lot of people doing it good and cheap unless the volume was large, other than maybe Schlitter; and they found out it's enough work that they have pretty much closed the bike shop last I heard to focus all their energies on the bike production and associated work. Carbon wonder bikes are expensive because it's expensive to make them safe even in volume. Read my background if you want to see what happens when carbon goes bad.