A Closer Look at the New KS14S

[Jason McNeil]

There's some new & important information about the 14S.

• Weight: KS Sales are not completely certain about the final weight; as @JAL_GRANADA pointed out, the 14D is 13.56kg, in principle then, the 14S should not be much more than 15kg, maybe 15.5kg max 
• Motor Axle: after two years, finally!, the axle diameter has been strengthened from 12mm (on the 14C) to 14mm, axle metal fatigue should be a thing of the past
• Width: without the pads the reputed dimensions are 17cm & with the pads 18.6cm—I find it difficult to understand how KS can take so little care in preparing accurate information about an important new product release that's been in development for over a year.  Don't they want to put the best specification complexion for stats that matter?

  

As can be seen in the above photos, shaving a couple cm off the width is achievable without the pads, but with the exposed screw-holes, it's not very attractive. Maybe there's the possibility of developing a thinner pad, or an alternative after-market option.

Copying the assessment from the 14D thread so to keep all the information about the 14S together.   

---

---

Here's the specification sheet: contains a lot of errors, mostly a copy/paste job from the 14D. On balance its a positive development, despite the criticisms, I'm going to be putting an immediate order in.

Pros:

• Top speed of 30kph vs. 28kph with the KS14S
• Battery pack size (obviously)
• 4x speakers for a more robust sound
• Extendable handle on the 14D was superb. They replaced the el-cheapo plastic handle with a magnesium alloy one; feels solid, well-built  

Cons:

• Width, if the specs are to believed, it's even wider than the KS16! Until we get confirmation, I wouldn't put too much faith in what's written, espeically since their official 14D spec has the width at 400mm!! http://www.szkingsong.com/upload/file/contents/2016/12/5858f66961eca.pdf
• 16kg is pretty substantial! Recall that the KS14C (pretty much same mechanics) was 14.6kg & the KS16 is not much more than this
• KS need to wake up to the fact that 6.5hr charging is not an acceptable amount of time! There's a new generation of electric cars that are coming online which will be able to charge from 20-80% in 15 minutes; asking for official support (& warranty potential) for 4A charge rates on a Wheel is not an unreasonable demand. 

I asked to get a picture of inside the 14S shell, this is what they sent. To me, the pack looks too slim, for 32 cells per side the width will be double this.

Wheel width is obviously important. I believe there's a 'Goldilocks' (or optimum) dimension to be reasonably comfortable, probably between 12-18cm at the upper leg contact point—for those who think otherwise a elementary experiment is to simply stand up; now what is the distance between you feet, do you normally stand with your feet touching? By way of comparison the 14C was 190mm & the 16" 196mm, so if this specification is correct, it's definitely not ideal! Why is there bulbous extrusion on the upper third of the pad? What benefit could this possibly serve but for the greater discomfort of the Rider? Isn't there anyone at KS who thinks about these things? 

[Maximus]

Good info @Jason McNeil, but would I be correct in saying that you are only mildly happy with their upgrades? 

[Jason McNeil]

33 minutes ago, Maximus said:

Good info @Jason McNeil, but would I be correct in saying that you are only mildly happy with their upgrades? 

It's going to be a great product, I'm just not impressed with the causal exactitudes of the spec sheet—you image what a cracker the manual will be!

Why don't they hire a professional who is more versed in the language to create the product literature?!

[Jason McNeil]

In keeping with the KS tradition of ignoring Customer feedback/advice ("Hello King Song?!"), the designers think adding the 3-4cm in unnecessary width (combined) to the 14S is a desirable 'feature'. 

If you'd prefer NOT to have ride a >180mm wide Wheel, then contact Flora or Diana & voice your dissatisfaction, tell them you'd prefer to ride a slimmer 14S.   

[Marty Backe]

2 hours ago, Jason McNeil said:

In keeping with the KS tradition of ignoring Customer feedback/advice ("Hello King Song?!"), the designers think adding the 3-4cm in unnecessary width (combined) to the 14S is a desirable 'feature'. 

If you'd prefer NOT to have ride a >180mm wide Wheel, then contact Flora or Diana & voice your dissatisfaction, tell them you'd prefer to ride a slimmer 14S.   

The styling of this pad seems very reminiscent of the 14C. I guess we'll have to wait until you have one in your hands to know how the width of the 14S compares to the 14C. The 14C is a wide wheel but I find it very comfortable even with the protrusion on the top of the pad.

[Jason McNeil]

There's a bit extra padding width on the 14C but not nearly much as on the 14S.

[Mono]

On 2017-5-25 at 4:41 PM, Jason McNeil said:

Wheel width is obviously important. I believe there's a 'Goldilocks' (or optimum) dimension to be reasonably comfortable, probably between 12-18cm at the upper leg contact point—for those who think otherwise a elementary experiment is to simply stand up; now what is the distance between you feet, do you normally stand with your feet touching? By way of comparison the 14C was 190mm & the 16" 196mm, so if this specification is correct, it's definitely not ideal! Why is there bulbous extrusion on the upper third of the pad? What benefit could this possibly serve but for the greater discomfort of the Rider?

I was wondering the same when faced with the shell design of the V8, but found two possible reasons: 

1. Depending on the width at pedal height, the wheel needs to have a certain width at padding height to be able to touch and control the wheel with the lower legs. (I don't say this is necessary, but it has its advantages). If the bulb is well sized, this may also prevent the ankles to touch the wheel heavily, which seems quite desirable.
2. The bulb makes the touching area comparatively small. This seems to be a disadvantage in terms of comfort. However, to be able to move the wheel between the legs back and forth (e.g. for braking), this seems to be an advantage. For this reason the padding surface should also be rather slippery than sticky.

Overall I also find wheel width to be a critical parameter, while it seems to be worth while to differentiate between width on ankle height and width at the top of the wheel (determined by the bulb). With the currently dominating wheel construction, it is hard to imagine that we will get a wheel which is too thin at pedal height.

FTR: my comfortable ankle distance is around 70mm, the resulting lower leg distance is around 90mm, a comfortable squeezing distance is around 110mm. 

[enigma35]

So the 14s is basically just a smaller version of the 680WH KS16B then?