Jump to content

A Closer Look at the New KS14S


Jason McNeil
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.   

uc?export=view&id=0B-WCZQc2gfJjeW5qVElNT

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by Mono
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...