Tandem Cycling - Paketa

Anyone out there riding or has ridden a Paketa tandem? Is this rocket worth $9200?

Just got my multi-million dollar year-end bonus from Goldman Sachs, you see, and am working hard trying to figure out how to spend it. [Just kidding folks. Even if I did, I'd be too ashamed to admit it.]

But seriously, what's the skinny on this steed?

What chance have we got to ride one of these?

Just too exotic for me and I am personally not fused about the frame geometry. The geometry may reflect the limited range of Mg tubing available to the frame builder?

I like my Ti and Carbon bikes and would wait until Mg was more commonly used and wait until more people were riding the bike to get feedback.

Its the same price as a Ti bike and cheaper than a carbon bike so its not a cost issue.

IMHO - I honestly believe the strongest/lightest bikes will continue be (Carbon) Fiber/Resin based so exotic metals such as Mg have been superceeded.

Some other thoughts -

I have read that Mg has some corosion issues and although the frame can be coated/treated, this implies that mixing metals with Mg would be a problem - Now we need Mg S&S couplers, etc.

There have been reports of weld failures on them. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone here who has actually given us a test drive report.

There have been reports of weld failures on them.

Can you elaborate? I hadn't heard that before and would be interested in more details.

I think it was in a thread at T/Hobbes I read it.

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone here who has actually given us a test drive report.

It might just be a great winter project here on this forum to have test drive reports on various tandem models and components. The collective real-time expertise and experience embodied in this forum is truly astonishing. It could be a great service to newbies and manufacturers alike. I wonder how it could be organized, Pros / Cons / I wish it had.......

Hi there rjberner, I haven't actually ridden a paketa, but I was in the garage of the man and his' wife who designs them out in bolder CO this past summer. A fellow club member know's them and both of us went out there this past July for the triple bypass ride. We were there for a week and visited them during that time.

They are extremely light, 23 pounds with pedals, it's just amazing. I would love to ride one of them, but the day we were there visiting we didn't have our cycling clothes or shoes so we didn't do that. I am going back out there this coming July for a week to ride the TBP again, I would gather that if you really wanted to ride or purchase one, and you were out there when I was, I could probably get you over to their house to see it and test it. They are nice people and I would think they would allow that...Let me know, I'll be out there from the 7th of July thru the 15th.

Take care,

Benjamin

P.S. My sister is considering a carbon tandem also and I mentioned this to her also, so she's looking into one also.

Paketa is the only manufacturer to produce magnesium tandem frames! Arguably the lightest tandem in the world.

It either is or it isn't. There isn't much arguing to be done when it comes down to simple weight measurement.

Thanks Caadman, may just do that.

This from the Precision Tandem website:

32599

22.92lb w/o pedals, so add 3lb for pedals. Weight isn't everything, I know. So we've got to have some input from some riders.

Oops, lousy arithmetic -- add 1.1lb (DuraAce) to 1.5lb for the pedals. Puts it some rarified company.

Need a showdown between the best and the lightest a la Motor Trend's faceoffs. Four to five fit teams, stock bikes, same wheels. 50km course, every team rides each bike and grades them at the end. If they can do it for $60K motors, why can't it be done for $10K tandems?

The geometry may reflect the limited range of Mg tubing available to the frame builder?


Ugh, keep guessing.

Part of their approach is to "remove" one of the tubes to save weight. This generally requires making the remaining tubes slightly beefier, but the net gain is reduced frame weight overall.

Almost all of the high-performance tandem makers are exploring this design... here is a little gallery.

-Greg

Paketa:
http://www.paketabike.com/images/tandem.jpg

Co-Motion:
http://www.co-motion.com/graphics/macchiato07.gif

Calfee:
http://calfeedesign.com/images/tandem_small.jpg

Arizona Tandems (Zona):
http://www.arizonatandems.com/galler2.jpg

Santana... oops, not yet!
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/250px-D_oh.jpg

They are extremely light, 23 pounds with pedals, it's just amazing

I have not seen, ridden or heard of these until this post, but it is interesting.

According to the US Department of Energy, December 2005, magnesium is 35% lighter than aluminum. The context is reducing automobile weight to increase fuel efficiency.

The main barriers for technology implementation are the following: • a need for casting processes that yield high-integrity, ductile, structural castings that are cost-competitive with aluminum; • a need to better understand the science of magnesium galvanic and atmospheric corrosion behavior:eek: ; • a need to identify commercially viable alloys; and • a need to improve casting quality assurance and develop component and vehicle level testing. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/success/magnesium.pdf Paketa may have rights to intellectual property or access to alloy tubing that solve these problems.

I looked in Santana’s brochure and their aluminum small frame is claimed to weigh just over 7 pounds which I assume is without a fork. If we assume the value added by Paketa tandem is the magnesium frame (I assume a third party tandem carbon fork, standard tandem carbon parts, shifters, derailleurs and wheels), how much lighter can the magnesium bike with wheels, components and the frame be? Let us assume a lateral weighs 1 pound. Therefore, an aluminum frame without the lateral would weigh 6 pounds. A magnesium frame would weight 6 times .65 or 3.9 pounds. The weight reduction for magnesium without the lateral would be approximately 3 pounds compared to aluminum.

Or more simply stated, the use of magnesium and the removal of the lateral brace may reduce the weight of small tandems by approximately 3 pounds.:rolleyes:

I think it was in a thread at T/Hobbes I read it.

The only reference I could find to a magnesium frame failure was in a "Eurobike" trip report from Bill McCready in 2005 wherein he noted, "Two years ago Reynolds showed a magnesium tubeset that could be TIG-welded. This year they admit to a disappointing legacy of magnesium weld failures."

Dave Walker noted in a subsequent post, "I honestly don’t have any knowledge of the Cannondale Raven, but in the case of Reynolds, I agree they blew it with their weldable magnesium tube set. We’ve fatigue-tested a Reynolds magnesium frame alongside a Paketa, and the Paketa survived more than 150 times as many load cycles. While the Reynolds frame was indeed substandard, the Paketa’s result is right in line with current bicycle industry standards."

Nothing about a Paketa tandem frame failed weld that I could find...

Almost all of the high-performance tandem makers are exploring this design...

Exploring or re-discovering? Open frame tandem designs are hardly new and date back to the original safety bike tandem designs of the late 1800's. Poaching from one of Dave Walker's posts to Hobbes...

From Jan Heine's Vitage Bicycle Press Website: http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/image-archive.html

Oops, lousy arithmetic -- add 1.1lb (DuraAce) to 1.5lb for the pedals. Puts it some rarified company.

I do not think so. Math is based on frame only. Pedals or components do not come into the calculation. In general, we can have any components on any bicycles for which we are willing to pay. In this case, the value added and corresponding weight reduction is in the frame design and material selection. And keep in mind that with the removal of the lateral, the other tubing has to be beefed up to make up for the structural loss of the lateral such that the elimination of the lateral and resulting weight reduction is not one for one. I took an educated guess to get an idea of what the weight reduction might be.

Here is a link http://www.bike123.com/new_items.htm that shows the Paketa, frame, fork and head set at 6.3 pounds. My estimated calculation of 4 pounds seems reasonable based on this info (assuming we believe the advertising).

If these beasts perform as well as they are priced, why the hell aren't they dropping the sloped reinforcing tube on all the premium tandems? Less material, less fab labor, should add up to less cost, with the added benefit of less weight.

IfLess material, less fab labor

I wouldn't be surprised if the material and labor costs are more. For example, are some of these bikes made with very specialized tubing? Are they more difficult to weld or build? I have the impression that there is a bit more to it than just deleting a tube.

-Greg

Point taken, as CoMo's pitch for the Macchiato attests:

"While outwardly simple, the compact design of the Macchiato represents a reinvention of virtually every tube in its construction. Our new ACMUltra7 tubes cannot be found elsewhere. The Macchiato’s impressively sized bi-oval downtube intersects with a deeply machined headtube, radically profiled zonally-butted top tube, and optimally ovalized seattubes, forming a muscular, compact stature."

And, certainly the Mg tubing is exotic, as well.

But Trek is doing amazing things with optimized alum. tubing shapes on their mid-range bikes, thanks no doubt, to dynamic finite element analyses and simulations. If they can do it so can the rest. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and will.

Ugh, keep guessing.

Part of their approach is to "remove" one of the tubes to save weight. This generally requires making the remaining tubes slightly beefier, but the net gain is reduced frame weight overall.


My compaint about the geometry was focused on what appears to be a lack of frame and very long seat posts and not on the loss of the laterial tube.

I did like your pictures and certainly love the carbon frames - You can see that all three frames did not have such an aggressive drop off at the rear like the Paketa.

Whats your beef with Santana?

That would be my concern with the Paketa also, But it would all be illuminated in the golden light of Truth, IF WE COULD GET SOME RIDER'S FEEDBACK! Maybe the seatposts have to be structurally designed to the bike also.

(Damn, that CoMo is a sexy beast.)

Just have to chime in a bit on this one . . .
While we can understand skepticism of folks regarding a 'new' frame material for tandems, just look back to the 1980s when C'dale introduced heat treated aluminum singles, and then tandems. Folks were skeptical, but the proof is in the riding.
We have been fortunate to have been able to test ride 30+ brands/models of tandems through our 32 years of tandem riding, including several prototypes.
We've ridden steel, alu, titanium and carbon fiber tandems. Have not yet gotten our butts on a magnesium Paketa, but would love to! Did see, and heft one, at Interbike. Nice? You bet!
While any material 'can' fail, nobody is going to put something on the market that 'will' fail. Lots of research/testing is done before these hit the marketplace.
Have you personally broken or seen a broken tandem frame? Or is it just hear-say?
Have personally broken a steel tandem (twice!) . . . once at 50,000 miles and once again at 56,000 miles. Have also broken an experimental steel fork, at 15,000 miles. And have seen a well-known brand's steel fork blade separate from the crown.
So are you now hesitant to ride steel?
Nobody is pushing anyone to ride/buy exotic light weight tandems . . . although we have done so ourselves through the years.
We were told carbon fiber would 'inexplicably break' . . . geez, we've got only 13,000+ miles on our ariZona c/f tandem now, should we hold our breath?
Both c/f and magnesium are utilized in aerospace/high tech industties and have proven their mettle.
Open frame designs are not something new; but combining the open design with oversize tubing, that is new!
Have we ridden open frame designs? Yes. In the old days the frames were like cooked spaghetti. Remember the Gitane?
Have ridden several of the 'new' open frame designs (ariZona, Bruni, Co-Motion). Great ride and didn't miss that lateral tube.
The open frame designs use less material/tubing and are less labor intensive for the builder. Also when using S&S fittings, fewer couplers are needed. And yes, the reduction in price is noticeable too! Quality of the ride was not affected for us.
There are advances in materials and designs; we can reject them, but eventually may accept most of them.
Heck, if Wilbur and Orville had stayed in the bicycle business they'd never have flown at Kitty Hawk!

Pedal on TWOgehter!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

Just have to chime in a bit on this one . . .
Have ridden several of the 'new' open frame designs (ariZona, Bruni, Co-Motion). Great ride and didn't miss that lateral tube.
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

zonatandem - As I have already said, I personaly do not like the geometry of the Paketa because of the aggressive rear cutoff - It has nothing to do with Mg, Al, Steel, or CF. Based on the published picture the rear rider would be riding on a tall stick of carbon fiber. Look at the picture and see where the rear and front seat tube clamps are. Your Carbon Fiber tandem looks great.

I think any informed cycling enthusiast would agree that the aesthetics of different frame designs, as well as the pros and cons of their technical merits, are about as subjective as the justification for the value-added of a high-end bicycle.

As already stated, an open framed tandem is hardly a new concept; they've been around since the 1800's. Compact geometry with the associated sloping top tubes on singles and tandems are also not anything new and one of the reasons they are attractive to builders (noting there are several) is pretty straight forward... they allow the builder to build a bicycle or tandem frame that resists torsional flex more efficiently than a taller frame. Yes, they also allow a wider range of cyclists to straddle the frame, and in certain designs the amount of frame material and frame mass is also reduced. This is clearly the case with the open framed tandems where, at least with the carbon and aluminum frames, the tubesets are more robust than they are on frames with internal tubes which nets-out to provide a lighter frameset. However, you'll notice that they have upper weight limitations.

With regard to the OP's question on Paketa tandems, Dave Walked has posted a great deal about his magnesium tandems on the Tandem@Hobbes list. Rather than paraphrasing what he has said I would simply suggest anyone truly interested in the Paketa do a search of the Hobbes list (http://search.bikelist.org/) on Dave Walker's Email address and "Paketa". There are a total of 53 postings that will match this search criteria. (http://search.bikelist.org/?SearchString=paketa&MsgFrom=davewalker@paketabike.com&SortBy=MsgDate%5Ba%5D&Scope=tandem) Included in these postings by Dave you find a number of other topics that he addresses regarding lightweight equipment and other tandem topics that will give you a better feel for his expertise and philosophy on bike design, etc.

Back to the asethetics, thankfully there are many different tandems for consumers to choose from which is also the same for price points. Carbon has it's own look, as does aluminum, titanium, titanium & carbon hybrids, and even the various different steels. "Graceful" to one enthusiast can be butt-ugly to another and even the most basic frame can be brought to life with an exciting paint scheme applied by an artisan. At the same time, a beautiful frame can be diminished by a paint job that is either poorly executed or just too darn quirky for the average Joe's tastes. Frankly, I can't imagine painting a bike to look like livestock unless I made my living raising Holstein's. Recumbents and trikes are also not what I'd call attractive machines whereas others do. To each their own.

As to the real benefits to be gained when upgrading from a $1,200 entry level tandem to a $13,000 exotic machine with couplers and all the chi-chi components, there aren't that many that will stand up to close scrutiny for the average cyclist. Like cars, motorcycles, boats, and just about everything else you can buy, the basic model in the hands of a skilled operator can usually out perform the most exotic machines in the hands of a novice. All the other "stuff" that drives the pricing are best described as "refinements, enhancements, creature comforts, or vanity fullfilment" whose value is determined by each consumer. If you have $13k to sink into a tandem, then it can all be justified if only by saying, "because I want it and I can afford it". However, if you're someone who'd rather spend $3k on a tandem and put $10 into an investment account so you can retire a year earlier, you'll be hard pressed to understand why others "need" a $13k tandem. So, like the aesthetics, to each their own.

Speaking of their own, and getting back to the aesthetics and design heritage of sloping top tubes on tandems, here are some photos of our '98 and '02 Ericksons. Glenn Erickson has been using sloping top tubes (with an internal tube) for well over a decade, perhaps two... (time flies). Riding on a tall aluminum or carbon seatpost is also not a bad thing. After all, a cyclist or tandem team doesn't usually sit when they are making a maximum effort sprinting or climbing which, coincidentally, is when the frame is subjected to the greatest bending forces, which gets back to the "why compact geometry" works well for racing tandems.

http://thetandemlink.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/Images/98erickson1.JPG

http://thetandemlink.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/Images/02erickson1.JPG

I think any informed cycling enthusiast would agree that the aesthetics of different frame designs, as well as the pros and cons of their technical merits, are about as subjective as the justification for the value-added of a high-end bicycle.


As always, a perfect response. I would also suggest that marketing sometimes gets in the way of reality - The rear seats in many of the pictures may have been left higher to give the bikes a "sexy" look.

Reviewing the attached pictures and my own bike - my tandem, zonatandem, and the calfee appear to have very similiar stoker/captain riding positions in terms of the handle bars and the height of the seat. On my bike my stoker and captain seats are about 2-3 inches higher than each of their bars.

As an extreme example, the Paketa's stokers bars would need to drop or the seat would need to go higher to help match riding positions. The Paketa we have been looking at may have been custom built for a small/child stoker.

Reviewing the attached pictures and my own bike - my tandem, zonatandem, and the calfee appear to have very similiar stoker/captain riding positions in terms of the handle bars and the height of the seat. On my bike my stoker and captain seats are about 2-3 inches higher than each of their bars.

For go-fast teams where both riders also ride racing single bikes, your observation is probably true. However, for the vast majority of tandem teams where one or both riders don't have a racing pedigree, you're more likely to find riding positions that are far less aggressive than your own.

That said, the Paketa's riding position doesn't look all that odd to me -- other than having a fairly short stoker compartment -- noting that Debbie's saddle is perhaps .5" higher than her bars whereas mine follows suit for most racing bikes with the bars a few inches lower than the saddle.

Since everyone is throwing pictures around, this is a frame I very much like. Keep the lateral tube and remove the top and bottom tubes...

http://www.cas-bikes.com/galley2003/zxt5ltsideisort.jpg

The ZXT frame from http://www.cas-bikes.com at 8.5 lbs (3.86 Kg).

Happy holidays!

Since everyone is throwing pictures around, this is a frame I very much like. Keep the lateral tube and remove the top and bottom tubes...


Try getting that one S&S coupled :).

Let's be fair about "gains" when you buy a real expensive tandem: they're meant for racing... you get very little if you don't have the horsepower and handling skill to take advantage.

Perhaps this is a better representation of the Paketa, perhaps in a larger frame from Precision Tandem’s site:

32800

Here, the seatposts don’t look that out of whack, and not much different than the Erikson.

I checked out the Hobbes site for data on the Paketa and the only ride “review” was by Mark Johnson of Precision – who put it through some tough riding in Colorado and pronounced it very worthy. Great testimonial, but again, he’s also trying to sell them.

I think it high time that the builders put their money where their mouths are and support an organized face-off at one of this year’s major tandem rallys. Real bikes, real teams and a well thought out system of grading. It should do nothing more than increase sales for all and be a great draw. The results can be put into a matrix whereby a potential buyer can weight the aspects to their liking and come up with a final, personal score. Cost, looks, fit, finish, “stiffness”, responsiveness, comfort, etc. can all be addressed by real-time riders. As with the expensive motors, I may like the extra 0.1 second time of the 500+Hp Vette in the quarter, whereas someone else just likes the finish and nasty whine of the Viper. And someone else is going to be content with the Shelby ‘Stang’ because, dammit, it’s close enough and his Dad owned one.

And FWIW, I like Zona’s moo theme -- a lot. It looks like it has been ridden and enjoyed, and it’s a hoot. We don’t all need to have wheels that look like Buicks, or Lincolns.

When and if we figure out which rocket is worth an extra year of working, we’ll probably get it in maize and blue and (try to) kick some Trojan ass.

I have a Paketa tandem and all the necessary components sitting in my basement right now. I was planning to build it up last year and ride it at RAGBRAI last July. My stoker was injured a few weeks before the ride and has yet to get back on the bike.

One of many winter projects is to build up the Paketa. I can tell you that the frame is superlight and looks sad hanging in my basement. It will be built up with DA-10, FSA cranks, and Rolf wheels; I don't think it will be the superlight 23 pounds; I am guessing a little over 25.

It will be interesting to see how the Paketa compares to our Robusta.

To the original poster, hang on to your cash for a bit, a review will be forthcoming. I can say that Dave and the folks at Paketa are great in terms of answering questions and such.

Jay

You the man! On behalf of all who would like to see a serious critique of the Paketa, I look forward to your comments. Get that puppy built up and on the road!

I have a hunch that these designs are the wave of the future in tandeming.

I'll start on it tonight.

I guess it depends on your perspective. For example, I have buddy with a BMW M5 and he just added some go-fast computer chip and made some other upgrades. This car will never see a track or be involved in any legal or illegal racing. To me, these upgrades to an already quite fast car are a bit crazy as they really will never be fully realized. OTOH, buying or building a hot rod tandem will yield results, the magnitude varying based on the tandem team, during each ride. Assuming one is not compromising on ride quality or fit, then the lightest and stiffest tandem one can afford is, presumably, the best tandem for that team.

Note, I am advocating upgrading components or frame material in lieu of more training. Unlike car racing, you can't buy speed.

BTW..started the Paketa build tonight, I realize I forgot to pick up a stoker stem..any suggestions?

The bare frame and headset weighed in at 6.32lbs.



Let's be fair about "gains" when you buy a real expensive tandem: they're meant for racing... you get very little if you don't have the horsepower and handling skill to take advantage.

Great points. Putting aside the seeming exoticness of these new designs, and their cost, my thesis is simply that I think if we can shave 5lb of weight off of a good tandem, everybody will benefit. Sure, we can hang DA, Campy, and carbon stuff on these things and get to the 25lb range, but we can also bolt on the more ordinary stuff and live with the 30lb range. If the geometry of these frames are the same, i.e. 73 deg angles with around 10.5 in BB height, and decent top tube lengths, and they perform as well as the best current reinforced frames, then why not?

If any team, regardless of weight, rides a rolling century with, say, 4000 feet of total elevation “work”, and that team sheds 5lb, then they (and the bike) will save 20,000 lb (10tons) of lifting over those miles. If we throw in some crosswinds, we may have some other significant work saved, as well. Everybody wins – the bike, the whippets and the rottweilers. The whippets will be home first, of course, but that will never change.

So it comes down to the question of worth. What is 5lb worth to a committed tandem team with 20 years and maybe 30,000 miles of twogetherness (love that Zona) ahead of them? Current pricing puts the cost “penalty” at about $1500 - $2000, with American craftsmen building the frames. (Let’s not get started on that one – I want mine to say “Made in the USA”.) That’s $75 - $100 per year. Hell, many of us spend that in one month of cable and internet fees.

As with any other device, there is a point of diminishing returns. The weight saved per dollar spent on a bicycle frame is not linear, i.e. a $5000 frame does not weigh half as much as a $2500 frame. In fact, the $5000 frame may only be 10% lighter than the $2500 frame. If one were to graph cost vs. weight (Tandemgeek????) of the readily available tandem frames, one might be able to pick the point (or points) on the curve were one derived the most cost-effective weight benefit. Frame flex - yaw, twist and horizontal sway - could also be graphically depicted, assuming an independent agency quantified the flex and that the flex ran true through the size range of frames.

One could overlay the two graphs and determine which frame characteristics where most important of the three - weight, flex and cost - and purchase accordingly.

That being said, I am contemplating a replacement for the workhorse KHS. If I could lop 10lbs off it's 43lb weight for say, under $5k on the road and out the door I might make the jump....

You're right, we're really talking about the weight loss of that reinforcing tube, which is probably in the neighborhood of 3lb. And, the ability of the builder to price components, all else being equal. A Robusta frameset is $3675; the Macchiato frameset is $????? (not clear). Would a Paketa with 105 components and Rolf wheels come close to the $7700 stock Robusta in price and weight, but soak up the road better?

Gets back to my original point -- we need more and better data.

If one were to graph cost vs. weight (Tandemgeek????) of the readily available tandem frames, one might be able to pick the point (or points) on the curve were one derived the most cost-effective weight benefit. Frame flex - yaw, twist and horizontal sway - could also be graphically depicted, assuming an independent agency quantified the flex and that the flex ran true through the size range of frames.

One could overlay the two graphs and determine which frame characteristics where most important of the three - weight, flex and cost - and purchase accordingly.

That's all well and good to graph those things out but that data falls lower on the priorities of fit, feel and handling. Throw in some componentry issues (Santana) and you end up with multiple data points to resolve your decision. In the end we throw in the emotional aspect knowing that we are not getting exactly what we want but we are happy (hopefully) with our decision. For example, the AL frames may have great numbers, but I prefer steel and Ti frames. I am sure there are other priorities and requirements for other riders such as country of origin, brand loyalty, customizations, etc.

In any case, it would be interesting to see the numbers. It may be that the numbers help you identify your preferred bike characteristics and bikes you might like. As opposed to some numbers that are said to values that all tandems should be designed toward. Unfortunately many of us have not had the chance to ride a wide variety of tandems. We may not know what we like or what we are missing :).

Hopefully I will have the Paketa built up by this weekend. If the stoker stem doesn't arrive by then I could always ride it solo.

Unfortunately many of us have not had the chance to ride a wide variety of tandems. We may not know what we like or what we are missing :).

This is true. But all things considered I have not found that great of a difference in the bikes I have tested (though I have not ridden any Co-Motion product). My problem with test rides is:

1) The ride is too short to sort out subtle differences
2) Differences in components especially wheels and tires can effect the feel of the bike greatly
3) All the new bikes seem to have a suspension rear seat-post which we don't use. If not properly adjusted the suspension post will negatively effect the perception of the bike's ride.

Before we bought we tried five different brands and found that they all rode well and felt about the same. Now that we have more experience, we might have more discerning butts than we did before......

Paketa tandem review!!!
Check out the latest Recumbent & Tandem Rider Magazine (Issue #24, Winter 2006/2007) for a review/test riding by Bill and Evie Wheeler, long time tandemistas (and friends) who do not mince words and say it like it is, whether it's praise or a little bit of nitpicking!
As for the the Paketa 'look', like anything else, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". As for the 'new' no-lateral frames, designer Mies van der Rohe was fond of saying: "Less is more".
Of course, if you really 'want' a Paketa or other hi-zoot multi-seater, talk with a custom builder and he'll gladly design a bike to fit your requirements.
As we get older (and more experienced), we develop definite needs/wants/ideas in tandem design that may differ from the mass produced twicers.
We wish all you BF tandemistas 'Tailwinds and Downhills' in 2007!

Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

A high zoot/priced tandem is not necessarily for racers or poseurs only.
Being 74 and 71 (. . . are we that old already?!) we no longer race/compete or even do centuries and do all that crazy climbing. However, we still ride tandem 5 days a week, year 'round.
Fit and comfort are foremost now, rather than keeping our nose to the wheel to make sure we get there . . . fast.
But it's great to own a precision/light/well-fitting and comfortable riding machine, even in our senior years.
Hey, what are we gonna do, wait 'til we get older?! Have fun while you can!

Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

This is true. But all things considered I have not found that great of a difference in the bikes I have tested (though I have not ridden any Co-Motion product). My problem with test rides is:

1) The ride is too short to sort out subtle differences
2) Differences in components especially wheels and tires can effect the feel of the bike greatly
3) All the new bikes seem to have a suspension rear seat-post which we don't use. If not properly adjusted the suspension post will negatively effect the perception of the bike's ride.


I absolutely agree with you. In our limited experience, we have not found much difference in handling (see note below). We too have not had the opportunity to ride a Co-Motion, although I would really like to try one. We did find intangible differences that were easier to roughly quantify and move on to the next frame and get rough comparisons. We ended up having technical/emotional favorites that made us more comfortable in our search. In the end, the stokers happiness put a SOLD in our minds in 2 minutes, although it took ~9mos to complete a deal :). The numbers would be interesting. I don't think it would change my likes but maybe direct me to other possibilities.

To negate some of your noted issues, we brought her seatpost and saddle, our pedals and shoes. Saddles are not an issue for me as I can factor it out in my impressions. Plus we went back for multiple test rides, compressed experience so to speak.

**Note: Someone posted that a newer Bushnell was available on Craigslist with good components for $875. I wrote to them curious about the specifics. It would have been a stretch for us but I did not think a deal like that would come up again anytime soon. In any case the bike was 6.5 hours away, but in the discussion we figured out it was too big for us. A real shame because if it were close in size I would have really considered doing it. An example that, to me, the tandems ride very similar. Anyway, the owner wrote back and said someone came by with cash Xmas day and took it. I think they got a very nice bike at a very nice price.

Just my .02....

With the exception of quantum leaps in tandem quality that provide for a proper fit, significantly lower the overall bike weight, change the stiffness, or alter the steering geometry, any other changes are likely to create placebo effect improvements for the average team. In other words, the more you spend and the greater your expectations the more profound the improvements will "seem to be", whether real or imagined. Stokers who are unware of the nature of the changes or who don't have grand expectations tend to be better gauges of improvements since they aren't usually emotionally invested in the upgrade and/or have any grand expectations.

Recreational teams can certainly appreciate and enjoy the high end machines and -- as mentioned in previous postings on this same general topic -- may find themselves riding more often and with greater vigor, but for the most part a high-end tandem satisfies the same "wants and desires" of a bigger and more grand home, a flashy watch, or an expensive prestige vehicle: and there's nothing wrong with that. Those with the means and desire to indulge themselves in a "special" bike could certainly do a lot worse spending their discreationary income on other things that will not truly provide equivalent benefits to a finely crafted, high-end bicycle or tandem. The history of the bicycle and the nature of the "bicycle boom" of the late 1900's was directly tied to this aspect of "exclusivity", and the same has been true of all subsequent "booms" here in the US. So, if you are so inclined and have addressed all of your financial needs, why not indulge yourself?


Bottom Line: While there are both elite and astute riders who can discern some of the more subtle differences between high-end tandem frame qualities, the only teams that will truly benefit are the ones who have already acheived a high level of personal fitness and on-bike performance. Recreational teams will certainly enjoy a prestige machine, but "cost benefit analysis" will not support such a purchasing decision.

I myself have not ridden the Paketa, but I have friends that I ride with,that bought one this fall. They do not have a lot of time on it yet, but so far love it. They did want something of a performance bike, but one of the big objectives they [the stoker] had was comfort. So far they love it. The capt. is an engineer at a local maching company... and he knew of the issues with magnesium, and talked to David about his concerns and I guess was happy with the answers.

They are light.. but I think the 22.92 is sort of misleading. He sells complete bikes or frames. I can't find the link now.. but how he generally sells them.. they are heavier. He has a regular part group and a lighter upgrade option... and both result in a bike heavier than 22.92. As said by other above.. there is not that much difference in others frame weights.

oh a point on the comfort.. previously he had a cannondale.. on the new bike they are using the same seats.. and the same wheels and tires. He had bought new rolf wheels for the cannondale just before buying this bike. So most of what they are feeling is the frame differences.

Is it worth it? only you can really answer. As you move up in price... it takes more and more money to make less and less difference.

glenn

So most of what they are feeling is the frame differences.

Well, that and a healthy dose of the placebo effect of high expectations.... (been there, done that).


Is it worth it? only you can really answer. As you move up in price... it takes more and more money to make less and less difference.

+1. There isn't a cost/benefit model I know of that can be used to justify high-end equipment for non-professional applications. You drop the coin because you can (period). No explanation required.

Tgeek, I agree with you only to a point. One need not be a pro to extract performance from a true racing frame, just a very good rider.

Tgeek, I agree with you only to a point. One need not be a pro to extract performance from a true racing frame, just a very good rider.

Don't disagree with you on that. But, without the potential for some form of tangible pay-back associated with professional racing or business promotion the cost/benefit models don't support the expense. Someone may "enjoy" and "appreciate" the added performance, but they can't quantify the added-value of the investment in any economic means, e.g., award purse, increased sponsor or team bonuses/fees/support, increased sales, more demand for compensated coaching services, etc...

It's analogous to buying a Porsche GT3 for street use. Unless the car bags you a rich spouse or otherwise advances your personal wealth (directly or indirectly), all of the benefits are pretty much limited to the psyche.

Well, I guess I agree in that I haven't yet bought a replacement for the SUpremo Co Pilot frameset. There are a bunch of lighter options, but I can't see they'd be a significant improvement.

I am not an economist, but I doubt any cost-benefit model would support purchasing anything more than a reliable entry level tandem.

The person who picks up the Porsche GT3 for street use will not experience all of the benefits that car has to offer if only used on the street (legally of course). However, the upside of a high end single or tandem is, regardless of one's cycling ability and assuming proper fit, the user's performance will be improved. The magnitude of that improvement could be large or small (e.g. 1 watt) depending on the cyclist and the type of upgrade. Doubt that there is a cost-benefit economic model out there to support the upgrade, especially for the recreational rider. It is a cheaper alternative to than a Porsche, I can build it/work on it myself and replacement tires are less. If I wasn't married or didn't like my wife, then I would go with the Porsche so I could pick up hot chicks.



Don't disagree with you on that. But, without the potential for some form of tangible pay-back associated with professional racing or business promotion the cost/benefit models don't support the expense. Someone may "enjoy" and "appreciate" the added performance, but they can't quantify the added-value of the investment in any economic means, e.g., award purse, increased sponsor or team bonuses/fees/support, increased sales, more demand for compensated coaching services, etc...

It's analogous to buying a Porsche GT3 for street use. Unless the car bags you a rich spouse or otherwise advances your personal wealth (directly or indirectly), all of the benefits are pretty much limited to the psyche.

Don’t disagree with any of you. If we buy just for the sake of outdoing our neighbors, then we are guilty of idolatry and foolishness.

Nevertheless, we all know the benefits of well designed bikes. The differences are immediately felt and appreciated. I doubt if any serious rider out there would happily trade down for just any old ride. I wouldn’t.

My fundamental question in this thread had to do with the builder’s claim that the magnesium frame soaked up the road better -- without compromising performance. If it did, then I would be seriously interested in it (as well as the carbon frames) for my next tandem, because A). Our roads aren’t getting any better around here, and B). I’m not getting any younger. This question has not been answered, but for numerous opinions that because of its cost, it can’t possibly be that much better. We said all these things about carbon not too long ago and it wasn’t true.