Google sponsored links
We are going to the Calfee factory tomorrow to look at the tetra tandem. We do the occasional race, some touring (with a trailer), centuries, training and fun rides. We are 300-310 team weight. Here is how I envision the core set up:
Dura-ace 10
Santana carbon fiber cranks
topolino wheels
203 mm disc on rear (as well as the caliper brakes), set with friction shifter on the captains bar end for additional braking when necessary.
Questions are:
Is a seat post rack adequate for carrying the standard stuff like: clothing, food, etc. maybe 15lbs of gear?
Or should I put a real rack on when necessary.
is the rear disc brake lever at the stokers control a good idea? I hesitate to do this b/c of a panic braking situation which may cause a rear tire skid in a turn.
Do you have any other recommendations on setup?
Thanks for your input.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I won't comment on the wheels or cranks because I know nothing about them - I wouldn't do loaded touring on low spoke count wheels but that's just me. I also don't like proprietary stuff, especially when it comes to cranks etc - unless the replaceable stuff like chainrings and bottom bracket bearings are common and easily found. You guys don't weigh anything so I'd opt for the Dragon Fly version to save weight.
As for running a disc as a drag brake controlled by the stoker (or anyone for that matter) is a bad idea IMO. If you want a drag brake - buy a drum. If not - run the disc by itself. Doesn't sound like your going to be doing any loaded touring - so there really isn't any need for both a caliper and disc. I set up my tandem for a v-brake/drum combo for loaded touring and I normally run just a rear disc.
I've never used seatpost racks - because I never saw any advantage to them - and I also run carbon fiber seat posts and you really shouldn't bolt anything to a pure carbon fiber seatpost that is going to hold any weight at all. Woundup CF posts are different because they are carbon wrapped aluminum. I really like the new Bontrager disc compatible rear rack which can be used with the new Trek bags that snap on and off.
Thanks for the input.
As you can tell I am trying to make this the best of all worlds setup, which is difficult. The Topolino wheels are very strong, according to Craig. http://www.topolinotech.com/
We are probably going to run a thudbuster seat post for the stoker, which is aluminum-so running a bolt on rack should not be a problem. Just have to size the frame properly so that there is enough seatpost / tire clearance. A bolt on rack would give us more options.
We are planning on doing some touring pulling a trailer. I know this will require additional braking power on the decents. Having the disc brake operated by a friction shifter on the bar end would give me the ability to use the calipers and disc. I will have to be careful not to overheat the disc with this set up.
I have the fsa carbon cranks on my current tandem, but they are getting pretty back ordered. Craig recommended the Santana carbon cranks. They use the shimano pipe splined bottom bracket and shimano chainrings.
I won't comment on the wheels or cranks because I know nothing about them - I wouldn't do loaded touring on low spoke count wheels but that's just me. I also don't like proprietary stuff, especially when it comes to cranks etc - unless the replaceable stuff like chainrings and bottom bracket bearings are common and easily found. You guys don't weigh anything so I'd opt for the Dragon Fly version to save weight.
As for running a disc as a drag brake controlled by the stoker (or anyone for that matter) is a bad idea IMO. If you want a drag brake - buy a drum. If not - run the disc by itself. Doesn't sound like your going to be doing any loaded touring - so there really isn't any need for both a caliper and disc. I set up my tandem for a v-brake/drum combo for loaded touring and I normally run just a rear disc.
I've never used seatpost racks - because I never saw any advantage to them - and I also run carbon fiber seat posts and you really shouldn't bolt anything to a pure carbon fiber seatpost that is going to hold any weight at all. Woundup CF posts are different because they are carbon wrapped aluminum. I really like the new Bontrager disc compatible rear rack which can be used with the new Trek bags that snap on and off.
Seat post bag will depend on how much space between tire and bottom of bag. I know I am saying the obvious, but for my stoker, the distance between the bottom of her seat and the top of the tire precluded us from being able to use a bag. Ended up using a Tubus rack and have been very pleased.
Using an Avid 203 rear disc and have been very pleased. We live in a very hilly part of Indiana but wanted the disc even more for trips to Hawaii and Europe where we want to be going up and down the mountains.
If you use the topolino wheel, you will have to use rear calipers as you can use a disc with that wheel. We ended up with the Rolfs and have been very happy with them.
Enjoy this wonderful journey called building up your Calfee. I was not able to cure my carbon lust so just decided to succomb.
Counselguy
Tandemgeek: I was on the phone with Craig and mentioned that this forum has been a great source of information for Michelle and I. I knew that you had a tandem, under construction, at Calfee and mentioned to Craig that you have been very helpful with tandem/cycling information. He will actually be going to Tucson tomorrow so we will miss meeting him this time.
Benefits of the rack as I see it are:
- shorter overall bike package (as compared to a trailer), easier to park the bike, etc.
- easier to store when not using
- works well for short trips as well as long
Benefits of trailer:
- carry more stuff
- more aerodynamic?
Wheels:
Definitely going with a rear disc. Perhaps we can get away without having the rear caliper brake.
I thought the topolino wheels could go disc...Maybe they can now. The subject of not being able to use the topolino wheels with disc did not come up when speaking with Craig.
Thanks for the input. Excited for our factory tour tomorrow.
Topolinos are *nice*! But, as stated, cannot use disc/drum with them.
Have Topos on my single and have run the front Topo on the tandem. No issues.
Seatpost rack would be fine, depending on the seatpost. Most racks are designed to take up to 25 lbs.
Having said that, we have a full c/f custom rack on our c/f Zona tandem.
On a Calfee, your stoker may not need a suspension seatpost.
Would not recommend using a disc as a drag brake . . .
If you use seatpost mounted rack, you'll have to remove it in order to clamp trailer hitch to seatpost . . .
would not clamp any part of trailer hitch/support onto the c/f frame.
Agree with Mark in as we get 'a bit older', we tend to sit more upright.
Designed our last 2 tandems with 1" higher headtube to accomodate our aging bods + also sloped top tube down more aggressively for both pilot and ultra-short stoker.
Carbon is a whole other ride when it comes to tandems . . . love it!
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem
Thanks for the input.
As you can tell I am trying to make this the best of all worlds setup, which is difficult. The Topolino wheels are very strong, according to Craig. http://www.topolinotech.com/
I'm sure they are strong - as are the Rolfs on my tandem, but I still wouldn't do loaded touring with them. Which means racks and panniers front and rear.
We are probably going to run a thudbuster seat post for the stoker, which is aluminum-so running a bolt on rack should not be a problem. Just have to size the frame properly so that there is enough seatpost / tire clearance. A bolt on rack would give us more options.
How can a rack that is limited in terms of its weight carrying capacity and in most cases in ability to be used with real panniers give you more options?
We are planning on doing some touring pulling a trailer. I know this will require additional braking power on the decents. Having the disc brake operated by a friction shifter on the bar end would give me the ability to use the calipers and disc. I will have to be careful not to overheat the disc with this set up.
How big a trailer? How much weight? What do you mean by "being careful to not overheat the disc"? Discs shouldn't be used for drag brakes. They are not designed for it. I'd rather have the peace of mind that my brakes will work like they should in all situations.
I have the fsa carbon cranks on my current tandem, but they are getting pretty back ordered. Craig recommended the Santana carbon cranks. They use the shimano pipe splined bottom bracket and shimano chainrings.
I haven't seen em and Santana doesn't have any pics on their website either by themselves or on a tandem that I can find. Since they use common rings and BB that's a definite plus.
I haven't seen em and Santana doesn't have any pics on their website either by themselves or on a tandem that I can find. Since they use common rings and BB that's a definite plus.
"Santana's" carbon cranks are a special order item that they buy through FSA and that have in past carried the FSA Carbon Pro branding. I suspect they still carry the FSA branding for the cachet. I snagged this off of Wolfgang's Santana-Europe website but there's also a small picture on Santana's US site that appears in the left-hand margin of the Team Component page.
http://www.santana-tandem.com/de/images/crfsa.jpg
New FSA carbon fiber crankset combines the beauty and weight savings of carbon with the efficiency of Octalink splines. Chainrings 53/42/30 or 55/44/32 (48/38/24)
I'd be interested in seeing the actual weight of these cranks. While I like carbon for certain components, they aren't always as light as consumers might be led to believe vs. the alloy alternatives, e.g., Thomson Masterpiece seatposts, X2 stems, Deda 215 handlebars, and daVinci crank weights might surprise some folks who have assumed carbon alternatives were lighter.
"Santana's" carbon cranks are a special order item that they buy through FSA and that have in past carried the FSA Carbon Pro branding. I suspect they still carry the FSA branding for the cachet.
It's certainly true that Santana has been using FSA Carbon Pro cranks (we have some on our Santana Team Niobium purchased in January 2006) and they may still be using those. However, I had a casual conversation with Jack from Tandems Ltd at the Southern Tandem Rally and I asked about what Santana was doing about carbon cranks since I understood that FSA was not making octalink anymore. He said that Winwood was going to be making cranks for Santana. When I started seeing references on this forum to the Santana crank I just figured that Winwood was already making the crank for Santana. Santana never referred to the FSA crank as the Santana crank as far as I know.
Bloomington, IN
Perhaps it's like in the old days of "Schwinn Approved" components, now we may have "Santana Approved" components?
Agree with Mark that c/f components are not always 'the' lightest. But learned through the years that 'the' lightest did not always hold up under 2 folks torqueing on a tandem.
Recall twisting off a super-light front derailleur on a 100-miler . . . lesson learned!
i'm assuming the cranks are actually isis and not octalink
Here are some responses to your responses
I'm sure they are strong - as are the Rolfs on my tandem, but I still wouldn't do loaded touring with them. Which means racks and panniers front and rear.
Good point. Will have to look into that. Maybe have a set of gofast wheels and a set of touring.
How can a rack that is limited in terms of its weight carrying capacity and in most cases in ability to be used with real panniers give you more options?
I was unclear with my explanation. A rack that fastens to the frame would give more options than a rack that only attaches to the seat post.
How big a trailer? How much weight? What do you mean by "being careful to not overheat the disc"? Discs shouldn't be used for drag brakes. They are not designed for it. I'd rather have the peace of mind that my brakes will work like they should in all situations.
Bob trailer:
http://www.bobtrailers.com/trailers/trailer.php?product_id=10
Attaches to the rear axel - custom skewer - can hold
Attaches quickly and easily to a bike's rear wheel using the BOB patented QR attachment system
Low center of gravity for stability. Keeps the weight off your bicycle for improved handling and performance
Constructed of 4130 chromoly steel tubing to ensure strength, stability, durability and light weight (13.5 lbs./6.1 kgs)
Trailer tracks rear wheel of bicycle, making it ideal for commuting, narrow roads and single track
70 lbs. carrying capacity
Offered as the YAK 28 for 29er mountain bikes and 700c road bikes with full wrap fenders
Offered as a YAK Santana for the 160mm rear spacing of Santana tandems
I haven't seen em and Santana doesn't have any pics on their website either by themselves or on a tandem that I can find. Since they use common rings and BB that's a definite plus.
He said that Winwood was going to be making cranks for Santana. When I started seeing references on this forum to the Santana crank I just figured that Winwood was already making the crank for Santana. Santana never referred to the FSA crank as the Santana crank as far as I know.
Hmmmm. If that's the case and FSA is not still in the supply chain the 'other name' I've heard used for Santana's cranks is Aprebic. Now that's not to say that they aren't carrying the Winwood brand: Winwood is one of Quality Bicycle Product's house-brands, along with Civa, Dimension, Problem Solvers, Salsa, and Surley. Aprebic is just one of many suppliers to many different brands.
I seem to recall that mburchard has them on his Calfee: http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=54709&d=1189896501
In doing a quick surf, the crank arms & spider design on mburchard's tandems 'look' like dead ringers for the 110 BCD ones made by BEV:http://www.bev-intl.com/crank/crc322.jpg
But, again, in other conversations I've hard relative to cranks and our Calfee the name 'Aprebic' is what has come up and, again, I want to say that Aprebic would make sense as I believe they make the Evo carbon fork used by Santana.
i'm assuming the cranks are actually isis and not octalink
No, whatever they are -- FSA, Aprebic, BEV, Winwood, or none of the above -- they're spec'd with Shimano's Octalink BB.
With regards to the Santana cranks - those are the lower line FSA CF cranks compared to thier one piece molded sets. I'd skip em as they aren't near as strong as the Mega Exo's or the previous high end FSA's like the Carbon Pro Team issues.
http://www.roadbikereview.com/Channels/RoadBikeReview/images/products/product_320499.jpg
Don't know about the other companies mentioned that might make them for Santana. Octalinks aren't the best BB out their either as i've never gotten much wear out of them.
Our friends just bough a daVinci and their cranks are beautiful - but I hate to admit I just don't want square taper cranks anymore.
i'm assuming the cranks are actually isis and not octalink
Santana has license to use octilink I beleive. They have special BB's made up.
Our friends just bough a daVinci and their cranks are beautiful - but I hate to admit I just don't want square taper cranks anymore.
They are indeed... while being extremely light and stiff enough for lighweight and most average teams. As for square tapers, again... thankfully as a lightweight non-pro cyclist I have neither the weight nor power to require anything stronger or stiffer than various different square taper cranks and BBs in our stable.
The only down side to these cranks is that their polished aluminum finish is easily mared by the acids in perspiration. Once they're stained it takes some effort to buff them up. Taking about 30 seconds to wash them off with a squirt from your water bottle and a wipe of your hand after a hot sweaty ride will go a long way towards keeping their luster.
I use Mother's aluminum wheel polish on ours, followed by a coating of a polymer-based auto wax. Even the oldest ones still shine, although the ones on our off-road tandem look pretty rough. However, the worst I've seen belong to some friends where their one-key / self-extractors are even fused in place. I refinished them once -- about 1hr on a buffing wheel: never again.
They are indeed... while being extremely light and stiff enough for lighweight and most average teams. As for square tapers, again... thankfully as a lightweight non-pro cyclist I have neither the weight nor power to require anything stronger or stiffer than various different square taper cranks and BBs in our stable.
I have to admit - i've gotten lazy. I had square tapers on my roadbikes for years - all Campy Record stuff. Using a crank puller was just a PITA. Now with the "pipe" bb and even the Isis with one-key/self-extractors - it's just so much simpler to deal with.
I use Mother's aluminum wheel polish on ours, followed by a coating of a polymer-based auto wax. Even the oldest ones still shine, although the ones on our off-road tandem look pretty rough. However, the worst I've seen belong to some friends where their one-key / self-extractors are even fused in place. I refinished them once -- about 1hr on a buffing wheel: never again.
Mothers Billet works great. Not sure what polymer based wax you use but like KLASSE works great on polished aluminum. They have a polymer cleaner polish (red bottle) and sealant glaze (silver bottle). It's not a "wax" per se.
Now with the "pipe" bb and even the Isis with one-key/self-extractors - it's just so much simpler to deal with.
Where do you think the use of one-key / self-extractors began? Square tapers.... Seriously though, I've been using self extractors since the 90's on our tandems: slick as baby-you-know-what.
Not trying to sell anyone on the tapers, but unless you're a monster-masher team that was tearing up square taper BB's, they continue to be a great choice. In fact, FSA recently brought both square taper cranks and the JIS Ultimax square taper BB's back into its crank line. While I don't think titanium BB spindles are a good choice for the stoker's cranks on a tandem, they do fine up front for the average captain and those suckers are pretty light. No, square tapers are not cutting edge but I'd hate to see anyone discount daVinci, Specialites TA, or Middleburn cranks 'because' of any false perceptions about square taper BBs. This is particularly true for any team that may need very long or very short crank lengths up front or for the stoker, options that aren't available with most of the popular carbon cranks.
Octalink BBs are actually pretty reliable when compared to most of the early ISIS stuff and would be my second choice at this point vs. ISIS. Some of the late-to-the-party ISIS BBs are getting better (Crank Bro's cobalts seem pretty sweet). Moreover, if ISIS had worked-well, Mega-Exo, Giga-Pipe, and the other outboard bearing models would have never been developed. Somehow, I suspect we haven't seen the last "better mousetrap" with these outboard bearing designs as they seem to require more skill and attention to detail to install than many so-called mechanics and home-wrenchers posses. Yeah, the alloy bolts used early on were dumber-than-dirt, but it seems as if the new steel bolts are used with Loctite and the proper torque values, per the installation specs, the better quality outboard bearing BBs aren't as bad as some reviews and chatter on the web may suggest. Will they or the best ISIS and Octalink's outlast a better quality square taper? Hard to know.
Not sure what polymer based wax you use.
The Zaino system: same as used on the cars, motorcycle, and painted bicycle frames.
I seem to recall that mburchard has them on his Calfee: http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=54709&d=1189896501
I'll take a close look tonight and see if there is anything that gives it away. Did see them in the box at the LBS, but it was completely plain cardboard.
On the Octalink BBs, benefit of the triple spindle (over double) for Dura Ace is that bearings are cartridge (easy to find in Italian, harder in English).
joe@vwvortex, Topolinos are certainly not high spoke count, but not sure they are low spoke count either, at 24 for the front and 30 for the back. But as people have correctly pointed out, they do not make a rear wheel that will take a disc.
Where do you think the use of one-key / self-extractors began? Square tapers.... Seriously though, I've been using self extractors since the 90's on our tandems: slick as baby-you-know-what.
Oh - i'm aware of that - although having to work against the press fit of the taper made them more problematic so I stopped using them when I moved to Campy stuff. Not to mention the consistent wear on the inner part of the crank arm taper where it mates to the BB. The splines make removal easier and pretty much eliminate damage to the crank itself.
Octalink BBs are actually pretty reliable when compared to most of the early ISIS stuff and would be my second choice at this point vs. ISIS. Some of the late-to-the-party ISIS BBs are getting better (Crank Bro's cobalts seem pretty sweet). Moreover, if ISIS had worked-well, Mega-Exo, Giga-Pipe, and the other outboard bearing models would have never been developed.
I disagree - since Shimano was first to market with their outboard BB system - so I wouldn't pin it on the ISIS BB's. It's as much marketing as it is "advancement" in technology. However, the problems with ISIS using smaller bearings due to increased BB spindle diameter have been pretty much rectified with quad bearing systems. Haven't had to touch my FSA quads on the tandem in three years. I used to replace my Octalinks yearly on my MTB's. I've got the new outboard stuff on my MTB's and Tandem and while i'm not convinced it's the greatest - they seem to have held up well and make servicing them a breeze.
Somehow, I suspect we haven't seen the last "better mousetrap" with these outboard bearing designs as they seem to require more skill and attention to detail to install than many so-called mechanics and home-wrenchers posses. Yeah, the alloy bolts used early on were dumber-than-dirt, but it seems as if the new steel bolts are used with Loctite and the proper torque values, per the installation specs, the better quality outboard bearing BBs aren't as bad as some reviews and chatter on the web may suggest. Will they or the best ISIS and Octalink's outlast a better quality square taper? Hard to know.
I don't think any of the different designs will last any longer than the others if properly maintained. With the exception of Phil Wood BB's (and possible some others) which use two internal lock rings - you still have to properly face a BB shell with any square taper (such as campy) or any Octalink or Isis or outboard bearing system. It is FAR simpler IMO to install or remove outboard bearings as the wrench grasps the entire bearing on the outside rather than fitting a special tool inside the lockring to install or remove a BB.
The Zaino system: same as used on the cars, motorcycle, and painted bicycle frames. Ok - i'm familiar with Zaino - some people swear by it on the car forums.
joe@vwvortex, Topolinos are certainly not high spoke count, but not sure they are low spoke count either, at 24 for the front and 30 for the back. But as people have correctly pointed out, they do not make a rear wheel that will take a disc.
Anything less than 32 spoke 3x is low spoke count IMO. :) I bit more old fashion in that respect. I wonder why they don't offer a rear disc. Again - I don't know much about them - checked out their site - but that's about it - never seen em in person.
I disagree.
I'll concede the point as I'm out of my depth here. For the most part I'm going on second-hand information from others who have owned bikes -- primarily off-road tandems -- with the non-square taper BBs and experienced less than expected lifespans.
On a tangient to the way this thread is unfolding, has any one seen or heard of any Tandem Cranksets that will use the outboard bearing like my Shimano 7800's. Seems like it should be just about time?
I'll concede the point as I'm out of my depth here. For the most part I'm going on second-hand information from others who have owned bikes -- primarily off-road tandems -- with the non-square taper BBs and experienced less than expected lifespans.
Again, everything I have in the livery is running on square taper BBs. While I was tempted to take a bite of the forbidden fruit on our Calfee build, the bicycle Gods interceded and doused my carbon lust by keeping what I needed just out of reach, e.g., 170/170 SL-K. Again, in retrospect and after the cold shower, the daVinci cranks with Phil Wood SS & Ti BB's is a better 'fit' for our needs and, well, I already had an extra set of 170mm front cranks.
Again - I don't think there is anything wrong with em - hell I was running a Phil BB with swiss threaded cups/inserts on my old Motobecane back in 1981 :) Phil makes great stuff. Still use his grease exclusively. However - that's back then I only had one bike to work on and now with both my and the wife's stable and the tandem - I like stuff that is quick and easy. :D
On a tangient to the way this thread is unfolding, has any one seen or heard of any Tandem Cranksets that will use the outboard bearing like my Shimano 7800's. Seems like it should be just about time?
FSA has SLK Carbon Mega EXO's for tandems. They were actually spec'd for our CoMo when we ordered it in Nov 2004. However, they were delayed and we wound up with the Carbon Pro's instead. The Mega EXO's are a bit heavier overall than the pro's and they use the different type of CF mold/weave, but are pretty nice. I run FSA K-Force Compacts on both my wife and I's roadbikes and they've been trouble free.
http://www.precisiontandems.com/cat_pics/crfsaslkmegaexo.jpg
We are going to the Calfee factory tomorrow to look at the tetra tandem.
Soooo... How was the visit?
Visited for quite a spell with Craig Calfee at the El Tour de Tucson Expo this afternoon.
Yes, Mark, they're working on your new twicer!
Also some news from Craig; he'll be offering his bamboo tandem frameset quite soon.
Although he had several bikes on display he did not bring the bamboo 2-seater he'd had at Interbike, but did bring several bamboo singles. He told me to hop on one and go test ride it.
Never to look askance at an opportunity, did just that. Amazingly, bamboo feels every bit as good and smooth as carbon fiber. Rode some rough asphalt and then switched to smooth cement road . . . almost like floating! Depending on componentry could be as light as c/f framed machine.
Craig also mentioned a couple other things in the mill for the future, but not at liberty to discuss that.
Talked with one saddle designer there that had ridden his Calfee 'boo single on Paris/Brest/Paris and said it was the smoothest/easiest he ever rode that event. While never having ridden PBP we know it's a long haul and not all French roads are super smooth.
Brian from daVinci was also at the Expo and had a good chat with him. Says pretty good demand for the daVinci/Calfee built lat-less c/f frame.
Now, let's hear about the Calfee factory tour . . .
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem
Yes, Mark, they're working on your new twicer!
Well, yes, I imagine they are...
The tour was very enjoyable. It is a not a large facility, but adequate for the volume and attention to detail. Steve Chang showed us around. Steve showed us the factory in order of build sequence. The engineering area, where the machining and measuring is done. There is the layup area where singles and tandems are pre-assembled and epoxied. Then they move to the area where they wrap the lugs. Then to a finishing area where the frames are carefully smoothed and prepped for painting or clearcoat. The paint area is very large.
We saw a carbon triplet with couplers - frame only - naked carbon - looked beautiful. I saw tandem #223 that was in the pre-finishing stages. I did not see #220, but I did not go into every area. Since we got to the factory at 3pm in the afternoon we did not hang out too long. We still had to go get sized. Craig had taken his fit bike so we went to one of the local bike shops with their fit cycle. Got done around 5:30 pm, then had dinner with my brother and his wife. They live in the Santa Cruz area.
All in all a very enjoyable afternoon. Looking forward to speaking with Craig about the specifics of our build.
FSA has SLK Carbon Mega EXO's for tandems. They were actually spec'd for our CoMo when we ordered it in Nov 2004. However, they were delayed and we wound up with the Carbon Pro's instead. The Mega EXO's are a bit heavier overall than the pro's and they use the different type of CF mold/weave, but are pretty nice. I run FSA K-Force Compacts on both my wife and I's roadbikes and they've been trouble free.
http://www.precisiontandems.com/cat_pics/crfsaslkmegaexo.jpg My first thought is they don't make one to fit the wider BB on my Santana?
My first thought is they don't make one to fit the wider BB on my Santana?
I think you'd need to speak with someone at FSA tech support, Santana, or a dealer like Mark Johnson at Precision Tandems (http://wwwprecisiontandems.com) who sells a lot of high-end tandems that use the FSA SL-K cranks and who is also a Santana dealer.
I'd refer you to their installation documentation, but what I found in the compatibility matrices were yet another source of my waning lust for the FSA tandem crank offerings: http://road.fullspeedahead.com/downloadfly.aspx?download=downloads/Install_MegaExoCarbon.pdf
These are truly 'integrated' systems along the lines of how Shimano (and even Campy to a certain extent in an every increasing way) has successfully drive 3rd party component integration with it's groups.
My first thought is they don't make one to fit the wider BB on my Santana?
What's does the crank have to with BB sizing?
What's does the crank have to with BB sizing?
These type of cranks have a spindle attched to the drive side. Santanas have a wider BBshell than most.
What's does the crank have to with BB sizing?
Since a picture's worth a thousand words...
Go to Park Tool's website using this link and you can see how all of these various different types of integrated crank spindle systems work. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.parktool.com/images_inc/repair_help/racefaceXtype_20.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp%3Fid%3D122&h=357&w=450&sz=57&hl=en&start=28&um=1&tbnid=Lo6voopoLCEmZM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshimano%2Bduraace%2Bcrank%2Bspindle%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl %3Den%26sa%3DN
FSA, Truvative, Race Face, and Shimano use similar designs, whereas Campagnolo uses a Hirth joint. There are also some other boutique crank makers using Hirth-type joints.
While most of these manufacturers offer integrated cranks to support the 73mm wide bottom bracket shells used by Santana, Santana's 160mm rear spacing has compelled Santana to use very long 129mm spindles in their more conventional Octalink Ultegra-level BBs. These 129mm bottom brackets are, to the best of my knowledge, only distributed and sold by Santana and their authorized dealers.
So, while some single bike versions of these newer cranks may support the 73mm bottom bracket width (and I don't believe that is the case for the cross-over crank configuration... I think it may only be 68mm/70mm), assuming there was a 73mm width cross-over crank version for tandems the centerline of the cranks would be closer to the centerline of the bike than what Santana specifies as the optimal chainline for it's 160mm rear spaced tandems.
These type of cranks have a spindle attched to the drive side. Santanas have a wider BBshell than most.
I would assume they would fit any 68 or 73mm BB shell. Is Santana's wider than 73mm? You simply don't use the spacers that they include with 73mm shells. I went to Santana's site and couldn't find any info on BB size although I'm sure it' buried on some page somewhere.
Pic of Santana carbon cranks ...
I would assume they would fit any 68 or 73mm BB shell. Is Santana's wider than 73mm? You simply don't use the spacers that they include with 73mm shells. I went to Santana's site and couldn't find any info on BB size although I'm sure it' buried on some page somewhere.
I did a quick measurement on mine and it is about, couldn't get the calipers in very good, 72mm.
Last October when I picked the bike up from the factory I quized Bill on this. He led me to believe that the newer Shimano Crank such as the new XTR and If you've seen the prototype D/A carbon, would be suitable for his plans in the near future.
That was a year ago so I guess I need to make up an excuse to drive an hour to pick something up and pick his brain somemore.:)
We use a seat post rack because our rear disc got in the way of our "real" rack and I had the seat post rack laying around anyway. It should be fine up to 15 lbs. Ours is very solid.
Frank
I did a quick measurement on mine and it is about, couldn't get the calipers in very good, 72mm.
Last October when I picked the bike up from the factory I quized Bill on this. He led me to believe that the newer Shimano Crank such as the new XTR and If you've seen the prototype D/A carbon, would be suitable for his plans in the near future.
That was a year ago so I guess I need to make up an excuse to drive an hour to pick something up and pick his brain somemore.:)
There is absolutely no reason the FSA Mego EXO cranks wouldn't work IMO as i'll bet the bb is the standard 73mm.
Pic of Santana carbon cranks ...
And the answer is: Martec produces them directly for Santana.
(Updated 3:20pm EDT, 11/18)
My first thought is they don't make one to fit the wider BB on my Santana?
There is absolutely no reason the FSA Mego EXO cranks wouldn't work IMO as i'll bet the bb is the standard 73mm.
It turns out that this should be true of the tandem cross-over models... as well as MTB and Gravity models.
It is apparently not true for the road versions of FSA's Mega Exo cranks, double, triple or otherwise. There is information to this effect at the bottom of page 14 of FSA's on-line Mega Exo FAQs, noting that none of the on-line documentation or the FAQ's really addresses the tandem cross-over cranksets. Go figure.
Are MegaExo Cranks compatible with 73mm shell width frames?
Only FSA MTB and Gravity MegaExo cranks are compatible with 73mm shell frames. All road MegaExo cranks come with a bottom bracket compatible with 68mm shell width frames only. 70mm Italian threaded frames require a different bottom bracket, which is available aftermarket.
Back to compatibility with your Santana, per the good folks at Santana and with regard to the two different tandem models of FSA's Mega Exo cranksets, "FSA's tandem arm-sets (which are obviously tandem specific) come with 2.5mm arm-to-bearing spacers. Remove them to install these cranks on tandem frames with 73mm shells. When customers insist on 172.5 arms, we install FSA cranksets."
In our correspondence, Bill also included some background infomation that shed quite a bit of light on the subject of their relationship with FSA as well as why Santana continues to use the Octalink BB interface which I will paraphrase for the benefit of anyone who is interested.
In short, Santana and Tien Hsin Industries (dba FSA) have a business relationship that spans over 25 years and Santana and FSA have collaborated on all of their tandem cross-over cranksets, from the first Octalink models made for Santana to the current Mega Exo models. The compatibility question is not new and many folks outside of Santana and Tien Hsin's factory in Taiwan may not be aware of the correct answer -- if ony because of the lack of readily accessible tandem product-specific data from FSA.
As for Santana's switch to Martek, this merely reflects Santana's commitment to the use of the Octalink for it's bottom bracket interfaces which it sees as a well-supported standard by Shimano and one for which they hold a rare license that enables them to second source their Octalink bottom brackets. While their business relationship with FSA remains strong, FSA and other major players in the crank / BB industry who originally signed-on for the ISIS standard tried to bolster the standard by moving away from Octalink and have also diverged to create their own brand-specific and competing standards for external bearings. Within the bicycle industry, there is growing sentiment that something's got to give and a common standard will need to re-emerge. ISIS has been or is being dropped by SRAM and FSA and the other competing proprietary outboard BB standards may fall out of favor once a new standard is established. In the interim, JIS/ISO tapers and Octalink will continue to be supported, if only because they remain more common than any of the other 'standards', and because Shimano continues to invest in new production capacity for the Octalink BBs to respond to growing interest from crank manufacturers like Martek, Sugino and SR-Suntour.
So, from a strategic visioning pespective, Santana's decision to diverge from FSA's proprietary outboard bearing design and souce cranks from Martek that use the Octalink interface is one that recognizes their need to support old, current, and future consumers and the best way to do that is to stick with the strongest horses in the stable: and for Santana looking forward that horse is Octalink.
With regard to chainline, Santana is more concerned with drive train efficiency and puts more emphasis on having a strong set of rear stays vs. any subjective concerns regarding chainline. Therefore, Santana has always used a wider rear bottom bracket to support larger diameter, un-dimpled rear stays which have necessitated wider bottom bracket spindles. When they moved their rear derailleur outboard to support wider rear spacing they followed suit with their crank axles and front derailleur, whereas other tandem builders who have adopted 145mm rear spacing only moved their rear derailleur outboard and left the chainline alone. Therefore, at the end of the day chainline as well as Q-factor are non-issues. I must also infer that the chainline yielded by the Mego Exo's when installed on a Santana will work since Santana will install them for customers who want carbon cranksets but who also want something shorter than 175mm front cranks that Martek produces for Santana.
Bottom Line: Santana believes its customers are best served by using the equipment they specify for use on their tandem, noting that a lot of forethought has gone into the selection of bottom bracket designs and the selection of bottom brackets and cranks. While Santana strives to provide their customers with the features and component choices they want, they are reluctant to follow marketing trends that don't truly improve their products.
Please note: This is my take on the comments that Bill graciously shared with me last evening in our Email exchanges. I have attempted to convey his sentiment without interjecting my own biases and views into this summary. A friend and dealer has not been able to reconcile what they're seeing in the Mega Exo tandem cranks as received with what Santana has advised. More to follow.
Thanks Tandemgeek, very informative. Was anything said about external bearings yet?
(Updated 3:20pm EDT, 11/18)
It turns out that this should be true of the tandem cross-over models... as well as MTB and Gravity models.
It is apparently not true for the road versions of FSA's Mega Exo cranks, double, triple or otherwise. There is information to this effect at the bottom of page 14 of FSA's on-line Mega Exo FAQs, noting that none of the on-line documentation or the FAQ's really addresses the tandem cross-over cranksets. Go figure.
[/SIZE][/color]
Hmm - that's interesting. Now that i think about it though - all three BB's that i've installed FSA cranks on were 68mm.
Hmm - that's interesting. Now that i think about it though - all three BB's that i've installed FSA cranks on were 68mm.
Like I said, my contact on the dealer end of my inquiries has not been able to reconcile what was suggested as he's not seeing any spacers on the SL-K Mega Exo (ME) tandem cross-over cranks he has in inventory and the ME BB's also don't appear to support 73mm bb shells. He may be contacting Steve to see if he's missing something, e.g., a different part number, etc...
I'm also waiting to hear back from FSA tech support.
Was anything said about external bearings yet?
Such as....???
Such as....???Santana having any plans for this? Seems that everything Santana is SPECIAL.:)
Santana having any plans for this?
Based on the feedback I received, it's very clear to me that Santana has no plans to adopt the outboard bearings for their OEM crank offerings. They believe the Octalink is the safe bet for the long-term vs any of the newer integrated BB/crank designs. Put another way, here's a sentiment that Bill has consistently held for many, many years....
I am not a fan of "tail fin" engineering. Santana was among the first to adopt many now-standard technologies...., but are happy to ignore styles that are mis- characterized as improvements....
As previously noted, if a Santana buyer is adamant that they want something like the MegaExo (ME) cranks on their tandem for any one of a number of reasons (e.g., they want 172.5 vs. 175 carbon captain's cranks noting that Santana's Martec cranks only come with 175mm captain cranks), Santana will purportedly install FSA MegaExo cranks. Again, my dealer contact hasn't been able to figure out how this works with the FSA SL-K and Gossamer ME cranks that he has in stock and I still haven't heard back from FSA's tech support folks.
Like I said, my contact on the dealer end of my inquiries has not been able to reconcile what was suggested as he's not seeing any spacers on the SL-K Mega Exo (ME) tandem cross-over cranks he has in inventory and the ME BB's also don't appear to support 73mm bb shells. He may be contacting Steve to see if he's missing something, e.g., a different part number, etc... I'm also waiting to hear back from FSA tech support.
Follow-Up: I have just heard back from FSA Tech Support and they have advised that they WILL have a 73mm shell compatibility version of the Mega Exo tandem cranks in the very near future; HOWEVER, the current Mega Exo tandem cranks are NOT compatible with 73mm shells.
Follow-Up: I have just heard back from FSA Tech Support and they have advised that they WILL have a 73mm shell compatibility version of the Mega Exo tandem cranks in the very near future; HOWEVER, the current Mega Exo tandem cranks are NOT compatible with 73mm shells.Very cool to know. I will definately get a set when they are out.
Do they offer 175/172.5 f/r combo? Thanks for the update.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.