In the process of specing out our new tandem, we took our current Burley Duet into be measured. Out of curiousity the shop weighed it.

With a computer, seatbag, bottle cages, it weighs exactly 50lbs. Take all the extraneous stuf off, and it would still be over 48lbs.

It's the old frame style (circa 1992), it has 40/48 spoke wheels ( albeit with 25c Gatorskin tires). A drum brake, and relatively heavy saddles

I was still shocked that it weighs that much. And explains a large part of why it feels like a truck compared to our single bikes.

So what does your tandem weigh?

05 CDale road tandem L/S 34 lbs.
Wouldn't be easier if this was a poll?

1998 Co-Motion Co-Pilot. Steel frame w/o drum, waterbottles, tools or pump - about 42 lbs.

Wouldn't be easier if this was a poll?

Only if there's a "don't know and don't care" option.

Only if there's a "don't know and don't care" option.

Good one... :D

Burly Rumba, Brooks sprung saddles, trunk bag, handlebar bag and more.
My vote is with Retro Grouch!!

Only if there's a "don't know and don't care" option.

Might be good for you but not very helpful to merlinextraligh.
I usually don't care too much either but I do know what it weighs because I went through upgraditis this past winter. I now have a tandem that is more enjoyable to ride than the OEM version I bought. It also happens to be lighter too.

'06 Santana Team Scandium with Sovereign component package right at 33lbs. with cages and computer.

Might be good for you but not very helpful to merlinextralight.

Interesting and responsive to the question asked? Yes. However, I'm not sure how helpful it is for anyone, to be completely honest.

With few exceptions, the fastest and strongest teams whom we know don't ride the latest, greatest, or most lightweight equipment. In fact, perhaps the strongest teams ride older Santanas... one that was picked up on Ebay. Yes, one of the stronger couples rides a Calfee (older, traditional design), but they're just as fast on their Co-Motion Speedster Co-Pilot. Another A-team team rides a Taliani and they kick butt even when they're pulling their daughter in a trailer, and well, you get the picture. There are Burley Rivazzas and coupled Meridians in the A-Team fleet along with other older Santanas and of couse the ubiquitous Co-Motion Speedsters, Co-Pilots and a Robusta or two.

Building-up and riding lightweight tandems and bikes has it's merits: it's intersting to see what can be achieved and they do feel more lively. However, when it comes to the King of the Hill, county line sprints, time trials, and being the rabbits, it's the motors that make the real difference. So long as the wheels stay on, fast teams are just fast on whatever they ride.

Co-Motion Macchiato with Record 10.....weight is 27.5 with pedals and cages. I just came off an old Santana that weighed 48 pounds.
The new bike flies up the hills!!!
And you are right about fast teams just beeing fast. One of my stokers is a 145 pound powerhouse....we were just as fast on the Santana on flat ground and the TT course but the lighter bike gets up to speed much faster and handles much better as well.

However, I'm not sure how helpful it is for anyone, to be completely honest.



I'd agree with that. More of a curiousity than anything.

However, I am pretty sure we're going to climb a bit faster on a 20lb lighter bike.

Actually ran some numbers on Kreuzotter. And it's surprising the relatively small difference it makes even climbing.

Assuming a team weight of 350lbs, team power of 500 watts, 8% grade, and a 5 mile climb;

50lb bike climbs at 7mph in 42:51; 30 lb bike climbs at 7.3mph in 41:05, or a 1:46 faster.

Significant in a race , but not an order of magnitude difference.

guess we'll still need to work on the motors.

Officially 26 1/2 lbs for our Zona c/f tandem. With our 'stuff' on it very low 30s (depending on how much stuff!).
Are we any faster? Naaaaah. . . just older and happy!

Might be good for you but not very helpful to merlinextraligh.

You're the one who suggested a poll. Absent that I wouldn't have posted anything. Uh - if you'll notice, I've got company too.

We have a Calfee also. Dura Ace, FSA cranks, Shimano MTB pedals and Rold wheels about 32 lbs.
I think the Santana we owned prior was around 33-34.

Rob

In about 6 weeks my wife and I should be riding a sub 30lb new tandem and yes, weight was a hugeconsideration in the build.
My priorities in order were:
1. Fit
2. Performance
3. Weight

And truthfully saving some weight was what got me started on building a new bike. This will be our 3rd tandem. We started with a 45lb Santana 4 years ago, built a 35lb Tsunami a year ago and will take possession of a new custom Taylor in a few weeks with a target weight of sub-30lbs. We noticed a massive difference between the Santana and Tsunami. That 10lbs really made a huge difference in our Columbia Gorge climbs and it really was a "mental" boost for both of us just knowing we were 10lbs lighter.

In our club both the single and tandem riders talk weight at about every ride. It's part of the cycling culture, always has been. I rode my first century in 1972 and remember folks commenting on the weight of my "department store" C.Itoh, actually not so much "commenting" as laughing.

Anyway, I like light weight bikes, be they singles or tandems. Even if it's just a "mental" boost I get from a lightweight bike that's good enough for me and my wife. Plus, you can never have to many bikes, even tandems!

Gram counters unite!!!!!!!

Build it light Merlin, you'll never regret it as long as it's strong enough for your team, fits right and does what you want it to do you'll be a happier lighter than heavier.

KRhea

KRhea: A C. Itoh? Yup owned one of those once upon a time too!
Agree, you'll not regret having a lighter tandem!
We started off in 1975 with a then 'lightweight' real 10-speed Follis tandem. Now 30-some years later our Zona tandem weighs less than that C. Itoh!

My priorities in order were:
1. Fit
2. Performance
3. Weight


Cost is conspicuously absent... a good thing if you're going for #2 and #3 because, with few exceptions, combining those two things gets expensive unless you can get pro-type pricing or don't mind scouring the Internet for deals.

My apologies for going off tangent here... not unusual for me, but:

1. Having a long-time affliction as an equipment freak and bicycle accumulator -- still sitting with more bikes than I can ride or justify at the moment even though it's more than 1/2 of what I've previously had on hand -- I've come to realize that, given I lack the resources of Robin Williams who purportedly has over 100 bikes in his personal livery, it's an incredibly expensive habit that has no real benefit beyond self-satisfaction. At times I feel like Jerry Seinfeld's TV persona and his inability to find the right woman: never able to commit and stick with one because I know there's something better or more interesting out there. I guess my point is, like most addictions it's best to realize that it's not rationale behavior and, accepting that, it's not a good idea to every tally up the costs unless you have really, really deep pockets and your kids college is covered along with your retirement account.

2. Like bicycle accumulation, gram counting can also become a bit of an addiction. I didn't realize how bad it can get until I commissioned our most recent tandem: the C bike. In fact, while I always had a pretty good idea of what things weighed, I never actually took weight into consideration when making too many decisions because, in the back of my mind, I knew that shaving grams does not deliver a lot of bang for the buck, except for the aforementioned euphoria and placebo effect that can be derived from hopping on a lightweight steed... that is, unless you're a professional rider making a comfortable living wage, if not six, seven or even eight figures, where every second and gram counts. Remembering that I bought the C bike for it's ride qualities, more-so than the weight, once I had that thing built and looked at it hanging on the scale... instead of being amazed at how light it WAS, all I could think about was "what could I do to make it lighter?" remembering that lighter isn't always better... it's just lighter. Thankfully, I came to grips with it and have curtailed my thoughts about "what if I changed out the....(fill in the blank)". Mind you, as a rule I always try to find a way to avoid paying MSRP, never mind prevailing retail, for anything. So, rest assured, if you see a titanium widget listed as a component on our 'C' bike my cost was a lot less than what you'd find at Lickton's or anywhere else. It's still pretty insane... after all, my Honda CBR1100 was at one time the fastest production motorcycle in the world and was only $10k when it was new.

Anyway, just a few thoughts to give you my current perspective on things. Hey, if I win the lottery you can bet your boots that I'll have a few more bikes sitting around. But, short of that...

Wow, you guys are worse then the roadies :)

I don't know what our tandem weighs, but it seems light enough; has a nice ride, fairly fast (as fast as we can motor it), and serves us well.

P.S. My road bike is a hair under 17.5 including a PowerTap...

Now retired,we limit ourselves to one nice tandem and Rudy has a nice single bike. Kay gave up on owning a single as she puts thousands of miles on tandems each year.
Easy to justify the cost: it's an investment in our continued good health (that statement from 2 cancer survivors)!
Pedal on!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

[QUOTE=TandemGeek;6216309]
In fact, while I always had a pretty good idea of what things weighed, I never actually took weight into consideration when making too many decisions because, in the back of my mind, I knew that shaving grams does not deliver a lot of bang for the buck, except for the aforementioned euphoria and placebo effect that can be derived from hopping on a lightweight steed...

I find that the practical application for weight saving comes when I have to lift the bike to the top of the car or worse, the trucks load bars at 7'. That's when every gram counts.

I find that the practical application for weight saving comes when I have to lift the bike to the top of the car or worse, the trucks load bars at 7'. That's when every gram counts.

True, but there are more cost effective solutions to make loading easier than the price tag for shaving a few lbs off of a tandem. Just off the top of my head and going from least to most expensive.

1. Take what can be a 1.5# to 2.5# seat pack with tubes, tools, and other stuff off the bike.
2. Don't load it with your trunk bag still attached... as those things tend to add lots of weight.
3. Get someone to help you
4. Load the truck from the back with the rear tire forward, bars back so that you can basically roll the tandem on and off the roof.
5. Get a step ladder for loading the truck ($20)
6. Get a set of dumbbells and do overhead presses and arm raises ($50)
7. Switch to a rear of the vehicle, single-bike receiver hitch bike carrier. ($200)
8. Get an ATOC TandemTopper to eliminate free-lifting the tandem. ($375)
9. Change out the heavy components on your bike for lighter ones. ($1,500)
10. Sell your heavy tandem and buy a new, lighter one. ($3000)
11. Sell your heavy tandem and by a new exotic, super-lightweight one. ($6,000 - $10,000)
12. Buy a vehicle that allows you to put your tandem inside where it's better protected and more secure. ($10k - $40k)**
**A likely change once you drop $6k - $12k on a tandem anyway

Mind you, I offer these up as someone who's nearly 50, is 5'8" of average build who hasn't set foot in a gym in 30 years that routinely hefted our 45# off-road tandem and 35# - 45# road tandems onto the roof of a Suburban and other high profile vehicles for a number of years... almost always by myself. The use of a step ladder and technique -- one foot on the ladder and the other on the rear seat of the open passenger door with the tandem held low with the handlebars immobilized to keep the fork straight -- made hefting the big bike relatively easy. Yes, it was a grunt that took focus, but it was doable. For cars, it can actually be harder if the racks are placed too far inboard... which is where the arm raising / lat exercises can benefit.

Again, lightweight tandems are desirable... and that's why most of us end up buying the darn things.

When reporting the weight of our bike should we include the dog's weight or just the bike itself?

When reporting the weight of our bike should we include the dog's weight or just the bike itself?Only if your dog is your stoker. Where do you get pedals and shoes for a dog anyways.

Funny, I was sure that I shouldn't add MY weight, nor my stoker's weight, but I thought that an option that's added to the bike, like a bottle cage, or rear rack, or small terrier, would be considered a part of the bike. So, the dog doesn't pedal but we call her StokerJack. Thus, no need to search the web for doggie shoes with cleats.

Our Team Niobium seem very light for a tandem. The first that I have owned. But is not as light as my Cervelo R3! But then again, not many solo riders can keep up with us on the flats of down hill sections. The added power without much wind resistance is wonderful. And with the removal of the front wheel, it slides in nicely to the back of our Ford Expedition. (Normally used to haul the horse trailer!) I have no complaints and the little wifey never gets dropped off the back of the riding group!

Ride on.

Actually ran some numbers on Kreuzotter. And it's surprising the relatively small difference it makes even climbing.

Assuming a team weight of 350lbs, team power of 500 watts, 8% grade, and a 5 mile climb;

50lb bike climbs at 7mph in 42:51; 30 lb bike climbs at 7.3mph in 41:05, or a 1:46 faster.

Significant in a race , but not an order of magnitude difference.

guess we'll still need to work on the motors.

But think of the speed you get on the flat when momentum gets up- and the speed downhills---Phew.

55 lbs all up weight- Cannondale MT 2000 in full offroad spec and the rear pannier for the sarnies- And the tools- And the spares.

We're in the market for a light, fast bike and are seriously considering a Macchiato. I have some concerns re frame flex and stoker heel clearance. What's your experience.
We are serious, but strictly recreational (we do not race) riders.

My recommendation is to try to ride one. I don't know the Macchiato, we have a Premia or something like that, but CoMotions are certainly nice to have. I have never heard of any issue with stoker heel clearance, don't know why you might be thinking of that.

Yep. 1994 Burley Duet with cages, frame pump, trunk bag/rack = 50 pounds.

TG made this point in another thread, but the real issue for us is team weight and fitness. When we started riding frequently/seriously about a year ago, the team weight was about 355 (215/140) and 20 miles on the bike almost killed us both. Today we weigh in at about 310 (185/125), routinely ride 40+ miles, and are planning our first century.

We're in the market for a light, fast bike and are seriously considering a Macchiato. I have some concerns re frame flex and stoker heel clearance. What's your experience.
We are serious, but strictly recreational (we do not race) riders.

Have you been speaking with a Co-Motion dealer and/or someone at Co-Motion about the Macchiato who understands the design limits relative to your team's size and expectations for how the bike will perform given your intended use?

There are A LOT of tandems out there that can be configured as "lightweight & fast" for $8k in the Co-Motion line, and elsewhere. The Macchiato is a slick sled tailored for a very small niche of the tandem market.

My recommendation is to try to ride one. have never heard of any issue with stoker heel clearance, don't know why you might be thinking of that.

Macchiato's are custom-built-to-order as appropriate for each team's size and weight. Not sure there are too many out there that have been ordered on speculation... but I could be wrong.

As for heel clearance, the Macchiato uses VERY short chain stays and rear wheel spacing is per customer spec. For example, a 145mm rear-spaced Macchiato with a 203mm rotor would put the rear stays fairly close to the stoker's heels, depending on which cranks they are using. If the stoker has a tendency to ride with their toes out / heels in, it would only exacerbate the proximity issue. Frankly, I'm not sure why I'd spec a disc on a Macchiato given it's design objective, but you get the idea. As with any custom, all of the various factors need to be looked at before they start cutting tubes.

This year we have not been out on our road tandem yet. :(
I was wondering what our bike would weighed in at.

Road ready except water in bottles: 2003 Tsunami aluminum frame from internet store Chuck's Bikes, Shimano STI 27 spd, V-brakes with travel agents, cyclocross brake levers, Hugi hubs & Velocity Fusion wheels, 700 x 28 panaracer tires, Rear aluminum rack, (empty) Panniers, Trunk bag with a small assortment of stuff in it, rear fender, GPS holder, cyclocomputer, thats about it = 46.1 lbs.

We just love it!

Our S&S equipped Tetra travel tandem is now sitting right at 30.45 lbs.

This is with an uber-lightweight wheelset, pedals, saddles, computers and water bottle cages. It's still sporting my portly saddle, the slightly heavier carbon wing bars and stoker pegs vs. cowhorns and/or non-wing bars. The 1,950 gram day-to-day wheelset puts it at 31.65 lbs. The under saddle seat pack and pump add about 1.5lbs.

Not too many other things that can be gram shaved without getting into the really obsessive compulsive $tuff at this point.

TG: "I never actually took weight into consideration when making too many decisions because, in the back of my mind, I knew that shaving grams does not deliver a lot of bang for the buck, except for the aforementioned euphoria and placebo effect that can be derived from hopping on a lightweight steed... "

TG - how refreshing to hear someone confess that their obsession is "just because I want to" rather than for some rational, measurable effect. The good thing about bicycles is that compared to most other wheeled sports (especially those with motors), one can get the best of the best without completely breaking the bank. The other positive result of this obsession is that in the end, it should benefit both your health and your relationship.

Since you're willing to own up to your obsession, I'll confess that I'm too cheap to upgrade to a bike worth 2 - 3 times what ours is because I know that once the novelty wears off, we won't be significantly faster.

Speaking of placebos, I wonder if there is a parallel between bikes and drugs. A recent study found that expensive placebos work better than cheap ones.

It just occurred to me that a more expensive (likely lighter) will make a team faster in two other ways:

1) You have a new shiny toy that you want to play with so you play with it more often and as a result, are stronger.

2) The Pygmalion effect: You think you are faster so you are.

4. Carbon water bottle cages are desireable because most of them look so awful and scream "look at my carbon water bottle cages" never mind the cost.
.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.:D
I think the Arundel's I have on all my bikes are very pleasing to look at and hold the bottles much better than any of the metal cages I used for years while still being easy to get the bottle out.
Dave O's on the singles and Sideloaders on the tandem.
Haven't tried PLUCKING them yet.;)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Absolutely... I just wanted a minimalist look that doesn't draw the eye away from the frame. The Profile Karbon Lite (19 grams on my postal scale without mounting hardware) was an unexpected find and at least on our first ride with them and using large 25 oz bottles, they actually worked quite well. In fact, Debbie was thrilled with her "cup holder" (yeah, we both laughed at that comment for a while) and found that it was actually much easier to use than the stainless cages we'd been using.

http://www.nashbar.com/nashbar_photos/500/PS-CLK-NCL-ANGLE.jpg

I can't be sure, but it sounds like the cage resonates at the natural frequency of the frame. That would feel almost like amplification. Since the road probably doesn't do the same (a carefully constructed road could -- like washboards), the effect is like dampening. Very interesting story.

I never could stomach buying carbon cages to save maybe 10 grams over alloy ones (I am a weight weenie, but a poor weight weenie). But I want them. Just like I want lighter pedals, wheels, frame, ... What I absolutely won't do is buy a black plastic cage that merely looks like carbon.

Absolutely... I just wanted a minimalist look that doesn't draw the eye away from the frame. The Profile Karbon Lite (19 grams on my postal scale without mounting hardware) was an unexpected find and at least on our first ride with them and using large 25 oz bottles, they actually worked quite well. In fact, Debbie was thrilled with her "cup holder" (yeah, we both laughed at that comment for a while) and found that it was actually much easier to use than the stainless cages we'd been using.

I'll be updating our Calfee Journal in the near future and will get a photo of the cages on the bike (they do, in fact, look much better than I expected... far more appropriate for the frame vs. the alloy cages), but for now this is what they look like to anyone unfamiliar with the design:

http://www.nashbar.com/nashbar_photos/500/PS-CLK-NCL-ANGLE.jpgThat does have good lines to it. Most important is do they retain the bottle?
I originally put Dave-O's on our Santana and because of the diagonal tube the bosses are mounted on it was tight and awkward getting bottle in and out.
Arundel had sideloaders at the time but they were mad for righthanded seat-tube mounts.
The position I needed was opposite. I contacted them and they advised me they were already
working on the "Other Side-loader" and would contact me when they were out and they did.
Good dealings with them though they are a little pricey.

Our Co-motion Primera weighs in at ~37lb with pedals, but what concerns me more than that is that I weigh 217lb (my stoker weighs 128lb). If I could lose 10-20lb from myself it would be much cheaper and more effective than shaving grams off the tandem.

TandemGeek, I see you have quietly put a pair of Topolinos on your tandem, after concluding that standard high-spoke-count wheels were the way to go? How do you find them compared to the various other things you have tried?

TandemGeek, I see you have quietly put a pair of Topolinos on your tandem, after concluding that standard high-spoke-count wheels were the way to go? How do you find them compared to the various other things you have tried?

Hmmm. I think I foreshadowed my interest in exploring some of the other uber-wheels and, well, they do in fact have more spokes than the paired low-spoke count wheels on the market: I think the folks at Topolino refer to them as a "more reasonable number of spokes". Seriously, did anyone NOT see these coming after my write up on the Tandems East Expo and our time with Rafe Schlanger?

Anyway, it's still very early in the evaluation process, as they only arrived Monday and we've only ridden them once for about 30 miles on our normal loop + some testing with the front wheel on my single bike.

That said, the first impressions are actually quite promising: while they still aren't as robust as the 1,950 gram 36h conventional wheelset (I think we could ride those down a flight of stairs and suffer no ill effects) they are significantly more stable than the 1,830 gram 20/24 paired spoke count wheels we experimented with first. In fact, the first ride was more or less one of those "pinch me" things where I had to remind myself these wheels at 1,540 grams were 410 grams (nearly a pound) lighter than the conventional wheels without any significant degradation in stability or cornering performance.

I say significant only because I'm still trying to reconcile the different "feel" that the Topolino's deliver, both because of the significantly lighter weight... particularly in the front wheel (1280 grams vs. 1000 grams with tires/tubes/skewers)... and to a lesser extent the vibration dampening afforded by the carbon spokes.

Where I think Topolino gets it right for tandems is using 30 spokes on the rear wheels and spacing the spokes out using a more conventional spoking pattern. You'll recall I did one test with the paired-spoke / low spoke count wheels where I changed out the front wheel for a conventional wheel and (falsely) concluded the low spoke count wheels weren't the source of my early handling issues with our tandem. In other words, the front wheel wasn't the source of the instability, it was the rear wheel that was giving me trouble. Now, if you consider we could easily run a 32h conventional wheelset on our tandem at our combined team weight of 285lbs, and perhaps even 28's with deep section rims and the right spokes, making the stretch to 30h isn't a big jump SO LONG as you maintain a more uniform spoke pattern around the perimeter of the wheel. However, I do believe the paired-spoke/low spoke count wheels are more aero as nothing has replicated the effortless feeling the tandem had when cranking along on straight sections of road: they definitely get the nod for time trial applications, even with the less than stellar technical handling characteristics.

So, at least for now, I'm very encouraged by these wheels and look forward to putting a few hundred miles on and them jumping back to the conventional wheels to see how they compare. We're also still waiting for a set of White Industry / Deep-V wheels that will also use 36h spoking but with 2.0 / 1.8 DB spokes to throw into the mix.

In closing, so long as you leave cost out of the equation, the Topolino's seem like they've really come up with something special. However, are they 2.5x better than a conventional wheelset? Are they really something that you'd take on tour?

More to follow....

P.S. With the Topolino wheels, Speedplay pedals, Profile cages on the bike: 30.2 lbs for a travel tandem.

...much cheaper and more effective than shaving grams off the tandem.

But no where near as entertaining.

TG - that is one gorgeous bike.

Our only tandem is a travel tandem. When we 1st got it our local tandem shop commented that it was difficult to keep a travel tandem nice (unscratched). We have only travelled with it about 4 or 5 times and though it isn't perfect, it looks pretty good from 5 feet away. Are you worried about packing that bike & turning it over to an airline? We have only a soft-side S&S case with internal padding for the tubes. If I am careful, it survives pretty well without having one component scratch another. As I understand it, airline regulations (which seem to change frequently) have a max size of 26" x 26" x 10". Will the front section of your Calfee fit in a case that small?

Also, with regard to the cable spitters: I assume yours are the DaVinci design. Though we haven't had any problems with them, I don't really like how they use a pair of set screws in a thin walled aluminum tube to clamp the cable. It seems like they could fail by either stripping out the aluminum threads if overtightened or slipping off the cable if undertightened. If the rear brake cable fails at a critical time, things could go bad quickly. I was taught that set screws were a solution of last choice but I cannot think of a small, affordable alternative.

Our Cannondale is 38 pounds I think. Or 36. But in that range.

Missus and I were riding our tandem last night. I mentioned to her something about how the bike is basically stock, a complete oddity for me the tinkerer. Mentioned that some tandems are under 30 lbs, carbon this and that. I said that you'd probably have to get $10-15k into the bike to get it down that low - I heard of a $20k+ tandem sold around where I used to live.

At that point, I said, might as well get a car.

"How much does your tandem weigh?"
"2800 pounds."
"What?"
"It has a steel frame, seats four, and the missus doesn't complain when I go 65 mph."

I know, I know, I'm missing the point. But as a Honda Civic type of couple, $2.5k was about as much as we'd put into the bike. Still, though, I think about lacing up narrower rims with lighter spokes, putting one of my Thomson posts on for me (I'm too far back), and putting a LOT of Nokons on the bike.

cdr

Our Santana Team Scandium weighs in at about 32 pounds. We were ready to go for the Santana Beyond but we'd still be waiting for our bike now if we did. Apparently "Beyond" has something to do with how quickly you can get one. We've already completed our first double century and the lighter bike option would have left us doing this on a really heavy tandem with upright bars. The weight wouldn't have been as much of an issue as the upright bars and the fact that the older tandem didn't fit all that well.

I've done some tinkering but I'm afraid it may have only offset the weight gain from the stoker saddle swap. I swear! The new saddle looks like a mini toilet seat! (SMP TRK) Happy stoker vs. lighter bike. That's a no-brainer. I have to admit, I'm actually considering going to a slightly heavier saddle too since I don't stand as much on the tandem.

Are you worried about packing that bike & turning it over to an airline? We have only a soft-side S&S case with internal padding for the tubes. Will the front section of your Calfee fit in a case that small?

Actually, we went with unpainted because it's nearly impervious to dings and scratches which makes it ideal for travel. My only fear with airlines is that they lose it when we're traveling to an event which would be a double-whammy: losing the bike and trashing a vacation. Beyond that, it's just one of those things where you do your best to properly pack the thing and then hope they don't run it over with a tug or lose it. If they do, you sick your insurance company on them and order up a new one. (Thankfully, I don't get overly attached to my things).

As for packing, it's an easy fit into a hard case or soft case: about 24" is the longest single dimension even with the fork left installed and flipped around 180° (front brake caliper removed). In fact, the front of this tandem is just about the same dimensions as the Erickson travel tandem that it replaced.

Also, with regard to the cable spitters.

Yes, they're the daVinci 'Easy-Split' models that use the grub screws. The only problem I've ever had with one was where a grub screw wouldn't come out and the head stripped. I salvaged the thing by drilling the grub screw out, re-chased the threads with a tap, and it was good to go once I found another grub screw. Other than that, the only complaint now is that installing one is a one-time good deal on the tandem. If you have to remove the front 1/2 of a cable with a splitter for any reason, you have to cut off the damaged section otherwise it won't make it through the molded-in cable guides. With most other tandems you could simply remove the cable stop / barrel adjusters to get the cables and handlebars off of the bike.

I said that you'd probably have to get $10-15k into the bike to get it down that low

About $8,500 would do it for a new Calfee if you'd be willing to forego the boutique wheels. $9,500 for one with Topolino's via Mel at Tandemseast.com.

Actually, truth be told, any reasonably light / newer aluminum or lightweight steel tandem frame without couplers can probably be brought down close to 30 lbs if you're willing to spend about $3-4k on lightweight components, where the fork and wheels constitute about $1,200 of that. FSA's Gossamer cranks are nearly 1/2 the cost of their carbon cranks and actually weigh less and if you're careful shopping, you can find all kinds of lightweight stuff that has been used and cast off by folks who've continued to chase even lower grams.

At that point, I said, might as well get a car.

You're not comparing apples to apples. After all, if you need transportation you don't go out and buy a Corvette, never mind a Z06. However, if you're a sports car enthusiast who wants a US-branded sports car for whatever reason, then you step up your game. Even then, unless your pockets are deep or you just have a thing cars, you'd likely get something like a Mustang GT convertable and not the higher-end / exotics. However, if you're a super enthusiast you'll discover there are all kinds of far more exotic and expensive high performance US-made sports cars available... for a price.

The same thing is true of bicycles and tandems. It's not like I started out with anything exotic... a '96 Santana Arriva, thank you very much. Of course, that was three custom road tandems ago and we traded-up to our new tandem by selling off one of our custom Ericksons for $5k. If we didn't have the Erickson to sell-off AND if I didn't commit to keeping my 10-year old daily-driver / Honda motorcycle for at least another few years, you can bet your boots there wouldn't be a new tandem sitting in our stable as our pockets just aren't that deep. Frankly, if we had to "qualify" for the level of tandem we could own based on our performance, etc... we'd likely find ourselves on a custom-sized Speedster with upgraded components and an extra long stoker compartment... but certainly not anything exotic. Of course, you see the same things with cars and motorcycles, where it's not driver skill or aptitude that determine who ends up with the coolest hardware, it's desire coupled with means. Heck, if it was skill, www.wreckedexotics.com would have nothing to post instead of hosting thousands of photos of destoyed exotic sports and luxury cars.

Less I digress, there are other tandem enthusiasts out there who don't think twice about dropping $10k on a tandem and who spend at least that much each year for an annual tandem tour. Again, that's just too rich for our blood so don't expect to see us on a high-end tour unless we win the lottery. But, in the mean time, we have worked our way up to a very nice tandem, noting that tandeming together is what we do every weekend, on our vacations and it goes without saying that I'm pretty much at the high-rung of the tandem enthusiast ladder. So, context matters.

We don't own expensive cars, a boat, timeshare condos, off-road vehicles, or snow mobiles. We don't do cruises, all-inclusives, ski trips to the Alps, or eco-trips to Africa.

We ride our tandem. We enjoy the time together, the obvious health benefits, occasional comraderie with other teams, and the envy of the half-bike husband/wife who wishes that the other would ride with them. We consider every penny we spent on our new Speedster (should be ready to ride early next week... fingers crossed) to be a terrific value and money well invested in our lifestyle.

Cheers!