Tandem Cycling - rookie deferring to your experience

Hi- we are new to the world of tandems and looking for some feedback. We purchased the recommended $500.00 starter tandem. Ours is a 1994 Burley Duet. We knew right away we enjoyed tandem riding and would want to upgrade. We are a 6'2"-5'2" 350lb team. We both ride singles. As noted previously, there have been several high end tandems on ebay, the Calfee just happened to be the perfect size for us. Since it did not sell by auction, we are communicating with the seller to purchase directly from him. Here are the details: Seller owns a bike shop, it was his personal tandem so Calfee will honor the remainder of the warranty on frame, approx 19yrs. We are paying $4250.00 and seller is upgrading the wheelset to Mavic Ksyrium SL's at our request. Our plan is to meet and pick up the bike in person this weekend as the seller has business a couple hours drive from us and he will bring the bike with him. Following are the components.

Frame: Calfee Tetra Tetra all Carbon Fiber Frame. Size is 58 Front,

46 Rear. Large Small by Calfee Sizing.

Fork: Calfee Carbon Fork.

Color: Top to Bottom Fade. Bottom is clear (doesn't show dirt as much)

Top is Prizim color, purple to dark green.

Headset: Chris King 1 1/8" Black.

Cranks: FSA Carbon Tandem Crank Set. Front 175mm, Rear 170mm.

Chain Rings: 55x44x32 FSA Alloy Black Chainrings.

BB: FSA BB.

FRT Der: Shimano Ultegra Triple Front Derailleur.

Rear Der: Shimano Ultegra Long Cage Rear Derailleur.

Cassette: Shimano Dura Ace 12-25 9 Speed Cassette.

Chains: Shimano Dura Ace Chain.

Levers: Shimano Ultegra 9 Speed STI Brake/Shift levers.

Brakes: Cane Creek 200SL Black Calipers.

Seat Post: Rear American Classic Black. Front Thomson Black.

Frt Stem: Deda Newton 1 1/8x120x26mm, 82'.

Frt HandleBar: Modolo Carbon Bars. 42mm Center to Center. 26mm.

Rear Stem: Dimension (I think) Adjustable 200mm to 250mm Silver.

Rear HandleBar: Profile Design Bull Horn 47cm Center to Center, Black.

Frt Seat: Selle San Marco ASPide Trek Racing Saddle.

Rear Seat: Serfas Woman's RX Saddle.

Water Bottle C: Arundle Carbon Water Bottle Cages. Four.

Computer: Shimano Flight Deck Computer.

Wheels: Mavic Aksium Black Wheel Set.

Tires: Bontrager Select 700x23c.

Any input/advice you might have is welcome

Looks like the rear spacing is 130mm which is the standard for singles. I assume this because of the Mavic wheelset which does not come for Tandems. The standard for tandems is 145mm.

We had Mavic Ksyrium Elites on our ex-tandem with 130mm drop outs. Our team weight was under 250lbs and our LBS said not to worry about it. Since your team weight is around 350LBS I would ask around to see if it's safe.


From what I've heard Calfee tandems are top notch. Looks like good deal to me.

Calfee Tetra Tetra

Actually, it's simply a Calfee Tetra Tandem. There were only a handful of the very early Tetra tandems made back in the 90's that had two of the Tetra decals applied to their top tubes, hence they were 'Tetra Tetra' tandems. The name stuck, but aside from those tandems the rest are all just Tetra Tandems. After all, nobody has ever called a Calfee Dragonfly Tandem a 'Dragonfly Dragonfly".



Seller owns a bike shop, it was his personal tandem so Calfee will honor the remainder of the warranty on frame, approx 19yrs.

I'm assuming the bike shop must be treating this as a 'demo bike' instead of previously owned, hence the warranty coverage? If so, I would ask the dealer to give you something in writing from Calfee regarding the warranty so that in the event you do end up with a warranty claim there won't be any confusion.



We are paying $4250.00 and seller is upgrading the wheelset to Mavic Ksyrium SL's at our request.

Folks of average proportions who played around with the 130mm and some custom respaced 135mm Ksyrium's on Calfees way back when they first came out ran into problems with keeping the wheels true and rim durability. Before going down this road I'd recommend making at least two calls:

1. Check with MAVIC regarding weight limitations on the Ksyrium wheels
2. Check with the folks at Calfee on wheel recommendations. They'll have a pretty good idea of what's working well based on customer feedback. If the Ksyium SLs are on that list, then that's a pretty good data point. However, as you were with us, be clear about your weight and also let hem know how you'll be using the wheels, e.g., doing a few time trials per year or 500 miles of light-duty use is very different from logging 5k miles of fast recreational riding per year or doing the Mt. Washington or Mt. Mitchell hill climbs.

Finally, recognize that your front tire size will most likely be limited to 25mm, although there may be a few 28mm tires that could be squeezed in that fork. It also sounds like you may be limited to 28mm on the rear. If the dealer doesn't know, Calfee can run the serial number and check the specs. that it was built to accommodate.

I'd think twice at 350lbs with 130mm spacing. You're likely to be setting yourselves up for wheel problems.

You could have some higher spoke count wheels made on a 130mm hub. But in the long run, I think you'll have a better selction of tandem specific wheels, and fewer wheel problems with 145mm spacing.

I wonder if Calfee could respace the back to 145 and how much they would charge? They can do significant changes to their tandems as evidenced by TandemGeek's change to the front BB area.

I'd think twice at 350lbs with 130mm spacing. You're likely to be setting yourselves up for wheel problems.

You could have some higher spoke count wheels made on a 130mm hub. But in the long run, I think you'll have a better selction of tandem specific wheels, and fewer wheel problems with 145mm spacing.

I agree.

Is it possible to build a robust rear wheel for the 130 spacing? I think the combination of 130 spacing and light wheelset spells trouble.

I'd think twice at 350lbs with 130mm spacing. You're likely to be setting yourselves up for wheel problems.

Agreed. My hope is/was, the folks at Calfee would weigh in on this.


I wonder if Calfee could respace the back to 145 and how much they would charge? They can do significant changes to their tandems as evidenced by TandemGeek's change to the front BB area.

Yes, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy or cheap to do as the rework on my tandem. Remember, all they did for me was to drill-out the existing eccentric bottom bracket area and install the new aluminum sleeve. There was no paint to mess with nor any major rework beyond a very carefully executed drill press operation. However, that said, Calfee's prices for rework aren't all that expensive so it's clearly an option and for the price of $4,250, even if it was as much as $500 it would still be a good deal: just a new frame and fork is $4,775.



Is it possible to build a robust rear wheel for the 130 spacing? I think the combination of 130 spacing and light wheelset spells trouble.

You can, but you need to pick your components carefully. The key is flange spacing and conventional wheel construction with higher spoke counts and sturdy rim that allows you to get the lateral stiffness needed for stability without creating a wheel durability issue. Again, the type of riding will be a big factor and a rear disc would be out of the question.


Frankly, aside from time trial riders who want to use special wheels that can't be modified for 145mm rear spacing, I can't see the value in going with narrow rear spacing in a tandem.

You can, but you need to pick your components carefully. The key is flange spacing and conventional wheel construction with higher spoke counts and sturdy rim that allows you to get the lateral stiffness needed for stability without creating a wheel durability issue. Again, the type of riding will be a big factor and a rear disc would be out of the question.

I've got 126 spacing on my tandem, with 36 spokes, a sun rhynolite 700c rim, an atom drum brake hub, and a 350lb team. I haven't had problems yet with big panniers and dirt roads, so yes, 130mm will work. Will it be totally bombproof, especially with lightweight wheels? probably no

From the tire clearance on that thing, however, I'm guessing you're not taking this thing on fire roads or rough city streets though, so why not go with 130mm? It'll be easier to find replacements when they break.

I'd think twice at 350lbs with 130mm spacing. You're likely to be setting yourselves up for wheel problems.

You could have some higher spoke count wheels made on a 130mm hub. But in the long run, I think you'll have a better selction of tandem specific wheels, and fewer wheel problems with 145mm spacing.

It seems like a lot to me to just doing some basic math on it. You got 350lbs of riders and another 30lbs of bike or so. Weight distribution is slightly forward on most tandems, so say 55:45 ft:rr, so that's around 170 lbs on the rear wheel. Lets compare that to a single where weight distribution is around 40:60 fr:rr. With 170 on the rear, you'd have around 113 on the front, so you're looking at the equivalent of a 270lb rider on a single with similar wheels. I think most people would cringe even thinking about suggesting light weight wheels for a 270lb rider and you certainly couldn't expect them to last very long.

Weight distribution is slightly forward on most tandems, so say 55:45 ft:rr, so that's around 170 lbs on the rear wheel. Lets compare that to a single where weight distribution is around 40:60 fr:rr.

The front wheel on a tandem is definitely carrying a greater percentage of the load on a tandem, but it's not usually skewed such that the front wheel is carrying more static weight than the rear. We hashed this over back in November in this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=7876974&postcount=21

[QUOTE=andr0id;8522196]Weight distribution is slightly forward on most tandems, so say 55:45 ft:rr, so that's around 170 lbs on the rear wheel. Lets compare that to a single where weight distribution is around 40:60 fr:rr.QUOTE]

The front wheel on a tandem is definitely carrying a greater percentage of the load on a tandem, but it's not usually skewed such that the front wheel is carrying more static weight than the rear. We hashed this over back in November in this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=7876974&postcount=21

This statement does not correlate with the referenced thread which calculates just the opposite. I must be missing a TG subtlety.

Under braking and standing climbing, the front wheel is definitely carrying more load. I think that is why TG said:

but it's not usually skewed such that the front wheel is carrying more static weight than the rear.

Under braking and standing climbing, the front wheel is definitely carrying more load. I think that is why TG said:

but it's not usually skewed such that the front wheel is carrying more static weight than the rear.

Here is a link that discusses tires. http://www.precisiontandems.com/arttiresbymark.htm

The article discusses tires, pressure, weight distribution calculation and team weight.

I am 250lb rider on my single and I rode Krysium SL's for a while. The wheels developed rim cracks before the 2 years warranty was up, and Mavic found every excuse under the sun not to fix (replace).

Officially they have a 90 KG weight limit (from what I was told) - and I don't believe that is distributed weight.

We ride the Bontrager tandem race wheels - but they are 145 spacing.

I have moved to a set of Specialized Eschapee Wheelset for my single (the ones designed for heavier riders - but no longer showing on the specialized site). They have no official weight limit, weight about 1700gms for the set and seem to be very robust to date. (not sure what model Specialized have replaced these with, maybe the Pave)

[QUOTE=TandemGeek;8522844]

This statement does not correlate with the referenced thread which calculates just the opposite. I must be missing a TG subtlety.

Compared to a single bike, which was the OPs point of departure in the quoted text to which I was replying (See above).

Here is a link that discusses tires. http://www.precisiontandems.com/arttiresbymark.htm

The article discusses tires, pressure, weight distribution calculation and team weight.

I was guesstimating between the condition two and three in the tire pressure article based on the team weight. I would never dare to guess a lady's weight over the internet, but given 6'2" and 5'2" and 350 lbs, I mentally allocated about 230lbs to the 6'2" person that was assumed to be in the front.

I'm sure it's somewhat inexact, but in any case it still seems like way to much weight for the Mavic wheel in question.

Thanks for sharing all your experience and advice. The one thing I know for sure is there is a lot to learn.
Spoke with the folks at Calfee, they seem like a great company. They said we were at the upper end of the weight range for this frame but we should be fine. They looked up the frame from the shop it was sold to. It is in fact a Tetra Tetra and was built in 2003. They did not discourage us from purchasing it and the warranty will transfer to us. They were also ok with the wheel choice but said we would probably
want to have a more durable one built for everyday riding. I have to admit I was totally confused about this whole spacing and wheel thing. Talked to LBS, they explained about the wider spacing allowing for more angle on the spokes creating a stronger wheel. They too were OK with the SL's but also said we would probably want an everyday set built. At this point I'm not sure we have ridden enough to know the dfference between everyday riding and any other kind. I think much of this is going to be learning by trial and error.
Went for our first ride on the new bike yesterday. Wow! I don't even have the vocabulary to describe how wonderful it is and how different from the Burley. We pedal, it goes, especially noticable on inclines. Ride quality is amazing, I don't think we even need a suspension seatpost. Everything about it is easier, of course it weighs a little more than half of the old bike. It is almost scary lightweight. Only concern at this time is the front end is so much faster handling and responds to the tiniest of movements by either of us, it is hard to relax. We are going to replace the front handlebar with a wider one, currently it is a 42cm. Any other ideas? Once again, thanks for sharing your experience. I look forward to being a part of this community.

About the twitchy steering: I have a Co-Motion, which is one of the quicker-steering tandems, and I have found that stokers make the most difference. I am used to very quick steering on my single, but having someone else providing "input" is disconcerting. So it is important to train that stoker to ride "quiet". Then, I think you just need to ride it a bunch, and you will become comfortable with it. As a last resort, you could get a fork with more trail. But I would ride a lot before I decided on that.

Congratulations!!! Glad to note you are enjoying your new ride.

At this point I'm not sure we have ridden enough to know the dfference between everyday riding and any other kind.

Everyday = everything other than those special events when you might actually get a performance benefit from the lighter weight, somewhat more aerodynamic wheels.

Tandems tend to do in wheels in one of three ways: 1. road hazard damage to the rims, 2. fatigue damage to the spokes, rims and sometimes the hub flanges, and 3. rear rear axles and engagement mechanisms or bearings on wheels that weren't designed to take the weight + torque loads coming from two riders. While some of the higher end racing wheels have solid hub guts, some of the other parts will have a very short service life under the very high loads that a tandem team will generate. Therefore, if the wheels are reserved for special events they'll tend to remain serviceable for several seasons whereas if subjected to everyday use they may begin to suffer from spoke or rim eyelet fatigue damage in just a single season of moderate to high mileage use.

Therefore, for training and/or purely sport recreation rides a more robust set of wheels is a better choice. The same holds true for most racing equipment. However, consumer trends and marketing in the bicycle biz seem to trump practicality and a lot of folks have bought into the idea of using racing equipment as their default for, well, other reasons. Of course, if you train on your racing bike then you really don't have a racing bike since any weight or aero advantage can't be realized on race day or those special group rides when you want to have an edge.


Only concern at this time is the front end is so much faster handling and responds to the tiniest of movements by either of us, it is hard to relax. We are going to replace the front handlebar with a wider one, currently it is a 42cm. Any other ideas?

Time on the bike will solve most of that. Your Burley is like a lot of popular tandems that were designed for the mid-point of the market in that is uses longer fork rake to achieve shorter steering trail for increased low speed stability and resistance to stoker-induced steering inputs. So, you and your stoker's on bike riding habits will need to become a bit more refined and, frankly, they probably wil as your stoker will quickly realize that when she reaches for a bottle without telling you on the Calfee, the bike is going to respond to her upper body movements more so than did the Burley. It should all become intuitive as you put more miles on the bike. A stronger set of daily use wheels may mitigate some of the twitchiness as well and make cornering feel even more crisp than it is.

As a last resort, you could get a fork with more trail.

Actually, a fork with more rake (aka. offset) is what you'd want to use which is what I think you may have meant. More rake = less trail. Less trail = less twitchy**

**Twitchy is a relative term.

So, you and your stoker's on bike riding habits will need to become a bit more refined and, frankly, they probably wil as your stoker will quickly realize that when she reaches for a bottle without telling you on the Calfee, the bike is going to respond to her upper body movements more so than did the Burley.

Actually, I am the Stoker and would never reach for a bottle unannounced. Thanks for the link on wheels and tires at Precision.

This is my first online forum as well, so my posts/replies may show up anywhere untill I get the hang of it.

Actually, a fork with more rake (aka. offset) is what you'd want to use which is what I think you may have meant. More rake = less trail. Less trail = less twitchy**
Actually, I meant what I said, though I knew it would probably elicit some kind of response. I believe that increased trail improves "hands off" stability, though not without limit. I just did a quick Google search to see what was being said about this these days and noticed opinions all over the map. Wikipedia agrees with me, Moulton does not, though gives very bad reasoning as to why. I seem to recall Wilson's Bicycling Science was the foundation for my belief, but my copy is in a box somewhere. I think that is where I saw the adjustable-rake fork built to verify the competing theories.

Anyway, still a last resort for this particular issue!

Actually, I meant what I said.

On a bicycle with a normal ~39" wheelbase and a single rider, it's absolutely true. Unfortunately, on bicycles with 70" or longer wheelbases and multiple riders, i.e., tandems it goes the other way and I don't think you'll find tandems addressed in those articles.

The following values are notional...

That's why you'll find tandems for the masses from Santana, Burley, Trek and some others spec ~55mm rake on their ~73° head tube tandems to yield steering trail in the ~1.9" range compared to 'performance' or 'racing' tandems (which also use ~73° head tubes) all with steering trail in excess of 2" such as:

- Co-Motion's with OEM steel fork @ 50mm w/2.1" of steering trail
- Burley's 'Race" @ 48mm w/2.2" of steering trail
- Co-Motion's Carbon forks @ 45mm (Wound Up) and @ 44mm (Alpha Q) w/2.3" of steering trail
- Calfee's @ 44mm with Alpha Q forks w/2.3" of steering trail

Going the other way are the incredibly plush tandems from Bilenky using steeper head tubes and ~57mm fork rake to achieve their desired spec of 1.65" of steering trail for all but their smallest or largest tandems.

It's all highly subjective, but at least when comparing 700c tandems there appears to be an inverse relationship in how steering trail influences the handling of a tandem vs. a single bike.

It is almost scary lightweight. Only concern at this time is the front end is so much faster handling and responds to the tiniest of movements by either of us, it is hard to relax. We are going to replace the front handlebar with a wider one, currently it is a 42cm. Any other ideas? Once again, thanks for sharing your experience. I look forward to being a part of this community.

We went from a Burley Duet to a Co-Motion Robusta. The quicker steering and 20lb weight difference does make the handling feel very fast, even twitchy. With just a little bit of saddle time we got used to it and love the way our new bike handles.

This post got me reading about rake and trail as I have nothing much to do at work :( If I understand correctly there is a neutral amount of trail for singles wich is around 2.2". As per TG the neutral trail for tandems is around 1.9" due to the longer wheelbase. Changing this will affect handling in the following manner...


Increasing Neutral Trail - Twitchy at low speeds, easier to lean and steer, front end feels solid at high speeds (over 30mph).

Decreasing Neutral Trail - Stable at low speeds, need effort to lean and steer, front end feels vague at high speeds.


The above applies to both Singles and Tandem. Did I get it right?

The above applies to both Singles and Tandem. Did I get it right?

For singles, not exactly but for tandems, it's in the ball park.

Bear in mind, there are a lot of factors that go into why a given bike has a given amount of steering trail. Tandems are like shooting fish in a barrel because most of them use the same 73* head tube angles, with Treks' recently suspended T1000/T2000 and Bilenky being the biggest exception in stock size frames: adding a little slack for small frames to create toe clearance and making them a bit steeper as frames get larger to compensate for the increase in size/mass.

However, tandems tend to handle the way they do for other factors as well, i.e., lateral frame stiffness being one of the big drivers and then other contributors to a lesser extent, to include wheel construction, tires, psi, etc...

Single road bikes follow the more conventional / widely published 'generall rule of thumb' with regard to how adding or removing trail will tune a bike's handling. However, with single bikes you also need to keep your eye on what the bike is designed for, head tube angles, and the like as they all factor into the final solution. Just as something to chew on, here's a .jpg of four different geometry tables for four very different 700c bikes offered by Cannondale. See if you can get a feel for how the steering trail relates to the bike's use, size and head tube angles. If you look at Trek's road bikes you'll see a slightly different approach to steering trail.

Thanks TG, as always appreciate your informative reply and taking the time to impart your learned knowledge. I can understand why trail is decreased as the frame size gets bigger. I still dont get why touring bikes are designed with more trail than racing bikes. Is it to make steering easier for the added weight?

I still dont get why touring bikes are designed with more trail than racing bikes. Is it to make steering easier for the added weight?

There are two ways to answer the question; one looks at steering trail as a dependent variable and the other looks at it as an independent variable.

Let's look at steering trail as a dependent variable where fork rake and head tube angle are the most important design constraints: A touring bike needs extra toe clearance for fenders so the front wheel needs to be moved away from the bottom bracket. However, to do that without making the top tube longer you have two choices: use more fork rake (aka, offset) and/or make the head tube more slack. In either case, you end up with more steering trail. Of course, don't forget to look at the back end of a touring bike where you'll also find longer chain stays... again, for practical reasons: longer rear stays are needed for fender clearance and it's also desirable since it gives a rider more heel room for panniers. Now, it just so happens, the additional steering trail and longer wheelbase also give the touring bike more straight line stability which is a good thing for a touring bike.

Now, with a racing bike you don't need that extra clearance for fenders so you can bring the front and rear wheels back in closer to the bottom bracket and even toe overlap isn't a big deal since most racers won't ever find themselves making tight u-turns in the middle of race. This means you can use a steeper head tube and less fork rake to shorten the frame and wheelbase: shorter frames are generally stiffer and a shorter wheelbase makes for a more responsive bike that corners well. It just so happens -- once again -- that these things combine to provide a bit less steering trail which makes the bike more nimble and stable in a wider range of riding conditions which is ideal for racing bikes.

So, at least when you're looking at single bikes, keep your eye on the fork rake (aka offset) and head tube angles and see how they are adjusted (or not adjusted in the case of forks which tend to be of a single rake, sometimes two) across the size range to keep the frames as short as possible while allowing for toe clearance and otherwise accommodating progressively larger (or smaller) riders.

Very interesting subject. I think I am getting to understand frame geometry changes for different riding styles and within a category for different sizes :)