Tandem Cycling - Single bike average MPH vs. Tandem average MPH

My wife and I are new to tandem riding having purchased our first tandem in April. We’ve logged just a few hundred miles so far. We’ve noticed that our average speeds for most rides on the tandem are faster than we’d typically ride on our single bikes.

Yesterday we did a charity ride that was 52 miles and a relatively flat 2260 vertical total and we averaged 18.3 mph. I was surprised since it was just a charity ride and we weren’t pushing it too much. It actually felt like about 17mph. This is faster than we’d usually ride on this type of ride. I actually thought that the tandem would be faster only on very flat rides but we are averaging higher speeds than our singles on very hilly rides too.

The local bike shop owner said that tandems are usually faster no mater what type of ride. Is that correct? What have you experience tandem riders experienced?

These faster averages have us thinking that we’ll use the tandem on a century ride later this year. Maybe we can beat our best single bike century time of 5 hours flat. This is something I didn’t think I could ever do again since our best time was done about 20 years ago when I was much younger and lighter.

It sounds like based on your use of "we" that you and your stoker are of comparable ability. Assuming you're both good climbers there is no reason your climbing speed can't approach the average of your individual speeds. Cadences might not match up exactly and standing will take some practice, but if you're anywhere near your single speeds going "up" you're going to be much faster on the flats and downhill. The 18.3 mph average is impressive; sounds like you are off to a very good start on your tandem journey.

I think the speed comparison (single versus tandem) is not nearly so clear cut for pairs of disparate ability. I'm a much better climber (not great, just better) than my wife so it doesn't take much of an uptick in the slope to reduce our speed below my 1/2-bike speed. Whether we would, on the tandem, make up the difference on the flats and downhill depends a great deal on terrain. Very steep downhills are not advantageous; I think you gain more time on a gradual downhill at a lesser speed (still much faster than a 1/2-bike). Many on this forum have exceeded 55 mph; we've only hit 50, but we had 3 singles drafting. The curse of the tandem is the feeling of stability at these speeds:D

There are lots of variables but in our case we are faster and I cite the following reasons:
1) Our tandem is a "better" bike than our singles in terms of components (i.e. rolls better).
2) Our tandem is a "road hybrid", where our singles are "trail hybrids" (skinny tires, less rolling resistance).
3) Less weight, our aluminum tandem, while not half the weight of our steel singles, is significantly less than the two singles combined.
4) We are fairly well matched in ability, so one is not always working harder than the other.
5) My stoker can now safely use earbuds to listen to music and she pedals faster!

Besides our personal reasons I think there are basic improvements in efficiency for a tandem; less rolling resistance, 2 verses 4 tires, the built-in draft for the stoker, etc.

3) Less weight, our aluminum tandem, while not half the weight of our steel singles, is significantly less than the two singles combined.
.

You lost me there.

I'm reasonably new to the Tandem world. Both of our single bikes are both pretty high end equipment; 29lbs combined weight. Our tandem weighs in at 28lbs 3oz. We both climb better on our singles, mostly due to different styles of riding. However, we don't have problems sticking with 'groups' or pulling them back in once we're at the top of the hill. We're still in our first 6 weeks of riding the tandem, I'm sure once we really get into sync the tandem will be 20% or so faster than the single bike at long-steady efforts.

I'm reasonably new to the Tandem world. Both of our single bikes are both pretty high end equipment; 29lbs combined weight. Our tandem weighs in at 28lbs 3oz.

Your single bikes weigh 14 1/2 lbs each? And you're a new tandemist with a 28lbs 3oz tandem? Wow, you sure spend the money for high-end equipment.

Onto the post subject:

On average, I'm 1 to 2 mph faster on my single than we are on the tandem. It has mostly to do with climbing speed; we typically grind up steep hills at 5-6 mph. I can climb twice that fast on my single. Unfortunately, the increased speed on the descents don't make up for the slow climbing. On flats the speeds are about the same.

I would think tandems would be faster than single. It's basically having an extra person (well duh) pedalling, and yeah the bikes heavier, but the second person is in effect drafting the first person crazy close.

Your single bikes weigh 14 1/2 lbs each? And you're a new tandemist with a 28lbs 3oz tandem? Wow, you sure spend the money for high-end equipment.

Yes, it seems that way doesn't it? I have just at $3k in my medium 2005 Trek T1000; *maybe* $3800 if you consider the resale value of parts I had laying on the shelf. With a little time, research and patience blowing a lot of money isn't necessary for a light-weight and fast bike. My singles bikes were built on the same principle. There's always someone out there who is fickle and has poor impulse control. One just has to have the ability to recognize and have cash ready when an opportunity presents itself.

I am a much stronger rider than my wife especially on the hills.
However on the tandem we probably ride as fast as I do on my single on flats, faster on downhills and slower up hills.
When you did the charity ride it is possible your speed increased if you were drafting other riders.

On a ride with an average amount of hills I am a little slower on the tandem, due to the stoker being slower on a solo bike than I would be. The tandem is probably around 15% slower up the hills, same on the flat, and a bit faster down compared to me being solo. On group rides/races it is also slower as the bunch you are in is mainly determined by how fast you can climb.
Regardless of the speed though I would still rather ride the tandem. It is great working together and achieving things as a team.

Yes, it seems that way doesn't it? I have just at $3k in my medium 2005 Trek T1000; *maybe* $3800 if you consider the resale value of parts I had laying on the shelf. With a little time, research and patience blowing a lot of money isn't necessary for a light-weight and fast bike. My singles bikes were built on the same principle. There's always someone out there who is fickle and has poor impulse control. One just has to have the ability to recognize and have cash ready when an opportunity presents itself.

You're kidding, right? You have a Trek T1000 that weighs under 30 lbs? And your two single bikes have a combined total weight of 29 lbs?

You're kidding, right? You have a Trek T1000 that weighs under 30 lbs? And your two single bikes have a combined total weight of 29 lbs?

I generally don't joke on message forums. They are diverse enough that every claim gets called out or someone gets their feelings hurt due to language barriers.

Wife's bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658485_EMzh2-O.jpg

My Bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658535_tq3hJ-O.jpg

Note, both are in 'race trim' with pedals and less computers, but even with carbon clinchers they are within 1/2lb of this weight. Even with tools, bags, computers,we're under the 30lb mark for both. Wife's bike could shed quite a bit of weight (probably 1.5-2lbs) without sacrificing reliability. She's 110lbs soaking wet, I could put a sub 1000 gram pair of wheels on there, lighter brakes, components and the bike wouldn't know the difference.

Tandem won't get a photo today, I sold the wheels off of it and the Edge wheels are 'in route'. I could weigh it wheel-less; but that's kinda point-less for this thread drift. I'll ask to see if I can borrow the wheels again for a photo shoot in the next few days.

Give the guy some slack. If he and his wife can average 18.3 mph on a tandem, they can spend all they want. :D

Give the guy some slack. If he and his wife can average 18.3 mph on a tandem, they can spend all they want. :D

The OP is the 18.3. :) However, speed isn't important. Riding and enjoying the time with your stoker is. I know my marriage is stronger due to the tandem.


ON topic:
CT-VT-Trekker I built up a set of wheels using DT Swiss Tandem hubs for our 1000, we saved over 3lbs in weight with the wheel/tire combo and picked up around 2mph. Wheels were 36 spoke 42mm profile aluminum rims. Nothing too expensive or crazy, however a huge return on the investment for speed. With a little saddle time, a proper century ride and some decent pace-line work you could easily accomplish your goal.

In order of speed from fastest to slowest for various conditions:

Flat: Tandem, me, wife
Climbing (including false flats): Me, tandem, wife
Descending (from straight to pretty technical): Tandem, me, wife
Descending extremely technical stuff: Me, tandem, wife
Momentum Rollers: Tandem, me, wife (tandem really cooks here, but requires HARD interval-esque efforts over the crests)
Italian (long) Rollers: Me, tandem, wife (these can really get to you on the tandem during a long series of them).

ON topic:
CT-VT-Trekker I built up a set of wheels using DT Swiss Tandem hubs for our 1000, we saved over 3lbs in weight with the wheel/tire combo and picked up around 2mph. Wheels were 36 spoke 42mm profile aluminum rims. Nothing too expensive or crazy, however a huge return on the investment for speed. With a little saddle time, a proper century ride and some decent pace-line work you could easily accomplish your goal.

Thanks for the info Brad. I noticed how heavy the wheels are on our Trek T1000 too , even my wife commented on this when I handed her our front wheel after putting the bike on our roof rack. She said "this things weighs a ton!" . We also have very light single bikes in the 15 lb range. Our singles have Dura-Ace carbon wheels that weigh only 1380 grams for both wheels and a few other upgrades.
I've been looking into wheel options for a "go fast" set of wheels for our Tandem but I don't want to spend too much $. We already changed out the cassette from the stock 11-34 to a more linear 11-28, that got rid of the huge gaps between gears and helped us keep our speed up.
What rims did you use on your wheels?

I don't think we'll have too much trouble averaging 20mph on the century, it's almost totally flat. I think we averaged 18.5 or so last year on our singles on one centrury ride and just over 19mph on another. My wife and I are both almost exactly even in capability, although she climbs slightly better than me.
New wheels will definately help so that should be our next upgrade.

Wife's bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658485_EMzh2-O.jpg

My Bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658535_tq3hJ-O.jpg


I've only ever seen one bike this light, a 14 lb S3 steel bike at R+E.



Give the guy some slack. If he and his wife can average 18.3 mph on a tandem, they can spend all they want. :D

I was not questioning his speed claim, which I agree is pretty impressive, and it's not my place to criticize anyone else's spending; it was the weight claims that I found hard to believe.

I would be curious to see the build list that gets a Trek 1000 to 28.3lbs. Our Robusta with Rolf wheels, Dura Ace group, belt drive, Speedplay titanium pedals, 150 gram seats, CF seatposts, and stems, is right at 29lbs

I've only ever seen one bike this light, a 14 lb S3 steel bike at R+E.

I was not questioning his speed claim, which I agree is pretty impressive, and it's not my place to criticize anyone else's spending; it was the weight claims that I found hard to believe.

I never made a speed claim. I just claimed in percent. :) Which in 'flat land' Dallas TX, we are 20% faster on the Tandem. What kills us on the tandem are surges and things that require 'quick & fluid' reactions that generally happen in the more spirited group rides.

ct-vt Trekker: One other tidbit that really helped comfort was to get rid of the aluminum posts in the bike and replace them with a setback carbon post. Ritchey makes a decent one that doesn't break the bank. That and carbon bars really softened up the ride quite a bit; as you know comfort is critical for endurance riding. My wife didn't like the shock seat post, as she'd settle in her leg extension would move around a bit and cause other issues. I don't know about your stoker, but mine pedals backwards when she's unhappy back there.

I would be curious to see the build list that gets a Trek 1000 to 28.3lbs. Our Robusta with Rolf wheels, Dura Ace group, belt drive, Speedplay titanium pedals, 150 gram seats, CF seatposts, and stems, is right at 29lbs

Great question.

I generally don't joke on message forums. They are diverse enough that every claim gets called out or someone gets their feelings hurt due to language barriers.

Wife's bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658485_EMzh2-O.jpg

My Bike:
http://bedellracing.smugmug.com/photos/894658535_tq3hJ-O.jpg

Note, both are in 'race trim' with pedals and less computers, but even with carbon clinchers they are within 1/2lb of this weight. Even with tools, bags, computers,we're under the 30lb mark for both. Wife's bike could shed quite a bit of weight (probably 1.5-2lbs) without sacrificing reliability. She's 110lbs soaking wet, I could put a sub 1000 gram pair of wheels on there, lighter brakes, components and the bike wouldn't know the difference.

Tandem won't get a photo today, I sold the wheels off of it and the Edge wheels are 'in route'. I could weigh it wheel-less; but that's kinda point-less for this thread drift. I'll ask to see if I can borrow the wheels again for a photo shoot in the next few days.

Brad- I checked out your website. It looks like we have more in common than just our Trek T1000 tandems! My wife has a '91 black Toyota MR2 that we both used to autocross. I've been looking into a V6 conversion for it. I also drive modified '99 10th Anniversary Miata. We also have a couple of modified Subarus, WRX and a LegacyGT wagon 5MT. I gave up instructing and driving autocross to ride bikes more!

In addition to the carbon seatposts you changed out I'd be interested in your other upgrades on the Trek?

Was saving this for another post, but for now:

36lb Medium/small frame to start with, no pedals.
Edge 2.0 fork (saved 2 lbs here)
King HS
Custom built wheels using these rims http://hplusson.com/index.php?/sl42/ with dt swiss 36 spoke 540 hubs, DT comp spokes, brass nipples. I built these up myself, 3x pattern.
25mm pro 3 tires
SR 11-25 cassette, Record chain
Gates Belt drive system
Selle SLR carbon saddle,(125g model) Specialized Jett 130 saddle for stoker
Ritchey carbon posts
Ritchey stem (115g)
Rear SLK carbon triple cranks
Avid shorty CX brakes rear
Super Record front brake caliper
Super Record shifters, hybrid SR/Record medium cage rear derailleur. 06 Record Front derailleur
Aluminum seatpost clamp bolts (had them laying around from an old motorcycle project)
Ritchey WCS carbon front bars, Cobra wing trimmed down a bit to fit with proper stoker extension
Speedplay Zero TI pedals front, 4ti Crankbro candy pedals rear.

More weight could be saved with lighter cables, lighter posts, (ritchey carbons are cheap and reliable). Rear stoker stem could be custom, it's heavy at 390 grams, 150 grams wouldn't be hard to save here. Wheels could shed some weight, ~1/2lb pretty easily, with the Edge 66's I'm building, I'm expecting over 1-1.25lb savings from what I have. Front cranks could save some weight also; couldn't find the correct length for a decent price so I held off until I did.

Fork crown height is a bit low in my opinion. It handles great, especially at speed in the corners but can be a bit 'precise'. We have also noticed spinning the rear wheel from standing starts from time to time; which could be her light weight at 110lbs or the extra weight on the front end from the lower crown.

Seems like a heck of a lot of money to invest in an entry level frame. The retail price of the Super Record cassette alone is almost 1/3rd the MSRP of the whole bike new.

But its your money.

Brad- I checked out your website. It looks like we have more in common than just our Trek T1000 tandems! My wife has a '91 black Toyota MR2 that we both used to autocross. I've been looking into a V6 conversion for it. I also drive modified '99 10th Anniversary Miata. We also have a couple of modified Subarus, WRX and a LegacyGT wagon 5MT. I gave up instructing and driving autocross to ride bikes more!

That's where I am; I don't think I've updated the site in about 2 years. I sold the MR2 last year and picked up a 996 turbo while the economy was in my favor for buying fancy cars; ironically the only thing I do with it is commute and haul bikes... I still have the Lexus wagon, it's in pieces. I hope to finish it up in the next month or so; but it's summer and riding is getting in my way.

If you decide to do a v6 conversion, mr2oc.com and mr2board.com are your 'best' resources now. I'm kinda 'done' with the conversions. But feel free to drop me a note if you have specific questions; I can at least point you in the correct direction. I have 10 sets of headers here that I should really get around to verifying fit so I can sell. It took me 2 years to get my first production 'run' of them from the fab shop, so now they just sit as I don't have a test car anymore :)

Seems like a heck of a lot of money to invest in an entry level frame. The retail price of the Super Record cassette alone is almost 1/3rd the MSRP of the whole bike new.

But its your money.


As you're quite aware, the engine make the biggest difference on a bike. Everything else is just a tool to enable them to do that job better. Even with my 'fancy bicycle', I've been routinely whipped in a sprint finish in the 3-4 races by a guy on an $800.00 Schwinn...


I had the SR group on the shelf from a prior bike; I sold the frameset & wheels for what I had in the entire bike; so they were 'free' :). A custom Tandem frame is in the works; the fancy components will go there.

The entry level Trek was a Craig's list special to see if we were a tandem compatible couple. After two weeks, we knew we were hooked and then started 'upgrading', mostly as a science project to see how light we could get the Trek. I don't really have a ton of 'new' money invested in the bike at the moment. After the new frame arrives, we'll return the Trek to stock and find someone else who wants the entry bike. I bought it knowing I can get my money back out of it within a couple of weeks. So, yes it's my money and I generally don't hide it in places that I can't find it again with a little time.


The T1000 really is a pretty decent frame-set, it's the same as the T2000 but with different components. It's stiff, not Macchiato or Robusta stiff but it's stiff for the price point. As most people have shown in the 'lets save a bunch of weight threads', any 'modern' frameset is in the 6-8lb range. This 2005 Trek is no exception(last year of the US built I think).

My 'only' complaint, and only reason we're upgrading it and not just doing a custom paint on the frame is the requirement of a 390-400mm crown height fork. If I could lower the fork (raise the frame) about 7-10mm, I think it'd be near perfect. With the Edge fork on the Trek, I feel like it's more precise than the Macchiato I test rode. The Macchiato felt like it under-steered a bit. However, we were more comfortable pushing the Macchiato harder(25+mph) in the corners because it was a bit less precise (or twitchy). With another 6-8 weeks of us practicing our tandem technique, I have no doubt that we would smooth out and could give any tandem a run for it's money in a technical course with the Trek.

Similar-sized, stripped aluminum tandem frames aren't all that different in weight and are just a couple lbs lighter than steel. As always, it's the components and other 'stuff' that we hang on our tandems that make up the real difference in final weights.

For kicks, I set up my scales at TTR last weekend so I could see what some of the tandems folks were riding actually weighed "as ridden". Our coupled Calfee tipped the scales at 39lbs fitted with our conventional wheels, three large water bottles, frame pump, seatpack with spare tube, tools, etc. and the Garmins installed. The Co-Motion Speedsters that I weighed -- similar size -- were in the 44lb to 45lb range with a Roadster coming in around 43lbs. There were a couple of larger-size steel Erickson and Bushnell frames with couplers, steel forks, lots of bags & gear, etc... that weighed in at 54lbs and 56lbs.

The point being, for non-race rides where folks typically outfit their bikes for self-sufficiency with plenty of water, tubes, pumps, bells, computers, etc... a 10lb upper to the nekkid bike weight probably isn't all that far out of line... which for us was a 25% immediately increase in stripped bike weight. Once you start playing with those bigger numbers, having a tandem that's 3 - 5 lbs lighter than another one isn't nearly as dramatic and reminds you that in the big scheme of things you can spend a small fortune shaving grams that at the end of the day equal the weight of filled large water bottle. On flat terrain, not a lot of juice for the squeeze to be gained in in shaving those grams....

Too right, TG. A quick trip to the bike calculator says that increasing our tandem's weight by 10 lbs. would put us one minute back after a 5 mile, 6% climb. Meh. If we were racing, that would make a difference. In my training, I've always emphasized power gain over weight loss. If we could increase our sustained power by 5%, that would save us a minute and a half on the same climb. That may not be too hard to do, depending on the team's previous training state. On one of our recent hour-long pass climbs, we were only 7 minutes behind my mean time on my single. I think that's pretty cool.

For kicks, I set up my scales at TTR last weekend...

The point being, for non-race rides where folks typically outfit their bikes [up to] 10lbs ... Once you start playing with those bigger numbers, having a tandem that's 3 - 5 lbs lighter than another one isn't nearly as dramatic

If someone in Hackensack puts bricks in the trunk of their MR2, that in no way obviates the advantages of an MR2's light weight in Plano.

So too, if a participant in the TTR in Franklin, TN overpacks, and thus further burdens his already heavy tandem, this has no bearing on our team on last Sunday's (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/35956837) Sequoia (http://www.westernwheelers.org/main/sequoia/details_2010.htm) ride in Saratoga, CA, barely making it climbing the 18% grade on Redwood Gulch Road (http://graphics.stanford.edu/~lucasp/grade/redwoodgulch.html), and grateful for a tandem with a light frame and components, and carrying only the lightest essentials.

Our bike weighed 25.15 lbs (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4434146168_931feb53b2_b.jpg). when weighed sans saddlebag at the Solvang ride, and accouterments would add an extra 2(?) lbs (I'll have to check). He that professes no difference between a 27 lb. or 39 lb. tandem, let him climb Redwood Gulch Rd.

I love riding the tandem, but we are MUCH slower than I am on my single, even though I've slowed noticeably in the last few years.

Frank and Terry

Our bike weighed 25.15 lbs when weighed sans saddlebag at the Solvang ride, and accouterments would add an extra 2(?) lbs (I'll have to check).

I guess y'all must be filling your water bottles with that special "light water" that defies gravity, or do you just go without?

If you do, in fact, start out with two, three or four full water bottles don't forget to hang those on your bike when you check the weight of your tandem "ready to ride". That was the context of my commentary and water bottles was included in my list of what was hanging on the tandems I weighed just moments before these teams headed out for a very hot and hilly 50-mile ride at the Tennessee Tandem Rally. Off-hand, I think a 24 oz water bottle when it's filled probably tips the scales at about 1.75 lbs, depending on the water bottle's weight.


He that professes no difference between a 27 lb. or 39 lb. tandem, let him climb Redwood Gulch Rd.

Seriously Ritter, stop taking this stuff as personal jabs... it's really not. This is just realty-check stuff offered up for the average reader who is an average tandem enthusiast with average interests and goals.

You and a few others here on the forums are clearly playing on a different, more competitive level and that's great. I wish I had the time, inclination and discipline to do likewise, but I don't.

TG: Good points, 4 bottles, say 1.8lbs each, a pair of computers and basic tool bag with extra long stem, two boots, patch kit, 4 co2's and two tubes. I'd say 9-10lbs 'extra' is a fair number for most, if not all of our rides under the 60 mile distance. Greater than that we usually bring a disposable bottle and drink it first then toss it at the first appropriate location that we can.

Greater than that we usually bring a disposable bottle and drink it first then toss it at the first appropriate location that we can.

For double century training rides that go out into the middle of nowhere, if it's a hot day, I carry one of these (which rolls up nicely into a jersey pocket when empty):

http://www.cascadedesigns.com/platypus/handheld-hydration/plusbottle/product

http://www.cascadedesigns.com/images/product/large/plusBottle.jpg