Tandem Cycling - Tandems at NAHBS, including new Ritchey Beakaway tandem

Photos are starting to appear from the 2012 North American Handmade Bicycle Show. Almost all the bikes on display are fascinating to look at, with interesting custom details and impressive workmanship - far more interesting than all of the stock builds at Eurobike and Interbike IMO.

For tandem enthusiasts, probably the most interesting thing is that Ritchey are going to start producing a tandem version of their Breakaway frame. They have been making multiple versions of single-bikes (mountain, road, and cross) for several years using a system that allows the frame to split into two that is far lighter and more sleek than S&S couplers, see their website here (http://www.ritcheylogic.com/dyn_category.php?k=97991) (although that suggests that they are now only offering the cyclocross version). At NAHBS, they were showing a tandem that uses a similar system, as shown here (http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/article/nahbs-2012-part-1-black-sheep-to-wheel-fanatyk-33328?img=1&pn=nahbs-2012-part-1-black-sheep-to-wheel-fanatyk&mlc=news%2Farticle#91) on the massive Bikeradar gallery of NAHBS photos (plus the two subsequent photos show it in more detail).

Paketa were also showing off a couple of tandems, see the photos starting here (http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/article/nahbs-2012-part-1-black-sheep-to-wheel-fanatyk-33328?img=1&pn=nahbs-2012-part-1-black-sheep-to-wheel-fanatyk&mlc=news%2Farticle#145). These include a race model equipped with a Gates timing belt and Ultegra Di2 transmission that weighs about 10.5 kg, plus a time trial tandem with rare Sweet Wings tandem cranks.

I am interested in what others think about the Ritchey tandem frame.

Break Away Design work on tandem?

The dual tubes between stoker seat cluster and front BB?

Wayne

Break Away Design work on tandem?

Tom Ritchey built two tandems using his Breakaway coupling design back around 2003. I did a little write-up on the Breakaway tandems after a photoshoot with Tom & his wife Martha Ann surfaced last year:

http://tandemgeek.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/ritchey-breakaway-tandem-a-unicorn-to-be-sure/

You can also catch a few more photos and comments of their tandem outings at Tom's blog here (http://www.ritcheylogic.com/blog_listing.php?cat=236) where you'll once again see the original Red/White/Blue 700c Breakaway tandem about 1/2 way down the blog.

The 29er with the pair of "Up-Tube" stay-diameter tubes that was at NAHBS looks pretty cool and probably works just fine; he used the same configuration on his 2003 700c Breakaway tandems.

Speaking of new coupling systems, Santana's new couplers should also be hitting the market this year. It will be interesting to see the pricing and to see if anyone else decides to adopt the patented design.

We attended NAHBS yesterday, and I took some pics, which can be seen here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vonkaenel/sets/72157629142846588/).

I've looked through Flickr uploads labeled NAHBS (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nahbs&s=rec), and where there are tandems, I've put them into a Gallery here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vonkaenel/galleries/72157629499549273/) and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vonkaenel/galleries/72157629146015458/).

If anyone goes to NAHBS, please let Ritchey know that it would be really cool to see a coupled tandem design that allowed configuration either as a tandem or as a single, by mating the captain's top tube and down tube with the stoker's rear end (seat tube, BB, seat and chain stays).

If the tandem was approximately the same size front and rear, it seems like Ritchey's coupler design could support this, with some mods like a dummy down tube on the stoker's BB. I think this would be the ultimate travel bike, since it could support either single or tandem use.

Thanks for the photos, Ritterview. The Eriksen tandem with Di2 rear shifting adapted for an 11-32 cassette plus mechanical triple front derailleur is very interesting, and I see that the stoker also gets an extra set of shift buttons. Any idea what they did with the electronic front derailleur - I understood that you cannot just do without it because the FD contains the Di2's brains - Do you know if they removed the brains and hid them somewhere in the frame?

Several years ago also saw a protoype Ritchey Breakaway tandem . . . then nothing after that.
Years ago Bruni also built a take apart tandem without S&S.
Montague had a full size (26" wheel) folding tandem but then Co-Motion built the first S&S tandem . . .
S&S is getting pricey so Ritchey may have a winner!
As for tandem converting to single . . . Bike Friday already did that and so did a couple custom builders.
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

Thanks for the photos, Ritterview. The Eriksen tandem with Di2 rear shifting adapted for an 11-32 cassette plus mechanical triple front derailleur is very interesting, and I see that the stoker also gets an extra set of shift buttons. Any idea what they did with the electronic front derailleur - I understood that you cannot just do without it because the FD contains the Di2's brains - Do you know if they removed the brains and hid them somewhere in the frame?

Saw the Eriksen tandem at the show. The person I talked to said the extra shift buttons and XTR hydraulic disc lever were for when the Stoker decided they needed a different gear or to use the brake in a panic situation. My wife (stoker) almost started crying she was laughing so hard. No way would I ever ride a tandem where the stoker could affect shifting and braking and neither would my stoker.

Saw the Eriksen tandem at the show. The person I talked to said the extra shift buttons and XTR hydraulic disc lever were for when the Stoker decided they needed a different gear or to use the brake in a panic situation. My wife (stoker) almost started crying she was laughing so hard. No way would I ever ride a tandem where the stoker could affect shifting and braking and neither would my stoker.

Say it ain't so Joe!!

There's got to be more to the story than that. Kent Eriksen and his wife are both long-time, hard-core tandem cyclists. I know the customer is always right, but there has to be some subtle nuance in there somewhere where the client's have actually learned to "cooperate" in harmony on a tandem. Put another way, giving a stoker control over a rear brake isn't all that new. Sharing shifting duties in rare, but I've seen it before. But, the mutany scenario painted at the show is just too over the top in light of how much was invested in the Eriksen. I say that only because I came very close to having Kent build one of his Ti tandems for us a while back and once again found myself getting a little light-headed when I ran the numbers. That said, dealing with Katie & Kent was a pleasure.

There is more to the story than that..........
The DI2 triple was was originally set up as a non functioning display, the people from Shimano stopped by and said they didn't appreciate it, Erickson removed the front Di2 and replaced it with a mechanical front derailer, again just for display perposes. Neither the half electronic half mechanical or the Di2 triple was functional.

Say it ain't so Joe!!

There's got to be more to the story than that. Kent Eriksen and his wife are both long-time, hard-core tandem cyclists. I know the customer is always right, but there has to be some subtle nuance in there somewhere where the client's have actually learned to "cooperate" in harmony on a tandem. Put another way, giving a stoker control over a rear brake isn't all that new. Sharing shifting duties in rare, but I've seen it before. But, the mutany [sic] scenario painted at the show is just too over the top in light of how much was invested in the Eriksen. I say that only because I came very close to having Kent build one of his Ti tandems for us a while back and once again found myself getting a little light-headed when I ran the numbers. That said, dealing with Katie & Kent was a pleasure.

The judges at NAHBS must have liked something, as it won Best Tandem. Of course, the judges may not be all up on the nuances of captain-stoker relations.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6951265797_c01cb88915.jpg


I had this set-up explained to me, but I couldn't follow it. There was Di2, and mechanical, and controls back and front, and brakes, both rim and disc, cable and hydraulic. Lots of cables here. It was like Three-Card Monte, only on a tandem.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/6951260545_884341f455.jpg

Mrs. Ritterview talked to Mrs. Erickson, but no deep stoker secrets were revealed, I don't think.

A photo Mrs. R took, just after the Best Tandem award was announced. Doesn't look like the frame will be overly burdened by the tandem team.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/6958113347_8bb05b96ba_z.jpg

The best take-way I got from the Eriksen tandem was the approach of using only 2 S&S couplers, which supposedly allow the tandem to be transported in a pair of Trico single-bike airline cases.

Maybe not a new idea but one I had not heard of.

Just to add to the what are they thinking on the erickson, The bike only has one set of couplers so it is not going to break down small enough to get in S&S cases, I don't get it. Parts can easily be switched out but paying for couplers and not being able to avoid airline fees does not make sense to me.

Nit picking aside the Nahbs show is a great day out. A lot of what is on display is "concept" or eye apeal for the sake of the show. Let's not discourage the exhibtors from showing tandems by cutting them to pieces because of something fun they did on a show bike.

Man I gotta learn to type faster......see post above

Say it ain't so Joe!!

There's got to be more to the story than that. Kent Eriksen and his wife are both long-time, hard-core tandem cyclists. I know the customer is always right, but there has to be some subtle nuance in there somewhere where the client's have actually learned to "cooperate" in harmony on a tandem. Put another way, giving a stoker control over a rear brake isn't all that new. Sharing shifting duties in rare, but I've seen it before. But, the mutany scenario painted at the show is just too over the top in light of how much was invested in the Eriksen. I say that only because I came very close to having Kent build one of his Ti tandems for us a while back and once again found myself getting a little light-headed when I ran the numbers. That said, dealing with Katie & Kent was a pleasure.

Well - it was the guy with the glasses in the pic that was telling me this - i'm not making it up. I asked why they would use a disc brake as a drag brake - because the tandem did have front and rear brakes. I didn't see his name tag - so I didn't know who he was.

I know that some people have had stokers that have control over a drag brake - but IMO - that's really something you would communicate like everything else - have them apply the drag brake. But Panic Brake - his exact words - WTF?

As for the shifting - well that just kinda blew my mind.

Nit picking aside the Nahbs show is a great day out. A lot of what is on display is "concept" or eye apeal for the sake of the show. Let's not discourage the exhibtors from showing tandems by cutting them to pieces because of something fun they did on a show bike.



I agree - great show. That being said - there were several CF disc forks that I saw - some that had the 1.5" diameter tapered steering tube that would be awesome for tandems (i'm never giving up my dual discs). One was by Enve and one by another company I can't remember. When I asked the Calfee rep - Craig had just stepped away - if they'd ever used the Enve CX disc on a tandem he didn't know. Another was the Scrub Components rotors. I talked to them and they felt there wasn't enough market share for 203mm rotors. A shame because their steel rotors would be a nice option.
http://www.enve.com/cache/ProductType46.png?20111213050337
Speaking of that - does anyone know what rotor that was on the Cyfac tandem? I didn't notice it at the show.

Speaking of that - does anyone know what rotor that was on the Cyfac tandem? I didn't notice it at the show.

It is a Hope Floating Rotor (http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemid=SPG312&tab=specification) (and Hope skewer (http://www.hopetech.com/page.aspx?itemID=SPG118) as well).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7207/6957939855_ddd0e267ec_z.jpg

203 mm is 169 grams, whereas an Avid 203 mm G3 is 192 grams (http://mikesbikes.com/product/avid-g3-clean-sweep-rotor-203mm-sku-br6918-qc129.htm).


FLOATING ROTORS - DESCRIPTION
These Floating rotors are now a firm favourite amongst both performance orientated riders and those just looking for something a little different. These rotors have a stainless steel braking surface riveted to an aluminium central carrier. As well as offering a significant weight saving, they also allow the rotors to expand or contract with changes in temperature. The rotors are available in 140, 160, 180, 183, 185, 200, 203 and 205mm in the full range of colours.

For further weight savings we also have the lightweight floating rotor available from the Race X2 brake as an after market part. Only available in 160 or 140mm sizes and with a black centre, these lightweight rotors are only 1.8mm thick as opposed to the standard 2mm - which gives incredible weights: 160mm is 78g and the 140mm is just 64g!

Add the Ti bolt kit to reduce weight even further!

http://www.hopetech.com/webtop/modules/_repository/images/gunsmoke-floating-rotor.jpg https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuEon-QmIP7R9h9VMGxwF94ntyMafl66XfEunBctbP2jZSYth98Q



There were several CF disc forks that I saw - some that had the 1.5" diameter tapered steering tube that would be awesome for tandems (i'm never giving up my dual discs). One was by Enve and one by another company I can't remember.

The Co-Motion rep said that they were going to produce a front disc version of their tandem-spec'd carbon fork.


Another was the Scrub Components rotors. I talked to them and they felt there wasn't enough market share for 203mm rotors. A shame because their steel rotors would be a nice option.

Steel rotors are everywhere available. What is needed from Scrub is a tandem version of their magnesium carrier and/or composite friction wheel material (http://scrubcomponents.com/html/scrub_components_-_the_lugdriv.html), in 203 and 220 mm. Tandems could use larger diameter rotors with less weight penalty.

http://scrubcomponents.com/assets/images/Rotor_Top_Image.png

A couple follow-ups / thoughts....

Yes, the guy in the glasses with hair is Kent and that's his wife Katie; both have pretty solid cycling credentials. Perhaps Kent had gotten punchy answering questions all day and opted to go into the art of the possible and attention-getting response mode? Guess we'll never know, as I'm just not THAT curious. But, that said....

The additional insight into the Di2 from ChiChi is what I was looking for. Something just didn't make sense in looking at how that tandem had been configured. Rear disc as a supplemental brake isn't all that unusual, but using a hydraulic with a smallish rotor looks more like someone just went to the parts shelf and pulled-off what was sitting there... kinda like the Di2: a last minute build of a new frame for the show. Even the cranks weren't lined up the way I would have expected them to be for a show bike. Nits to be sure.

While a rear disc ain't the best choice for a true drag brake it will work as a supplemental brake and/or a primary with a rim brake as a supplemental. Both of our Erickson tandems -- the '98 and '02 -- had Hope mechanical rear disc drag brakes which did what they were supposed to do... to a point. And that was to provide a little added braking power that allowed you to give your right hand and rear rim brakes a break on very long descents. However, the hydraulic is a non-starter on a road tandem and makes no sense at all due to the likelihood of boiling the fluid and either locking the rear brake or blowing a hydraulic line connector. The Avid BB7 or the Bengal MB700T (which we just started to play with) will both lock the rear wheel on a tandem with a lightweight team so: (a) needing the additional braking power isn't the issue and, (b) I don't see better modulation or (c) less hand effort as needs either. Not sure whey they didn't throw on one of those unless, as already noted, they simply bolted on what they had in the shop and/or it looked-cool.

Floating rotors have been around for a long time. We have friends who also have a '98 Erickson that was fitted with a Hope mechanical disc and a Hayes floating rotor of the same vintage. I thought ChiChi put one of the newer floating rotors on his Calfee after the dual rotor thing didn't work-out as hoped?

The pair of coupler approach was explained to me by Kent back in 2010 as a way of making it very easy to break-down the tandem so it could be put in the trunk or cargo area of just about any car, public transport, etc. For air travel, my recollection was that it assumed occasional travel where a regular bike case/box could be used for the frame, bars, etc., where the wheels went into a second, checkable bag along with other components. Again, just a very pragmatic approach for dealing with transporting a tandem where the expense associated with a second set of couplers ($1k?) might be hard to justify for infrequent air travel. Note: The ti tandem he displayed at the 2010 NAHBS show used the same two-coupler approach. It was also an award-winner as I recall.

As for best tandem, I'm guessing the judges looked past the components and did what they should have done by focusing on the execution of the frame... and, well, Kent is an icon at NAHBS. The photos clearly don't do it justice. The only thing I would have spec'd differently would have been a bi-ovaled down tube, just to reduce the cross section of that large diameter tube. But, beyond that the execution of the welds, the finish, etc. all look spectacular.

A couple follow-ups / thoughts....

.....However, the hydraulic is a non-starter on a road tandem and makes no sense at all due to the likelihood of boiling the fluid and either locking the rear brake or blowing a hydraulic line connector....

I am a little confused and will expose my disk brake ignorance by asking a question. Is the comment above due to the type of brake fluid used or does it apply to all hydraulic disk brakes on a tandem? If it applies to all tandem hydraulic disk brakes, how do bike brakes differ from motorcycle and auto brakes that use hydraulic fluid?

There is more to the story than that..........
The DI2 triple was was originally set up as a non functioning display, the people from Shimano stopped by and said they didn't appreciate it, Erickson removed the front Di2 and replaced it with a mechanical front derailer, again just for display perposes. Neither the half electronic half mechanical or the Di2 triple was functional.

Maybe Shimano will get the idea and come out with a Di2 triple?:rolleyes:

great photos ritterview. thanks for posting them.

Maybe Shimano will get the idea and come out with a Di2 triple?

With compact cranks supplanting triples in the road market and 2x10 drivetrains displacing triples in the mountain bike market, I'm not holding my breath that sufficient demand exists to get Shimano's attention.

Note the Erikson tandem used a Di2 rear derailleur with modified, longer cage to allow the use of larger cassettes. Perhaps the after market will hod-rod a Di2 front derailleur at some point?

I am a little confused and will expose my disk brake ignorance by asking a question. Is the comment above due to the type of brake fluid used or does it apply to all hydraulic disk brakes on a tandem? If it applies to all tandem hydraulic disk brakes, how do bike brakes differ from motorcycle and auto brakes that use hydraulic fluid?

All closed hydraulic bicycle calipers when used on a tandem, and to a certain extent even the open systems (e.g., Magura Gustav M, Julie-Tandem, Hope 04DH/Enduro, etc) if you really, really overheat the brakes.

The difference between cars/motorcycles and bicycle systems is the lack of any mass in the rotors, calipers and other parts of the hydraulic system and -- with just a few exceptions -- the lack of a brake master cylinder that can deal with brake fluid expansion or boiling in a system that uses a very small volume of hydraulic fluid. I'd venture a guess that there's more fluid in the master cylinder on my motorcycles than there is in the entire rear brake system on our Ventana, including the fluid in the master cylinder.

So, there are two types of failures to be concerned with, and the first lead typically leads to the second. Underlying it all is simply over-using / riding brakes, which is what a drag brake is used for on a tandem.

As you over-use a brake -- any brake -- the pads will begin to glaze and outgas as the heat builds and brake fade will begin to reduce braking power. On hydraulic systems, this same heat begins to migrate into the hydraulic fluid which then begins to expand. As it expands it will begin to cause the brakes to remain applied even if you let go of the levers, exacerbating the brake heating. In turn, this causes even more heat to go into the brake system and the brake fluid will eventually begin to boil. Once the fluid boils -- DOT4, Mineral or otherwise -- you will loose the ability to apply useful brake energy to the caliper and rotor. This comes on as a spongy feeling in the brake lever sans any real braking power (very similar to brake fade with Avid BB7s) and you'll eventually lose all braking power, no matter how hard you pull the lever. Off road, where the coefficient of friction is lower, you'll typically get a locked-up wheel that drags you to a stop before the fluid begins to boil.

Bottom Line: The amount of brake energy that you need to slow a 300lb+ tandem flying along on an asphalt road is a lot higher than what you need on your typical off-road trails where the speeds are slower and the coefficient of friction is also not nearly as high. That's why you'll see folks using hydraulics on their off-road tandems - typically open system brakes like the ones I've mentioned -- but not on their road tandems.

Maybe Shimano will get the idea and come out with a Di2 triple?:rolleyes:

It is purportedly in the cards, but not on the front burner just yet.

It is a Hope Floating Rotor and Hope skewer as well.

I noticed the skewer but didn't look hard enough on the rotor. I'm surprised it works without modification to the Caliper. Didn't someone on here try it and had to modify the caliper? I'm not so concerned about weight - but more so with lateral stiffness of the rotor as well as it not being as prone to slight bending.


The Co-Motion rep said that they were going to produce a front disc version of their tandem-spec'd carbon fork.

That's good to hear - they were busy with people so I didn't have an opportunity to talk to them. I just want another option other than the Wound up.


Steel rotors are everywhere available. What is needed from Scrub is a tandem version of their magnesium carrier and/or composite friction wheel material (http://scrubcomponents.com/html/scrub_components_-_the_lugdriv.html), in 203 and 220 mm. Tandems could use larger diameter rotors with less weight penalty.

I talked to the guy about that - he said he didn't think that they work that well on a tandem even at the 203 size (didn't talk about anything bigger) as they wouldn't dissipate heat as well as the steel or brake as well.

I know some of you are concerned about saving weight - i'm not that concerned about a few grams here and there. In fact - my brakes work so well - I really don't need to change anything - but I would like a 2 piece rotor more for durability than anything else.

It is purportedly in the cards, but not on the front burner just yet.

To me the electronic shifting would be one of the best things to happen for tandems. We simply aren't strong enough to ride a double - especially with the amount of climbing we like to do and the steepness of the grades where we ride. With the claims that the front shifting can occur underload and the self trimming nature of the Di2 front shifter - it seems that it would make ALOT of sense for a tandem.

Unfortunately - I don't see Campy doing it - so it would be the only thing I'd switch to Shimano for.

To me the electronic shifting would be one of the best things to happen for tandems.

I gotta tell you, having ridden a tandem with Di2 for a few days in very hilly terrain, it was nice but not life altering. But, then again, having used Campy or a Campy-like SACHs Ergo system on all of our triple-equiped road tandems, we've never had balky front shifting to deal with.

Don't get me wrong, it was kinda cool to just hit a button and there-you-go: you've shifted. But it's not all that different with Campy Ergo... which is a very different system from Shimano STI. So, I think for the folks who have only used Shimano's STI on their tandems with triple chain rings, Di3 would come as a much hearlded improvement over what they've been using.

The rear derailleur shifting is the nuts, if only because it eliminates the effect of cable stretch on shifting performance. Which is to say, rear shifting never degrades as cables and housing wears and/or during extreme temperature changes the way it sometimes does on cable shifted systems. Again, not life-altering as we've been very happy with our Campy cable-shifting and, well, Di2 is not without it's little nuances.

There is more to the story than that..........
The DI2 triple was was originally set up as a non functioning display, the people from Shimano stopped by and said they didn't appreciate it, Erickson removed the front Di2 and replaced it with a mechanical front derailer, again just for display perposes. Neither the half electronic half mechanical or the Di2 triple was functional.

An interesting story, that! Here is a pic taken on Friday March 2, 2012 at 2:08pm PST, during the judging (larger (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/6954050049/sizes/o/in/gallery-vonkaenel-72157629146015458/)). I can't tell if that is a Di2 FD. There is a cable sticking out near the FD, which a Di2 presumably wouldn't need.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/6954050049_f888a3a281_b.jpg

The caption:

Kent Erikson Tandem

Di2 front & rear derailleurs.

"stoker rear override sprinter shifting"

Timing belt (instead of chain)

Hydraulic rear brake controlled by stoker

S&S coupled

An interesting story, that! I can't tell if that is a Di2 FD. There is a cable sticking out near the FD, which a Di2 presumably wouldn't need.

Yeah, it's a bit of a kluged-together machine...

You can see what's going on better in the photo at this link and select Original size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikracer/6953886003/sizes/z/in/photostream

That is the internally routed Di2 front derailleur wire you see wrapped around the water bottle cage, but it's not connected to anything in the photo you posted above. In the photo I've linked to you can see that same Di2 cable and the plug that's supposed to go into the front derailleur (and the brains of the Di2 system -- rear Di2 doesn't work without it) sticking up in free space.

There's a plain-jane mechanical triple front derailleur on the tandem mounted to an FSA seat tube clamp where the Di2 FD should be but, well, can't be since they opted to mount triple chainrings on their show bike. Should have just removed the small chain ring and left the Di2 connected and no one would be to the wiser.

We gotta have one of those Co-Motion Carbon disc brake forks.

Yeah, it's a bit of a kluged-together machine...

It would be nice to find a photo with the Di2 FD on board, to corroborate the story. From their NAHBS blurb (http://2012.handmadebicycleshow.com/2012-news/2012/03/05/from-the-nahbs-award-winners-part-2/). They were looking, apparently, to show how a savvy stoker can be let in on the action with Di2. But with a ride in vertiginous Santa Cruz on tap, they were loath to part with the triple.



We get a lot of press over the year that pops up as a result of being at the show. It seems to get us a lot of sales, particularly when we get awards. We usually just bring bikes we’ve made for customers rather than special show bikes. We did make the tandem for the show, but I wanted a road tandem and this is my personal bike, finished just before the show. We will ride it for the first real ride in Santa Cruz after the show. It uses electronic shift DI2 and has dual control front and back so my stoker with RAAM experience can shift and brake also.

The placard with the bike explains further, the Di2 FD for with a double, and a mechanical FD for with a triple. It sorta kinda makes sense...maybe.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/6805151292_94b5a77be9_z.jpg

Sounds good, but I don't think the Di2 rear derailleur works without the front derailleur tied into the system...

Of course, I suspect that means you could run a mechanical FD, plug-up the Di2 FD and strap it to the water bottle cage and the RD wouldn't know the difference.

Again, the stoker Di2 remote control doesn't strike me as all that bizarre and completely workable with a good team that communicates well. However, I'd love to see / hear how it actually works. I found I had to re-learn the timing of my shifts to get clean gear changes with Di2. Perhaps having your stoker call out shifts will actually create that slight timing delay that you need with Di2?

As for the rear disc, it'll also work... to a point. On the bright side, since both Kent and Katie are professional off-road level cyclists as well as elite roadies I would guess they know how to manage brakes well enough to avoid over-using the rear disc and/or the rear rim brake. So, it will probably work for them. That said, INMO the Bengal or Avid with a 203mm rotor would have been a better choice.

Thanks for sharing the new insights.

Awesome frame.... and it's our size !!!

Stoker being able to control shifting/braking, is hardly a new idea.
Back in 1975 on TOSRV we rode a Follis 10 speed tandem; caught up with a couple on one of the bettter Gitane tandems and Gitane stoker controlled the shifting and rear brake. "Why?" we asked.
Reply: shorter cable runs, quicker shifting/braking.
Got into a 'friendly' let's race mode.
These folks were good, but shifting was not any faster/better because Gitane's captain had to relay command for stoker to shift. . . . G-captain ended up yelling at stoker "Shift +&^#@!"
We had a good laugh at that!
Nice to see what is new on the tandem scene!
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

I gotta tell you, having ridden a tandem with Di2 for a few days in very hilly terrain, it was nice but not life altering. But, then again, having used Campy or a Campy-like SACHs Ergo system on all of our triple-equiped road tandems, we've never had balky front shifting to deal with.

Don't get me wrong, it was kinda cool to just hit a button and there-you-go: you've shifted. But it's not all that different with Campy Ergo... which is a very different system from Shimano STI. So, I think for the folks who have only used Shimano's STI on their tandems with triple chain rings, Di3 would come as a much hearlded improvement over what they've been using.

The rear derailleur shifting is the nuts, if only because it eliminates the effect of cable stretch on shifting performance. Which is to say, rear shifting never degrades as cables and housing wears and/or during extreme temperature changes the way it sometimes does on cable shifted systems. Again, not life-altering as we've been very happy with our Campy cable-shifting and, well, Di2 is not without it's little nuances.


Oh - I agree with regards to how my Campy 10 shifts - it's great. But it's the elimination of the long cables and cable stretch that i'm really talking about.

Oh - I agree with regards to how my Campy 10 shifts - it's great. But it's the elimination of the long cables and cable stretch that i'm really talking about.

Like I said, Di2 just didn't blow me away the way I'd expected it to based on all of the press and enthusiast feedback I'd been exposed to.

Again, I suspect it's because I'm pretty good about staying on top of our equipment and haven't had many shifting issues over the years. Well, and we had the misfortune of starting a ride on the borrowed Di2 tandem where the instructions we'd received about the indicator lights was incorrect and we thought we had a dead battery. This would have otherwise ruined the day for us had we not had our own tandem nearby as a back-up. Like rechargeable lights and computers, it's just another battery that owners will need to be attentive to and/or have a spare on hand to address. Later that day we discovered that the battery was fully charges; however, we discovered the rear derailleur's signal wire would become unplugged as the lead wire was not installed with enough slack to deal with the rear derailleur's full range of motion. Once it was plugged back in, all was fine. Well, mostly fine. It came loose twice on our final ride day. Frankly, I became a quick learner on the system after those little episodes and don't think we'd ever have those kind of a problems as an owner.

To those who are looking to acquire Di2 (and eventually Di3), do yourself a big favor and read the downloadable installation and user manuals. There are some subtle steps that need to be taken to get the system properly adjusted that "quessing" won't address and those little flashing lights on the controlled will tell you a lot... if you're given or find the right information on what those little lights mean.

Sounds good, but I don't think the Di2 rear derailleur works without the front derailleur tied into the system...

Of course, I suspect that means you could run a mechanical FD, plug-up the Di2 FD and strap it to the water bottle cage and the RD wouldn't know the difference.

Again, the stoker Di2 remote control doesn't strike me as all that bizarre and completely workable with a good team that communicates well. However, I'd love to see / hear how it actually works. I found I had to re-learn the timing of my shifts to get clean gear changes with Di2. Perhaps having your stoker call out shifts will actually create that slight timing delay that you need with Di2?

As for the rear disc, it'll also work... to a point. On the bright side, since both Kent and Katie are professional off-road level cyclists as well as elite roadies I would guess they know how to manage brakes well enough to avoid over-using the rear disc and/or the rear rim brake. So, it will probably work for them. That said, INMO the Bengal or Avid with a 203mm rotor would have been a better choice.

Thanks for sharing the new insights.

Awesome frame.... and it's our size !!!

I am sure that if Kent and Katie are both elite level roadies they won't be needing a triple crankset and will use a double with the Di2 front derailleur.

I am sure that if Kent and Katie are both elite level roadies they won't be needing a triple crankset and will use a double with the Di2 front derailleur.

Relative to their age and classifications: look 'em up...

Kent Eriksen... still banging handlebars as a master in Steamboat Springs
Katie Lindquist (-Eriksen)

When we were looking for our first “real” tandem circa 1986, we visited Moots. They weren’t using titanium at the time, but had a great reputation for building robust and comfortable mountain bikes (the Mootaineer) and the occasional tandem. While at the shop, we saw Kent’s personal tandem, a gorgeous fillet brazed frame with ovalized direct lateral and top tubes. At the end of the top tube behind the stoker’s seatpost, there was a little top tube extension with a brass plate on the end. If you pulled on the plate, a little drawer came out. When I asked Kent what the drawer was for, he said it was a “stash compartment”. I remember thinking, hmmm ... I wonder if this why everyone says Moots are so comfortable. (You can see a picture of a vintage Moots tandem with the compartment here (http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/moots-tandem-466047.html). )

Anything new from Calfee?

Anything new from Calfee?

Craig's personal creation (sort of a carbonized KidzTandem) that allows him to ride with his son up front...
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119471571-1rn5zdvce8fkz-360-70.jpg

A customer's purportedly $19k custom 29er with Di2 converted for MTB use and various other FARKLES...

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119599379-ikuuc38j2e8-670-75.jpg

A Dragonfly with Gates Belt / Right-Side-Drive, ala Paketa's V2r...

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119748711-zx0s80e71bbs-670-75.jpg

Craig's personal creation (sort of a carbonized KidzTandem) that allows him to ride with his son up front...
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119471571-1rn5zdvce8fkz-360-70.jpg

A customer's purportedly $19k custom 29er with Di2 converted for MTB use and various other FARKLES...

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119599379-ikuuc38j2e8-670-75.jpg

A Dragonfly with Gates Belt / Right-Side-Drive, ala Paketa's V2r...

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119748711-zx0s80e71bbs-670-75.jpg

I know these are show bikes, but who decided such a saddle to bar drop looked good anyway. Just makes it look thrown together to see what appears to be a huge drop. I noticed Craig's personal bike has a much nicer set up.

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2012/03/07/1331119748711-zx0s80e71bbs-670-75.jpg

I know these are show bikes, but who decided such a saddle to bar drop looked good anyway. Just makes it look thrown together to see what appears to be a huge drop. I noticed Craig's personal bike has a much nicer set up.

If you are referring to the Dragonfly, The ponderous drop is due to the saddle being especially high. I believe the saddle is high so to provide more clearance and thus better viewing of the tandem stoker version of the Calfee BarStem (http://www.calfeedesign.com/product/components/barstem/). Mike Moore (who knows an easy mark), didn't hesitate to bring it to my attention. He told me that by using my incumbent Profile Design bar and ENVE seatpost, the cost would be $200 per joint, and $200 to paint, and thus $600.

It wasn't easy to photograph, but the seatpost being at full extension was helpful.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7198/6805132326_a41704c72e_z.jpg

I must admit I would like to have mine done up, but not for $600. It would be good to quantify the weight advantage. I have a Calfee adjustable stem, the same bar and seatpost, so a comparison of weight of the setup would be apples to apples.

If you are referring to the Dragonfly, The ponderous drop is due to the saddle being especially high. I believe the saddle is high so to provide more clearance and thus better viewing of the tandem stoker version of the Calfee BarStem (http://www.calfeedesign.com/product/components/barstem/). Mike Moore (who knows an easy mark), didn't hesitate to bring it to my attention. He told me that by using my incumbent Profile Design bar and ENVE seatpost, the cost would be $200 per joint, and $200 to paint, and thus $600.

My wife asked me about the Bar Stem and quickly dropped the subject when I said it would be WAY more than she expected because we'd have to do it to a new stem and bar because we are still using the adjustable stem we had before and an aluminum bar. Sure is pretty though.

call me contrary but that thing looks totally disjointed, like blob of black gum or layers of electrical tape holding a cf pipe. different weaves, different colors, blech.

fancy tech though, no doubt.

ritterview your setup is no comparison--far better looking and integrated, well thought out.



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7198/6805132326_a41704c72e_z.jpg

call me contrary but that thing looks totally disjointed, like blob of black gum or layers of electrical tape holding a cf pipe. different weaves, different colors, blech.

...ritterview your setup is no comparison--far better looking and integrated, well thought out.

Well, if it is well thought out, it wasn't my thinking. The credit should mainly Andy H (http://andyh753r.blogspot.com/2010/03/calfee-dragonfly-tandem-livery.html), the graphic designer in Los Angeles, and then to the people at Calfee. I will accept credit for the idea for Calfee to commission a 'livery' design, and badgering Mike Moore until a designer was hired.

This is Andy H's design they worked from:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4044/4294607812_ff476935e3_o.png

How it turned out in the stoker's compartment.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2734/4384091010_579ce23f2a_z.jpg

If I was to have the BarStem make-over, I would keep the same look, only accounting for wrap to replace the hardware. There would be no weave, as the ENVE seatpost has none.

the ENVE seatpost has none.

So is the Enve post designed to handle the extra stress of the stem? I run the wound up post which is CF over aluminum because - one - it was available from CoMo as a upgrade when we bought the tandem and two - because I was a bit worried about clamping a stem to a regular CF post.

So is the Enve post designed to handle the extra stress of the stem? ...because I was a bit worried about clamping a stem to a regular CF post.

No, the Enve post was designed without the least thought for mounting a stem, bar, and with a stoker. It appears to be the favorite of Calfee (http://www.calfeedesign.com/products/tandem/), however, and Calfee has no little expertise in carbon fiber, so I'll go with that.

I like the on bolt adjustment facing the side. Looks like it would be very easy to adjust captain's saddle without loosing the stoker stem.

http://www.enve.com/seatposts.aspx

If you like that general design but are squeamish on carbon, the Moots ti posts have a similar side-mounted design. Adjustability is a piece of cake. It's the easiest-to-work-with post I've ever had (I have one on my road bike). One allen bolt adjusts fore-aft, and another smaller inner bolt adjusts tilt.


I like the on bolt adjustment facing the side. Looks like it would be very easy to adjust captain's saddle without loosing the stoker stem.

http://www.enve.com/seatposts.aspx

I gotta tell ya, as nice as all of these other seatposts are you'll be hard pressed to find a better all-around, high-end seatpost than the LH Thomson Masterpiece... for about 1/2 the cost of these others. Just my .02.

http://bikethomson.com/seatposts/masterpiece/

We've been through every material and all of the different clamps and at the end of the day, Thomson hits the sweet spot for cost, weight, ease of use and never a second thought about strength issues for stoker stems.