Tandem Cycling - Upgraded Cannondale

Hi folks,
thought I would share some pics of my upgraded Cannondale following some valuable suggestions from the knowledgable and wise amongst you when I first considered going down this route.

I wanted to get a few pounds off the bike, get my preferred 172.5 cranks on the front, get some more speed etc etc. and try and find out why I struggled to get comfortable when pressing on - despite finding the same position as my single.

mods as follows;
Rolf wheels
Michelin 25c pro optimum
changed seatposts/bars/stems to standard road kit
In line compact drive setup ( no crossover chainset - standard road kit)
Nokon cable for rear brake

here's some pics

I had a bit of trouble getting the front mech to work at the throw it now has to manage but got there in the end and it works as well as any I've used. The bike is 14.6 kg w/o pedals.
I can get it to 13kg if I lose the disc brakes, change the fork to carbon and look at the rear chainset which is a very cheap unit and heavy.

The transmission is a great success ; it weighs 2-300 grams less than the FSA tandem kit on it originally, has my preferred 172.5 on the front and is 1cm narrower at the back.

Gearing is a 27 -11 on the back with a 34 - 50 on the front. I could if i wanted or needed go much lower but I'll see how we get on with this first. (We're not particularly heavy - about 300lbs)

The bike is very different to ride from the standard. I knew the Rolfs and race tyres would make it faster as does losing 2-3 kg but the subtle changes to the way it now responds and steers with such accuracy make the process worth it. I attribute this to losing the weight high up through changing the bars and posts.

It certainly kept me busy and interested through the winter nights. Can't wait to give it some hard use this summer.

And the back ache under hard use has gone as well .......magic! Must have been my wallet pressing on a nerve.

Jamie

Looking nice! I've wondered how changing to all right hand side drive changes the feel of the ride?

What sort of terrain are you riding on? Doffing the triple suggests hills aren't a big factor. Which means that the front disc could be replaced by a caliper if you upgrade to a carbon fork, an option you've said you've considered.

Now a carbon fork would necessitate switching out the Rolf disc front wheel (http://www.rolfprima.com/products-TandemDisc.php) for a standard Rolf (http://www.rolfprima.com/products-Tandem.php).

Looking nice! I've wondered how changing to all right hand side drive changes the feel of the ride?

Actually I think this is the reason the bike is no longer troubling my back. I had the riding postion virtually exactly the same as my single bike and never had trouble with my back riding hard on that. The only real difference I could see was the cranks spacing associated with a RH spider vs LH. Interesting that it is now ok ........as far as the rest of the bike is concerned can't really feel any increase in efficiency. The cheap cranks with taper BB will get changed to something stiffer and probably an isis style BB so that may make it 'feel' more direct. The general feel of the bike is far removed from what the standard model gave. Feels very much like my race bike and more responsive than my cross bike.

What sort of terrain are you riding on? Doffing the triple suggests hills aren't a big factor. Which means that the front disc could be replaced by a caliper if you upgrade to a carbon fork, an option you've said you've considered.

Now a carbon fork would necessitate switching out the Rolf disc front wheel (http://www.rolfprima.com/products-TandemDisc.php) for a standard Rolf (http://www.rolfprima.com/products-Tandem.php).

The bike is used for 2-4 hour rides with whichever of the family I can convince to ride with me.....so either Mrs G, or 13yo boy or 11yo girl. I live in York uk (the original one) and its fairly flat around here until you get an hour out of the city. But nothing too steep.

If I change the fork I can still keep the front (disc) Rolf surely ? It will work with a rim brake ?

Nice job on this latest generation C'dale. Must say it is the first one of these I've seen with this combination of upgrades...it looks pretty cool and makes sense for the riding you are doing. I would love to get off ours and immediately ride yours for a few miles to feel the difference. It is great that you have three options for keeping the stoker seat filled, that should give you plenty of time to enjoy your ride.
If you change out the fork, which fork are you considering?

Bill J.

Nice job on this latest generation C'dale. Must say it is the first one of these I've seen with this combination of upgrades...it looks pretty cool and makes sense for the riding you are doing. I would love to get off ours and immediately ride yours for a few miles to feel the difference. It is great that you have three options for keeping the stoker seat filled, that should give you plenty of time to enjoy your ride.
If you change out the fork, which fork are you considering?

Bill J.

You would be welcome to have ago but can't promise it would be worth coming quite that far !!

after looking through the many posts on this site I can lay my hands on an Enve cross fork that would fit perfectly to match the original within a mm or two. I made some enquiries about a CoMotion disc fork but it is quite expensive and considerably heavier than the Enve fork.......Might be another project for next winter to keep me occupied.

I have not seen another tandem with this set up ; compact double gearing and inline drive. It took some fiddling around with but works just as it should and is lighter and narrower with lots of scope to get lower gears if I want ( down to 33 / 34; lower than the standard 'dale triple set up ). It means you have a much wider choice of cranks to go for and can save some cash over a similar weight tandem specific set of cranks. 2 spiders are lighter than 3 !

I think Tandem kit is lagging behind the times compared to road componentry.Its sold in low volumes to what I'm sure is perceived as a'traditional' market. Unless your heavy touring in big hills you can get away from a triple.....

Looks good. I like the idea of compact gearing. We had 49/36 on our tandem for a while and I quite liked it. Although I have gone back to a 54/42 at the moment.
Those FSA tandem cranksets do have a very wide Q factor. Getting close to 170mm front and back. I put some Truvativ cranks on one of our C'dales and they are less than 150mm front and back (double chainrings/cross over crankset) which I like more. I don't think you could fit a crankset that narrow on the back of a late model C'dale like you have though. The chainstays are quite wide and you would have crank and heel clearance problems.

Looks good. I like the idea of compact gearing. We had 49/36 on our tandem for a while and I quite liked it. Although I have gone back to a 54/42 at the moment.
Those FSA tandem cranksets do have a very wide Q factor. Getting close to 170mm front and back. I put some Truvativ cranks on one of our C'dales and they are less than 150mm front and back (double chainrings/cross over crankset) which I like more. I don't think you could fit a crankset that narrow on the back of a late model C'dale like you have though. The chainstays are quite wide and you would have crank and heel clearance problems.

You're right clearance was an issue to resolve with the rear crankset. My first set up was actually a very high spec Rotor 3D+ chainset which has some outboard cups that convert a standard BB shell to run with BB30 cranks. It fitted with virtually zero clearance on the wide chainstays and only allowed me a 46 outer chainring. This was too much of a compromise for me thoughn it was incredibly light (475 gramme crankset) and would have been brilliant for power transfer. I had to run the 33 tooth timing ring outboard of the big ring as well. I was a bit nervous what would happen with an overshift....which can happen.

The rear chainset thats on is a cheap sugino 110BCD double with a bottom bracket 7mm longer than designed for. I fitted the inner 33 tooth timing ring with TA triple chainset bolts and spacers. About 1 mm of clearance from chainstays for the inner ring and a Q factor of approx 160mm or just under. Narrower is better.