Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Framebuilders Thinking about a custom frame? Lugged vs Fillet Brazed. Different Frame materials? Newvex or Pacenti Lugs? why get a custom Road, Mountain, or Track Frame? Got a question about framebuilding? Lets discuss framebuilding at it's finest.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-31-13, 07:36 AM   #1
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Source for Boom Tubes???

Since the Suppliers thread is closed; posting a new thread of need here:

ISO a viable source for large oval tubing, such as would be used for boom tubes in tandem construction?

I am about out of old stock and the two companies in the US which used to produce them have elected to not do so anymore.

While we can order them from Ceeway in the UK for USD $42 each plus shipping, my goal has always been to source everything practical from US based producers.

So if anyone knows of a source, would appreciate a posting. If it is a secret source then a PM would be fine also.

Thanks
Kerry
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 08:19 AM   #2
tuz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto/Montréal
Bikes: Homemade mixte, track, commuter and road, Ryffranck road
Posts: 1,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
On eBay, Ti Cycles sells a ovalized 1.75x0.035x30 boom tube. Looks like it is more expensive than the Ceeway option, but it is likely lighter (and equally stiff).
tuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 09:27 AM   #3
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Bikes:
Posts: 14,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
don't they still sell boom tubes at HJ? I would probably just use a 4130 tube though. The Reynolds 531 tube on my tandem looks undersize to me now.

I closed the suppliers thread because it's just for contacts for suppliers. If something needs to be added to it, PM me. Thanks
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 09:51 AM   #4
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
don't they still sell boom tubes at HJ? I would probably just use a 4130 tube though. The Reynolds 531 tube on my tandem looks undersize to me now. I closed the suppliers thread because it's just for contacts for suppliers. If something needs to be added to it, PM me. Thanks
I communicated with HJ; said used to make them but don't make them anymore.
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 10:06 AM   #5
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuz View Post
On eBay, Ti Cycles sells a ovalized 1.75x0.035x30 boom tube. Looks like it is more expensive than the Ceeway option, but it is likely lighter (and equally stiff).
I looked there based on your input. I didn't find any oval tubes.

Also I am looking for classic ChroMoly tubes, either straight gauge or butted, i.e., am not in need of Ti or AL or CF or bamboo or plywood or cardboard or fiberglass tubes. Sourcing for those alternative materials would be helpful to other builders so appreciated if folks could forward any sourcing for those to unterhausen for adding to the suppliers thread.

Thanks
/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 10:32 AM   #6
tuz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto/Montréal
Bikes: Homemade mixte, track, commuter and road, Ryffranck road
Posts: 1,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
here is the link.
tuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 11:46 AM   #7
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuz View Post
here is the link.
Tuz; my apolgies as I missed your attempt to point me to the ebay. I looked on the companies homepage and found no ovals. But I had seen the ones on ebay several weeks back. I communicated with the seller and made a reasonable offer which was turned down. At last look the tubes are still there awaiting a buyer. I just felt $70 per was way too high. I also felt that the tubes were not ovalized enough to provide any advantage over a round tube. I looked at all my current tandems and all their booms are effectively the same shape...all are significantly flatter than the ebay items. The stock that I mentioned as being 'run out of' follows closely to the built production bikes I have. Thanks for the attempted assist.

/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 12:12 PM   #8
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Bikes:
Posts: 14,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I suspect a round tube is actually stiffer than a extremely ovalized tube. The old Reynolds tubes look nice, no doubt about that.
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 01:38 PM   #9
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
I suspect a round tube is actually stiffer than a extremely ovalized tube. The old Reynolds tubes look nice, no doubt about that.
The purpose of oval boom tube was to get as close to the full width of the BB as practical which increases the lateral strength (reducing whippiness) while also not being so large in the vertical dimension as to be taller than the rear BB shell (which makes it difficult to finish off the rear well). When most bikes were barely hi-tensile steel, one did what one had to to get rid of lateral whippiness.

In the 70's I saw 2bikes made with rectangular bottom tubes and some that were made with a pair of Reynolds 531 downtubes sitting side by side. Both examples brought streams of derision from viewers who compared them poorly to the prime example of the day (the Taylor Bros tandems).

/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-13, 07:08 PM   #10
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 20,358
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
I thought Phil Wood [used?] to sell rolled into an oval tubes.
fietsbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-13, 10:05 AM   #11
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Bikes:
Posts: 14,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I think if you look through the NAHBS tandems, that most of them are using a larger, round, 4130 tube. I love the way the old reynolds oval boom tubes looked, but they aren't as stiff. People are used to it now that tandem builders have been doing this for decades. You aren't bending the boom tube in the major dimension of the oval all that much. I think they did it that way so they would fit a larger tube on a bb shell, and that's an issue with a round tube of similar section. You have to remember that when the Reynolds tandem tubing set came out, it was the only set of tubing with oversize tubes on the market. We were so set in our ways that Klien actually sued Cannondale over using larger section tubes, it was so unheard-of. I find it hard to get over the old ways, but I usually manage to force myself if the new ways are better or even just easier to source.
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-13, 10:57 AM   #12
Live Wire 
Framebuilder
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW, I was involved in building a racing tandem a few years ago, we ended up using a 38mm mtb down tube that we
ensquishened(tm) to fit the rear bb a bit better. It was raced by some seriously strong guys and was plenty stiff.
Live Wire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-13, 11:33 AM   #13
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
I think if you look through the NAHBS tandems, that most of them are using a larger, round, 4130 tube. I love the way the old reynolds oval boom tubes looked, but they aren't as stiff. People are used to it now that tandem builders have been doing this for decades. You aren't bending the boom tube in the major dimension of the oval all that much. I think they did it that way so they would fit a larger tube on a bb shell, and that's an issue with a round tube of similar section. You have to remember that when the Reynolds tandem tubing set came out, it was the only set of tubing with oversize tubes on the market. We were so set in our ways that Klien actually sued Cannondale over using larger section tubes, it was so unheard-of. I find it hard to get over the old ways, but I usually manage to force myself if the new ways are better or even just easier to source.
U-Man; No argument on your points. Spot on. I am well aware of the bow-wave caused by the advent of the Taylor Bros driven Reynolds 531 butted tandem tube set. Was there then and wanted them bad (for all the good it did me to want). And as a student I couldn't come close to the cost of a built Taylor tandem.

I built my first bike frame (a full sloping top tube tandem for personal use) in 1974-76 from a mix of available tubes; a 1 3/8" chromo downtube, a 1 3/4" round chromo straight gauge boom tube, two 531 HD seat tubes, 531 HD double butted single bike downtubes for all the rest of the tubes, a full sloping cinelli cast crown and the strongest set of Reynolds stays and blades I could get.

I built my first set of bike wheels for that tandem; Phil Wood 48-spoke bolt-on hubs, 27 x 1 1/4" Weinman A129 concave rims and stainless 14g spokes. A Shimano disk and a brace of Mafac canti's provided the stoppage via a set of dual pull levers.

Even though #1 build was an XLg/Lg (25"/23" seat tubes) with maximum length top tubes it was very stiff in all dimensions and tracked perfectly even of steep climbs and descents.

Some regrets looking back were;
1) Setting aside my math results and going with the trend of 130mm rear OLN instead of 145mm (Phil would have made the hubs for 145 at the same cost as 135mm);
2) Not following my instinct which told me a direct lateral tube was the best reinforcement adnd instead going with the trend in running the lateral tube line to the rear dropout. Proud to say that I didn't use the typical 1/2" 'sketti tubes, instead I used 531 HD butted single downtubes back to the stokers seat tube and then an extra pair of HD Reynolds chainstays back to the dropouts with the extra CS length employed to overlap the ST and the rear lateral tube by about 3 inches (lots of brass used at that joint).
3) Letting the bike go and losing track of the jig when moving on from college to the real world... once in a while I will still take out the faded and smudged full scale drawings and stare at them... but enough memory and history for today.

/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-13, 12:57 PM   #14
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live Wire View Post
FWIW, I was involved in building a racing tandem a few years ago, we ended up using a 38mm mtb down tube that we ensquishened(tm) to fit the rear bb a bit better. It was raced by some seriously strong guys and was plenty stiff.
LW (and also U-Man); Tending to trend to that same conclusion (when the customer doesn't demand a classic looking boomer such as was quoted by Ceeway (in UK): Oval classic tandem boom tube made to order from ~1.75" chromo; 30" long x ~1mm wall; $42 per plus shipping to USA

Prior to getting the quote from Ceeway, I was developing a series of alternatives to the classic oval tube;

These looked promising as feed stock;

1) Fm Nova; NOV_CODT_42_858, 29ER MTB DT, 42mm (1.65") x 750mm (29.5"), 8/5/8, 110 & 150mm butts; $27.34 per
2) Fm HeneryJames: MHT44-L, 46.4 mm (1 7/8") x 1,524mm, 1.25mm (bulk headtube material), $50.75 (cuts into 2 each 30" boomers)
3) Fm Pacenti; #1582, 44.5 x 700mm (only 27.56" long), 1/7/1, (OX PLAT), On-sale for $10.00 per tube
4) Fm HeneryJames: BMXST-DT06, 44.5 mm (1.75 ") x 700mm long, (only 27.56" long), 1/7/1, 100mm & 265mm butts; $28.35 per

Given the bottom brackets which intersect the boom tube;
Rear BB: 69mm width x 38mm diameter <<<<< the problem
Front BB: 61mm width x 59.8mm (2.355 inch) diameter <<<<< not a problem

Then some ovalizing will be needed, at least for the rear BB end.

I am sketching out a jig/fixture to do this 'ensquishening' (tm/LW). It currently looks like a stout bolt on collar to match the selected boob tube diameter(s). Pivoting on 1/4" pins from flanges on the top and bottom of that collar would be a pair of right triangles (cut with a diagonal slice through a single bar of 2x2" x 12" long T6 aluminum. The goal being to put the jigged up tube in a large bench vice or hydraulic press and squeeze it until the end of the tube in squished oval enough to be less than the 38mm diameter of the rear BB. Thinking also that the nice slope on the resultant boom tube would provide a nice/better landing zone for the lateral tube coming in from above at an angle. I would probably squish the tube for the front ECC BB also, even if just to be a contrarian/romantic. Call it a "dog-bone" bottom tube?? Why not. Someone has already done this for sure...

I should have the sketch finalized by this weekend and a wooden prototype done by next weekend (PM me for jpeg pictures if desired) and will I post to the 'we made jigs/fixtures" thread when its clean enough to share (i.e., after first successful squish from a round tube...so in about 3 weeks as I have to select a candidate tube and get a sample shipped in to squish on).

/K

Last edited by ksisler; 02-01-13 at 01:06 PM.
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-13, 05:50 PM   #15
MassiveD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 2,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Anyone know a cheap source for oversize 35 thou tubing. Or tubes that could be used make folders like the BF.

http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/Oval_Press.htm
MassiveD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-13, 07:49 AM   #16
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveD View Post
Anyone know a cheap source for oversize 35 thou tubing. Or tubes that could be used make folders like the BF.

http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/Oval_Press.htm
Buttered or straight gauge?
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-13, 10:57 PM   #17
MassiveD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 2,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
I heard BF was straight gage.
MassiveD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-13, 09:58 AM   #18
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveD View Post
I heard BF was straight guage.
Aircraft Spruce has fairly large straight gauge up to 2.5 inch. Problem in closing on your original question is that most tubes available in larger diameters are thicker walled which isn't needed for most bike building... Even .049 dries up quickly as the size goes up. 2.75" in 1/8" wall for $28 per foot (ouch!!)
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...tubing_un1.php

Nova has several Columbus butted down tubes up to 42mm diameter
COLUMBUS LIFE 42mm X 6/4/6 and 29er DT 42 x 8/5/8 x 750 and they are cheaper than the above mentioned generic straight guage. I think somewhere on that site is 48 or 50mm Columbus, but I couldn't find them now

One of the the suppliers has big butted DownTubes on sale for $10 each

Hope that helps
K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-13, 10:22 AM   #19
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Bikes:
Posts: 14,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I would worry about ensquishening butted tubes unless you can get something with longer than normal butts.
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-13, 12:34 PM   #20
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksisler View Post
LW (and also U-Man); Tending to trend to that same conclusion (when the customer doesn't demand a classic looking boomer such as was quoted by Ceeway (in UK): Oval classic tandem boom tube made to order from ~1.75" chromo; 30" long x ~1mm wall; $42 per plus shipping to USA. Prior to getting the quote from Ceeway, I was developing a series of alternatives to the classic oval tube;
<Yadda Yadda snipped for brevity>
I am sketching out a jig/fixture to do this 'ensquishening' (tm/LW). It currently looks like a stout bolt on collar to match the selected boob tube diameter(s). Pivoting on 1/4" pins from flanges on the top and bottom of that collar would be a pair of right triangles (cut with a diagonal slice through a single bar of 2x2" x 12" long T6 aluminum. The goal being to put the jigged up tube in a large bench vice or hydraulic press and squeeze it until the end of the tube in squished oval enough to be less than the 38mm diameter of the rear BB. Thinking also that the nice slope on the resultant boom tube would provide a nice/better landing zone for the lateral tube coming in from above at an angle. I would probably squish the tube for the front ECC BB also, even if just to be a contrarian/ romantic. Call it a "dog-bone" bottom tube?? Why not. Someone has already done this for sure...

I should have the sketch finalized by this weekend <snipped for brevity> /K
Ok got the sketch done: Ran with the poffered "round tube approach" but didn't accept all of it. Oval on the ends with round in the middle for a "dogbone tube" to make everyone happy. I ran the numbers and found that 1.75" round stock results in a bit too small of an oval so switched to 2 inch round stock. Didn't differentiate whether it was straight gauge or butted tube.

Here is the math (trick is to use all the circumference of round pipe in its new oval shape by guessing the two dimensions of the oval and seeing if its circumference matches):



Here is the first sketch for the Ensquisherator (TM LW):



Using a 2" tube and squishing it gradually into a 2.40" x 1.5" oval looks like a good fit to the face of a 2.67"w x 1.61"h rear BB tube. Would seem to be ok for mating the tube up with the ECC shell up front also. The squish stop block shown in the diagram is to give me a squish past stop and then let the pressure off and see how much the tubing rebounds. Some trial and error required to get it to rebound and stop at the right 1.5" size...will probably waste one 30" piece in testing (I'll cut one in two and give it two trials).

Thoughts/comments?
/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-13, 12:41 PM   #21
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
I would worry about ensquishening butted tubes unless you can get something with longer than normal butts.
U-Man: Agreed. While I think the Reynolds tandem tube was butted and that the Tange tube that Santana used was also, but I have never seen the math done to show that a butted bottom tube benefits* a tandem that much. Anyone got the facts?

/K

Added 12 Feb; (*outside a scant ounce or two of weight)

Last edited by ksisler; 02-12-13 at 08:54 AM. Reason: additional thought
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-13, 03:46 PM   #22
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveD View Post
Anyone know a cheap source for oversize 35 thou tubing. Or tubes that could be used make folders like the BF.

http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/Oval_Press.htm
Massive One; Apologies for commenting on your call for tube without actually hitting the URL. That Oval press might be just the ticket for my panderings for oval boom tubes, downtubes, continuous top tubes, etc.

Making the leap that this is a pix of your press... Are you sort of volunteering to enquisherate for hire....or should I build one of the presses and become more self service-ing?
/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-13, 06:56 PM   #23
1930harley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been using 29er down tubes from Nova cycles. It is about the only tube I have found long enough and now they have them in various thicknesses. Ovalize the one end.

Last edited by 1930harley; 04-17-13 at 07:01 PM.
1930harley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-13, 09:47 AM   #24
ksisler
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1930harley View Post
I have been using 29er down tubes from Nova cycles. It is about the only tube I have found long enough and now they have them in various thicknesses. Ovalize the one end.
'30; Agree. For boomers, the length is a constant issue. I had also been looking at those tubes already as strong solutions for some of the other tubes for stout tandems. Prices look good also.
/K

PS; Apologies for being out of the shop for a bit as I had to deal with life issues for a few months instead of holding the torch and manning the files.
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-14, 06:39 AM   #25
WPH
Senior Member
 
WPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Bikes: 2015 Apollo Syncro tandem, 2006 Scott CR1 SL (still a beastie race bike), 1993 Trek T200, 2006 Fuji Absolute Le, 2000 Thorn Club Tour
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksisler View Post
U-Man; No argument on your points. Spot on. I am well aware of the bow-wave caused by the advent of the Taylor Bros driven Reynolds 531 butted tandem tube set. Was there then and wanted them bad (for all the good it did me to want). And as a student I couldn't come close to the cost of a built Taylor tandem.

I built my first bike frame (a full sloping top tube tandem for personal use) in 1974-76 from a mix of available tubes; a 1 3/8" chromo downtube, a 1 3/4" round chromo straight gauge boom tube, two 531 HD seat tubes, 531 HD double butted single bike downtubes for all the rest of the tubes, a full sloping cinelli cast crown and the strongest set of Reynolds stays and blades I could get.

I built my first set of bike wheels for that tandem; Phil Wood 48-spoke bolt-on hubs, 27 x 1 1/4" Weinman A129 concave rims and stainless 14g spokes. A Shimano disk and a brace of Mafac canti's provided the stoppage via a set of dual pull levers.

Even though #1 build was an XLg/Lg (25"/23" seat tubes) with maximum length top tubes it was very stiff in all dimensions and tracked perfectly even of steep climbs and descents.

Some regrets looking back were;
1) Setting aside my math results and going with the trend of 130mm rear OLN instead of 145mm (Phil would have made the hubs for 145 at the same cost as 135mm);
2) Not following my instinct which told me a direct lateral tube was the best reinforcement adnd instead going with the trend in running the lateral tube line to the rear dropout. Proud to say that I didn't use the typical 1/2" 'sketti tubes, instead I used 531 HD butted single downtubes back to the stokers seat tube and then an extra pair of HD Reynolds chainstays back to the dropouts with the extra CS length employed to overlap the ST and the rear lateral tube by about 3 inches (lots of brass used at that joint).
3) Letting the bike go and losing track of the jig when moving on from college to the real world... once in a while I will still take out the faded and smudged full scale drawings and stare at them... but enough memory and history for today.

/K
Ksisler that is really interesting. Have you shared this information on the tandems forum here at BF? I am sorry you have regrets from this experience, but in light of your point number 3, I can totally understand why.

Bravo you for building a twicer as your first frame.


WPH
WPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 AM.