BNB

I'm keeping track of all parts suggestions, so thanks for those. I'm reading Sheldon Brown's site now. I have been undecided about paint job but now leaning toward solid pearl white so I can build wheels of different colors - too much fun.

mtseymour

We're away for Xmas so can't post photos.

Our wheel selection is based on our team weight (300lbs) and is intended for fast century rides and significant climbing. We don't do loaded touring.

We started with the Velocity Dyad wheels (40H, disk compatible) on our Co-Motion. Not surprisingly, these were too beefy for our use. We soon upgraded to the Rolf disk wheel (10sp, 20/24 spokes, 22mm width, 33mm depth, 145mm spacing). At 1,875g, the Rolf wheel are reasonably light and have stayed true and trouble-free.

For our custom Calfee, we wanted a 11sp hub for Di2 compatibility and a wider rim for 28mm tires. I considered the Chris King and DT Swiss 540 hubs but went with the White industries MI6-X1 disk hub (390g, 32H). For the rim, I went with the LB (Light Bicycle) 700c carbon disk rim (32H, 35mm depth, 23mm width, 440g). We're still using the Rolf front (non-disk) wheel until we wear out the rim.

LB rim has been popular for mtn bike wheels and are now available for road and cross wheels. They're really well-made customer service is stellar. The LB rim is about 100g lighter than a comparable alloy rim (with a better ride), and cost about $180 incl shipping. Here's the link to their site:

wider 700c 38mm clincher carbon rims for cyclocross bikes road bike Light-Bicycle

I completed the build with Pillar 1420 bladed spokes (similar to the DT Aerolite and Sapim CX-Ray) and alum nipples. I prefer the bladed spokes partly because it's easier to avoid spoke wind-up. I've built two wheelsets with the LB rims and they've been strong and durable. The weight is quite close to the Rolf Carbon tandem wheels (1,630g) and the cost is 30-40% lower.

I have no concerns about durability because carbon wheels have been used on full-suspension mtn bikes in very rough terrain (drops, rock gardens, etc).

BNB

thanks for the info @mtseymour, and Merry Christmas! We'll look the Rolf wheels too. My husband had Rolf wheels years ago with the noisiest hub imaginable - they drove me nuts to ride next to him - but I'm betting they've improved since then ...

mtseymour

Merry Xmas! Hope everyone will have a great year of riding in 2016.

Btw, the Rolf wheels are quite good and the customer service has been good when I did the 10 to 11 sp conversion.

merlinextraligh

The wheels on our Calfee are ENVE rims, classic 45 front, and 65 rear, both 28 spokes.

We're around 350lbs and have had no issues with the wheels.

We are using Caliper brakes, but we spec'd the bike, and wheels , with Calfee's help,to allow the use of a rear disc brake. ( the 135mm DT Swiss 240 hubs are disc brake ready)

At 260lbs, I think similar wheels would be more than adequate.

DubT

i believe this would be an excellent choice! Ritterview has a similar setup with thousands of miles on their wheels.

mtseymour

How good is the brake performance compared to alloy rims? Do u use special brake pads for the carbon rims?

merlinextraligh

We use the ENVE brake pads that came with the rims.

They stop great with dura ace calipers. Admittedly we haven't tried them in really wet weather yet.

I'm also a little concerned with heat management on long descents, so we have the option of adding a rear disc brake.

Although we tend to descend fast with only one hit of the brakes per turn, running fee on straights , which leads to a lot less heat buildup.

Dean V

We descend in a similar fashion but on some hills with multiple turns that require significant slowing the brakes still get a lot of heat. Just one hit from 50mph down to 20mph for a corner puts a lot of heat in. Repeat several times in reasonably quick succession and well.... We don't often encounter terrain like this but when we do I opt for discs brakes front and rear.

BNB

I'm revisiting the 135mm vs 145mm rear spacing. Does anyone know the history of the change to 145mm and why it was done? Were wheels failing when they were less that 145mm?

waynesulak

Tandems wheels have been an issue for decades. There was general agreement in the industry that a wider spacing was needed and while Santana attempted to make 160mm the standard, most companies widened it to 145mm. That width was predominate until recently when stronger deep section rims have allowed for a return to single bike widths by teams that are interested in the lightest possible wheels and the best selection of hubs. When we bought our first CoMotion in 2006 it was not really a decision. I think all their tandems were 145 mm rear ends possibly with one custom race model exception.

I just had a 145 mm tandem built and struggled with the decision. For me the added hub selection was not enough incentive to go to 135 mm. Wider is stronger and although 135 mm is strong enough for some teams I like the margin of error 145 mm gives me more than I like the added hub selection.

In my mind 130 mm is already dead as 11 speed hubs are really 131 mm forced into a 130 mm rear end.

jnbrown

I don't see a reason not to use 145mm unless you are planning to use a wheelset that only comes in 135mm.
135mm is used primarily on MTBs and road bikes use 130mm so there is not likely to be many 135mm "road" wheelsets.
There are still many 145mm hubs available including White Industries (my favorite), Chris King and DT.
Also using a OC rim (a rim with the holes offset towards the NDS) results in more even spoke tension and a stronger wheel.
I really noticed the difference in using an OC rim on my current wheels.

DubT

i reduced the spacing of our Calfee from 145 to 135 a couple of years ago. I discussed the modification with Rob at Calfee and he sold me a set of the factory titanium drops that I bolted in place which reduced the spacing. I am using an 11 speed rear wheel (HED 3) and the rear triangle does flex a little when I install the wheel but again I discussed with Rob and he said it should not be an issue.

if I were buying a new bike I would not go 145 unless I was building it for a heavy team that was going to do heavy loaded touring. Too many wheel options available to be stuck with 145 spacing.

marciero

Another reason to go with 135 vs 145 to get a better chain line with low Q factor on a double crankset. On a double, I would want the large ring located so that it falls in the middle of the cassette. That is how I have my main single bike set up. The small ring is only used for sustained climbs and I want access all the cogs in the back from the big ring without crazy cross-chaining. Doing this with 145 requires much larger Q. Interestingly, people dont seem to comment on this much. My stoker apparently has not noticed!
Separate but related issue-some tandems may not have the chain stay clearance for converting from triple to double and locating the large and small rings where middle and small rings are, respectively, depending on size of rings (again, so large falls in middle of cassette) I considered doing this on our Cannondale and it looks like it would be close.

BNB

We have a friend who believes Q factor is hugely important - I never knew about this until recently and not sure if I'd notice the difference of a few mm - but maybe. He managed a Q factor of 150mm on a bike with a triple - very tight clearance on that bike.

shlammed

I feel Q factor is a big thing too.
That was one of the reasons im ditching the FSA SLK triple stoker crankset for a double that doesn't have the chainline adjustments for 145 rear and spacers to make use of a 73 bb shell. its much more comfortable long term to ride with your legs closer IMO.

waynesulak

I agree factor can be very important depending on the individual. In our case the stoker must have a wide Q factor rather than narrow. One nice thing about old square taper BBs is that they allow for fine tuning the Q factor.

twocicle

Commenting that "road bikes use 130mm" is perhaps a little behind the times. Disc brakes on road bikes are finally becoming more prevalent, especially with the recent UCI ruling allowing them in races. So along with disc brakes comes a wider 135mm spacing to accommodate the left side rotor.

The availability of 135mm disc hubs is far, far more than 145mm spacing. Plus, as I have mentioned numerous times in this forum, a wide Q for my stoker is a show stopper. It is a shame that FSA builds their generic road tandem crankset width to accommodate (1) mfr (Santana) at 73mm BB shell width.

Carbonfiberboy 

Long ago a software engineer told me that if I were holding in my hand a piece of software that I absolutely had to have to get a job done, and my computer wouldn't run it, it was time to upgrade. But not before. I have 145 spacing. My FSA cranksets fit my CoMo BB shells. I'll be able to build hub-spoke-rim wheels for that bike for the rest of my life though the components will change as technology advances or as my priorities change. I can build and repair the wheels myself.

Yes, I'd be in trouble if a rear hub failed during a long tour, but that possibility is so remote as to not even be a consideration, and is a reason I love my CK hubs. OTOH and much more likely, if I had a rim disaster I'd be back on the road that day and relatively cheaply. I do like it that we can tour loaded on rough roads and never touch the wheels. Maybe the almost zero dish wide flange spacing has something to do with that. It's neat that rear spoke tensions on both sides are almost identical. We did break one front CX-Ray spoke, but it was one that had chewed off a friend's taillight in a paceline accident. We kept going without replacing it.