Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Tandem Cycling
Reload this Page >

Custom Tandem Build 2.0. Di2/hydro double

Notices
Tandem Cycling A bicycle built for two. Want to find out more about this wonderful world of tandems? Check out this forum to talk with other tandem enthusiasts. Captains and stokers welcome!

Custom Tandem Build 2.0. Di2/hydro double

Old 02-12-16, 12:45 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Custom Tandem Build 2.0. Di2/hydro double

Following a thread I made last year, I figured I would start a new thread with a new frame and di2 upgrade.

Last years frame/build thread:
https://www.bikeforums.net/tandem-cyc...dem-build.html



This years build
Parts spec:
Custom frame, 7005 Aluminum -New for this year with a few Geometry changes.
Whisky #9 road thru axle fork, 49mm rake in GLOSS
R785 Di2 levers -hydro levers
Shimano Saint Brake calipers
Shimano Saint Brake rotors 180mm front, 203mm rear (rt-99 freeza)
Ultegra Di2 6870 front and rear derailleurs
XTR Di2 shift display unit
11-40 XT cassette with Wolftooth roadlink
Custom wheels- XTR 15/12mm thru axle hubs, Easton r90SL rims, DT swiss Apline III spokes (32h)
FSA SLK cranks - FSA SLK tandem rear with a normal FSA SLK double crank arm system
Cane Creek tapered headset
Problem Solvers PF30 Eccentric BB for stoker, Parlee PF30-24 bottom bracket rear


If funds allow, im considering a carbondrive tandem system... but if that doesn't happen, im not worried.

Parts pics:













Laced up quick this rim to see the tire clearance... waiting to see if my LBS can get the new Easton R90 SL rim in 32h.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 01:15 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
colotandem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 366

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

Subscribed!
colotandem is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 01:30 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anchorage, Ak
Posts: 620

Bikes: 2015 Calfee Tetra tandem,2016 Calfee Tetra Adventure Tandem, Ventana ECDM 26 mtn tandem, Ventana ECDM 29r full suspension Mtn tandem ,Ventana Fat tire tandem, Calfee Dragon Fly, Santa Cruz Carbon 5010, 907 Whiteout fat tire

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
+1^^^
Our whisky fork does not allow anything larger then a 28mm tire and the Continental 4000S ll 28mm's don't really fit with out rubbing the bottom of the fork with road debris on Zipp 404 rims.

Last edited by akexpress; 02-12-16 at 01:34 PM.
akexpress is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 02:22 PM
  #4  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
#1
I am curious regarding "FSA SLK tandem rear with a normal FSA SLK double crank arm system".

How will you mate the tandem rear (I'm guessing you mean the left tandem timing side arm) with the double crank arm? Did you know the splines on the double are different than the splines on the tandem timing arm??

If you have solved this crank mating issue, that is something I might be interested in doing too. Please provide more info.

Side note: I believe Ric at House of Tandems has done some of these mods, but that involved machining the splines to mate correctly.

#2
Have you researched combining the road r785 levers with Saint calipers?

My understanding is that the latter setup typically uses BH90 (higher pressure, lower volume) hose with a narrower bore than the BH59 (lower pressure, higher volume) hose usually used with the r785/XT caliper setup. Are you planning to test with both hose types, or already have the answer?

Last edited by twocicle; 02-12-16 at 02:33 PM.
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 03:18 PM
  #5  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by akexpress
+1^^^
Our whisky fork does not allow anything larger then a 28mm tire and the Continental 4000S ll 28mm's don't really fit with out rubbing the bottom of the fork with road debris on Zipp 404 rims.
Over the last year or so in this Forum we have been noting that tire & rim profile combinations result in varied outcomes. Continental and Compass tires seem to stretch more than some other tires like Schwalbe for example. The Schwable Ultremos I've measured, pretty much maintain their original widths, whereas Conti 4000 and 4Seasons have stretched up to 3mm wider over a week or so from when mounted new. Stretching isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be considered in tight clearance situations.

Zipp 404 is actually pretty narrow inside, something which will jack up the tire height. Using this profile image below, you can see the first Zipp profile is 24.73mm on the outside but only 16.25mm on the inside. The rim well depth is also fairly shallow which reduces air volume and requires a higher psi to maintain sufficient cushion under load.



Maybe try a rim with a wider internal profile to see if that sucks down the tire height?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg

Last edited by twocicle; 02-12-16 at 03:35 PM.
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 03:26 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ahead of you on both fronts! @twocicle

#1 . FSA SLK tandem crank to double. Its a bit of a wish wash with FSA cranks... I have bought several of them now to figure out what does and doesn't work. the newer FSA designs (crank arms don't aesthetically match left to right this way) have the same rounded spline on the spindle while the ones that do aesthetically match use a square edged spline on the spindle. You have to make sure when you order the double crankset that the spline type matches- both 24mm and both the rounded spine profile.


#2 . Yes, Saint calipers work with R785 levers. Use the BH90 hose, its great. When you use the BH90 hose and BH90 olive/insert they work together. the flange to the lever is the same but the insert has different diameter to fit into the BH90 hoses. basically you could use either bh90 hose or bh59 hose but you need to make sure that you use the corresponding olive/inserts that match your hose. Being that im using the saint calipers, im also using the bh90-sbls hose that has the proper banjo bolt for these calipers! I have the final bit on order from my lbs for this bike but its confirmed to work.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 03:28 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by akexpress
+1^^^
Our whisky fork does not allow anything larger then a 28mm tire and the Continental 4000S ll 28mm's don't really fit with out rubbing the bottom of the fork with road debris on Zipp 404 rims.
thanks for the forewarning. not too worried about the tire size. we were using 25c continental ultra sports last year. Im pretty tight with my LBS. Once I have the wheels built I will go down and try some tires to see what I can fit with my wheels. the Easton rim is ~20mm inner, 25mm outer (28mm depth) so its pretty big.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 03:40 PM
  #8  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
re: the FSA SLK tandem crank + double mashup.

Are you doing this for chainline, FD Di2 shift range, Q-Factor, or ?
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 05:40 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by twocicle
re: the FSA SLK tandem crank + double mashup.

Are you doing this for chainline, FD Di2 shift range, Q-Factor, or ?
All of the above
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 06:42 PM
  #10  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
#1 . FSA SLK tandem crank to double. Its a bit of a wish wash with FSA cranks... I have bought several of them now to figure out what does and doesn't work. the newer FSA designs (crank arms don't aesthetically match left to right this way) have the same rounded spline on the spindle while the ones that do aesthetically match use a square edged spline on the spindle. You have to make sure when you order the double crankset that the spline type matches- both 24mm and both the rounded spine profile.
I"m still scratching my head over which pieces you are fitting, especially since the tandem crankset axle lengths are different than the regular double crankset axle lengths. Maybe when you get some time to lay it all out for me/us, I'd see the light
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 06:59 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I will grab a photo in an hour.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 09:06 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by twocicle
I"m still scratching my head over which pieces you are fitting, especially since the tandem crankset axle lengths are different than the regular double crankset axle lengths. Maybe when you get some time to lay it all out for me/us, I'd see the light
Sorry, I forgot to take a photo tonight. I will describe it in more detail.



The tandem fsa slk triple crankset is designed to allow for an adjustable chain line to allow 69 or 73mm bob shells and have some misalignment to facilitate 135 to 140mm iirc rear end spacing. There is a huge compromise for a 135/142thru rear spacing when you run the cranks centred with a triple chainring. Converting to a 39/53t double on that crankset only makes it worse.


Option with the triple setup is to run all of the spacers on the non drive side but that screws up the Q factor by a lot justified to one side. Not at all ideal.

In that, I want to make it ideal and run the shorter spindle double crankset with proper chain line and equal Q factor. That said I loose the ability to offset the crank for the timing chain but that's not critical and with the system I have already it will be straight anyways. (Non tandem double crankset run reverse for captain)
only problem beyond that is ensuring that with the more narrow Q factor when I'm fabricating the frame I need to keep chainring and crank arm clearances in mind to make sure it will work. Not a big deal in the whole scheme of the design.

Di2 shift range is going to be normal with this setup but if I ran the two outer rings of the triple crankset you would need to space the fd further from the frame and the set screw on the di2 derailleur might not contact th frame in that case.



Crank system will be as follows:
captain- reversed side standard double slk crank with single timing chainring (from 2015 build)

stoker- standard slk double crank with 39/53t chain rings drive side, tandem timing side arm with spider and timing chain. This is opti,used for the 135/142x12 spacing I am building for.

I needed the tandem arm for the timing chain or try one of the same side timing systems that potentially screws with chain line of the main drive system. I already had the slk tandem system so it was just the getting a proper double crankset to integrate the two.





Sorry if that's repeating myself but it took a bit of work to come to my direction and some investment in finding the right crank arms to be compatible.

M
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-12-16, 09:17 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by twocicle
Over the last year or so in this Forum we have been noting that tire & rim profile combinations result in varied outcomes. Continental and Compass tires seem to stretch more than some other tires like Schwalbe for example. The Schwable Ultremos I've measured, pretty much maintain their original widths, whereas Conti 4000 and 4Seasons have stretched up to 3mm wider over a week or so from when mounted new. Stretching isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be considered in tight clearance situations.

Zipp 404 is actually pretty narrow inside, something which will jack up the tire height. Using this profile image below, you can see the first Zipp profile is 24.73mm on the outside but only 16.25mm on the inside. The rim well depth is also fairly shallow which reduces air volume and requires a higher psi to maintain sufficient cushion under load.



Maybe try a rim with a wider internal profile to see if that sucks down the tire height?
good edit with additional info.


With itch the rim I have in the fork now I have a hard time seeing that I don't hav space for a 30mm actual width tire. Sure it depends on the actual tire and rim, so I will have to play.


I will will toss a 25mm pro4 on the 19mm internal width wtb i19 team rim to check short term. These tires are egg shaped and measure roughly 29mm wide on this rim.



im not opposed to running a 25c tire, but the added volume of a 28 or 30 would be nice.


The easton rim I plan to use is designed for tubeless so it has the deep centre channel for added air volume and so you can mount a tire easily. I doubt I will use it tubeless this year just based on tire prices and options for the time being. There is a lot of weight on a tandem and I don't need to hurt us or our baby we will be pulling in trying new things. I will do that to myself on another ride. Lol.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-13-16, 10:21 AM
  #14  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 420

Bikes: 2022 Calfee Tetra, 2023 Giant TCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
Crank system will be as follows:
captain- reversed side standard double slk crank with single timing chainring (from 2015 build)

stoker- standard slk double crank with 39/53t chain rings drive side, tandem timing side arm with spider and timing chain. This is opti,used for the 135/142x12 spacing I am building for.
When you flipped the standard double SLK crank for the captain, did you reverse the pedal threads? Was it easy to do?

For the stoker crankset, did you find an older spider that would fit the spindle? I gather that the drive-side spider is now permanently bonded to the spindle. Did you also reverse the pedal threads on the non drive-side crankarm?
mtseymour is offline  
Old 02-13-16, 10:31 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mtseymour
When you flipped the standard double SLK crank for the captain, did you reverse the pedal threads? Was it easy to do?

For the stoker crankset, did you find an older spider that would fit the spindle? I gather that the drive-side spider is now permanently bonded to the spindle. Did you also reverse the pedal threads on the non drive-side crankarm?

We ran flats last year so it really didn't matter to flip the pedal itself. The stoker rear last year was stock, so no pedal mods are required.

Flipping a clip less pedal should be as easy as changing the bearings in your specific pedal but changing the left and right spindles before reassembly. Shimano pedals would be great for this and they make the best pedals imo.

I have found that an fsa slk pro on eBay has the right look and spindle for a non adjustable chain line with double chainring to pair with the slk tandem timing arm/drive.
The only reason for all he hybrid talk was to get a narrow Q double chainring with spindle on the right drive side with the timing arm with spider on the left side. I have bolted my double chainring arm to my tandem timing arm with spider so I know it will work, it's just building a frame with enough chainring clearance being that the double crankset uses a much narrower spindle.


I will try to get some pictures for clarity when I get time this weekend. We have a newborn at home.so I don't get a lot of time to tinker there days.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-13-16, 05:26 PM
  #16  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 420

Bikes: 2022 Calfee Tetra, 2023 Giant TCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
We ran flats last year so it really didn't matter to flip the pedal itself. The stoker rear last year was stock, so no pedal mods are required.

Flipping a clip less pedal should be as easy as changing the bearings in your specific pedal but changing the left and right spindles before reassembly. Shimano pedals would be great for this and they make the best pedals imo.
I realize that you can use dual-side pedals. With standard setup, the right crankarm uses right threading and the left crankarm use left threading to prevent mechanical precession (gradual loosening of the pedals). When you flip the captain's crankset, the right crankarm will have left threading, and the left crankarm will have right threading. To prevent the pedals from coming loose, you can over-tighten the pedals but they might become seized.

Since this is your build 2.0, did you find a way around the pedal threading problems?
mtseymour is offline  
Old 02-13-16, 06:18 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Light loctite (blue) and pedal washers. I haven't had a problem with unthreading.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-15-16, 01:15 PM
  #18  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Just IMO, I think if you want to use standard/single FSA MegaExo bike cranks you would be better off implementing this with a right-side drive and installing the cranks on their proper sides.

We currently have this setup with FSA SLK Light cranks (double front, triple rear) and a Gates CDX/Centertrack belt drive on the outside of the triple. A timing chain would be easier to setup than the belt drive as the chain would require less space and less precise alignment front to rear. This setup allows us to use 1-130bcd ring in the middle position of the triple spider, and 1-74mm ring in the granny/inner position (we are running 48t/30t chainrings).

The right-side drive does not torque the rear axle and load up the BB in the same manner that a crossover drive does. I would be curious if the FSA tandem crankset has a beefier rear axle and also the bearing cups might differ than the single double version. With right-side drive it doesn't matter because most of the pedaling forces are cancelled out at the timing + drive.

Last edited by twocicle; 02-15-16 at 01:25 PM.
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-15-16, 06:32 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Good thought and one I can consider. I haven't thought of actual implementation of a single side drive much... The tandem crankset wouldn't be my first choice to get that job done, however. This comment is because the 24mm spindle on the tandem crankset is much much longer and the Q factor of it is much wider than what I or my stoker would like.

I have a lot of cranks and crank arms right now, I could easily explore this option and chainring/spacer combos. I have no desire to run anything but a 39/53t chainring.



Right now I'm seriously debating the easton r90 rim vs some light-bicycle 55mm carbon clincher rims. It's the rim construction that most scared of. I don't want to get a "China carbon" part to be aero and cool to have it fail and hurt us.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 09:57 AM
  #20  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 420

Bikes: 2022 Calfee Tetra, 2023 Giant TCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
Right now I'm seriously debating the easton r90 rim vs some light-bicycle 55mm carbon clincher rims. It's the rim construction that most scared of. I don't want to get a "China carbon" part to be aero and cool to have it fail and hurt us.
Both the Easton R90 and LB 55mm carbon rims would be good choices. I prefer carbon wheels for the smoother ride, less for aero or cool looks. For instance, my Dura Ace C24 wheels are slightly more comfortable than my Mavic Ksyrium SL. Since we want a reliable wheel for our tandem, I only tried the LB rims after testing it on my mtn bike. My first set of LB rims were laced to DT Swiss 240s rims (32H) and didn't seem to be fazed by sharp rocks and large bumps. My experience seems typical given the various forum threads. Here's one comparison of the LB to Enve wheels:

Carbon Wheels ? Experiences and Tests | I-MTB

The next step was to replace our Rolf rear tandem disk wheel with a LB 35mm rim and White Industries MI6 disk hub (32H). The wider rim width and carbon construction has provided a reliable and slightly more comfortable ride. The lighter weight was merely a bonus. In the unlikely event that the rear wheel fails, we should be able to stay upright and finish the ride. As a general rule, carbon rims should last a long time if you don't crash or hit large potholes.
mtseymour is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 10:04 AM
  #21  
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Posts: 1,996

Bikes: Tandems: Calfee Dragonfly S&S, Ventana ECDM mtb; Singles: Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, Specialized Stumpjumper Pro, etal.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
Good thought and one I can consider. I haven't thought of actual implementation of a single side drive much... The tandem crankset wouldn't be my first choice to get that job done, however. This comment is because the 24mm spindle on the tandem crankset is much much longer and the Q factor of it is much wider than what I or my stoker would like.
I fully understand the Q-factor issue. Wide cranks are a problem for my stoker as well.

Right now I'm seriously debating the easton r90 rim vs some light-bicycle 55mm carbon clincher rims. It's the rim construction that most scared of. I don't want to get a "China carbon" part to be aero and cool to have it fail and hurt us.
Yes, it is taking a step away from what we historically think of as mainstream tandem wheels. However, so far I've heard direct Light-Bicycle feedback from two sources: mtseymour and my LBS manager/head mechanic who has built up quite a few mtn wheels with LB rims. All reports there are good. Also searching ""light bicycle" carbon road rims review" and such, I haven't found any further reason to doubt these rims. Any rim failures I've come across seem to be a result of mtn riders running with very low psi and hitting rocks (pretty much guarranteed to crack most carbon rims). Good news is that they held together quite well. Here are a couple links:

https://www.******.com/r/MTB/comment...light_bicycle/
Cheap Chinese Carbon Rims, Long Term Tested: Light Bicycle Wide 38mm 29er Rim Review | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

Unlike low spoke count, alloy nipple single bike wheels, our tandem disc set was built with WI CLD hubs, 32 spokes, brass nipples and nipple washers.

I would be interested is hearing of any other relevant rim failure reports... we also prefer to avoid known dangers

Last edited by twocicle; 02-16-16 at 10:22 AM.
twocicle is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 12:13 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mtseymour
Both the Easton R90 and LB 55mm carbon rims would be good choices. I prefer carbon wheels for the smoother ride, less for aero or cool looks. For instance, my Dura Ace C24 wheels are slightly more comfortable than my Mavic Ksyrium SL. Since we want a reliable wheel for our tandem, I only tried the LB rims after testing it on my mtn bike. My first set of LB rims were laced to DT Swiss 240s rims (32H) and didn't seem to be fazed by sharp rocks and large bumps. My experience seems typical given the various forum threads. Here's one comparison of the LB to Enve wheels:

Carbon Wheels ? Experiences and Tests | I-MTB

The next step was to replace our Rolf rear tandem disk wheel with a LB 35mm rim and White Industries MI6 disk hub (32H). The wider rim width and carbon construction has provided a reliable and slightly more comfortable ride. The lighter weight was merely a bonus. In the unlikely event that the rear wheel fails, we should be able to stay upright and finish the ride. As a general rule, carbon rims should last a long time if you don't crash or hit large potholes.
How have your carbon wheels held up and that is your team weight, if you don't mind? Did you use nipple washers like @twocicle?

Im more for using tires as a means of tuning the ride properties by use of different compounds and pressures, if there is comfort in the rim, it is providing comfort by flexing in some form. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing, but with our tandem last year we had issues with spoke breakage and flexing of a rim will stress the spokes more than one that doesn't flex. I may be over analyzing this aspect though so im open for you opinion.
Weight and aero aside, the reason im considering the LB rims is mostly aesthetic. That's why im on the fence about it, especially since the Easton rims are 50% cheaper and are quite deep/aero for an aluminum wheel.

We ran Alex DA22 rims last year with Novatec hubs and some straight guage spokes that was an issue... not from a rim perspective but its making me consider the whole wheel build such that it isn't an issue this year. I've gone as far as ordering a park spoke tension gauge so I can monitor our wheels to make sure they are both built correctly and that they stay that way. Im building the wheels myself, Much like I am building the frame. I have a DIY wheel truing stand half completed in my garage right now too.

Last edited by shlammed; 02-16-16 at 12:21 PM.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 12:17 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by twocicle
Just IMO, I think if you want to use standard/single FSA MegaExo bike cranks you would be better off implementing this with a right-side drive and installing the cranks on their proper sides.

We currently have this setup with FSA SLK Light cranks (double front, triple rear) and a Gates CDX/Centertrack belt drive on the outside of the triple. A timing chain would be easier to setup than the belt drive as the chain would require less space and less precise alignment front to rear. This setup allows us to use 1-130bcd ring in the middle position of the triple spider, and 1-74mm ring in the granny/inner position (we are running 48t/30t chainrings).

The right-side drive does not torque the rear axle and load up the BB in the same manner that a crossover drive does. I would be curious if the FSA tandem crankset has a beefier rear axle and also the bearing cups might differ than the single double version. With right-side drive it doesn't matter because most of the pedaling forces are cancelled out at the timing + drive.
Thinking this over last night, I wont be doing a "right-side drive" on our bike. there isn't enough room to run three full sized chainrings and maintain chainstay clearance between the innermost chainring.
shlammed is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 12:51 PM
  #24  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 420

Bikes: 2022 Calfee Tetra, 2023 Giant TCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by shlammed
How have your carbon wheels held up and that is your team weight, if you don't mind? Did you use nipple washers like @twocicle?

Im more for using tires as a means of tuning the ride properties by use of different compounds and pressures, if there is comfort in the rim, it is providing comfort by flexing in some form. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing, but with our tandem last year we had issues with spoke breakage and flexing of a rim will stress the spokes more than one that doesn't flex. I may be over analyzing this aspect though so im open for you opinion.
Weight and aero aside, the reason im considering the LB rims is mostly aesthetic. That's why im on the fence about it, especially since the Easton rims are 50% cheaper and are quite deep/aero for an aluminum wheel.
Our team weight is around 310 lbs. The LB rims have gone through more than a year of use on my mtn bike and tandem. They've stayed true and show no sign of wear and tear.

I built both sets of wheels and my LBS checked the dish & tension. Like me, they were impressed with the rim quality. I didn't use nipple washers because I've never used them on any of my wheels. Spoke manufacturers and builders (eg. DT Swiss and Wheelbuilder.com) don't refer to washers in their spoke calculators or custom options. It should be noted that the LB rims have very precisely drilled holes, and washers may interfere with the fit. I lubed the spoke threads and spoke holes to avoid windup.

Carbon rims offer a subtle but noticeable improvement in comfort. I treat it as luxury option for longer rides (70 miles +). Good 28mm tires also help regardless of rim choice.

Not sure what you mean by aesthetics. We prefer a low-key look and ordered the LB in bare carbon (matte clear coat) w/o decals.
mtseymour is offline  
Old 02-16-16, 01:09 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 197

Bikes: Norco Bigfoot, Miyata 110, Giant TCR Advanced 0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mtseymour
Our team weight is around 310 lbs. The LB rims have gone through more than a year of use on my mtn bike and tandem. They've stayed true and show no sign of wear and tear.

I built both sets of wheels and my LBS checked the dish & tension. Like me, they were impressed with the rim quality. I didn't use nipple washers because I've never used them on any of my wheels. Spoke manufacturers and builders (eg. DT Swiss and Wheelbuilder.com) don't refer to washers in their spoke calculators or custom options. It should be noted that the LB rims have very precisely drilled holes, and washers may interfere with the fit. I lubed the spoke threads and spoke holes to avoid windup.

Carbon rims offer a subtle but noticeable improvement in comfort. I treat it as luxury option for longer rides (70 miles +). Good 28mm tires also help regardless of rim choice.

Not sure what you mean by aesthetics. We prefer a low-key look and ordered the LB in bare carbon (matte clear coat) w/o decals.
That's encouraging. thanks.

By aesthetics I mean a deep profile rim, that looks different than your standard low profile wheel found on cheaper bikes or box section rim. 30mm deep vs 18, not specifically decal packages. Both the Easton r90 and the LB rims would be tidy in regards to decals.
shlammed is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.