KRhea

Found an older Lippy tandem in excellent condition and was wondering if anyone would have an idea of what a decent purchase price would be.
It's a 7speed with 135mm spacing, Sachs Ergos w/Sachs rear derail, double sided rear Bullseye sealed hubs, Specialized cranks and Shimano brakes.
I live in Oregon and am familiar with Lippy as a builder but have never seen one of his tandems before today. The workmanship is excellent with beautiful fillet brazing. I did a quick Google search looking for more info and it was sparse at beat.
I'm thinking this would be the perfect starter bike for a someone if the price was right.

We already have 2 "modern" tandems but it's hard for me to pass up a good bike deal be it a single or another tandem.

Anyone own a Lippy or have any insight?

Also, any rider doing the Monster Cookie Metric Century in Salem Oregon next weekend? If so please let me know.

Thanks
KRhea
PortlandVelo.net

zonatandem

A Lippy tandem is a work of art. Have seen only two; his tandems are a bit rare. If it fits, I'd suggest in the $1,000 +/- range.

KRhea

Zona, thanks for the info.


KRhea

TandemGeek

This one?
https://seattle.craigslist.org/sno/bik/315873851.html

dbohemian

Lippy is a very good builder and that is one heck of a bicycle for the money. If it fits, I would go for it. It would be interesting for some feedback between that bicycle and your "modern tandems" I think you may like it.

Dave Bohm

KRhea

That'd be the one! He and I are currently exchanging emails. I figure at that price it would be worth to purchase and upgrade to current components from the boxes of parts in the garage.

Thanks for comments fellas.

KRhea
PortlandVelo.net

TandemGeek

It would appear that you have already found the seller's asking price to be reasonable so I will only offer a comment for other's who come across older tandems that are of interest.

IMHO, unless your pockets are deep enough to allow all sorts of discretionary acquisitions, or if there's a real desire to start a collection of older hand-built tandems, bear in mind what it is you're really buying and why when considering the purchase of an older tandem.

Unless you're willing to use the bike equipped as is with what was state of the art when it was produced refreshing an old frame takes a lot of time, effort, and usually more cash than we care to admit to our spouses. Mind you, there's noting wrong with vintage equipment. Single speeds still work fine, as do 3 speeds, 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 and 9 speeds. In fact, Peter Matthews of Dublin, Ireland and Gary Sanderson, of Verona, NJ, spent two months on a pair of 1880's vintage ordinary bikes (high wheelers) covering some 3,500 miles while riding from Perth Amboy, NJ, to Newport, OR, back in 2004.

Case in point: Keith Lippy's tandems are nice examples of what was at the time some of the interesting design concepts and construction methods in use at the time any given frame was build, e.g., some use up-tube designs, ovalized tubes show up in different places, and I believe they were all fillet-brazed. "Soft" colors also seemed to be a constant with at least three Lippy's that three different friends / acquaintances have owned.

However, as the frames get older they get heavier with no real benefit in terms of stiffness, the stoker compartments usually get smaller, and older components are just that. Often times, if the bikes were ridden, they only work because both the rear cogsets and chains have been worn out together and replacing either one will dictate replacing both ($$) and most likely the chainrings too ($$). Timing rings can usually be used as-is with worn-out chains but, again, putting on a new chain will require flipping the rings or new ones. Add another $20 for handlebar tape, $30 for new cables and cable housing, etc... and before you know it you can end up sinking twice as much into that "great deal" which, in retrospect, isn't all that great of a deal anymore... unless you REALLY had a special reason to possess THAT particular frame. None of this is to suggest that older tandems won't afford a wonderful ride: even a Schwinn Town & Country can be fun to ride. However, there's a reason that tubing has continued to evolve as has most other components that, in aggregate, define how well a bike will perform in all but the least demanding conditions. So, by all means, if you're so inclined to collect the classics for all the things that make them classic, do so with gusto.

Again, for collectors and enthusiasts with the time and/or resources needed to obtain and restore older components or to invest in "updating" a bike to something a bit more current that what it came with, knock yourselves out. However, if you don't fit into that category get your Excel spreadsheet fired up and start running some numbers and verifying that what you have in your parts box will work before making an offer on a "classic" so that you can go into with your eyes wide open on what it will cost to achieve your vision for your acquisition. Frankly, for what the seller is offering, that's not a bad deal... if you leave it as it or truly have all the components needed to bring it up to 8 or 9 speed.

Just something for others to consider as collecting and restoring bikes is not really all that different than cars or motorcycles: do it out of love because you'll rarely get your time and money back out if you ever feel compelled to part with it.

zonatandem

While 'modern' tandems do differ a bit from older bikes it sounds as if KRhea already has a couple nice modern tandems and appreciates great workmanship and maybe the challenge of an updating project.
Like the Mona Lisa is an 'older' painting, I would prefer it to Warhalls modern 'Soupcans'!
A chacun son gout!

TandemGeek

Even Keith would get a chuckle from that analogy...

sbarner 

The short version is that older tandems can be just as much fun to ride as new ones. You don't need the latest hot-zoot plastic to have a good time. My wife and I have one of those Lippy tandems and it is a fine ride. We have ridden with many other teams and our bike always gets the most attention--no matter what else shows up, just because of its exquisite workmanship. That doesn't make the bike ride better but, as a former bike mechanic, I gain significant satisfaction from riding such a beautiful artisan machine. We're usually in front of everyone else, as well. The ride of this tandem is wonderful. It is comfortable, yet rigid and a great climber; something we get lots of practice with up here in Vermont. The Sachs/Campy - Shimano 7-spd setup provides good gear spacing and excellent shifting, even under load. This is a great tandem that has done a lot up here in the north country to convince others that long bikes are not necessarily slow up the hills.

Forget the spreadsheet. If you find an older tandem, setup well and at a good price, give it a spin and buy it if you like it. You can get a really nice older machine for the cost of a cheap new one. The biggest issue is size. Most non-custom tandems are already a compromise in sizing, as manufacturers and dealers cannot afford to offer stock frames that will fit all teams. There's no choice at all in sizing on a used bike, other than to pass it by. As the previous poster noted, the stoker top tube tends to get pretty short on bikes built before the mid 1980s. Equally important is stoker seat tube length. Most stokers prefer a shock-absorbing seat post, which requires a few inches of space, at minimum. Quality index shifting is also a must. I would prefer 8-speeds, but have no problem living with 7. The problem with 9 and 10 speed systems is that most cassettes give you the extra cogs where you don't really need them. Athletic tandem teams can push really tall gears at times, but having an 11-12-13 is pretty useless, in my book. You might as well just have the 13.

Just remember that older tandems have very poor resale value. Still, most tandems really don't get that much use, making older tandems with very low miles a common find. You can pick up an older Santana or other quality tandem in like-new condition for significantly under $1,000. There are limitations on what you can do to retrofit them, mostly due to the changes in rear spacing, but you can often find modern road or mountain components that will fit. Prices on older components may seem expensive, until you compare them with those of new components. Nothing quality is cheap these days. Between Craig's List and eBay, you can find anything these days, if you are patient.

So, don't be afraid of an older tandem, especially if you are just starting out. If you like riding long bikes, you can always upgrade and your experience will inform what you are looking for in a new machine. I've hung on to my older tandems to introduce others to the sport (there are no tandem shops nearby) and to use as foul-weather bikes. If you purchase wisely, you should be able to get your money back on resale.

zonatandem

We wholeheartedly agree with the above assessment on many older tandems.
Most tandems have sat around collecting dust in someone's garage or get ridden a couple hundred miles now and then.
We sold our '93 custom short-wheelbased (63 1/2") Co-Motion over 3 years ago to a very happy, well-fitting couple for $1100. Our tandem had not 'sat around' but had 57,000 miles on the odo. We informed the couple of that mileage, although they had not asked that crucial question. It was in excellent condition both mechanically and the cosmetically and custom paint job still looked great.
Spotted them last year pedaling on the El Tour de Tucson, and they're still lovin' it.
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

exploring

Does anyone have any comments on the suitability of a Lippy tandem for a heavier Clydesdale/Athena couple, new to tandems? The wheels can and will always be a weak point but I am asking specifically about the frame and tubing. Did Lippy use a variety of tubing to match his individual customers or was there commonality in his tandem frame materials? Does the ovalized top tube make much difference from a conventional round top tube? Does the longer length of many of the Lippy tandem frames make for greater weight bearing capacity? Would a Lippy even be worth our consideration? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

zonatandem

Most vintage tandems had 40 or 48 spoke wheels; plenty sturdy for clyde/athena duo.
Frame also should be A-OK.
Had a couple (he 330lbs/she 180+ lbs) buy our 1975 Follis which is a French production tandem. No issues.
They were hard riders . . . they were the best team to draft for at least the first 25 miles . . . what a windbreak!

TandemGeek

We knew of at least one super-Clydesdale captain with a petite stoker who put many, many miles on their Lippy and it never flinched. The ovalized tubes were used to provide additional lateral stiffness while still allowing for some veritical compliance for comfort and can be found on Erickson, Lippy, Rodriquez, and perhaps a few other Pacific Northwest builder's tandems. The longer length simply provides the stoker with more room and is, again, something of a Pacific Northwest tandem feature. Lippy's are outstanding examples of hand-built custom steel tandems.

Best way to get specific info on this Lippy is to ask the owner for the serial number and then to contact Keith or his wife Pat. I believe this web page may have their current contact info: https://www.all-oregon.com/city/salem/recreation.htm

exploring

TandemGeek, I'm curious how big/tall that super-Clydesdale captain may be? Have they since moved up to a custom bike? I noticed your comment in an earlier thread that long bikes are not that common. Were you speaking of longer lengths in the wheelbase as well or were you focused on the top tube lengths? Is TT length the primary criteria for front cockpit and rear compartment size with seat tube length of secondary influence? So the ovalized tubes allowed the longer top tubes to have more lateral stiffness. Not sure I understand the vertical compliance reference. Thanks!

exploring

So even narrow 135 mm Phil Wood hubs should be able to take the punishment of a Clydesdale/Athena couple if they have 40 or more spokes? Was there something in the water in the Pacific Northwest that created the elongated designs of some of these older vintage bikes? What forces pushed the market away from this arguably more comfortable design?

TandemGeek

He's about 6'2" and his stoker is about 5'7", IIR. In addition to the Lippy (internal tube design) they rode for many years, they also owned a Tandem Tuesday (foldable Bike Friday tandem from Green Gear). They eventually sold both and have been riding box-stock Co-Motion Speedster Co-Pilots for the past 8 years or so. Last time we visited with them he'd drop his weight by nearly 40% and had successfully climbed the Alp d'Huez during one of his European tours.

The overall length (wheelbase) of a tandem is determined by four factors: the captain's & stoker's effective top tube lengths, the length of the rear stays, and to a lesser extent the fork rake. Therefore, when talking about extra-long two-seat tandems the inference is usually that it has a longer-than-average stoker compartment, e.g., 27.5" - 28.5" being the current average range. For example, Santana uses 27.75" for all of it's stock size tandems and Co-Motion uses 28.5" across the board whereas you'll find Ericksons and Rodriquez models sporting 30" - 32" stoker compartments. Cannondale and Trek also something around 29" for their largest models, but C'dale falls back to 27.5" for it's smaller models. Trek is somewhat unique in that they end up with three different size stoker compartments on their three different size tandems.

When it comes to sizing tandems, as you can see from the brief discussion on stoker top tube length, there are no standards. Therefore, you must look at each tandem builder's tandem sizing using an open mind and a critical eye to see what they are really offering. However, at the end of the day, the unfortunate truth is that tandems are primarily sized for the captain with the top tube being the hard point as seat tube length can vary by design, i.e., Santana uses top tubes that tend to be parallel to the boom tube / ground whereas Co-Motion's use sloping top tubes. A sloping top tube creates a shorter seat tube -- similar to single bikes with compact geometry -- and requires the use of a 'virtual' seat post length to approximate the size. Hence, with tandems you end up with Small, Medium, Large sizing vs. 52cm, 56cm and 60cm.

Let's just leave it at lateral stiffness and note that you probably wouldn't want to build a tandem with an ovalized top, internal, and boom tube...

TandemGeek

I'm fairly sure it was the influence of Glenn Erickson who, along with Angel Rodriquez, founded R&E Cycles back in the early 70's. Being located in the Seattle area -- the one-time home to Boeing -- they had access to some of the best tubing manufacturers in the US which allowed them to source some pretty interesting tubing. The longer stoker compartment was, to the best of my knowledge, born out of Glenn's realization that he didn't need to make his taller stoker spouse "fit" the conventional sizing dogma of the time (25" - 27"); instead, what he needed to do was to simply build a tandem with a stoker compartment that allowed his spouse to attain the same fit and riding position they enjoyed on their single bike. However, to attain the handling qualities he preferred -- perhaps via collaboration with other out-of the-box thinking frame builders located in the Northwest -- Glenn adopted a variety of tubing specifications that would make his frame stiffer without adding weight, i.e., ovalization of long tubes, external butting of seat tubes, and bi-ovalized & oversized down tubes, and a beefy internal tube are all features that we see on our own '98 Erickson that track back to his original designs. Having had this epiphany and sorted out the design details, it was adopted for all of his tandems as well as the Rodriguez brand. Keith Lippy also adopted ovalization for some of his frames as well as another Northwest frame builder's innovation: Rick Jorgenson's up-tube design found on most of his short-lived brand of Tango Tandems.

Bottom Line: The Pacific Northwest has been home to some very innovative frame builders who embraced tandems. They were all small business owners working on shoe-string budgets that got their hands dirty every day building their tandems and who were not afraid to try some off-the-wall stuff to make them better, per their own definition of better, for themselves and their clients who were for the most part folks who lived in the local communities. Because they were and still are of like minds, collaboration, sharing, and adopting good ideas was and still is a mainstay of their business models. Folks like Todd Shusterman of daVinci, the folks at Co-Motion, and even Craig Calfee use similar models and collaborate in much the same manner as do many others... most of whom you can identify by simply looking at their products, business philosophy, and marketing (or lack thereof).

exploring

Thanks TandemGeek, you are a wealth of tandem knowledge! Just curious, what is the largest sized custom tandem you have ever seen, in the captain and/or stoker position and who made it? Thanks again!

TandemGeek

These are all friends whom we ride with on a fairly frequent basis + another couple who moved back to Bend a few years back:

Team #1: Captain 6'3" ish & stoker 6'1 ish (Note: He manages bike shop that sells Co-Motion)
- Co-Motion Supremo
- Co-Motion Speedster Co-Pilot S&S Travel Tandem
- Co-Motion Robusta (Stock-size)
(Photo of them riding in Oregon, Post NWTR)
(Photo of them riding what I believe is largest stock size Robusta)


Team #2: Captain 6'3" ish & stoker 5'8" ish
- Erickson Custom S&S Travel Tandem
(Photo of them riding next to us at TTR this past June, 5'8" & 5'2" on small custom frame)


Team #3: Captain 6'4" ish & stoker 5'4" ish
- Bushnell Custom S&S Travel Tandem based on design of Team #2
(Photo of them riding at GTR this past May)


Team #4: Captain 6'3" ish & stoker 5'3" ish from Bend, OR (Not the same couple mentioned earlier so, yes, we know of two past Lippy owners)
- Lippy Uptube design
- Co-Motion Speedster Co-Pilot S&S Travel Tandem
(Photo of them riding at STR '07)


Note: Photos all shamelessly linked off of TandemRacer's & another friend's flickr account.

Aemmer

6'3" with a 5'9" stoker here.
We ride an old Rodriguez....

exploring

TandemGeek, thanks for those nice photos! As a tandem wannabe I sometimes fail to realize that tandem riding really can be a social sport. Regarding the outdated ovalized top tubes, I've read that they were unnececssarily heavy. Did they not in fact bolster the strength/rigidity of the frame over a top tube of the conventional round tubing of the time or was it simply overkill? So a Cannondale jumbo is the best off-the-rack bike for a taller couple, how might a used Cannondale compare to a used Lippy? Thanks!

TandemGeek

Sounds like you've been reading or getting second information from folks who've read some tandem marketing literature that is widely regarded by tandem enthusiasts in the know as dubious at best, hardly objective, and contains a lot of unquantified statements dressed up like facts. To be candid, excluding the truly low-end whippy tandems, the differences between ovalized and round tubes or just about any other type of bicycle frame tube shaping, butting, thickness or alloy composition and fabrication methods are subtle and may or may not be of any significance that the average tandem team would notice aside from .5 - 1.5 lbs of weight depending on what wheels, tires / tire pressures they were using and how discerning they are. Don't get me wrong, there are clearly differences, but until someone spends a lot of time in the saddle on different tandems fitted with similar wheels, forks, and tires it can be hard to quantify those differences. For example, we've been riding our all-carbon tandem exclusively since February and most recently with our Topolino wheelset. We jumped on our '98 Erickson with it's stock 36h conventional wheels for a 40 mile ride this past weekend and afterwards felt as if we'd been beaten. The next day we fitted it with the Topolino wheels and it transformed the ride to something far more comfortable and spry than the previous day, although well short of the comfort and sporty performance we enjoy on our carbon tandem. Mind you, the Erickson up to and until we had the Calfee, was something we considered very comfortable and spry.

FWIW, and getting back to the weight claims here's a link to a photo of our '98 Erickson with Rolf wheels and Alpha Q fork and what I'd otherwise characterize as average componentry -- UN72 bottom brackets, drop bars with heavy stoker rests, a large climbing cassette, and the like -- taken a while back where it weighs in at 33.68 lbs with pedals and water bottle cages attached. The tandem it replaced was a small size Santana Arriva that had a comparison weight of something like 37 lbs and actually weighed closer to 40 lbs with pedals and water bottle cages while being 4" shorter in the stoker compartment than the Erickson. The Santana Nivacrom (high-end steel) of the same vintage wasn't all that much lighter than the Arriva.

https://www.thetandemlink.com/Images/...kson_33lbs.jpg

To get to what most builders use as comparison weight you'd remove the pedals and water bottles and would probably choose something other than the 325 gram saddle that I've got on this tandem which would take it down below 32 lbs. If I were to change out the bottom brackets, seat posts, stems, pedals, water bottle cages, and stoker bars for light weight components and my Topolino wheels it would probably be closer to a comparison weight of 30 lbs. Admittedly, this is a small-size frame but that's what most builders use to establish their comparison weights. And, remember, this frame is also 10 years old and was fabricated using customer drawn & shaped straight gauge 4130 chromoly steel... not the current air hardened alloyed steel tubesets.

It's probably the largest stock tandem you can buy, although Trek's Large size frame may be pretty close as it also has a proportionally larger rear stoker compartment. If both frames were built-up using the exact same components to include their stock forks the Cannondale might be 1 lb lighter and would probably not be as comfortable / easy on the bones as the Lippy. Moving up the food chain on pricing / features, Rodriquez would also be a brand to consider along with Bilenky, as they also offer a wide range of size and some unique features that might be appealing to a larger team, i.e., you basically get a custom tandem without paying for a custom tandem. Co-Motion is a personal favorite and unless your stoker needed something longer than 28.5" stoker compartment, their largest size frame would also be worth considering. None of these would likely be as affordable or retain their purchase price value as well as the Lippy.

exploring

TandemGeek, you are correct and I think you know which company's website I was reading. Many good points and I do like that Erickson! Your earlier comment "you probably wouldn't want to build a tandem with an ovalized top, internal, and boom tube..." is because it would be much too heavy with no improved lateral stiffness by today's technology/material standards or because of a structural integrity issue with overuse of ovalized tubing in the same frame? So the old "long bikes" are traditionally slow up hills because of the added weight of moving those longer, stoker, (ovalized or not) top tubes whereas modern technology/materials allows for bikes that are just as long or longer as the old "long bikes" but lighter?

TandemGeek

Let me over simplify. Let's first agree that the amount of deflection in round and ovalized tubing is pretty minimal to begin with; however, the round tubing has a uniform amount of strength in all planes whereas the ovalized is asymetrical: stiffer across the widest axis and less stiff across the narrow. If you have three ovalized tubes stacked one on top of the other you end up with lots of lateral stiffness, but in doing so you've compromised vertical stiffness.

Excluding the aforementioned whippy tandems and tandems that don't fit both riders well enough to allow for riding efficiency, the fastest climbing tandem is the tandem with the strongest and most efficient pair of riders (period). You can put them on any decent tandem and they'll still fly up the hills. Conversely, it's unlikely that a pair of weekend warriors will see a dramatic change in their climbing performance by merely changing out a well-made 10 year old high-end steel tandem frame from one of the artisan builders like Erickson, Davidson, Lippy, Bushnell, or Bilenky (remember, were talking about frames here, not the entire machine) that weighs 8.5 lbs for a superlightweight 6.5 lb tandem frame: do the math assuming a 35 lb tandem and you'll it's only about a 5% savings. Chances are, the seat bag carried your average tandem during a non-racing event weighs more than that. Moreover, as with all weights and aero drag numbers thrown around bicycle frame and wheel weights, they ignore one minor detail: bikes and in this case tandem bikes don't climb mountains or do time trials without riders... riders that often times make up 90% of the total weight and aero drag of the bike with those riders aboard. So, it's not shaving 2 lbs off of 35 lbs, it's shaving 2 lbs off of 335 lbs or more, sometimes a lot more.

Less I digress, the biggest "problem" with older high-end tandems -- noting that there are only a handful of older "long tandems" in existence as most old tandems where whippy things with 25" - 27" stoker compartments -- is that they often times still have their original wheels, forks, and components with a combined weight of 30 lbs, whereas the newer performance tandems use wheels, forks, and components that are in some cases 30% - 33% lighter.

Bottom Line: The newer frames are definitely lighter and stiffer than earlier models; however, once you objectively crunch the numbers the quantifiable added-value for all but the most elite teams is often times quite small.