http://www.lustracing.com/tandem.htm
09-28-07, 10:02 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norwalk, CT
Posts: 143
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Custom, Calfee Tetra Tandem, Habanero
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
https://www.lustracing.com/tandem.htm
Anybody have one of these?
09-28-07, 11:08 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 563
Bikes: Trek T200 plus enough others to fill a large shed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Never seen one before. Looks a nice bike.
It seems similar to a Calfee, in terms of carbon tubes held together by wound carbon filaments. What's different could be that Calfee winds filaments round the tubes, whereas Lust seems to use carbon lugs like say a C40, but different to a Colnago C40 in that these are filament rather than pre preg. Also you may be able to wind the filament automatically round a lug-shaped mandrel, which could be much cheaper for large scale production than fitting fabric round a lug. Carbon dropouts also moves tandems to what's being seen on state of the art road bikes.
Unfortunately the price isn't competitive with Calfee ($7700 vs $6295 for a Dragonfly), so unless there is some compelling reason in terms of weight of stiffness or similar, I don't think we will be seeing many of the bikes soon.
Also I disagree with one of the statements made on the website, which makes me uncomfortable with the science that has gone into the frame. Yes this is pedantic, but it's like your plumber telling you that you can't use copper pipes in your heating system.
Example is that the website says that splicing 3 tubes together to form a boom tube is better in torsion than one large tube. This is just wrong, both from a engineering point of view and also practically - otherwise we would all be riding things that look like the Colnago Bitubo designs from the early 1990s. The contention that a single tube isn't right. Ever seen a Trimble bike?
https://www.firstflightbikes.com/1991_Trimble.htm
A better solution is to use the largest tube which will fit around the bottom brackets and chainrings (e.g. Cervelo R3), or if that's difficult to bond to the bottom brackets, to use a tube which bulges in the middle to increase bending moment (e.g. Colnago C50). I suspect the real answer is that using 3 tubes allows a larger tube than those otherwise readily available, which does make sense. If it's the case that's what the website should say.
It seems similar to a Calfee, in terms of carbon tubes held together by wound carbon filaments. What's different could be that Calfee winds filaments round the tubes, whereas Lust seems to use carbon lugs like say a C40, but different to a Colnago C40 in that these are filament rather than pre preg. Also you may be able to wind the filament automatically round a lug-shaped mandrel, which could be much cheaper for large scale production than fitting fabric round a lug. Carbon dropouts also moves tandems to what's being seen on state of the art road bikes.
Unfortunately the price isn't competitive with Calfee ($7700 vs $6295 for a Dragonfly), so unless there is some compelling reason in terms of weight of stiffness or similar, I don't think we will be seeing many of the bikes soon.
Also I disagree with one of the statements made on the website, which makes me uncomfortable with the science that has gone into the frame. Yes this is pedantic, but it's like your plumber telling you that you can't use copper pipes in your heating system.
Example is that the website says that splicing 3 tubes together to form a boom tube is better in torsion than one large tube. This is just wrong, both from a engineering point of view and also practically - otherwise we would all be riding things that look like the Colnago Bitubo designs from the early 1990s. The contention that a single tube isn't right. Ever seen a Trimble bike?
https://www.firstflightbikes.com/1991_Trimble.htm
A better solution is to use the largest tube which will fit around the bottom brackets and chainrings (e.g. Cervelo R3), or if that's difficult to bond to the bottom brackets, to use a tube which bulges in the middle to increase bending moment (e.g. Colnago C50). I suspect the real answer is that using 3 tubes allows a larger tube than those otherwise readily available, which does make sense. If it's the case that's what the website should say.
09-29-07, 10:46 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 11,016
Bikes: Custom Zona c/f tandem + Scott Plasma single
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times
in
11 Posts
Lighten Up Speed Technology . . . . love the acronym: LUST!
Nope had not even heard of the outfit. Triple tube boob tube? Not really novel and no real engineering reason for it.
Santana 'had' a side-by-side boob tube (now discontinued). Saw a double boom tube (one above the other) tandem back in 1977.
Not competitive price-wise with Calfee, but being a non-production twicer, that is understandable. As for lugs, this is what our c/f lugs look like on our Zona tandem.
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem
Nope had not even heard of the outfit. Triple tube boob tube? Not really novel and no real engineering reason for it.
Santana 'had' a side-by-side boob tube (now discontinued). Saw a double boom tube (one above the other) tandem back in 1977.
Not competitive price-wise with Calfee, but being a non-production twicer, that is understandable. As for lugs, this is what our c/f lugs look like on our Zona tandem.
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem
