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


Go Back   > >

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!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-26-13, 03:25 AM   #101
dubbelop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands
Bikes: Santos Dual Travel touring tandem, MSC Zion MTB-tandem, Santos SCC03 MTB, Santos STR01 trekking bike, Cannondale F500 MTB, Kalkhoff E-bike, Centurion Cross 4000 cyclocross bike (converted to road bike)
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW: in Europe the "Tandem 29" (the version with Acera bits) is priced at €2,199 including VAT. That would be something like €1.817 without VAT which roughly translates to $2,507. Just curious: what will be the asking price in the USA?
dubbelop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-13, 03:41 AM   #102
dubbelop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands
Bikes: Santos Dual Travel touring tandem, MSC Zion MTB-tandem, Santos SCC03 MTB, Santos STR01 trekking bike, Cannondale F500 MTB, Kalkhoff E-bike, Centurion Cross 4000 cyclocross bike (converted to road bike)
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarabelle View Post
+3

Isn't it sad how we keep supporting businesses that ship jobs overseas. I've not regretted buying my American made Co-Motion tandem. My next bike will probably be by Bike Friday.
I can imagine that people in the USA want/like/prefer USA-made products like the original Cannondale bikes. But if my information is correct, the demise of Cannondale has primarily been caused by the huge losses they incurred in trying to get into the motorcycling and other non-bicycle businesses. What I mean to say here is that without these (in retrospect) 'wrong' investments, Cannondale probably still would be - proudly! - American. All this would mean - again: if my information is correct - that a "good ol' American entrepreneur" has single-handedly killed his American company and thus this great brand. And I feel you can't blame others (in this case, Far Eastern parties) to have picked up such a valuable brand name after it got available.
dubbelop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-13, 10:07 AM   #103
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
waynesulak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Bikes: 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
Posts: 1,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
I don't blame Cannondale but there is often confusion and some consumers are misled into thinking the brand is still American when it is not. That is my only problem with brands being purchased for name identification.

You are right and I prefer an American made frame. The tandem frame market is dominated by American brands so it is easy to take advantage of that rather than buying a foreign frame with an American name.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-13, 04:43 PM   #104
Nmike
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know people have complained about the frame not being made in the US and the price increase but, in 2014, is this bike really a bad value?

BTW I do find the not "US made" complaint humorous given a majority of the parts on US "made" bikes are sourced from Asia.
Nmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-13, 09:58 AM   #105
Tom Spohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seattle
Bikes: Spec. Roubaix, Cannondale RT2, BF NWT, BF tandem
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I fail to see the humor. Just because many of the components on a "US Made" tandem are foreign is not an argument in favor of buying a 100 per cent foreign tandem. If consumers don't let manufacturers know what they want then it is guaranteed they will get what the manufacturers want. I personally am proud of my 2011 'Dale, made in the US--I would not buy the current version.
Tom Spohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-13, 10:51 AM   #106
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
waynesulak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Bikes: 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
Posts: 1,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmike View Post
I know people have complained about the frame not being made in the US and the price increase but, in 2014, is this bike really a bad value?

BTW I do find the not "US made" complaint humorous given a majority of the parts on US "made" bikes are sourced from Asia.
The non US component issue relates to ready made bikes that spec bulk purchased OEM priced components to keep the total bike price down. For anyone truly interested in made in a USA made tandem, there are non low wage country options available and those options are often the best available in their own right. Unlike a car one can buy a frame and build it up or have it built with components you choose. I have two tandems that ended up mostly made in the US not by design but rather as a result of picking the components I liked. Many on this list also specified individual components or replace many of the OEM components on their tandems.

Some US examples include:

Enve
daVinci cranks
Phil Wood
Paul
Chris King
White Industries
Selle Anatomica
Velocity
Polar
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-13, 08:38 PM   #107
chadne
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
From what I can tell there aren't really any physical changes dimensionally on the frames. I was hoping for a longer stoker compartment since my wife and I are so like sized.
chadne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 07:33 AM   #108
NoTrail
Trail Blazing
 
NoTrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Bikes: Roubaix, Epic, Source 11, Stumpjumper, Cannondale Tandem
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadne View Post
From what I can tell there aren't really any physical changes dimensionally on the frames. I was hoping for a longer stoker compartment since my wife and I are so like sized.
If you compare the geometry, there are definite changes to the frame.

2014 Version


2012 "Made in USA" Version
NoTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 10:46 AM   #109
Bostic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 1,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
How can a Medium/Small frame have a front top tube of 57.1 when the previous had a 54.5 which for some companies is already on the long side for a Medium?
Bostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 11:08 AM   #110
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
waynesulak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Bikes: 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
Posts: 1,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
It appears that no "small" captains need apply. Shortest captain's top tube has gone up from 54.1 to 571+mm. In addition on the M/S bike the head tube angle is reduced to 71 degrees while they make no compensating adjustment to the fork rake (45mm) to even attempt to maintain handling similar to their larger models. As a result the M/S will handle very much differently than the larger sizes. Putting aside that I would not like that handling, an inflated fear of toe overlap seems to overridden the handling Cannondale's designers think is best best for the larger sizes.

Both Comotion and Santana offer top tubes well under 570 and they live in the litigious US market. Comotion designed the Java a big tire 700C tandem and used a 70 degree head tube and choose a much more reasonable 55mm rake for that bike. Note that the longer rake gives both more toe clearance and compensates somewhat for the slack head tube angle in an attempt to design a bike that handles closer to the Comotion standard.

I know of no other tandem brand that designs a bike with the extreme 69mm trail of the M/S Cannondale and suggest the new Cannondales are best suited to those teams with a (large, extra large and jumbo?) captain that likes at 58cm or longer top tube.

Last edited by waynesulak; 10-30-13 at 11:21 AM.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 11:16 AM   #111
Ritterview
Tandem Vincitur
 
Ritterview's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern California
Bikes: BMC Pro Machine SLC01, Specialized Globe, Burley Rock 'N Roll tandem, Calfee Dragonfly tandem.
Posts: 3,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostic View Post
How can a Medium/Small frame have a front top tube of 57.1 when the previous had a 54.5 which for some companies is already on the long side for a Medium?
For comparison, this is the Geo on the Cannondale Synapse Hi-MOD endurance half-bike. The Medium appears to be 54.2 cm.

__________________

Strava Tandem Club
Ritterview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 02:42 PM   #112
rahill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Campbell, CA
Bikes: Co-Motion Speedster, Calfee Tetra, Specialized Crux Disc, Serotta Nova Special, Bianchi Pista Concept, Bianchi Pista
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynesulak View Post
It appears that no "small" captains need apply. Shortest captain's top tube has gone up from 54.1 to 571+mm. In addition on the M/S bike the head tube angle is reduced to 71 degrees while they make no compensating adjustment to the fork rake (45mm) to even attempt to maintain handling similar to their larger models. As a result the M/S will handle very much differently than the larger sizes. Putting aside that I would not like that handling, an inflated fear of toe overlap seems to overridden the handling Cannondale's designers think is best best for the larger sizes.
Don't the little stars in the specs mean those specs remain unchanged (as you read left to right)? If so, the steering geometry is the same for all the sizes -- same head tube angle, same fork rake, same trail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waynesulak View Post
I know of no other tandem brand that designs a bike with the extreme 69mm trail of the M/S Cannondale and suggest the new Cannondales are best suited to those teams with a (large, extra large and jumbo?) captain that likes at 58cm or longer top tube.
Well it's 66 mm for the road tandems, 69 mm for the 29, but your point remains.

Apparently what you need is a huge captain, or at least one with long arms and torso, and a stoker with pretty short legs, since the rear seat tube is so short.
rahill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-13, 04:01 PM   #113
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
waynesulak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Bikes: 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
Posts: 1,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahill View Post
Don't the little stars in the specs mean those specs remain unchanged (as you read left to right)? If so, the steering geometry is the same for all the sizes -- same head tube angle, same fork rake, same trail.



Well it's 66 mm for the road tandems, 69 mm for the 29, but your point remains.

Apparently what you need is a huge captain, or at least one with long arms and torso, and a stoker with pretty short legs, since the rear seat tube is so short.
Man I need to read these things more carefully. You are correct about the stars.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-13, 10:00 AM   #114
NoTrail
Trail Blazing
 
NoTrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Bikes: Roubaix, Epic, Source 11, Stumpjumper, Cannondale Tandem
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I find it odd that they have increased the length of the top tube for the captain while decreasing the standover height. I guess they are designing it for people with shorter legs and longer arms ... or monkeys.

I think they are still missing out on the Jumbo/Large size too (but that's nothing new).
NoTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-13, 05:17 PM   #115
Chris_W
Gear Combo Guru
 
Chris_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Switzerland
Bikes: road, commuter/tourer, hardtail MTB, touring tandem, cargo, folder
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
One thing about the longer captain's top tube length is that it may well be designed with a zero setback/offset seatpost in mind. This would make the reach to the bars about 2cm shorter than on a comparable road bike, so more similar to one with a 55cm top tube. Zero setback posts are often used on the front of tandems to give more room for the stoker for the same length of rear top tube. The alternative would be to have a seatpost with a standard 20mm of offset, make the captain's top tube 20 mm shorter and the stoker's top tube 20mm longer, but that would make the stoker's compartment less laterally stiff, so what they've done may be considered by some people to be a good compromise.

This would all be negated if the captain insisted on keeping his/her saddle setback measurement (i.e., the horizontal distance between the tip of the saddle and the crank axle) the same on the tandem as on a single road bike. However, that is not really necessary - I run a lot less setback on our tandem than on my other bikes and don't really notice the difference in that - as long as I keep the reach to the bars the same then I'm happy. However, other people believe in the "Knee Over Pedal Spindle" myth and so care about maintaining setback measurements, but Keith Bontrager's article on this should be required reading before discussing that heated topic any further.
Chris_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-13, 07:06 PM   #116
rahill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Campbell, CA
Bikes: Co-Motion Speedster, Calfee Tetra, Specialized Crux Disc, Serotta Nova Special, Bianchi Pista Concept, Bianchi Pista
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't necessarily believe in the knee over pedal spindle "myth" but I do believe that your rear will find it's happy space fore/aft. That may end up with your knee forward of the pedal spindle or well aft of it, but forcing it forward with a zero setback post seems like an odd choice. Having just gone through this, I found that getting setback on the tandem at least close to the single bike setup was important. You might be able to relearn your position, but going back and forth between the two, changes are very noticeable. The only compromise that has on the stoker compartment is that the stoker's hands end up ~2cm further under my saddle, but unless you have a really short captain and a really tall stoker, that doesn't seem to be an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_W View Post
One thing about the longer captain's top tube length is that it may well be designed with a zero setback/offset seatpost in mind. This would make the reach to the bars about 2cm shorter than on a comparable road bike, so more similar to one with a 55cm top tube. Zero setback posts are often used on the front of tandems to give more room for the stoker for the same length of rear top tube. The alternative would be to have a seatpost with a standard 20mm of offset, make the captain's top tube 20 mm shorter and the stoker's top tube 20mm longer, but that would make the stoker's compartment less laterally stiff, so what they've done may be considered by some people to be a good compromise.

This would all be negated if the captain insisted on keeping his/her saddle setback measurement (i.e., the horizontal distance between the tip of the saddle and the crank axle) the same on the tandem as on a single road bike. However, that is not really necessary - I run a lot less setback on our tandem than on my other bikes and don't really notice the difference in that - as long as I keep the reach to the bars the same then I'm happy. However, other people believe in the "Knee Over Pedal Spindle" myth and so care about maintaining setback measurements, but Keith Bontrager's article on this should be required reading before discussing that heated topic any further.
rahill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-13, 08:47 AM   #117
NoTrail
Trail Blazing
 
NoTrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Bikes: Roubaix, Epic, Source 11, Stumpjumper, Cannondale Tandem
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_W View Post
One thing about the longer captain's top tube length is that it may well be designed with a zero setback/offset seatpost in mind.
Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that.
NoTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-13, 09:52 AM   #118
mstyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry to burst that bubble, but both the old and new geometry have 73.0 degree seat tubes front and rear.
mstyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-13, 10:24 AM   #119
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
waynesulak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Bikes: 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
Posts: 1,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_W View Post
One thing about the longer captain's top tube length is that it may well be designed with a zero setback/offset seatpost in mind. This would make the reach to the bars about 2cm shorter than on a comparable road bike, so more similar to one with a 55cm top tube. Zero setback posts are often used on the front of tandems to give more room for the stoker for the same length of rear top tube. The alternative would be to have a seatpost with a standard 20mm of offset, make the captain's top tube 20 mm shorter and the stoker's top tube 20mm longer, but that would make the stoker's compartment less laterally stiff, so what they've done may be considered by some people to be a good compromise.

This would all be negated if the captain insisted on keeping his/her saddle setback measurement (i.e., the horizontal distance between the tip of the saddle and the crank axle) the same on the tandem as on a single road bike. However, that is not really necessary - I run a lot less setback on our tandem than on my other bikes and don't really notice the difference in that - as long as I keep the reach to the bars the same then I'm happy. However, other people believe in the "Knee Over Pedal Spindle" myth and so care about maintaining setback measurements, but Keith Bontrager's article on this should be required reading before discussing that heated topic any further.
I do not believe setback should be set using KOPS because it is a myth. I do however believe in setback being important for most people in that it adjusts how much weight is places on the hands vs. the seat. All setup is individual however so it does not surprise me that you find it easy to adapt to different setbacks. Many are not so adaptable. That is a long way to say that a longer top tube does matter to many people.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-13, 05:26 AM   #120
PMK
Senior Member
 
PMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Royal Palm Beach, Florida
Bikes: 2006 Co-Motion Roadster (Flat Bars, Discs, Carbon Fork), Some 1/2 bikes and a couple of KTM's
Posts: 1,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Not saying this is correct or incorrect, but it is known that Cannondale over the years have had inaccurate specs posted in catalogs.

PK
PMK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-13, 05:55 PM   #121
TCW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I still haven't procured the older Cannondale and have been taking a look at these new models. Of course the two local dealers have no interest in carrying any of these but will order if desired. I'm really concerned with the geometry as the top tubes seem stupid long for the captain, as previously mentioned. I rode a friend's L/S 2011 Cannondale last year. It was short for me and my wife (6'2" and 5'7"), but a long stem made it doable. My road bike, for comparison, has a 58.6 mm top tube and I use a 110mm stem for proper fit.

Another issue is, I can't find any weights listed for the RT1. I would assume they would want it competitive with something like a Co-Motion Robusta. If the weight was comparable you'd think they would be boasting. Anyone actually throw one of these new models on a scale at your LBS? Who knows, there might be just a few dealers around the US that even have any in stock.
TCW2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-13, 02:39 PM   #122
dubbelop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands
Bikes: Santos Dual Travel touring tandem, MSC Zion MTB-tandem, Santos SCC03 MTB, Santos STR01 trekking bike, Cannondale F500 MTB, Kalkhoff E-bike, Centurion Cross 4000 cyclocross bike (converted to road bike)
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW: it seems that the production of (in any case) the new 29er tandem is delayed. I asked Cannondale Europe to get one for testing purposes on a bike show that runs 1st/2nd March 2014. The marketing manager had to inform me that they 'ran into some production problems' and delivery of the first tandems - at least over here in Europe - had been delayed until mid April 2014.
dubbelop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-14, 09:49 AM   #123
swiss_toni
Member
 
swiss_toni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Switzerland
Bikes:
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
RT1 tandem weight

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCW2 View Post
Another issue is, I can't find any weights listed for the RT1. I would assume they would want it competitive with something like a Co-Motion Robusta. If the weight was comparable you'd think they would be boasting. Anyone actually throw one of these new models on a scale at your LBS? Who knows, there might be just a few dealers around the US that even have any in stock.
I have asked the dealer where we are going to get our RT2 from and he has said it weights 18Kg (40lbs) which is fairly hefty.

Last edited by swiss_toni; 02-09-14 at 12:05 PM. Reason: correcting RT1 to RT2
swiss_toni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-14, 08:50 AM   #124
TCW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If it really is 40lbs. then the frame must have some custom lead inserts. Based upon the build spec it would make more sense if it was no more than 35lbs. 40lbs., wtf?
TCW2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-14, 10:37 AM   #125
Ritterview
Tandem Vincitur
 
Ritterview's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern California
Bikes: BMC Pro Machine SLC01, Specialized Globe, Burley Rock 'N Roll tandem, Calfee Dragonfly tandem.
Posts: 3,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss_toni View Post
I have asked the dealer where we are going to get our RT1 from and he has said it weights 18Kg (40lbs) which is fairly hefty.
But I thought only the RT2 was available for dealers in Europe. That's all that's available on the Cannondale web pages for European countries.

I don't think any weights can be trusted without a photo hanging from the scale. For all we know thats the shipping weight of the package including box.
__________________

Strava Tandem Club
Ritterview 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 01:06 PM.