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!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-29-14, 08:59 AM   #76
mstyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 94
[QUOTE=LastKraftWagen;16801321]
Quote:
Originally Posted by akexpress View Post

Thank you so much.

Followup question: If the road shifter hydraulic guts are essentially XT componentry, are the resivoir/valving/actuators adequate for use with a mountain V-brake type system like Magura? I originally asked when road hydraulics were first announced and was told "no way," but if the internals are indeed XT...
Shimano and Magura both claim that the other's brake fluid will destroy the seals in their system.

Tech Speak: Brake Fluid Break Down & Implications for Road Disc
mstyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 07:50 PM   #77
akexpress
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anchorage, Ak
Bikes: Calfee Tetra tandem, Ventana ECDM 26, Ventana ECDM 29r, Orbea Orca, Santa Cruz Carbon 5010
Posts: 465
Here are some pictures of Plowhorse's new Calfee in the build process.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2077.jpg (88.5 KB, 55 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2078.jpg (89.4 KB, 53 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2076.jpg (89.5 KB, 58 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2079.jpg (90.0 KB, 47 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2080.jpg (92.4 KB, 51 views)
akexpress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 04:25 AM   #78
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: 1,909
Looks like a nice nearly parallel top and bottom tube? I look forward to more pics.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-14, 07:28 AM   #79
plowhorse
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Olympia, WA
Bikes: 13 Volagi, 12 Scott Foil 10, 13 Scott Scale, 10 Ridley xfire, 12 Cannondale Tandem, 06 Raliegh Tandem, 10 Stevenson Tandem
Posts: 42
I am pretty close to paint this week and I'm looking for a picture from an existing Calfee owner of the shell logo painted in black or clear coat over nude (just the shell). I want to have the shell logo on my cobalt blue scheme but I want the shell to be very subtle.

Thanks in advance if a Calfee owner can help me out.. I sure don't want paint to hold up my build. :-)
plowhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-14, 09:13 AM   #80
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by plowhorse View Post
I am pretty close to paint this week and I'm looking for a picture from an existing Calfee owner of the shell logo painted in black or clear coat over nude (just the shell). I want to have the shell logo on my cobalt blue scheme but I want the shell to be very subtle.

Thanks in advance if a Calfee owner can help me out.. I sure don't want paint to hold up my build. :-)
This thread has shots of ours with the Cobalt Blue Translucent (semi-clear over nude) paint job.

Last edited by twocicle; 06-05-14 at 03:40 PM.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-14, 09:07 AM   #81
plowhorse
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Olympia, WA
Bikes: 13 Volagi, 12 Scott Foil 10, 13 Scott Scale, 10 Ridley xfire, 12 Cannondale Tandem, 06 Raliegh Tandem, 10 Stevenson Tandem
Posts: 42
Thanks Twocicle...

I have decided to do a opaque cobalt blue vertical fade to translucent cobalt blue. Lettering will be the opposite of the color, so in the opaque area the lettering will be translucent and the opposite down on the boom tube where the color will be translucent.
plowhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-14, 05:12 PM   #82
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
No updates on this thread since early June??? You must be out riding or something

Been waiting to see photos of the finished product and feedback details including that Whisky fork.

Last edited by twocicle; 10-14-14 at 09:38 AM. Reason: typo
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 09:58 AM   #83
skm2012
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Bikes:
Posts: 2
Hi,
I am in Nothern CA (Menlo Park), we ride a Santana Arriva to the coast and back, so hills are a factor and we would like to build the lightest possible tandem for ~$10K. Co-motion has a built up Machiatto for that price but I am not sure if I could make it lighter by swapping some key components. We are 260 lb team, 5'9 in from 5'4 in rear. Looking at the Co-motion build below, can you please suggest changes I should make. One idea would be only 1 disc brake in back and 1 caliper in front. Not sure what else I could change. If you think I can build a lighther calfee for that budget, I am interested too. Thank you, SM.

Machiatto
Frame: ACMUltra7 7005 Series zonally-butted tubing
Fork: Co-Motion Carbon Elite Disc
Derailleurs/Shifters: Shimano Ultegra 6703 Triple
Brakes: TRP Spyre w/180mm Rotor
Headset: Chris King
Drivetrain: FSA SL-K Tandem Cranks; Gates Timing Belt; 11-28t 10spd Cassette
Cockpit: Profile Design Viper Bars; FSA SLK Captain Stem
Saddle/Post: Selle Italia SLS Carbonio Flow; Thomson Elite 28.6
Wheels: Rolf Prima Tandem
skm2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 11:56 AM   #84
Bad1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 198
CoMotion Macchiato frame is lighter than the Calfee Tetra frame, switch the fork to CoMotiom carbon tandem rim brake fork, Dura Ace 9000 front rim brake, this is were you will save the most weight, without getting into
Lightning crankset, carbon wheelset, I believe the build CoMotion has specified with the frame set for your team would end up in the 26/27 lbs range. Reducing the overall weight by 2 pounds or so will cost you thousands! Good luck! Macchiato rider.
Bad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 12:20 PM   #85
skm2012
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Bikes:
Posts: 2
Thank you. I am ok skipping the carbon wheels Ritterview in another post mentioned the Lightning crankset were the biggest bang in terms of weight reduction compared to the FSA SLK. would these work with the Machiatto set up? Off course I have no idea how much more these Lightning cost...
SM
Thank you. I can skip the carbon wheels for now I guess. Ritterview had a different post where Lightning crankset made a big difference (1.25lb compared to FSA SLK), so I might try and look into that if the price differential is not too horrendous.
sm
[TABLE="class: tblGenFixed, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: s61, bgcolor: #FFFF99, align: right"]Lightning tandem crankset with TA synch ring

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tblGenFixed, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: s61, bgcolor: #FFFF99, align: right"]Lightning tandem crankset with TA synch ring

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
skm2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 01:07 PM   #86
chojn1
Senior Member
 
chojn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Bikes: Eriksen Tandem, DIY CF Tandem, Aluminum Tandem, Lightspeed, Cervelo, Specialized, Trek
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by skm2012 View Post
Thank you. I am ok skipping the carbon wheels Ritterview in another post mentioned the Lightning crankset were the biggest bang in terms of weight reduction compared to the FSA SLK. would these work with the Machiatto set up? Off course I have no idea how much more these Lightning cost...
SM
Thank you. I can skip the carbon wheels for now I guess. Ritterview had a different post where Lightning crankset made a big difference (1.25lb compared to FSA SLK), so I might try and look into that if the price differential is not too horrendous.
sm
[TABLE="class: tblGenFixed, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: s61, bgcolor: #FFFF99, align: right"]Lightning tandem crankset with TA synch ring
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tblGenFixed, width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: s61, bgcolor: #FFFF99, align: right"]Lightning tandem crankset with TA synch ring
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Unfortunately, the price differential is pretty steep.
Alternately, you may want to consider Spinergy wheels. They are about the same cost as the Rolf but a little bit lighter. Also, tire choice makes a big difference.

CJ

Last edited by chojn1; 09-08-14 at 01:25 PM.
chojn1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 05:41 PM   #87
LastKraftWagen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Wind Tunnels of Cheyenne
Bikes: Burley Duet [of some unknown year] (the guinea pig); 2001 Ventana ECDM (the project); And always one less than I think I really need.
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by skm2012 View Post
Hi,
I am in Nothern CA (Menlo Park), we ride a Santana Arriva to the coast and back, so hills are a factor and we would like to build the lightest possible tandem for ~$10K. Co-motion has a built up Machiatto for that price but I am not sure if I could make it lighter by swapping some key components. We are 260 lb team, 5'9 in from 5'4 in rear. Looking at the Co-motion build below, can you please suggest changes I should make. One idea would be only 1 disc brake in back and 1 caliper in front. Not sure what else I could change. If you think I can build a lighther calfee for that budget, I am interested too. Thank you, SM.

Machiatto
Frame: ACMUltra7 7005 Series zonally-butted tubing
Fork: Co-Motion Carbon Elite Disc
Derailleurs/Shifters: Shimano Ultegra 6703 Triple
Brakes: TRP Spyre w/180mm Rotor
Headset: Chris King
Drivetrain: FSA SL-K Tandem Cranks; Gates Timing Belt; 11-28t 10spd Cassette
Cockpit: Profile Design Viper Bars; FSA SLK Captain Stem
Saddle/Post: Selle Italia SLS Carbonio Flow; Thomson Elite 28.6
Wheels: Rolf Prima Tandem

For the thousands you'll spend to drop the macchiato bike weight by 2 pounds, you will only climb about 0.7% faster...
LastKraftWagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 06:44 PM   #88
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastKraftWagen View Post
For the thousands you'll spend to drop the macchiato bike weight by 2 pounds, you will only climb about 0.7% faster...
Wait, wait. You forgot to add in the placebo effect and "appropriate" data manipulation (AKA lying). The sky's the limit.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 09:19 PM   #89
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
Wait, wait. You forgot to add in the placebo effect and "appropriate" data manipulation (AKA lying). The sky's the limit.
I wouldn't laugh too hard about the upsides, such as motivational factor to get the rider/body in equal shape as the rig that person is riding. Would be happy to take doubters on a "easy spin" anytime.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 10:36 PM   #90
LastKraftWagen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Wind Tunnels of Cheyenne
Bikes: Burley Duet [of some unknown year] (the guinea pig); 2001 Ventana ECDM (the project); And always one less than I think I really need.
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
Wait, wait. You forgot to add in the placebo effect and "appropriate" data manipulation (AKA lying). The sky's the limit.

Weight weight weight... I also forgot to factor in wallet weight reduction.
LastKraftWagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 10:47 PM   #91
LastKraftWagen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Wind Tunnels of Cheyenne
Bikes: Burley Duet [of some unknown year] (the guinea pig); 2001 Ventana ECDM (the project); And always one less than I think I really need.
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocicle View Post
I wouldn't laugh too hard about the upsides, such as motivational factor to get the rider/body in equal shape as the rig that person is riding. Would be happy to take doubters on a "easy spin" anytime.

True, but then climbing speed/efficiency in your example comes from better conditioning and not bike weight reduction, and motivation is free. But on the other hand you have a valid point, I will be highly motivated by the almost 8kg weight difference between my current and next [road] machine...But will that motivation come from the bike or it's cost I wonder...
LastKraftWagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-14, 11:13 PM   #92
ksisler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocicle View Post
Correct. The idea was that wider rear spacing reduces wheel dish up to the point of symetrical (ie: 160mm) and therefore a stronger wheel. If building the ultimately strong wheel destined to carry heavy loads is the goal, then go for it. However for lighter loads and those desiring more "race like" performance, there is less need to over build wheels, especially with today's components. For example, there are plenty of tandem teams using 130mm spacing and single bike wheels without any issues - given their team weight and usage needs. I had thought 145mm was a decent (tandem) standard to stick to, but after shopping for disc hubs was rather appauled at the poor selection available when compared to the mass market world of single bikes. Either a 142mm X12 (thru axle) rear, or a 135mm QR rear would be my choice for our usage needs. Bizillions of hubs to choose from in those formats.
Twocicle; A lot of tandems built with 145mm OLN but it is still far from perfect and except for gram chasers, I wouldn't recommend anything narrower. I had initially groused a lot about the 160mm OLN, but over the last couple of years have used it almost exclusively when starting from scratch. Regarding the cost and availability; the tandem market is thin one and tandem grade items are not cheap. Something else to grouse about, but doing so is not going to change things much as tandems are not a high volume production and thus no cheap prices.
/K
ksisler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-14, 09:28 AM   #93
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastKraftWagen View Post
Weight weight weight... I also forgot to factor in wallet weight reduction.
Yup. After a long season of heavy duty training, racing and weight watching to get within a few pounds of my ideal racing weight from 30 years ago, managed to achieve a Strava KOM on one segment during the inaugural 2014 Whistler Giro race. The section is near Horseshoe Bay, 1/2 mile long at 9 percent average, average speed a little over 23mph and 450 watts est.

Prior to resuming racing last year, my weight was some 18lbs heavier. Motivation / mind games... anything to kick one's own butt into high gear. Downside is no golf for 2 years and very little beer.

On the tandem this year we have been hitting more "terrain" to build team strength. We are not power houses on the flats, but can drop singles going uphill. Weight / power ratio is a key factor.

Last edited by twocicle; 02-22-15 at 09:51 PM.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-14, 10:22 AM   #94
Dean V
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,074
Well done on the KOM. I think it would take a lot more than 450w to climb 9% at 23mph.
Dean V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-14, 11:01 AM   #95
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean V View Post
Well done on the KOM. I think it would take a lot more than 450w to climb 9% at 23mph.
Thanks. Wattage req'd depends on weight of course Plus it was only a strava estimate. Hitting the bottom at 33mph helped with the avg speed and then "just" sustaining a high tempo while standing for the rest of it. It was more to test if a break could form off the front at that point. FWIW: Strava link

Actual Giro/fondo time was 3:30:57 + some cooldown afterward.

Last edited by twocicle; 09-09-14 at 01:53 PM.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-14, 01:32 PM   #96
Team Fab
Senior Member
 
Team Fab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Bikes: Comotion Supremo, Trek T1000, Comotion Supremo Triple
Posts: 337
Well done. Our best from before the kid was a 4hr 15 you were flying.

The weather was good once again for the event.
Team Fab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-14, 09:49 AM   #97
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksisler View Post
Twocicle; A lot of tandems built with 145mm OLN but it is still far from perfect and except for gram chasers, I wouldn't recommend anything narrower. I had initially groused a lot about the 160mm OLN, but over the last couple of years have used it almost exclusively when starting from scratch. Regarding the cost and availability; the tandem market is thin one and tandem grade items are not cheap. Something else to grouse about, but doing so is not going to change things much as tandems are not a high volume production and thus no cheap prices.
/K
I understand your trepidation in venturing < 145mm. However, it depends on your intended use and team specs. There are plenty of teams now using 130mm and 135mm (disc) rear wheels without issue. I believe modern components have better design and capability that those of years past, which is allowing for a move to less extreme spacing, etc. Your mileage may vary of course.

Rear spacing choice is not always just a SWAG either - it is sometimes necessitated by the cranks/chainline.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-14, 09:50 AM   #98
twocicle
Clipless in Coeur d'Alene
 
twocicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bikes: Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
Posts: 1,589
Plowhorse (JH), how about an update on this build of yours? Frame, fork, etc...?

Last edited by twocicle; 10-14-14 at 09:55 AM.
twocicle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-14, 10:57 AM   #99
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: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocicle View Post
I understand your trepidation in venturing < 145mm. However, it depends on your intended use and team specs. There are plenty of teams now using 130mm and 135mm (disc) rear wheels without issue. I believe modern components have better design and capability that those of years past, which is allowing for a move to less extreme spacing, etc. Your mileage may vary of course.

Rear spacing choice is not always just a SWAG either - it is sometimes necessitated by the cranks/chainline.
In the past I have found that the wheel user's determination of what constitutes "without issue" or having "no problems" varies with the users maintenance expectations as well as the actual stress put on the system.

I am considering a 135mm rear drop out tandem but really wonder if the extra choice in hubs is worth unavoidable weaker wheel geometry. A 135mm hub (which has flange spacing about the same as a 130mm hub) may be strong enough for us. We are about 290lbs and high volume tires that protect the wheels from a lot of hits. On the other hand If I have to I can get a Chris King or Hadley 145mm hub made that is pretty light and high quality. Might pay a premium for those vs an off the shelf 135mm hub, but if you narrow the 130mm and 135mm hub choice to only those with lots of points of engagement then off the shelf list gets much shorter, heavier and more expensive.

For me chain line is a secondary consideration. Currently my wife is increasing her flexibility and starting to narrow her original really really wide Q-factor which was 205-210mm. Using a various bottom bracket widths, pedals, pedal spacers, and washers we are able to do this in small increments. Currently we are running a 106mm square taper BB on a 160mm drop out Santana. We loose use of a two or three of the small cogs in the middle ring but other then that it is actually shifting well. We stay in the big ring a lot and the chain line in the big-big combination is very useable. This is an extreme, and temporary set up but it goes to show that chain line is not as critical and some think.

Last edited by waynesulak; 10-14-14 at 11:01 AM.
waynesulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-14, 12:30 PM   #100
plowhorse
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Olympia, WA
Bikes: 13 Volagi, 12 Scott Foil 10, 13 Scott Scale, 10 Ridley xfire, 12 Cannondale Tandem, 06 Raliegh Tandem, 10 Stevenson Tandem
Posts: 42


Sorry for the delayed picture of my Calfee build.. Been too busy riding all summer.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg calfee.jpg (103.7 KB, 125 views)
plowhorse 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 07:00 PM.