Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mid Michigan
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Richey Break-Away Tandem now official...

    Hope this isn't redundant - did a search here on the forum and did not find this: The Ritchey Break-Away Switchback Tandem is now listed on the Richey web site and they appear to be taking orders (at least you can add it to your cart). What I find kind of interesting is the dual 650b/700c geometry. Seems like an exciting addition to tandem choices!
    Break-Away Double Switchback Tandem - Break-Away Tandem - Frames
    break-away-tandem.jpg
    Last edited by 2frmMI; 05-12-14 at 10:45 AM. Reason: spelling oops

  2. #2
    Senior Member waynesulak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    My Bikes
    650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
    Posts
    1,700
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice to see it is finally available. We seen it on the web for years now.

    This must be designed to be a mountain tandem otherwise sizing is a mystery for me. I am 5'8" and ride a 54cm to 56cm top tube bike. The "Small" size has an effective captain top tube length of 575! Maybe with flat bars but never with road bars. Head tube angle 71.5 degrees and 47mm fork rake. That is more trail than I want to calculate. No frame weight given that I can see. My guess is 11-12 lbs for frame only plus 2.5 lbs for fork. Could be more.

    Some with mountain tandem knowledge can chime in on off road desirability but for a 650B tandem road team like us it is a nonstarter.






    web-geometry-double-switchback-tandem.jpg

  3. #3
    Clipless in Coeur d'Alene twocicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    My Bikes
    Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
    Posts
    1,086
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    $3,495.95 MSRP for a travel frame ain't bad news.

    Funny to see a resurrection of the reverse lateral and pinch-bolt eccentric(?). Seems like sort of a throw back design.

    No info about rear spacing. Standard QR dropouts. Only one stoker bottle mount.

    The Small would fit us ok.

    Set this up as a cross-tandem with 29er wheels (f/r discs) and forget about ever achieving weight weenie status... doubt you'd care when taking a breather atop an alp trail listening to the cow bells ring.
    Last edited by twocicle; 05-08-14 at 03:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CT, VT
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You misspelled Ritchey so the search threads didn't come up.

    I was following it here New Ritchey Breakaway tandem soon to be released

    Interesting that it's more expensive than earlier estimates and no mention of the cases? I had heard it's release was delayed the last 2 years because of design issues related to the cases.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Deep In The Heart
    My Bikes
    Seven Ti Tandem, Blue T12 tri bike, 92 Paramount, 93 Schwinn Mesa MTB, Trek 520 tourer
    Posts
    2,510
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't really see the price point for the bike.

    A Rodriquez steel custom frame is $2200. S&Souplers add $2000. Their steel fork is $125 with the frame. That's $4325+/- for a custom build.

    Just my take.

  6. #6
    Senior Member waynesulak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    My Bikes
    650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
    Posts
    1,700
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by twocicle View Post
    $3,495.95 MSRP for a travel frame ain't bad news.

    Funny to see a resurrection of the reverse lateral and pinch-bolt eccentric(?). Seems like sort of a throw back design.

    No info about rear spacing. Standard QR dropouts. Only one stoker bottle mount.

    The Small would fit us ok.

    Set this up as a cross-tandem with 29er wheels (f/r discs) and forget about ever achieving weight weenie status... doubt you'd care when taking a breather atop an alp trail listening to the cow bells ring.
    With pinch bolts and reverse lateral it looks like he took is old frame he designed when he was young and just put it into production.

    We can have fun with that frame but we can have fun on an old Jack Taylor too. With 700C wheels your 73 HT angle 43 rake fork bike has about 58.6 trail (depending on tires) while that bike assuming same tires has 63.8 trail. It is not just the trail but the HT angle that would worry me. If you are into "wheel flop" calculation then yours is about 16.4 and the Ritchey is huge 19.2 It would be extremely sensitive to weight shifts. For comparison a Como Speedster steel fork bike has only 51.3 trail and 14.3 flop. Santana standard geometry is 46 trail and 12.9 flop. The trend is Santana is a little less trail than the Commotion and then way out there is the Ritchey.
    Last edited by waynesulak; 05-08-14 at 04:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Clipless in Coeur d'Alene twocicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    My Bikes
    Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
    Posts
    1,086
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by waynesulak View Post
    With pinch bolts and reverse lateral it looks like he took is old frame he designed when he was young and just put it into production.

    We can have fun with that frame but we can have fun on an old Jack Taylor too. With 700C wheels your 73 HT angle 43 rake fork bike has about 58.6 trail (depending on tires) while that bike assuming same tires has 63.8 trail. It is not just the trail but the HT angle that would worry me. If you are into "wheel flop" calculation then yours is about 16.4 and the Ritchey is huge 19.2 It would be extremely sensitive to weight shifts. For comparison a Como Speedster steel fork bike has only 51.3 trail and 14.3 flop. Santana standard geometry is 46 trail and 12.9 flop. The trend is Santana is a little less trail than the Commotion and then way out there is the Ritchey.
    Geez, 46 trail for the Santana. No wonder I'm whining about the current 58 on our ride.

    Interesting playing with this calculator. I see why Craig suggested a 50mm offset.. closer to CoMo specs:
    Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
    Last edited by twocicle; 05-08-14 at 04:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member waynesulak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    My Bikes
    650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
    Posts
    1,700
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The trail calculator is nice. For me wheel flop is more critical than trail but if you hold HT angle constant then trail is a substitute for flop. Wheel flop measures the effect on steering of the front weight applied at the HT angle. Slacker angles make weight tend to turn the wheel. A 90 degree HT angle would mean weight on the front end would have no steering effect. Think grocery cart wheels. 71.5 degree HT angle results in front of the bike dropping a lot as the wheel turns and therefore the weight on the front of the bike tends to turn the wheel more and the bike falls more into turns. A little of this is good but too much is bad. This is important for tandem because there is a lot of weight on the front wheel. People differ in their preference for this power steering effect.

    The distinction is only important where the HT angle changes. I have never ridden a tandem with a very steep HT angle but they are said to have the best of both high and low trail. Unfortunately due to toe overlap concerns most production bikes in smaller sizes decrease the HT angle regardless of its effects on handling.

    As I understand it:

    Wheel flop = Sine(headtube angle) * Cosine(trail)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •