View Single Post
Old 09-01-15 | 04:14 PM
  #58  
mtnbke
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 7
From: Boulder County, CO

Bikes: '92 22" Cannondale M2000, '92 Cannondale R1000 Tandem, another modern Canndondale tandem, Two Holy Grail '86 Cannondale ST800s 27" (68.5cm) Touring bike w/Superbe Pro components and Phil Wood hubs. A bunch of other 27" ST frames & bikes.

Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake
My Bilenky is sluggish...stable and sluggish. Exactly what I want in a tandem. I'm not racing. I think that tandem looks OK, it's not a killer deal, but it's not awful. I think it's too large. I'd be patient and wait for perfection...it worked for me. I also really prefer brifters for tandems.
Well to be fair, my Cannondale is super stable, perfectly stiff and efficient and is a rocket. To each his own.

I understand NOT wanting quick, twitchy race geometry in a tandem, but most are always built with super-stable geometry and slow handling characteristics:

Head tube angles

Heck, there are cyclists in this C&V forum that have shared with me they don't like their high-zoot racing bike singles because of how twitchy they are on long rides. In a peloton where you need to peel off and sprint to victory quick handling might be important, but to the rest of us, and ESPECIALLY on a tandem it is not! We can agree on that.

However, since almost all tandems have relaxed and stable geometry and fork design built it, why would you want a sluggish tandem as opposed to a rocket accelerating, efficient, fast tandem that was equally stable? All teams struggle climbing, its a coordination thing. However, my C'dale tandems with only me on them are some of the best climbing bikes I'ver ever owned, other than my C'dale singles. We all want a stable tandem, I just don't get wanting a sluggish bike.
mtnbke is offline  
Reply