Originally Posted by
bikerkim
hey, folks!
finally got my new membership confirmation email, so now i can start ASKING questions rather than just looking for the right threads.
in brief:
i have been racing bikes--road, mountain, cyclocross, bmx, and 20 years ago tandems--since 1983, and now want to get back into tandem racing. i had a cannondale that we raced in the late 80s and early 90s, and had such great times and success.
well, a new partner who rides a lot has me excited about getting serious about it again, but i have many questions, and i figure there are likely more opinions here than elsewhere, so feel free to chime in. as an aside, i host a weekly cycling radio show, and this search, acquisition and building process is likely to be part of a multi-episode series, so if you'd like to be included as a contributor, let me know, and we can arrange telephone interviews.
1--frame material. i'm thinking titanium, aluminum, or carbon. we both ride 50 cm singles, and can have, therefore, a small and lightweight frame, which because of its small size will be quite stiff, for better or worse. what do YOU think?
2--frame builder or manufacturer. because a 50/50 is NOT stock, we will need a custom frame. who do YOU recommend? who do you think we should AVOID? tell me of you experiences.
3--brakes. disc or caliper? i haven't checked yet whether discs are legal in usacycling events, so it might be a moot question, but what are your experiences? which BRAND of brakes are best and lightest?
4--wheels. stable and reliable versus lightweight and aero advantage: well, what's out there, and what have YOU folks experienced?
5--stoker handlebars. what's best, regular drops or bull-horn style, or something else?
that should be enough for starters. if you have or are a racing team, let me know. i want to come into this armed with as much opinion as possible.
other data: my racing age is 56, and i'm a cat 1. my stoker is not yet licensed, but has been riding for years, and has competed in many triathlons and running races. she is preparing for the cyclocross season. she is 51. she weighs about, 110 or so, while i weigh about 150. i am 5'7, she is 5'6.
again, thanks so much for ANY suggestions, opinions, or tales of woe or joy from your tandem experiences.
--kim
My opinion is a little different than what you'll probably find in this community.
I've ridden many different brands of tandems. I have have almost a 100cm inseam and can visually deflect the bottom bracket on most frames because of the wattage I can put out (even on silly little 175 cranks).
I've ridden many Santana tandems and I find them to be horribly flexy and inefficient. I've never ridden a Santana titanium tandem, nor have I ridden their carbon isogrid bike. Both their aluminum and steel tandems are completely compromised by a lack of stiffness. Which is hilarious considering the effort they go to in their propaganda to detail how important stiffness in a frame is. I think at the end of the day they probably learned that comfort for the stoker is key. I would never recommend a Santana, and couldn't discourage people from their bikes more strongly (the steel and aluminum that I know about). I think you deal with stoker comfort by spec'ing a road thudbuster or a tamer parallelogram seatpost, not by compromising the frame.
Co-Motion makes a good tandem.
However, nothing comes close to the pure efficiency of a Cannondale tandem. Nothing. Since you're obviously serious about bikes I'd recommend that you borrow some tandems from other cyclists and spend some time in the saddle.
It is my impression in this community that many people feel the need to justify the expense of their purchase (after the fact). Having a flexy inefficient $6000 bike is not a good feeling. That doesn't make sense to me. Its like living in a pretend reality. I've had a stable full of pricy bikes that I didn't like, and I think its important to be honest about what a bike is, and isn't, more so than its important to rationalize or justify the sunk costs of a tandem purchase.
Being a tall cyclist with some considerable power I think I have a different perspective than most. The average five foot nothin' cyclist may not be able to see the differences in frame materials and design so clearly.
I'm a huge fan of Cannondales. Their 3.0 road frame was legendary as you would know. They don't get a lot of credit for having the lightest frame in the world at the time, that also set the benchmark for the stiffest frame ever tested on the Bicycling Magazine 'tarantula' jig. My recommendation to you (if money is an object) is to get an older Cannondale tandem from the '96-'99 era. You'll get an 1 1/8" head tube you can mount a carbon racing tandem fork into, and one of the stiffest most efficient tandems that isn't a custom titanium one. A lot of people love their Co-Motions, DaVinci Designs, Santanas, and even Trek and Burley bikes however in terms of pure efficiency and going fast, nothing compares to a Cannondale. They aren't the lightest tandem frames, but aside from a custom Calfee Tetra Tetra or something custom in titanium, its the fastest tandem you can buy for a team that can hammer. Its amazing how much wattage gets lost on the average 'performance' tandem with a flexy inefficient frame.
By no means should you consider an 'open' design frame. Sure they are lighter bikes, but the loss of efficiency more than accounts for the weight savings. Saving a pound on a 30-35lb race bike just isn't worth the loss of efficiency.
I would say ride as many bikes as you can. The differences will be more than evident and you'll have the knowledge to know what you want and why.
As for disc brakes for racing they unnecessarily add weight to the tandem, unjustifiably so. My tandem team is almost 600lbs, and I take brakes very very seriously. A good lightweight set of Paul Neo-retro brakes gives you more braking power than you could ever possibly need (enough to crush your rims, literally) and is incredibly lightweight compared to bloated V-brake and boat anchor disc setups. Consider running vintage brake levers like Campy Carbon record, using barend shifters, or downtube shifters mounted on Kelly Take-Offs or using Paul thumbies. You'll get better braking feel and performance than using integrated levers, and save weight too.
I like integrated shifting. I just sold my road bike with Ultegra 9 speed STI. It works. However, at the end of the day the brake levers just weren't as solid as dedicated brake levers, and integrated controls are heavier to boot. Something to think about.
The most important thing is to try different setups and different bikes.
There are a lot of people around here that are emotionally invested in advocating a bike they own (or want), or a particular setup, that have NEVER ridden anything else. Due to the expensive cost of tandems there just aren't a lot of 'em out there. Most people buy a tandem without spending so much as a hundred miles on different frame materials, and different makes. In my book that's insane.
I've got two Cannondale tandems. I couldn't recommend them more highly. Then again I love vintage Cannondales. I could ruin almost any lugged steel racing bike out there. Frame stiffness is a huge issue for me.
I've never had the privilege of riding a custom titanium Serrota that would have tubing appropriate for my 70 something cm frame size, nor have I ever ridden a Calfee Tetra Tetra, but I trust they could make one for me that would be stiff enough. I don't live in that tax bracket. However, from where I stand nothing comes close to a Cannondale, nothing.
If you can afford something exotic that is lighter, I'd be interested to see what you think comparing a Cannondale you pick up for $1450 off craigslist that you build up with race components and a race wheelset to anything you could buy custom (carbon, Ti, whatever). I'd wager the Cannondale more than holds its own.
You pedal a Cannondale and it goes forward. The tandems and vintage frames are veritable rocket bikes. You can't ride a Cannondale tandem and then ride almost anything else under six grand without the frame flex dominating the ride experience.
I'd be careful of newer Cannondale tandems. Cannondale road bikes 'optimized' their aluminum road bikes successively. Cannondale stopped making a 66cm road frame after CAAD5 because the lightened reworked design just couldn't support a frame size that big. I'm not sure if they did this with the tandem tubes on later bikes, but I would assume so. Someone here might know.
I just purchased a 27" (68.5cm) Cannondale touring frame from 1986. There are lighter bikes (pretty much anything) but I'm not going to deflect that bottom bracket (plus it more or less fits and I can't afford a Zinn Project Big). That's how I feel about Cannondale tandems.
Total disclosure almost every bike I own is a Cannondale: 3.0 Road frame, M2000 Mountain Bike, Two Cannondale Tandems, 27" Touring bike. I've mostly sold off everything else. I'm always looking for other bikes to buy, but nothing works for me like vintage Cannondales. They are just the ultimate bike for sheer stiffness, unrivaled strength, and lightness. You'll find lighter frames, but nothing as strong or as stiff.
I'm 375lbs, have a 100cm inseam (I'm 6'7") and obviously I'm a complete outlier, but that's my opinion. However, you should know that I formulated that opinion when I was a competitive basketball player and could barely keep weight around 215. Back in the day I really tried to buy a Bontrager steel mountain bike (Race or Race light). That's when my education on frames and flex began.
If I could afford custom Titanium or carbon I would have never sought out the C'dales...
I'd love to have a Zinn, Serotta, or Calfee (anything), but the 'dales work and aside from probably anything else on the market but those customs mentioned, outperform available alternatives (at any price).