Is it possible to set up two wireless computers on a tandem without any interference problems?? and would it work to use two of the same models and one sensor unit and have both head units read correctly??.

I haven't tried it, but probably not if the head units are in different locations. Most wireless computers have a range of 60cm max. If you use two discrete units, they should work fine if they are farther apart than the sensor range maximum.

I say just give the computer to the stoker so the Pilot can focus on the road.

Seriously, depending on the range, I suppose it would work because I don't think they encode themselves. If not, you could always just put one on the rear wheel and one on the front. It would be interesting to see if a front wheel travels measurably further than the rear (it takes the *slightly* longer route around corners, you know)

Check the tandem forum out.

You need a computer that was designed for rear wheel use. One that was designed for the front wheel won't have enough range. You'd probably need to fabricate a pick up anyway to match a 145mm or 160mm tandem rear triangle.

Incidentally, I've got friends who have two computers on their tandems and they say the mileages never agree. The captain always rides farther.

Couldn't you calibrate them so they display the same mileage once you figure out exactly what the offset is?

I have a Cateye double wireless on the back and a Polar CS-600 on the front of my tandem

No problem using 2 VDO C3 DS Digital Wireless Cyclocomputer w/ Wireless Cadence computers both units running from one sender these have a 15 ft range so signal is not problem, the senders can be on rear or front wheel and cadence can also be on stoker or captains crank doesn't mater. I happen to have mine on rear wheel and stoker crank.

It all depends on how many corners you take, how much you steer while going around the corners, and then I imagine the different weight loads cause the tires to have different rolling circumfrences. I don't think a mathematician could all calculate that for you.

I mean, you can just take the mileage difference at the end and you can easily calculate which setting one of the other computers needs to have the same end result...?

What I was trying to get at is that the difference would be a different percentage on every ride, even on the same route, unless you swerved the handlebars the same amount and degree and turned with the exact same radius and lean every time, and each rider's weight didn't fluctuate more than 1-2 lb between rides.

What am I thinking? I can put it in terms you will understand: It's like two complete strangers comparing average speeds on bike forums.

Nope. Every time that you go around a turn the front wheel actually travels a tiny bit farther. If you ride through a puddle and then around a curve, you can see it in the tire tracks.

But... average them out, and you have a useful number.

Why not put a sensor on the back for the stoker and another on the front for the captain if the range doesn't make it?

(I can't see how they'd interfere with each other wirelessly.)

"A man with one watch knows the time. A man with two watches is never sure." You'd have to be pretty anal to worry about the distance difference, I just find it amusing that you can't get the two computers to read the same.

^ No averaging. The captain just gets to brag about riding further than the stoker!

Absolutely! The amount of difference isn't enough to matter. It's the principle.

Not only that but I must ride faster too because we start at the same time but I always get there first - in spite of having to ride farther.