Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Framebuilders
Reload this Page >

Tandem headtube attachment design question

Framebuilders Thinking about a custom frame? Lugged vs Fillet Brazed. Different Frame materials? Newvex or Pacenti Lugs? why get a custom Road, Mountain, or Track Frame? Got a question about framebuilding? Lets discuss framebuilding at it's finest.

Tandem headtube attachment design question

Old 03-19-14, 08:50 AM
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Wind Tunnels of Cheyenne
Posts: 361

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.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tandem headtube attachment design question

I can't attach a photo, and I am blind so I had someone describe the following, so I hope it makes sense and someone can make sense of my question.

I'm looking at a custom tandem frame, and the builders have sent along some pics of their completed works, and for the same frame model there appears to be two different designs for how the toptube, lateral [stiffener] and downtube attach to the head tube. Hoping someone has that simple "this is the difference" answer.

In the first design (which I've come across all the time), the toptube attaches to the top of the headtube and the downtube to the bottom, with the lateral somewhere in the middle (usually with all three tubes more or less "touching").

In the design I've never seen before, the downtube is still attached at the bottom of the headtube, but the lateral [stiffener] is attached tp the top of the headtube, with the toptube sloping downward and attaching to the lateral approximately 6" before the headtube joint.

The question is "WHY?"

Some opinions are in regards to standover height (usually more is required for tandems than comparibly sized singles), but both designes are pictured in both larger and smaller frames...If it were standover then why not (in the case of the larger frames especially) just make the captain's part of the frame smaller, or lower where the toptubes meet the seattubes down?

Another opinion is front end stiffness, and it seems the second design would be more stiff on a vertical axis with the lateral/downtube/headtube triangle being "larger," but would this also reduce rotational stiffness around the horizontal axis?

Any opinions would be appreciated. Sorry, no pics...I haven't learned the bikeforums secret handshake yet.
LastKraftWagen is offline  
Old 03-19-14, 07:47 PM
Andrew R Stewart 
Senior Member
Andrew R Stewart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 11,537

Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Raleigh Pro, Trek Cycle Cross, Mongoose tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1694 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times in 19 Posts
LKW- Outside of fashion the difference in potential stand over height is the usual reason to have the TT join the lateral behind (and what will be below) the top of the head tube. One might make an argument of easier tube mitering and prebrazing set up but i think it's a debatable point. Another possible reason is to change the front end's strength/stiffness. Again I think this reason is not a biggie. Andy.
Andrew R Stewart is offline  
Old 03-20-14, 07:03 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto/Montréal
Posts: 1,193

Bikes: Homemade mixte, track, commuter and road, Ryffranck road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Is that what you mean?

My first guess for that design would be standover height. But if they make it in different sizes then perhaps it is to accommodate a longer headtube which would allow for a higher handlebar height?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
sears-tandem.jpg (87.0 KB, 11 views)
tuz is offline  
Old 03-31-14, 02:25 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LKW; I would posit that there were probably several root causes. I'll suggest a few;

-> Need for small frames with upright captain's position
-> Need for easy fitting of those couplers to yield take apart frames
-> Maybe someone did the math and found it works well enough
-> Maybe it saves 100 grams
-> Maybe to ease the mitering on the tubes or the number of angle settings
-> Just to be different?

Haven't seen one yet that had much appeal for what that matters.

ksisler is offline  
Old 03-31-14, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 36,049

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 121 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4338 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
A key consideration in how three tubes are attached at the head is the length of the head itself. On taller frames there's plenty of room at the head for the tubes to be brought up to it individually.

But smaller frames have limited space, so alternatives are considered. That's also true if there's an effort to lower the standover height.

I don't think it's a question of better or worse, but what is best suited to a particular purpose.
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.