Hi everyone.

We have a heavily upgraded 1990 Santana Arriva that I would like to improve further by reducing the flex in the front end.

Right now it has the OEM Columbus/Santana steel fork. The front end is flexy during standing climbing and heavy braking. I'm worried the thing is becoming fatigued.

We are pretty hard on this bike. We descend fast, and climb steep stuff all the time (like every ride).

Unfortunately we are limited by the head tube, which uses a 1" steerer.

I don't care if it uses a caliper or a canti. I would like it to be lighter and stiffer than what I have.

Here's the models I am looking at thus far:

Alpha Q CX - Cross Fork (full carbon, 520g - which means it's light but not crazy light, and nice price at the moment)
I know that they made a tandem version of this fork for Burley at one point
https://www.truetemper.com/performance_tubing/cx.asp
https://www.universalcycles.com/shopp...s.php?id=10001

Wound Up Tandem Fork (steel steerer, 900g or so, kind of pricey)
https://www.woundupcomposites.com/tandem_fork.html

Anyone have any input??



Pics of our tandem:

That is a good looking bike, have you asked Santana about upgrading the fork?

Personally, I would't put a fork with a 1" carbon steerer on a tandem.

A fair number of people think 1" carbon steerers aren't appropriate for even a single bike. I think that's being overly cautious, but on a tandem, I think you're tempting fate.

If I recall correctly the 1 1/8" Alpha Q cyclocross fork is tested to the same standards as their tandem fork. You should email their tech guys (response within 24h) to check same applies for 1".

Regarding fatigue I think it's unlikely that there's an issue. What you're feeling could be the difference between your carbon forked bike and a steel forked bike. Steel forks do flex and IMHO are no worse for it. I used to find the flex useful to gauge how hard I was braking as it helps avoid locking the wheel.

I find when I ride my non a-headset bikes the front end feels flexy. IMHO most of the flex comes from the spindly alloy stem rather than the fork, particularly when twisting the bars, so an aheadset system will help here.

I'm not sure upgrading the fork alone would be such a good idea. If you're not happy with a Steel Santana fork, where would you draw the line? Perhaps a better solution since you like tandeming would be to update the whole bike or frame and forks? Yes that does cost more but probably you would be happier in the end.

Suggestions:

1. Contact Santana to get an assessment based on the history of that year/model tandem and fork durability. My guess it, the fork's fine... Santana has always built it's frames and forks to endure a whole lot more punishment than folks of your size can dish out: think 450 lb teams, folks doing loaded tours and triplets.

2. If after Santana has reassured you that there were not systemic weaknesses in that year / model of fork you still want a fork that's stiffer, ask the folks at Santana what they recommend. They may have an inside track on 1" forks that are well-suited for your tandem. Be mindful of the cost relative to the fair market value of your current tandem (See #4, below).

3. If neither of those things trip-your-trigger, consider having someone like Steve Rex or Dennis Bushnell at R&E Cycles make a custom steel fork for your tandem. They can tailor it to your weight and set the rake to the stock Santana spec (55mm) or adjust it to suit your riding style, i.e., knock it down to something less than 55mm of rake such as Co-Motion's gold standard of 50mm or something even more racy; however, I wouldn't go much beyond 50mm for that year / model frame. Cost would most certainly be less than a tandem-specific carbon model and while it probably won't be as light as a carbon fork, it will most likely be plenty stiff and something less than 900 grams given your team weight.

4. If that doesn't scratch your itch, perhaps it's really time to start looking for a new used tandem or perhaps even a new frame/fork given the amount of money that you'll end up sinking into the old tandem. Y'all seem to ride the wheels off of that thing based on Pete's blog and tandems have come a long way since that one was built. You could probably cover more than 1/2 the cost of a new tandem by selling your old one... but only after you have the new to you tandem so that you can trade out any chi-chi parts you'd like to keep, e.g., the Campy stuff and daVinci cranks, etc.). Seriously, if you two are hooked on tandems and riding that thing aggressively in challenging terrain and have an inclination towards doing time trials or other major challenges, the acquisition of a contemporary frame will be money well spent. Probably a good time to do some cost modelling of those different options.

Thanks.

*** I actually contacted Steve Rex about building us a fork, and he said he was not able to buy a suitable 1" steerer tube. I will try Dennis to find out what he has to say.

*** Alpha Q got back to me and said:

"No, the 1” cx is not meant for tandem riding.

Sorry

The 1 1/8” cx fork is actually stronger than the tandem, but the 1” is not for tandem."

*** In the long term, looking at just dollars and cents. Buying this fork makes no sense because we will eventually get a new frameset. However.... when I say eventually, I mean probably a couple years from now (unfortunately). Another thing is sentimental attachment (especially with the stoker). I think even when we get a new tandem, she wouldn't let me sell the thing

*** So with that last statement, spending the money on a fork is OK with me. It will enable us to enjoy a better performing tandem for a couple years, while we are waiting for our purchase of a new frameset. I would recoup some of my costs by selling it later on (after switching the old tandem back to stock). The bottom line is: we can't afford a new tandem, but we want to enjoy riding the heck out of this thing in the mean time.

I don't know, maybe the Wound up is the ticket. I will call R+E and Santana though and listen to what they have to say.

Thanks again!

Don't be so sure. Debbie was very attached to our first road tandem but became even more attached to the next one which introduced her to a proper fit and, well, she promptly fell in love all over again. She was really apprehensive about the newest road tandem because, well, there was just no way it could be as comfortable for her as our nearly 10-year old beloved road tandem: yeah, that lasted about 5 miles. Love = comfort and confidence-inspiring handling.

The same thing happened when I moved her from the '98 C'dale MT3000 to our first Ventana: no way are we selling that tandem until I try this full-suspension thing. First ride... she was hooked and no trip to the Chiropractor after the ride: Love = comfort and confidence-inspiring handling.

Relative to the Wound-Up and any other fork options other than a 55mm Santana-spec fork, please ask Steve, Bill or whoever you talk to at Santana how that 90's model frame's handling would be affected by changing the rake to something like a 45mm Wound-Up. Santana like Co-Motion, optimizes their frames to work with their respective steering geometries. You can really mess up the 'balance' that builders work so hard to achieve by changing something as significant as the fork's rake.

R+E said they would chop the head tube off and put on a 1-1/8 with the propper length to match my choice of fork

Don't know if that's worth it

If the Santana is in fact a 55mm rake then the trail would go from something like 47-48mm to 56-57mm when switching to a Wound-up with 45mm of rake

My solo bike has around 55-56 mm of trail, for reference.

Would the tandem become more twitchy? Will it actually become better at speed but just a little more sketchy at low speed??

Any ideas?

All other things being equal, your steering trail would go from about 4.8 cm (1.9") to about 5.8 cm (2.3"). Santana's Bill McCready correctly notes that "stoker lag" or "stoker steering" can become an issue on a tandem with shorter rake / longer steering trail. What it cal also do is test the torsional rigidity of a tandem frame and, as you'd expect, tandem builders who use shorter rake / longer steering trail tend to make their tandems so that they are stiffer which ties in nicely with the 'performance' oriented nature of their tandems. This is one of the reasons that I suggested speaking with Santana about how their frames might react to a change in steering geometry.

Anyway, as for the handling, rather than rehashing let me pull from something I posted back in '05 quoting myself from an article I wrote for Recumbent & Tandem Rider Magazine a bunch of years ago:

-------------------

Actually, I believe the problem is one of lexicon surrounding the word stability and a failure to put that term into context when describing how bicycles handle, followed closely by the same ambiguity that exists around the expression "fast steering". Since I'm at home now I have access to some of the columns that I've written, to include one dealing with this topic and an illustration that also ties in with this discussion that summarizes my views on how sematics muddies the water.


However, despite everything that's been written about steering trail and how well most people understand what they've read an studied in those writtings, tandems tend to defy logic since everything is backwards... instead of the "racing models" having shorter steering trail than the models favored for touring or less aggressive riding, they have longer steering trail. Again, from my column:


Finally, I included the following illustration and summary of my perspective on tandems, steering geometry, and how they handle: feel free to disagree; after all, we are talking about steering geometry.

Are the head tube angles the same for the Co-motions and Santana's?

Santana has no old geometry specs available

If the HT angles are the same, then wouldn't the handling would be similar to all those few year old Co-motions spec'd with Wound-up forks?

I gave a rough measure for the axle-to-crown on the current fork, and it seems to be just shy of 390mm.

For the most part, yes... along with 73* seat tubes. There was a time when Co-Motion was using 72.5 head tubes on its smallest models and 74 degree head tubes on its largest models of the tri-lateral Java & Double Espresso tandem models in the late 90's and I'm not exactly sure what they used on the models that pre-date the Speedster. But I'm pretty sure Santana has been using 73* for a pretty long time.

They've never been all that forthcoming with those numbers because, frankly, in talking with Bill it really shouldn't matter to the average consumer and, well, I tend to agree. Again, a frame designer / builder balances tubing selection and geometries to achieve the ride characteristics they are shooting for. Therefore, it's very hard to make too many assumptions about how different bikes will handle by simply comparing things like geometry numbers. They're really red herrings in many respects because, as already suggested, you can't make a Santana "feel" like a Co-Motion by simply sticking a 50mm or 45mm fork on it anymore than a Co-Motion will feel like a Santana if you stick a 55mm fork on it.

However, just to indulge your curiousity a little bit, you can find a write up on the '96 Santana Sovereign at the Tandem & Family Cycling Magazine's website at the following link, along with a few others where geometry is usually provided: https://www.tandemmag.com/roadtest/


See above. Again, the steering geometry has to play nice with the frame. While you can pretty well assume what will happen to the steering characteristics by changing fork rake, what you can't really account for is how the whole package will handle once all is said and done and how well you'll like that.

Again, it's pretty easy to find teams riding tandems that aren't a good fit for their riding styles. Things to look for are teams on Co-Motions or other tandems with short rake / long steering trail who can't hold a straight line to save their lives, particularly when climbing. If you ride their wheel for a while you can actually watch the front wheel and the captain's arms twitch with each pedal stroke. Conversely, you'll find folks who ride stock Santana, Burley, Trek (pre-carbon fork models) tandems that will characterize the handling of their tandems as being "like a truck".

That sounds like it's in the ball park. I want to say that it was 395mm for Santana but can't be sure off-hand. Most tandems seem to fall into the 390mm to 400mm range, except for the ones that are sporting True Temper Alpha Q forks with their 374mm (or is it now 376mm?) axle-to-crown dimension.

Logic would lead me to assume those with the Alpha Q forks have a longer head tube at the bottom to compensate for their shorter forks.

I seem to remember TandemRacer fitted a HT spacer at the bottom when he ran the Alpha on their Lightspeed.

But that's really a tangent off the original dilemma.

Anyway, regarding my comparison of my Santana to a Co-motion (w/ Wound-Up). My purpose for comparison isn't to say that they will feel all that similar, but more so to say that switching to a 45mm rake fork with a similar A-to-C length will not make the specs fall outside of generally accepted values.

Just trying to learn a little more here . . .

We ride with one tandem team which, when out of the saddle, moves the front wheel back and forth a couple of inches every stroke, constantly making little S curves. I can't imagine why, but then we don't ride their bike.

Before I was into tandems, I remember coming up on one on a long pass climb. Out of the saddle, their front and rear wheels were moving out of alignment by a couple of degrees, the frame was flexing so badly. Didn't look at the logo when I went by, too bad. Again, I can't imagine why.

Our CoMo with Wound Up is perfect for us. We have the 1-1/8" threadless. When we're standing nicely, it goes in a straight line without much handlebar loading. My ideal is to time the movement so that I apply the least possible force to the bars. Which is not what I do when I'm trying to apply a lot of power on a single, but is the same as I do during a long standing rest period on a pass climb. In the first case, would fork flex be much of an issue? Seated, we both pedal pretty decent circles, so there's no bike movement at all. OTOH, we're not as strong as the usps team. I do notice that my singles seem twitchy after doing a lot of tandem riding. Again, I don't know why. Maybe the tandem just needs more effort in steering input because of the weight?

I read TGs rake and trail discussion in RTR when I was researching before our purchase. I must confess that I still don't know enough for it to be particularly enlightening. With our bike, I can easily do a U-turn on a narrow 2-lane country road, but I cannot manage it on a 12' bike path, which I can easily do on a single. Handling at all speeds seems fine to me, better than anything else we've ridden, but my experience is limited to only three tandems, the CoMo, an older C'dale, and an older Davidson.

A new tandem team now owns the steel-forked Davidson. The captain is very strong, one of the strongest riders I know, and the stoker is a double for the usps stoker. They like the bike and ride it in a straight line, often using 53X19 on the climbs, but they never stand. OTOH, they never stand on their singles, either.

In that regard, then yes... at least to open-minded frame designers you're still in the box but tucked into the 'performance' corner of that box.

It depends on whether or not a frame was designed around the Alpha Q fork and who did the design. Like a lot of early converts to the Alpha Q, we just sucked it up and dealt with the lowered headtube / altered geometry of the entire frame. That meant changing saddle positions, tweaking the stem and learning to cope with a little less crank clearance on corners for our '98 Erickson. Our '02 Erickson was designed around the Alpha Q; however, instead of making the head tube longer Glenn elected to lower the entire frame, to include giving it lower front & back bottom bracket heights. Invariably, I'd always clip Debbie's pedal within the first 3 miles every time we moved back to our '02 Erickson from the '98 because of this subtle difference.

Our Calfee is definitely designed around the Alpha Q and I confirmed with the folks at Co-Motion that they design their Supremo, Robusta and other 'race' tandems around the Alpha Q forks, whereas the Speedster, Roadster, etc... are designed around their chromoly & the Wound-Up carbon forks. As to what aspect of the frame is altered, it would appear to be dimensions about the head tube as the bottom bracket heights are standardized across their entire road bike range.

Actually, TandemRacer rode their Litespeed without the spacer for the vast majority of the time they had that fork on the bike. It was shortly before their AME-built Alpha Q fork started to develop cracks (about 20k very hard miles or so?) that a friend up in Asheville, NC, machined a custom spacer for their tandem and Alpha Q fork. Once he realized the Alpha Q had reached the end of its service life TR contacted the new owners of the Alpha Q, True Temper, with regard to a replacement. While they had a great replacement program / price, they didn't have any tandem forks of the correct spec in stock at the time so they ended up switching over to a Wound-Up fork which, I believe, TR found to be much more to his liking anyway.

It's really all what you're accustomed to and prefer. Moreover, unless someone rides the different bikes back to back AND is sensitive to the subtle differences in handling, they might never notice the difference. Again, some folks flop around when they ride but don't seem to mind, whereas others will finish a ride and the captain is totally spent. Conversely, there are teams who find even a Bilenky's handling to be sporty and they spec. even less steering trail than Santana. Jan Heine makes a very compelling case for the very different geometry found on the classic French tandems that he prefers in terms of both performance and ease of handling.

Again, about the only time there is any point in discussing steering geometry is when someone is contemplating a change like USPSPRO is, where the stock geometry is being altered and/or for anyone who finds their tandem's handling to be less than desirable for any reason. My RTR article was really trying to frame the problem that most folks encounter when they have a discussion about bicycle handling and terms like stability while also trying generalize the two prevailing philosophies on how a tandem should be designed, i.e., Co-Motion vs Santana and the various adherents as well as those who use a different approach, e.g., Bilenky again being VERY conservative with their geometries and Erickson being way out in front at the other extreme.... but noting both are still "in the box" that USPSPRO mentioned earlier.

TG, I am working on a theory about tandem handling and it relates to why some prefer Santana over Co-Motion. I really believe it has to do with background. Recreational riders, tourists, Sunday afternoon cruisers all seem to prefer the Santana bike that steers like the Titanic. Fast club riders, triathletes, former racers may prefer the C0-Motion bike that handles like a personal watercraft.

I haven't thought this completely through yet, just kind of thinking out loud.

But as I and others have said, it only takes a few miles to get used to any of the differences so that they become unnoticeable while you are riding.

USPSPRO,

You should borrow our Periscope Hammerhead on Cañada for a quick feel to see the difference in rake,trail,etc. You can also take some of those side roads and test climbing. Going from a Santana to a Co-Mo might be an eye-opener. I really prefer the handling on the Co-Mo (IMHO), although riding a 20" wheeled bike 90% of the time might influence that opinion.

While Co-Motion has definitely carved themselves a niche within the bike industry as the manufacturer of choice and/or the one to go to for road racers looking for a performance tandem, it's taken a long time for them to get that brand-name recognition outside of the PNW. Now that they've got a dealership network that's probably on par with Santana -- at least as far as regional coverage goes -- recreational riders are just as likely to end up on a Co-Motion as racers if that's what their local dealer is selling as their primary product line.

The same was true for Santana who has earned and enjoyed tremendous brand-name recognition since reshaping the US tandem market back in the late 70's and early 80's. Again, up and until that time if you wanted a well-designed tandem you either had a custom Paramount made or you looked to the UK and Europe for a good tandem. Santana's clear market leadership position has traditionally made it the top shelf brand for all types of riders, so even today you're just as likely to see state time trial champs or a Cat 2 racer riding a Santana as you are tourists or recreational riders. Moreover, even though Co-Motion and more recently Calfee and a few other boutique tandem builders has established a reputation for building tandems that "ride like single bikes" Santana's tandems are still some of the most comfortable and forgiving tandems that you can find so they're hardly a non-player and, depending on a buyer's dealer options and/or what their friends are riding, an elite cyclist could easily elect to ride a Santana.

Again, there really aren't any 'bad' tandems out on the market once you get into the premium quality brands. They're simply a little bit different. Some folks will take notice of the difference and have a preference for certain handling characteristics vs. another, whereas others won't. If someone who rides a Co-Motion finds that their back and shoulders are fatigued after a long day in the saddle then they might want to borrow a Santana or even a Bilenky for a long ride to see if that might be better. Conversely, if someone who rides aggressively just can't find their comfort zone on a Santana they might want to try a Co-Motion, Calfee or other brand of tandem that uses more steering trail to see if they can detect a difference.

Again, unless you've ridden a lot of these different tandems under similar conditions with the same stoker and know what to look for this stuff can be meaningless. However, there are in fact differences and sometimes it helps to know why and what they are so that folks can make informed decisions when those differences become a factor.

Not saying one tandem is worse than any other, but my bias does show in my posting. I do not enjoy the slumbering ride provided by limited experience on our 'Dale, similar large fork offset to Santana. I am sure not nearly as comfortable. I do think that suggesting that someone whose back or arms ache after riding a Co-Motion or similar might benefit from a switch to Santana or similar oversimplifies the situation. Comfort is more about fit than geometry. Once up to speed a bike that fits will allow the rider to be more relaxed, releasing the 'death grip' and not suffer from soreness often misassociated (is this really a word) with bike geometry. I do not find myself constantly fidgeting with steering input, but then I am used to bikes with more trail, I do not feel like my arms or back have received more of a workout than the rest of my body after a tandem ride.

Notwithstanding market penetration, do you even think for a minute that geometry bias has anything to do with familiarity, age, bike handling skills, etc?

I am still just thinking out loud here and have no basis in fact other than limited personal experience, that is why I am asking.

You'll have to remind me, just how tall and heavy is your stoker? I'm not being a smart-ass and I'm not trying to offer any definitive advise on tandem geometry because you can play what if games all day. But, after 11 years, 40 tandem rallies, and riding with thousands of other tandem teams you do pick up on certain things along the way. This thread like all threads about steering geometry will always have highly subjective overtones because bike handling is highly subjective.

That said, the reason I introduce stoker size is that the stoker's height, weight and riding style will usually do more to alter how a tandem handles and feels moreso than anything you can do by changing a fork. Small kids can do handstands on the back of a tandem and still not create as much 'work' for the captain with regard to keeping the bike going in a straight line than a 6' stoker who likes to peek around the captain's head. The more trail you add to that scenario the more dramatic the effect and the more 'work' the captain must do to keep the thing going in a straight line.

Also, getting back to the OPs conundrum, you can also screw up the handling of a tandem by selecting a fork that's just not stiff enough for your preferences. Alpha Q forks, for example, have a noticeable amount of deflection... far more than any of the other tandem-rated carbon forks. That additional deflection makes our tandems handle differently than they would with a stiffer fork with same or different rake. It was somewhat unsettling at first back '02 when we made the change from our lightweight (850g) custom steel fork to the 500g Alpha Q, but since we're a lightweight team and I float around in the 160-170lb range over the course of a year, the deflection is acceptable. Again, nothing's simple and you can add all kinds of things into the equation to make it even more complex.

You'll have to re-phrase the question as I'm not clear on what you're asking. If the question is, does the average consumer even consider geometry when they're shopping for their first tandem? If so, then the answer is no, and that's probably a good thing. Geometry shouldn't become an issue until you find that it is an issue, real or imagined. If you're talking about a Cat 2 out shopping for a racing tandem to use at the Co-Motion classic, they might opt for a 'racing tandem' based on reputation and component choices but, then again, they might just find what ever tandem they can get their hands on that fits and simply ride the snot out of it. Neither of those probably answer your question...

Nothing wrong with that and all I'm sharing are my observations and opinions and purposely try to keep it simple. Again, the best way to figure out if any of this matters is to ride different tandems back to back under similar circumstances that mean something to you. If you'll never have a 200 lb stoker on the back of a tandem, then you'll never need to worry about how much more or less suitable a Co-Motion or a Santana might be, in much the same way that the strength and durability of a rear wheel may ever become an issue.

Good, love the insight. My stoker is 145 pounds and very smooth. for many months before we even had our tandem she was riding rollers and is much more competent at it than I am. Also working with a coach smoothed out her pedaling stroke and she delivers power much more evenly than I do. But we are a 345 pound team. I rarely notice her moving around back there until I make some smart comment about workload or some such nonsense. We prefer the handling we got when swapping forks. The 'Dale fatty is a very stiff fork and offers little trail the Winwood not so stiff and a lot more trail after the first few jittery miles everything smoothed out and we did not even notice the handling because it was so much the same as our single bikes. Now that I just wrote the last couple of sentences, I think it I should have said I was the one who preferred this type of geometry. I am not really sure my stoker cares oone way or another.

With regard to my comment on geometry preference, you indirectly answered it. I was totally ignoring availability. You tend to ride what is available in your area. So if an LBS is heavily invested in Santana, you ride and become familiar wih Santana, same for Co-Motion, etc. Without having something to compare to you 'settle' (not the best word but the one that sprang to mind first) for whatever is available in your area. It certainly isn't like single bikes. In our area, and I am just up I85 from your area, you would be hardpressed to find more than one or two tandems in stock in the entire area. The Charlotte metro area is over 1M people. The test ride type of comparison is very difficult to do here (I am not a fan of test rides for other reasons I will not delve into here). You have to rely on past experience whether that be tandem or single to understand what to expect.

I took no offense nor did it occur to me that you were being a smart-ass. Remeber I mostly post in Road Cycling and if you don't have a tough skin, or simply take no notice of anything considered offensive you certainly wouldn't last long in that particular forum.

A lot of it's the weight -- about 1/2 as much weight vs. what you're dealing with on your single's front wheel -- coupled with the need for a heavier hand on the bars to maintain a straight riding line due to the long wheelbase, CG sitting much further back and of course the frame torsion coming from the stoker that all comes to a head at the front fork and handlebars.

All three tandems most likely used a 73° head tube, with most likely a 55mm rake fork / 48mm of steering trail on the Davidson (same as Santana), perhaps a 53mm rake fork / 51mm of steering trail on the Cannondale depending when it was made, and a 45mm rake fork / 58mm of steering trail on the Co-Motion.

Or in my case, when trying to figure out what to buy. Referring back to my first post on this forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/tandem-cycling/294295-primera-vs-speedster-vs-roadster.html

I guess I never said how all that worked out. Our first two tandem tests were on borrowed C'dale and Davidson. We rode each several times, probably a total of 100 miles each. No problems, but we didn't feel like we could make either bike really "go." Then we had a disastrous test ride on a Co-Mo Primera, described in somewhat mellow terms in the post referenced above. Much mellower terms than what we really felt during the test, not wanting to rank too much on someone's pet bike, but we barely got out of the parking lot without crashing into someone or something. We had trouble staying in a 3' imaginary bike lane on the climbs.

We did not go back for a second test. Our ride had been a good 15 miles over varied terrain, and we felt we had a good feel for the bike. Instead, we had faith and bought our used Speedster with Wound-up fork, sight unseen. We rode this bike perfectly from the first pedal stroke. No instability, no stoker steer, no feeling of frame flex, etc. Not a subtle difference. From what TG says in these two threads, the Wound-up with its slightly greater trail should have disposed the bike to increased stoker steer, low speed handling issues, etc. But it was the opposite. Something about the Primera's handling was stimulating my stoker to try to compensate. Whatever that was, it does not exist on our Speedster.

The only thing I can think of is that the Primera's steer tube was not cut down to no spacers on the headset, like our Speedster. Rather, about 3" of spacers were under the stem and maybe the steer tube was flexing like crazy. The dealer said they always left them like that until sold, to accomodate buyer preferences. Or maybe the stock fork is not nearly as stiff as the Wound-up, which gets back to the OP's question. Though TG seems to be saying the opposite. And kudos to TG for presenting a consistent story through all these threads.

This underscores why steering geometry is so controversial and subjective. There are just so many things that can factor into how a given tandem will handle: set-up, tires/wheels, captain's riding position over the front wheel, stoker anxiety/movement and the like.

If anyone happened to follow our Calfee journal, they may recall when we took delivery of our much anticipated Calfee our high expectations for it's handling and comfort were not met during the early rides with the '08 Rolf wheelset. Like yourself, I was somewhat charitable in my commentary as the handling was downright awful and I couldn't be I'd just spent a small fortune for a tandem that handled worse than a $900 whippy steel import, to wit:

The steering will take a bit of getting used to, which says more about just how much steering trail was used on our Ericksons than anything else. Although it's hard to imagine a tandem with what is essentially the same steering trail as a Co-Motion Supremo or Robusta running an Alpha Q fork feeling sluggish, that's how the Calfee initially felt compared to our Ericksons. Instead of thinking "turn left" like I do on the Erickson which then immediately dives into a corner, the Calfee needed a bit more engagement on my part.

It wasn't until I finally fitted different wheels that the true colors of the frame geometry showed through. It's experiences like that and what I've seen and heard from other teams that makes me sometimes question if folks have the right tandems and/or have their tandems dialed in.

Anyway, getting back to your experience... just coming up the learning curve riding tandems normally goes a very long way towards 'improving' the handling of most subsequent rides by a given team. Some of what you describe on the Primera test ride sounds very much like what I've heard from others who took their very first tandem test ride on a Co-Motion or one of our Erickson tandems. However, subsequent rides on the same or different tandems were usually more successful.

It's possible that your Speedster experience after making the purchase was so successful because of the Primera learning experience and the collective experience you gained as a tandem team coupled with perhaps a better set-up on the Speedster and the ownership / commitment factor that comes along with the purchase of a tandem. Again, expectations and that pride of ownership sometimes have a powerful and positive influence. In the airplane business there's an old saying that's probably not unique to aircraft that goes: good-looking airplane fly good, whereas ugly ones fly ugly. I wanted our Calfee to be so good that I kidded myself into making those first few hundred miles seem better than they really were because that good looking and mega-costly tandem rode ugly, real ugly. Thank goodness we had the resources and experience to pursue a fix and solve the mystery.

Bottom Line: It's not that hard to discuss the mechanics of steering geometry but theory and what 'should be' are meaningless when personal experience and the realities of all the other factors that influence handling come into play.