radsmd

Have searched and read about TA vs quick release on disc brake tandem, but still not sure which way to go.

Currently deciding on a Calfee tetra coupled travel tandem, DI2, hydraulic disc brakes, probably Spinergy wheels. Last decision is if we should get 142TA rear with TA front as well vs 142TA rear with qr front vs just qr both front and rear.

Calfee has been pushing for TA all around, but my concerns are as follows:

1. Lack of good TA front forks. The enve forks have that recent recall issue and is spec'ed as a 160 max front rotor. The TRP has internal brake routing which is not optimal when packing the tandem for airline travel. Whiskey 9 fork has questionable availability.

2. Studies have shown that TA isn't much better than qr when it comes to rigid fork/road use. Too many disadvantages for not much positives?

3. Issues with mounting on our ATOC draftmaster or tandem topper. We would need to use a TA adapter, which adds another thing that can potentially go wrong while driving at 80 mph (I mean 65) on the highway.

4. Lack of good centerlock tandem rated wheels. CLD wheels would make it easier to remove for travel, and allow us to use the freeza shimano rotors. The Spinergies only come in the 6 bolt as of now. Could of course build up some handbuilts using CLD hubs, but really wanted to try those Spinergies.

Currently leaning towards just going qr front and rear, and making sure we use high quality internal cam quick releases to make sure we don't ever have any issues with the theoretical front wheel being rotated out of the dropout on braking.

What is the current BF opinion? TIA

Tandem2

Being a mountainbiker first and having ridden TA's for the last few years, I wanted a TA front and rear on our freshly ordered Supremo frame.
Co-motion obliged with a 142 TA rear, but their current carbon disc fork is QR only, I had already decieded to use DT Swiss hubs so ordered their RWS 9mm TA kit.
While not as substantial as a 15mm TA, I like the way the RWS bridges the gap between either end cap on the front hub, tying everything together.

mtseymour

You have a choice of two really good options. While the thru axle is the obvious choice for mtn bikes and off-road tandems, it's a toss-up for road bikes.

Here are some reasons to choose thru axle:

-you're a heavy team (esp if doing loaded touring) and want a slightly stiffer fork with tapered steerer tube..
-you ride on rough roads and want to eliminate the remote possibility that a wheel will loosen.
-don't mind the slight weight penalty.


You're likely to stay with traditional QR if:

-you want a wider selection of forks and hubs
-speed and light weight are important
-you're reasonably careful about installing wheels.
-you prefer a 145mm rear hub. Remember that the 142-12 wheel uses a 135mm flange spacing.


If you like a stronger rear wheel, then think about the new Boost 148 standard. It combines a thru axle with a wider rear spacing (closer to 145mm). Plus, more hubs will be available because it may emerge as the new standard for all mtn bikes.

BTW, the Shimano Freeza rotors shouldn't dictate your wheel choice. After a long day of riding, you'll be glad that you picked the right wheels (Spinergy, etc). I like the Centerlock rotors, but there are many 6-bolt rotors that work really well.

twocicle

Radsmd,

Can you provide a link or two for the studies you reference in point #2 ? I would like to read up on more definitive testing than opinion.

For example this article seems to be written quite well, but looking under the covers at the referenced test reveals that feedback was based on one rider's opinion of only two forks on a trail ride. Nothing quantitative or exhaustive about that!

Also consider that pretty much all comparisons will be based on single bike loads and rotor sizes. We need to factor in that we are in the order of 300lbs and typically using 160-180mm rotors, both of which will stress a fork to a higher degree. IMO, any performance and safety gain on a tandem is worth it.

After ENVE's recall issue with the 1 1/4" steerer fork it will be interesting to see just what they come up with next. That they had problems even when their spec is a 160mm max rotor, raises a red flag to whatever the design snafu was. Their Cross fork specs all seem good except that the 160mm rotor max is still there too.

Cheers.

radsmd

good idea. I'll look into that. Looks to improve wheel security while not requiring the additional hassle of a true TA design. Probably better than a standard QR.

CliffordK

A few days ago someone was asking about 145mm centerlock hubs.
What I found was that 142mm & 150mm thru axle hubs were much more common, and often cheaper than the 145mm hubs.

That might affect your build choice if you have the option.

As far as flange width, it may not make a big difference. Part of the reason of using a 145mm axle is to reduce dishing, and even out the tension between the two sides. Thus, one doesn't necessarily want wider flanges.

twocicle

Actually there is a big difference if you place any importance in flange width/bracing angles. A 142mm TA is usually the same as a 135mm QR as far as flange width. A 135mm QR (or 142 TA) disc wheel builds up a fair bit less laterally stiff compared to a 145mm QR disc wheel.

According to White Industries specs, the 148mm CLD Boost hub with 60mm flanges has a whopping 59mm width between them. Compare that to the Mi6-Tandem (145mm QR) which is 53.5mm flange width. There is no doubt that the 148mm Boost hub is now White Ind's best hub for mainstream tandem wheels. If a team is lighter weight and/or needs a narrower q-factor, then it is usually necessary to compromise by going with a narrower hub.

Radsmd is having a new frame built, so this is prime time to jump on this great option.

We had problems with the Spinergy nipples snapping, and I know of other teams that experienced the same problem too. Plus those PBO spokes are definitely NOT aero, sounding like fans running on high when flying downhill at speed.

radsmd

We are a relatively light 270 pound team, so don't think we need the extra stiffness.

Was thinking of just going with a 135 rear dropout spacing (QR or 142TA), since there is now quite a few MTB hub options. More limited with the 145 rear spacing.

CLD is desirable for us since we plan on removing the rotors from the wheels when we pack it up for travel. One lockring is much quicker and simpler than 12 Torx bolts. Less parts to lose too.

radsmd

The article that you reference is the main one that I was basing my original posting on. Although it is indeed limited because it discussed a single (half) bike, it is the most pertinent info I have available. Although that article states that TA is not much better than QR in his application, I have not seen any information that states definitively that TA is better than QR in rigid fork applications. Sure, they are better in MTB; I have it on my FS bike, but not yet with rigid forks.

ypsetihw

my god I wish I had the time or money or someone else who cared enough to even think about, let alone post about, these kinds of issues. I've been trying to get my lady on a tandem for a while, but she flat out refuses.

if you're going disc brake then just get a TA. you are obviously a gear nerd, but worrying about the fact that there aren't enough high end production forks with TA right now is silly. in 5 years there will be plenty on the market, and if you plan on turning the bike over before then, your pockets are much deeper than mine. also, I just don't get the whole di2 thing - why introduce electricity related failure when it's not necessary? but I digress . . .

twocicle

Yeah, don't digress into the stone ages

Di2 negates the sub-standard shifting we otherwise live with on tandems due to the long cable runs. "electric" is the best, precise shifting you can treat yourself too. Failures? What failures? E-tube has made it super easy to setup, mix components and reliable.

twocicle

Radsmd,

I forgot to suggest a couple other things for you to review... take a look at the diffs between hub bearings (and the number of them), axle strength (AL vs CroMo, and diameters), freehub body material, and pawl engagement. Some mfr build their hubs for lightweight single bikes and some of those are not appropriate for high tandem torque or heavy loads.

akexpress 

Here's my take. We have a 2015 Calfee tetra frame with couplers. Thru Axles front and rear ( whisky fork 15mm axle) and 142x12 rear thru axle. the game changer in all this is the road Hydraulic brakes. There has never been such powerful brakes available in a road bike or tandem as these now provide. They put much greater stresses on the frames and forks then ever before. Hence Calfee now has an extra strut between the seat stay and chain stay to mitigate the stress on this area. We were a very early adopter of the rear hydraulic brakes and had issues and that is why Calfee for one changed their frames to accommodate these brakes. I don't have data to back it up but I wanted a thru axle front fork due to torsional rotation loads with the front disc. With modern rims and hubs I feel very comfortable with 135 rear spacing at around 330# team weight and have had zero issues with either of our set of wheels. We tried two different versions of spinergy wheels but had issues with both and moved to Zipp rims on White Ind hubs. We have traveled extensively with our two different Calfee frames and almost never take off the rotors for travel so the CLD or 6 bolt both work well IMO. Obviously your results may differ. BTW you need a rather large wrench and cassette tool for travel if you want to take rotors off a CLD hub. (wolf does make a very nice tool that travels well for this purpose)

radsmd

What issues did you have with the spinergies, if you don't mind me asking? Also, how do you pack your tandem with the rotors installed? Aren't you worried that they will get bent or out of true? I thought that was an issue, but may not be in real life.

twocicle

Packing the front wheel into the lid of an S&S case isn't much of a problem, just put the disc rotor facing the lid. For the rear wheel, I like to remove the disc and put the cassette facing the lid. This gives a lot more room in the case and IMO less prone to error if TSA screws around with the packing. For the CL lock rings, I use the same BB-tool type for both front and rear TA wheel. I don't mind taking a few bike specific tools on trips, including a cassette removal tool as well so we can swap if needed. Spend my vacation time riding instead of hunting for a decent bike shop.

waynesulak

I do not believe Enve makes the forks they sell. I would be interested to know if its was a Enve designed fork, and if the issue is with the design, materials or construction.

twocicle

Correct, ENVE has the forks made in asia. I seem to recall them making some statement the product designs were theirs. Oddly the recall issue is specific to only the 1-1/4" road disc fork and not for the other steerer sizes, yet the defect occurred on the fork leg at the upper post mount junction which one might think was the same on all their road disc forks.

shlammed

thru axle. no question. find a thru axle fork too.