We've been using daVinci cranks on our tandems since 1998.... 4 sets and no regrets.

Ah cool, and Recoil, which is good stuff too. So it looks like the kit has most of what you'd need.

However since we're changing the thread direction, I'm thinking that most of the existing threads should be removed with a drill before attempting to tap in the opposite direction. I'm thinking it would be best to do this on a drill press with the crank clamped down perpendicular using the existing hole as an alignment guide. Good thing I know a machinist....

6500 series Ultegra is looking like a strong possibility....

There is also this kit: Unior thread repair kit
And these drills: Reamer, Drill

I was thinking about using DA 7400 cranks since I already had a set here and only needed to buy one triple and one double set to complete the tandem crank set. They are hard to find in good condition.

What is the source of this supposed Campy weight limit? Not from the Campy web site. The term "weight limit" does not search, nor does "80 kg", nor do 11 Google pages of "weight" at the site reveal a weight limit. I've looked over their Catalog .pdf's, and no weight limit. If you Google weight limit and Campy you'll see reference to a supposed 80 kg (176 lb.) weight limit, but no viable links. This blog had what appears to be a quote from the Campy site.

But his link no longer works, and searching the term 'heavy' at the Campy site doesn't turn it up.

So it appears at one time Campy might have had some sort of CYA legalese about recommended weight limits, but this not of real-world engineering or cycling import. Campy components overall have a reputation for robustness that recommends rather than disallows their products for heavier usage.

Moreover, for tandems, a team weight limit would apply to wheels, forks, etc. which bear the burden of two riders, but not for individual rider items such cranks, seatposts, saddles, bars, etc., for which the load is that of the captain and stoker respectively, not cumulatively.

In previous years it was far more explicit but, as you note, there has apparently been a change of heart or marketing pressure to remove the caveats. However, 180 lbs still remains a discrete weight threshold with respect to Campy components, including cranks. Of course, you'd have to read the instructions for a given Campy component to find the residual caveat to wit, here's a link to the current Crankset Instruction sheet: https://www.campagnolo.com/repository...kset-07-05.pdf

Page 18 contains the English version (excerpt appended below) where you'll find a recommendation for anyone weighing over 180 lbs to be vigilant with regard to having their equipment inspected more often for cracks, etc..

Not quite. While the captain's cranks and stoker's left-side crank carry no more of a load than they do on a single bike, the stoker's drive-side crank arm & rings as well as the bottom bracket DO, in fact, carry the cumulative loads of both the captain and stoker: how else would the captain's power contributions get to the rear wheel?

While the stoker's seat post doesn't deal with any additional loading vs. what would be experienced on a single bike, the captain's seat post must deal with an entirely different set of loads generated by the stoker via their handlebars and the stoker stem connected to the captain's seatpost. It could even be argued that a captain's stem and handlebars will for most average teams deal with more torsional loads associated with countering 'stoker steer' and impacts from road obstacles that must be ridden over vice being bunny-hopped on a single bike. While the magitude of the additional loads placed on the seat posts, stems and handlebars are no where close to 2x what a single rider would generate (which is nearly the case for the left-side drive crank and rear BB), they are greater and those differences should not be dismissed when selecting components for a tandem.
,

That particular page with exact wording appears in every instruction sheet for every part. Obviously it applies to some but certainly does not apply to all parts as some have no practical weight limits.

I ordered a Calfee tandem through Hubbub Bikes in Chesterfield, OH about 4 weeks ago. I got a Calfee carbon triple tandem crankset from Mel at TandemsEast. All he has left are the 172.5mm/170mm or 170mm/170mm captain/stoker sets, no 175mm/170mm sets. Calfee does not have any cranks in stock. But, I am also getting the Gates Belt drive system installed. I have requested Hubbub to install Token Isis titanium bottom brackets with ceramic bearings, available from www.tufonorthamerica.com.

What is your planned build list?

You may recognise my forum name from the weightweenie forum as I spend too much time there. Our tandem has thus morphed towards weightweenieism gradually, but isn't extreme at all as it pretty much works how I want it to and the parts haven't worn out so haven't been replaced.

I have stepped back from building the as light as possible tandem as you get into diminishing returns and durability issues more quickly than on a single bike. Better to get fit right then go for a good balance between lightness, durability and price. On the tandem I go for durable and moderately light rather than super light every time. Also, thinking about it, the tandem goes best on flat to rolling roads, meaning weight isn't a big factor and aero wheels are a better investment IMHO as you play to the bike's strong points rather than weak ones.

Some thoughts on the build - Edge 68mm rims would be my must-buy investment unless you ride in the rain, coupled with an out of the box Shimano or Campag system so that it all shifts perfectly. I have the 38s on my road bike and they are really nice to ride. Then add an Alpha Q fork, Thomson masterpiece seatposts, Rotor stems up top plus your favourite carbon bars and you have a nice bike. Finally carbon cages, i-links, Powercordz, Veloplugs, anodised bolts and so on for the details to shave that last 2lbs. Ours is basically heading in that direction, but minus the big $$$ parts. Another thought could be to wait for triple DA7900 brakes and shifters as the 7900 brakes on my single bike are extremely good and well worth the extra weight over typical weightweenie KCNCs or ZeroG.

This settles it then that Campy has no real weight limitations, the mention of 80 kg is obscure, in fine print, and only a mild suggestion to be be more vigilant.

So, as regards the BB and crank, it must withstand torque more than it does rider weight. Sensitive instruments on the stoker's BB could more easily tell how much power and torque the captain generated than how much he weighed.

As regards the Campy Record aluminum crank and BB's ability to withstand power and torque, the crankset that has withstood the 1600 watts of sprinter Tom Boonen , has nothing to fear from the combined wattage, torque or weight of Mrs. Ritterview and myself.

[QUOTE=swc7916;8727742]Sorry, but when R+E picked parts for their 26.8-pound steel Trillium tandem they chose a DaVinci crankset:





Cool how the drive chain stops at the rear wheel, rather than continuing to the chainrings (photo above).

Guess that saves some weight, eh?

Weve been riding our co-motion supremo w/FSA gossomer cranks with zero problems to date. 2007 model. Highly recomended.

My earlier comments pertained to Campy's carbon cranks, not aluminum and further noted that R&E / Rodriguez has for many years modified alloy Campy cranksets for use on their tandems. But, if you feel better now, then I feel better for you.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's-arse what anyone uses on their tandems. But I do try to make sure they are given sound recommendations and/or understand what is and is not used and why by the folks who have logged enough miles on tandems to learn what lasts and what doesn't.

True, and a few years back Campy had stronger wording in all of it's literature and the FAQs. Perhaps they were just trying to protect their brand image by warding off cyclists who just didn't have that 'Campy' rider look.

TG, when I read this message a LOLed. I will never be accused of having the Campy Rider Look or any other cyclist look for that matter.

I could be wrong but I don't think Tom Boonen continues to ride these bikes for 10 years either.

It was written with tongue firmly in cheek, albeit without the smiley.

Please continue. Thanks.

Where did you find my picture?

Just ordered the Gates Carbon drive setup from Web Cycling to put on our Robusta. Anxious for it to get here.

Let us know what you think when it arrives.

The Calfee crank is interesting. It isn't listed at Calfee's web site. Apparently it is a rebranded crank of Taiwanese manufacture. It has some similarities to this Token carbon ISIS triple, which would go along with the scenario of a Taiwanese firm that had a carbon ISIS triple making up a tandem specific version at Calfee's request.

That same crank has been re-badged under several names: Carbon Lord, Control Tech, Stella Azzarra & Token. I have even seen a boot leg no-name crank in this design. Prices have ranged from $150-$600 depending on the graphics (single crank of corse). G0d knows who actually made them but the design is from around 2002. I have the Stella version on one of my single bikes, It has held up perfectly.

I've used Ultegra, FSA & Race Face cranks with zero problems. Follow assembly procedures. We ride the tandem on a average of 200 miles a week and have done so for 20 years. I would love to build up a Dura Ace set for the Supremo.

To all those that worry about Campy being a light weight I use Campy Record components for my entire tandem. From the pedals to the RD including the chains. I have never had any issues and never had anything break. They are the aluminum cranks [timing] and a triple 10 speed drive. Working with the public I understand that there are issues with being sued. I think it is funny how some feel that going over on tire pressures [over what is written on the sidewall] is OK but going over on the factory weight specs is not. Either way most items that are not used for what they are designed for may cause issues in the future. I sure would think that the engineers [lawyers] would surely have a cow if they knew that the dual pivot Records were slowing down me and my son on a 50 mph run on our tandem. I am not saying that the stuff is worth the price or that they will hold up, just that they work for us.

No offense, but does anyone actually read what gets posted to the forum?

Calfee's cranks are made by Martec International (of Taiwan) as mentioned earlier in this thread.

The only Campy component I called into question for use on OUR tandem was Campy's first generation CARBON cranks with square tapers that were only available as doubles... not triples. As noted in the earlier post to this thread that also ID'd Calfee's cranks as being produced by Martek, "I contemplated making up a set of Campy Chorus carbon cranks for our tandem until it dawned on me that we'd seriously be exceeding their max weight limit as a double crankset, never mind being modified to accept a 32t granny which would have put some serious hurt on the carbon spiders."

The only point I was trying to drive home with regard to adapting components for tandems was to "check the specs" and consider the implications of your intended use of components that may or may not have been designed with the weight and forces generated by a tandem team in mind.

As for those Campy weight limits, I've not been able to purge their existence from my memory and for those who missed it, there was a point in time when Campy made a bigger deal about weight limits and it was a hot topic that even made an appearance in places like Lennard Zinn's column in VeloNews back in '03:

Joseba's above response was embedded as part of an FAQ on Campy's web site for several years and is now part of the 'fine print' in the instructions shipped with each Campy part.

Again, I don't care what anyone uses on their tandems unless it was something I recommended. The latter will always err on the conservative side of the equation with an eye towards reliability and long-term durability unless stated otherwise.