|
Santana Sizing Question
I have my eye on a Santana Sovereign as my first tandem. Found a nice used one in my price range I have my eye on.
I'm 5'8", 145 lbs, and have a 32" inseam (long legs, short torso). Currently I ride a 53cm Bianchi San Mateo. According to santana's web site I'm on the higher end of the small range, and the lower end of the medium range. In my cycling experience, buying a bike small is always better than buying one big. However, I have yet to find ANY used tandems on the smaller side. |
A bit of indirect help: GearToGo's website does have dimensions measured from the Santana's they've sold. This is the only source I know of that has any Santana geometry. No indication how current.
|
I have an 08 Santana Sovereign SE that is a meduim. I am 5'8" with a pubic bone height of 81cm (about 31 inches) and the bike fits me fine.
Sheldon Hall Greenfield, IN |
I am 5'8" with 30" inseam.
I have a Sovereign size small. It fits me fine and is not too small. My rode bike is a Trek 52cm seat tube and 53cm top tube. I will be selling the Sovereign later this year if you can wait. |
Thanks for the info everyone. I bought the Santana today. The medium is a bit bigger than I'd prefer, but in the event that I want to upgrade in the future I think it was a better purchase. Plus the price was great.
|
Just curious what you paid for it, so I can get an idea of how to price mine.
How you enjoy it, it's a nice bike. |
I paid $1,000 even. The owner had been trying to sell it for a while, so I was thinking I would try and haggle, but I liked the seller so much that I didn't have the heart. Even at $1,000 I think it was a fair price.
|
Just for benchmarking purposes, do you know the year of manufacture?
|
Unfortunately, I don't. It is in great condition, with just the slightest hint of surface rust on some of the joints. It has Sram shifters and Shimano XTR components.
|
That is a great price.
Is it the steel or aluminum frame? |
Originally Posted by WebsterBikeMan
(Post 9068284)
Just for benchmarking purposes, do you know the year of manufacture?
26" wheels? what kind of brakes? thanks TP |
Originally Posted by jerky1280
(Post 9052636)
I have my eye on a Santana Sovereign as my first tandem. Found a nice used one in my price range I have my eye on.
I'm 5'8", 145 lbs, and have a 32" inseam (long legs, short torso). Currently I ride a 53cm Bianchi San Mateo. According to santana's web site I'm on the higher end of the small range, and the lower end of the medium range. In my cycling experience, buying a bike small is always better than buying one big. However, I have yet to find ANY used tandems on the smaller side. You'll get a more robust, stiffer, stronger frame, the cockpit for the stoker will be infinitely more roomy (Santana uses less stiff and smaller tubing so they can't build their bikes with as long of a wheelbase), and you'll get a faster tandem for the same effort. Tandems are all about pedaling the bike and going FORWARD, and fast. Its amazing how fast a good aluminum tandem will go. Santana is obsessed with creating a comfortable ride for the stoker and engineer poison pill compromises into their frames to make the ride less harsh for the stoker. My stoker doesn't complain on our Cannondale, and no bike on the planet has bigger oversize aluminum tubes than a Cannonadale tandem. If your stoker does want some additional comfort look to a tandem rated carbon fork upgrade, and a Thudbuster SL suspension seatpost. The Tamer/Santana designed suspension seatpost doesn't employ suspension travel in the arc of motion, and the stokers I've talked to who have tried both posts prefer the Thudbuster. Santana's hold their value very well, but the real value on a tandem is in the frame, not the components. You'll find the used Cannondale's are usually upgraded with high end components (Phil wood hubs etc) and there is no comparison amongst the frames. Sadly, most people buy a tandem without ever riding any comparable bikes. Travel to a Santana dealer, ride the Aluminum Sovereign. Then go visit a Co-Motion or Cannondale dealer. Like night and day. Santana tandems do hold their value, incredibly well, but the value, arguably isn't there, comparably, in the first place. I'd pass. |
I have a differing view than mtnbike; tandems are NOT always about speed. They can be about speed, but I think many people (myself included) buy tandems to include a significant other, that doesn't ride as much (or at all), and bring them along while we ride.
I own a Santana Sovereign aluminum, and my stoker wife and I tried out about 15 different tandems at Belmont Wheelworks outside of Boston: Burley's, Co-motion, Santana, Cannondale, and others. The Santana is very stiff compared to some we rode, just fit well with what we wanted to do, which was enjoy the ride together, rather than us riding on 2 singles, me getting to the top of the hill first, her complaining about her bad knees and the steepness. Figure out what YOU want to do with a tandem, and go from there. FYI, I'm currently ordering a recumbent USS tandem from Longbikes, so yes, mtnbike will get there faster than me, but I will be WAY more comfortable, and enjoy the view and the ride along the way! |
Originally Posted by mtnbke
(Post 9074059)
...the cockpit for the stoker will be infinitely more roomy
Originally Posted by mtnbke
(Post 9074059)
..Santana uses less stiff and smaller tubing so they can't build their bikes with as long of a wheelbase
As noted in other threads, Cannondale has always built a very nice tandem using oversized, straight gauge tubing that is well-suited to what you have described to be your team's extremely high weight. However, for teams of more average weights in the 290 - 360 lbs range Santana's tandems are more than suitable for most average teams and, to a certain extent even larger teams in the 400lb range -- both in terms of stiffness needed for performance and comfort which to Santana equates to endurance. Again, I believe you indicated your personal weight was well over the average tandem team weight and when you add a stoker of average size / weight to the equation you're clearly a team that's pushing upwards of 500lbs. Teams like your own that are skewed well off the center of the bell curve -- at the high or low end -- will always have riding impressions that are equally skewed. Therefore, in much the same was as teams that weigh only 250lbs will likely find most frames to be more than stiff enough, it will truly be rare for someone of your team's size to find many tandems that will inspire confidence in handling and frame stiffness.
Originally Posted by mtnbke
(Post 9074059)
.Sadly, most people buy a tandem without ever riding any comparable bikes.
|
I have owned a Santana Sovereign aluminum tandem since 1996.
We owned a previous tandem and test rode several tandems before deciding on the Sovereign. On at least three occaisons we have rented a Cannondale road tandem while on vacation in Hawaii. While I am not going to to say Cannondale is a bad bike and not going into detail, the Cannondale in no way compared to be as good as our Santana in any aspect. After 13 years we are completely satified with our purchase. The only negative thing I have to say about Santana is their use of proprietry features such as 160mm rear wheel spacing and 1-1/2 fork tube that severly limit some component selections. I think Cannondales are a fine tandem for the price if it meets your needs. |
Originally Posted by TandemGeek
(Post 9096861)
You need to qualify your statements as this is not a true statement without a lot of caveats. Prior to 1999 it WAS a true statement and as of this year it is once again a true statement. However, from 1999 through 2008 model Cannondale's M/S, L/S, and XL/S frames had the SHORTEST stoker compartment offered by any of the major builders at 27.1" vs. Santana's 27.75 and more recent 28" stoker compartments. The X/M would get you a 28.1" stoker compartment and the J/L would get you a 29.1" stoker compartment. They finally fixed the smaller size frame length issue with their 2009 models by upping the 'small' stoker compartments to 28.6" to be on par with Co-Motion.
Santana has some specific reasons for why they use the length of stoker compartment they do on their tandems and it has nothing to do with tubing limitations. If you'd like to know what they are, give Steve Leesse or Bill McCready a call at Santana and they'll share it with you. If suffices to say, if a Santana client wanted a 30" stoker compartment on a Santana they can and will built it and if it needs to be extra stiff, they'll make it extra stiff. If there was an outpouring of interest by Santana's clients for longer stoker compartments, Santana would probably reconsider it's design spec and find a way to bring the desired product to market. They did the latter with carbon forks, disc brakes and low-spoke-count racing wheels for that very reason (customer interest and demand) so it's hardly a business constraint. As noted in other threads, Cannondale has always built a very nice tandem using oversized, straight gauge tubing that is well-suited to what you have described to be your team's extremely high weight. However, for teams of more average weights in the 290 - 360 lbs range Santana's tandems are more than suitable for most average teams and, to a certain extent even larger teams in the 400lb range -- both in terms of stiffness needed for performance and comfort which to Santana equates to endurance. Again, I believe you indicated your personal weight was well over the average tandem team weight and when you add a stoker of average size / weight to the equation you're clearly a team that's pushing upwards of 500lbs. Teams like your own that are skewed well off the center of the bell curve -- at the high or low end -- will always have riding impressions that are equally skewed. Therefore, in much the same was as teams that weigh only 250lbs will likely find most frames to be more than stiff enough, it will truly be rare for someone of your team's size to find many tandems that will inspire confidence in handling and frame stiffness. I can actually agree with part of this statement, but it's about the only one. Go ahead and add up all the frame size combinations in which Cannondale's had a longer stoker compartment amongst Burley, Co-Motion, and Santana since say the onset of the modern Cannondale frame (1989). Let me know what you come up with, okay. I've gotten heavier. I used to be a competitive athlete. I wasn't always this heavy. I'm never been impressed with Santana frames. I find them to be flexy and inefficient (at any weight), I don't like the feeling of the frame twisting, and downright scary. Admittedly, when I was younger and thinner I could put out considerable wattage and stressed frames probably different than someone 5'10" and 160lbs who needed to learn to ride a hypercadence to touch higher wattages. However, at the end of the day Santana's literature makes a pointed effort to convey how stiff and efficient their frames are, and in fact, they do not compare favorably to Calfee, Cannondale, or Co-Motion tandems. Maybe good tandems are only built with the letter C, I dunno. Maybe actually having stiff, light, efficient tubing is better than spending money marketing that you have stiff light efficient tubing. I was ready to buy a Santana, after reading their propaganda backwards and forwards. When I finally rode one and compared it to other tandems, I couldn't have been more disappointed. I went from thinking I knew what I wanted to not knowing what do do or buy. Years later when I actually bought my first tandem I was prepared for the 'Santana shock' and bought the best bike I could afford. The components on my 'dale have to be the worst component group ever offered on any Santana, Co-Motion, or Cannondale since '90 though. I think I'm close to having upgraded every last thing. Not quite there, but close. I recently bought another Cannondale tandem, more recent, better build, better bike as well. Still stiffer, faster, and a bigger sized frame than anything offered by Santana or Co-Mo. I swear half the people I see on tandems are on bikes two sizes too small... |
Originally Posted by mtnbke
(Post 9102672)
Tandemgeek are you really that contrarian that you went into the catalog to find an inconsistency in my statement by finally discovering a several year window on frames combined with a Small stoker size? Really? I mean really?
Pointing out an error in fact made by a single individual is not holding a contrary view nor in the broader sense being a contrarian. If we were discussing the merits of long vs short stoker compartments and the vast majority of people who had an opinion held that shorter stoker compartments were better whereas I was in a small minority who held that longer was better, then I could be characterized as having a contrarian viewpoint, e.g., on the contrary. However, that was not the case with your overly broad statement about stoker compartment sizes: you simply didn't have your facts straight. If you had caveated your statement by limiting it to the larger frame sizes -- the ones you ride and are apparently familiar with -- then you would have been correct... and that's the point I made in my first sentence when replying to your erroneous posting. As for looking up the information, like so many things that you've been writing about you assume too much: I don't have to look it up because I know the subject matter and specs. of the various tandem offerings across most of the US manufacturers and many of the builders going back to the 90's. Hint, hint, why do you think my nom de plume is 'tandemgeek'. Bottom Line: You made factual errors in your statements, I pointed out your error, I have given you sound advise regarding how to guard against doing so in the future by qualifying your statements and filled in the void in your knowlege of Cannondale's frame sizing. |
OK, I guess this thread got hijacked over the merits of Santana vs Cannondale (or Cannondale vs Santana, to be politically correct :) ).
Anyways, I think it still boils down to :test ride them, and buy what feels right for you. |
Originally Posted by TandemGeek
(Post 9102826)
Your grasp of vocabulary is about as strong as the other subjects you've delved into here since joining in April...
Pointing out an error in fact made by a single individual is not holding a contrary view nor in the broader sense being a contrarian. If we were discussing the merits of long vs short stoker compartments and the vast majority of people who had an opinion held that shorter stoker compartments were better whereas I was in a small minority who held that longer was better, then I could be characterized as having a contrarian viewpoint, e.g., on the contrary. However, that was not the case with your overly broad statement about stoker compartment sizes: you simply didn't have your facts straight. If you had caveated your statement by limiting it to the larger frame sizes -- the ones you ride and are apparently familiar with -- then you would have been correct... and that's the point I made in my first sentence when replying to your erroneous posting. As for looking up the information, like so many things that you've been writing about you assume too much: I don't have to look it up because I know the subject matter and specs. of the various tandem offerings across most of the US manufacturers and many of the builders going back to the 90's. Hint, hint, why do you think my nom de plume is 'tandemgeek'. Bottom Line: You made factual errors in your statements, I pointed out your error, I have given you sound advise regarding how to guard against doing so in the future by qualifying your statements and filled in the void in your knowlege of Cannondale's frame sizing. The entire point was how silly it was to go and try to point out how, on the whole, there was an inconsistency in talking about longer Cannondale stoker compartments when, as you've pointed out, frames with a small rear size, did not have the same geometry. The "error" you found was contingent on one narrow exception (only for frames with a S rear section), posted to be contrarian. Posting again, again in a contentious and contrarian fashion, to assert that you are, in fact, not being contrarian, is just kind of funny actually. I'm thinking I'm actually not giving you credit here for subtle humor. Assuming you are in fact being serious, and are just so contrarian and contentious as to actually look for the narrow exclusive exceptions in which an argument someone makes doesn't hold, and that "proving people wrong" is something that you use to validate yourself as a person, well I'll learn my lesson here and just disengage. If you hate your life, yourself, or your job, make changes. Life is short, man, go for a freakin' ride... I don't know you at all, and obviously a person's personality doesn't come across completely in a written context, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is more to you than the narrow aspect that translates here, just as there was more to my point than the narrow exception in which you've prided yourself upon pointing out. |
Originally Posted by reoguy2005
(Post 9112536)
OK, I guess this thread got hijacked over the merits of Santana vs Cannondale (or Cannondale vs Santana, to be politically correct :) ).
Anyways, I think it still boils down to :test ride them, and buy what feels right for you. Sadly most people will buy a $3500-10000 tandem without really riding all the other models/brands in their size. It is next to impossible to project how a given bike (that isn't the right size when you're test riding it) would feel if it was the right size. I, for one, am all for encouraging people to hold off on buying a tandem for as long as possible, until they've seriously test ridden as many tandems as they possibly can. I think the worst mistake a team can make is buying a bike after test riding one tandem in a small lbs. The tandem will cost as much as a decent vacation, and could be a huge enriching part of your life. Take a long weekend and travel to a dedicated tandem shop when they are hosting one of the 'test ride everything' events. |
You've totally missed the point, and again posted in an entirely contentious manner.
Contentious works... The "error" you found was contingent on one narrow exception (only for frames with a S rear section), No offense, but you clearly aren't familiar with Cannondale's specs. For the past decade 3 of the 5 frame sizes sold by Cannondale had stoker compartments that were significantly shorter than Santana's 28" standard length stoker compartment (M/S, L/S X/S), with a fourth that was the same size (X/M) and only one size -- the largest frame they made (J/L) -- that came with a stoker compartment that was longer than Santana's standard of 28". Therefore, and given that Cannondale produced fewer numbers of the smallest and largest frames, what you believe is a narrow exception accounted for more than 80% of the tandems produced by Cannondale for the past decade. So, let's go back and look at your advice to our 5'8", 145lb captain with the 32" inseam (this is what I would refer to as a relevant data point) who couldn't possibly ride a Jumbo/Large Cannondale:
Originally Posted by mtnbke
Save your money. If you're looking at an aluminum tandem look for a used Cannondale instead.
You'll get a more robust, stiffer, stronger frame, the cockpit for the stoker will be infinitely more roomy (Santana uses less stiff and smaller tubing so they can't build their bikes with as long of a wheelbase), and you'll get a faster tandem for the same effort. As already stated, you made factual errors in your statements, I pointed out your error, I have given you sound advise regarding how to guard against doing so in the future by qualifying your statements and filled in the void in your knowlege of Cannondale's frame sizing. Posting again, again in a contentious and contrarian fashion, to assert that you are, in fact, not being contrarian, is just kind of funny actually. Please go look up the term contrarian; it's roots are based in economics. Contentious, as already noted, is not a bad choice: feel free to check my bio as I'm well aware of my on-line demeanor. Here's the deal. I'm not looking to "prove that people are wrong", as that serves no purpose in and of itself. My goal here was and remains to make sure the folks who come to this forum leave here with accurate information, yourself included. That you take umbrage when presented with constructive criticism is your perrogative and, well, par for the course for many folks surfing internet forums. |
Originally Posted by mtnbke
(Post 9145895)
I don't know you at all, and obviously a person's personality doesn't come across completely in a written context, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is more to you than the narrow aspect that translates here,
|
I have been browsing this forum for quite a few years. If there is one "authority" here, I'd put my money on TG. I have never got a sense of "know-it-all" from him but he does know more than most.
I have never met him but he seems to be an individual who studies things carefully (much more so than I) and is willing to share what he has found with others. If this helps you, great. If not, find your information elsewhere. I really doubt that he "hates his life". |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.