cheese whiz! just buy a damn bike already!


might i suggest a surly troll?

Huh??? after your post about engineers ???

I just looked at LeeG's link and the speedster tandem has 40 spokes front and rear, the equator has 36... The primera has 36 or 40 as described here:

Co-Motion Cycles | primera

Primera

• Frame: Handbuilt frame with zonally-butted cro-moly steel tubing
• Fork: Co-Motion Taper Gauge w/ CNC Tandem Steerer
• Derailleurs/Shifters: Shimano 105 5703 Triple
• Brakes: Avid BB7 w/ 200mm Rotors
• Headset: FSA Orbit
• Drivetrain: TruVativ Elita Tandem Cranks 52/39/30T; 11-32t 10spd cassette
• Cockpit: FSA Omega captain bar & stem; Co-Motion Stoker bar & stem
• Post/Saddle: Selle Italia X1 & X1 Lady, Co-Motion 31.6
• Wheels: Velocity Dyad Rims; Co-Motion A-20 Tandem Hubs, 36h or 40h
• Tires: Continental Ultrasport II 700c x 28mm

The only 24 spoke wheel I see is on the Carrera which is a totally different type of wheel build. When the 920 begins running those rims...

A Trek 920...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psrlduuyni.jpg

...and a Novara Safari, in steel, for less than half the price...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psn8atuxk2.jpg


I'll allow they may be very different bikes, but they sure seemed aimed at the same niche.

Right now, even if price were no object, I'd be leaning towards the Safari.

JMHO,
Mike

The Safari does look much more sensible, even if I would likely convert it to drop bar. Though, it might nice to give butterfly bars a go at some point.

In the case of the 720, it's because it's intended for very light touring. It's a mostly sporty road bike that comes with mini-panniers that attach directly to the fork blade, so you can do a multi-day credit card tour right out of the box.

Amusingly, the 720 page on Trek's website has tons of pictures of people on heavily loaded rigs that aren't the Trek 720.

Note the exotic spoking, spaced in groups of two along the rim. They're a very different sort of design than the higher-spoked wheels. They're fairly expensive wheels, and also tend to require higher and more precise spoke tension than traditional types.

Yes your right about what they post about their touring tandems. But look at their road tandems which often if not always takes more abuse than a touring single. And the Al frames. All I'm trying to say is maybe the 28* will be okay on the 920. It might not be the devil some are making it out to be. If it is the devil I get a new wheel. Not a big deal.

I continue to disagree. I will look at it on your suggestion. I remain comfortable with my decision with the 920. I will do some loaded day rides to see how it handles that way. 5 or 10 lb bags of charcoal for shake down wt.

Again, the Tandems have 145mm rear spacing, even if they do have 24 spoke wheels. The difference is night and day.

Well sure, the Safari isn't as cool looking, but it would seem it takes pretty dang big tires.
Have you considered the Specialized Awol? It's pretty much the same as the 920, but much, much better. Kona Rove is too.

If you want a rare bike Squeesy that few people have, then you should look at this one

Specialized Bicycle Components

its nr 70 of 100 and for sale used in Norway for 2100$ sure you could push it down a bit..

http://www.finn.no/70662494

I'm really okay with my 920 decision, I don't quite understand why you continue to try to talk me out of it. I looked at the AWOL several times, I will again at your request. The Novora Safari looks silly. I will swallow my pride and look at it as well. Kona Rove is a new suggestion. Thanks! 135 vs 145 about 7-8% difference, Really day and night difference? I have no 145 experience. Bill at Santana moved from 145 to 160 about 30 yrs ago. All the other tandem builders seem to be okay with 145. I'm not sure what his problem continues to be.
Thanks for the suggestions,
I'm about to call my brother about funds for the 920. I'll get back to you after all of the above.

The really surprising thing to me is how close the steel Safari and the aluminum Trek 920 are in mfg. claimed weight.

31 lbs for the Safari

28 lbs for the 920.

These in bikes intended to be loaded down with gear anyway.

The frame/feel of that 920 would have to be really, really special for me to accept the extra $1,000 up-front and weird hard-to-find-in-Podunk AR componentry.

Again JMHO,
Mike

The impact on spoke bracing angle, affecting the stiffness and strength of the wheel, is significant.

Wider hubs are a compromise that you have to make if you want to build durable wheels with extremely low spoke count. It's no coincidence that Santana is more fond of 16-spoke tandem wheels than other tandem builders.

dude, noone is trying to talk you out of anything. in fact, noone really cares what
you buy. bike folks is discussing bikes and components. you've been arguing
that one particular bike is better than another particularly inferior bike with
absolutely no knowledge of either.....other than skimming a few brochures.

duh. anyhoo, you like the 920? well, go buy the damn 920 then!

bwahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaa!

But we are not talking about road bikes here, we are talking about touring bikes. The big difference being load capacity. Notice the ones made for heavier loads have more spokes. There is a reason for that - they didn't just add those wheels because they had some spares in the back.

Hi there! I'm from St. Louis but never heard of Billy goat bikes. I'm interested in the 920 if the xs fits me I'm concerned about the top tube length. I'm interested in bike packing along with long distance touring. The trek racks are rated 45 # each so I think that would be enough. I don't care about the wheels I'm small and if the lack of spokes are a problem I'll just buy new wheels. No problem for me. I love the looks of it!! Great color! If that doesn't work I'll prolly check into the blue salsa mareekesh. It's built good for petite people but strictly a road bike.

You really don't know anything about this stuff do you. Yet you continue to argue.

That 7-8% translates to 10mm difference in flange distance that then translates to 40-60kgf of spoke tension on the non drive side (depending whether you start from road or mtb rear spacing)

I like the fact that you would buy a really expensive bike and then feel it is no problem to have to buy new wheels for it. What if you are on the road when that happens and you can't find a replacement near by? That's one of the issues we have been discussing.

And, colour aside, I am curious what you think the difference is between the 920 and the Marrakesh that leads you to believe one is an adventure/off road bike and the other is strictly a road bike?

That is not correct. I've spent quite a bit of time in their shop. Most common wheels on their touring bikes are 36 spoke Velocity Dyad rims, DT hubs and DT spokes.

I had a pair of their wheels for a short time. They also sold me one of their 36 spoke Dyad rims when I couldn't find a black rim to finish a build I was trying to complete. BTW it was a LHT:)

People seem to increasingly believe that gravel requires at least 2" tire width... Maybe it's the emergence of fatbikes which leads to people believing anything under 3" is insufficient for trails, hence the belief of larger tire requirements for any kind of surface. I don't really know but it's still silly.

In the last continental race one of the race leaders rode alpine gravel roads with a tt-bike equipped with 23mm tires. Those roads are rougher than most of US groomed singletrack.

I use 37mm tires for touring and I'm fairly confident (through experience) that those can handle any amount of gravel thrown their way. If I wanted to do hiking trail / wilderness bike packing then a drop bar road geo bike would be the wrong choice anyway, no matter how big tires it had. And the 920 is still very much a road geometry. If I was doing trails especially with a full rigid I'd want at most 68° head angle, preferrably shallower.

But seriously, for heavy duty gravel, bikes like straggler, Cc, marrakesh, rove, awol, lht and even the safari are much better choices than the 920. Two reasons for this. The 920 wheels are inadequate and the price of the 920 is way over the top. The more I check the bike out the more apparent it becomes how overpriced it really is

oh, cheese..........is that you squeezie?

I was thinking the same :roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:

Man. The marrakesh must be some evolutionary strict road bike since it takes 2" tires. How long until we see 2" in the pro tour. Must be just around the corner since they've already turned to 25mm. Half way there!

No

To me the Mareekesh doesn't look like a bike I'd hit the trails with,it's touted as an exploration,adventure bike and to me would work well on gravel but it has a road bike geometry. The Trek 920 has more of a mountain bike geometry and 29 inch wheels. The trails I would be riding such as Cocino (sp) would be more mountain bike than gravel.

To me the 920 isn't expensive. I wouldn't expect to get a touring bike that I could put tons of miles on to get any cheaper. My first choice was a Rivendell Atlantis that's Alittle more pricey. I would expect not to get great wheels on a bike in the 2k range. My carbon bike was 2k in 2008 and its stock wheels are nothing special.

Ive put 10k miles/yr on it since 2008 still going good and never had a spoke come out yet! Only 2 flats! If I needed a new wheel touring I would deal with it. If your gonna play the what if game the chain could break, derailleur break, I could have a heart attack etc,wreck by a car.

i don't know about some comments but not really looking to argue just info about the 920. Bike shops don't carry very small sizes to I have to order sight unseen. I may get that Trek Precision fit to get some idea but it prolly is too much reach for me ( the 920). The top tube effective is 21 inches and I need 19. I hate being stretched just to put the brakes on.

i love drop bars and ride gravel on my 19 tires that doesn't bother me but being a small female most unisex bikes don't fit me so not a lot of options. The safari bike is just ugly to me and I want drop bars.