Tandems - sized differently ?

Bob said:

I came up with a spur of the moment idea that a Tandem might be nice
to have for me and the babe. So, I started poking around the web a
bit for vintage tandems since I'm a vintage guy. Most of the tandems
that I've run into seem to be on the small side - front frame c-t or
21" at most, rear in the 18" range.

Is there some reason that Tandems seem to be smaller? I'd normally
ride a frame in the 22.5 range... shouldn't I expect the same for the
front of the Tandem and size the rear similarly for the babe ? Maybe
people hold onto the larger Tandems and only sell off the little
ones? Fill me in!

Hmm. Well, compared to a single bike, it's more important for the
captain to be able to get both feet on the ground quickly, since it's
common to support the bike at stop lights while your stoker is clipped
in and perhaps wiggling around. Still, our tandem (a custom) is sized
in front like my regular bike, and it hasn't been a problem.

Rear sizing is less critical than for a single bike, for the same
reason. We knew a couple comprised of a 6'8" captain and a 5'6"
stoker. There was no way the stoker could ever touch the ground.

That frame was also a custom build, but the builder claimed it would be
too difficult to give the stoker a "typical" frame size, given the
height disparity. So the captain simply mounted first and held the
bike steady, then she climbed on the bike just like she'd mount a
horse. It seemed to cause no problems.

Quoted message said:

PS - if there are other things I need to know about buying a tandem
that a normal vintage bike geek would not know, do tell.

I'd be a bit wary of a vintage tandem, if you go too vintage. Before
about 1978, there were lots of bad tandems on the market. In those
days, people seemed to know a lot less about adequate rigidity,
adequately strong wheels, etc. One couple that I knew had a
mid-quality French tandem and they broke spokes almost every ride. And
the bike was very, very flexible - pretty disconcerting to ride. Also,
it seems like most tandems sold in America were French, with
non-standard threads & dimensions. French-threaded replacement parts
are very hard to find these days.

Santana got the industry moving toward adequate rigidity and good
wheels, among other things. The difference between modern and vintage
tandems is much greater than for singles.

Having said that, Jan Heine of the magazine _Vintage Bicycle Quarterly_
claims that the top quality touring bikes (singles and tandems) from,
say, the 1950s, are in many ways better than the bikes of today. I
think he and his wife hold the tandem record in Paris-Brest-Paris, set
on an old tandem. But I'll bet the important phrase is "top quality."

If I were contemplating purchase of a tandem, I'd look into the Tandem
Club of America, and give a phone call to Tandems, Limited, a shop my
friends and I have done business with. 205-991-5519. Proprietors Jack
& Susan Goertz know a lot and are friendly on the phone. (I have no
connection to their business except as an occasional customer.)

- Frank Krygowski

Bob:

I would suggest finding at least two or three tandem teams and talking to
them. The issue with the standover height of the captains compartment is
that when the stoker is getting on and the captain is holding the bike up
there MUST be enough room for the cranks to turn without hitting the Captain
in the shins. The stoker will be getting into the pedals and it might be
required that they back pedal to get the feet into the clips or pedals.

The way that I was taught to do the mounting was captain first straddles the
top tube and actually sits on it. Then spread the feet out as far as one
can and lock the brakes. At this point the stoker can mount and get set up
on the seat as needed. Once stoker is ready to go, then the captain can
stand up and they can go.

The comment on rigid bike is important. You don't want to be going down a
hill with a bike that is weaving around because the tubing is wimpy and is
flexing.

I have to go but I hope this information helps in some small way.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bob said:

I came up with a spur of the moment idea that a Tandem might be nice
to have for me and the babe. So, I started poking around the web a
bit for vintage tandems since I'm a vintage guy. Most of the tandems
that I've run into seem to be on the small side - front frame c-t or
21" at most, rear in the 18" range.

Is there some reason that Tandems seem to be smaller? I'd normally
ride a frame in the 22.5 range... shouldn't I expect the same for the
front of the Tandem and size the rear similarly for the babe ? Maybe
people hold onto the larger Tandems and only sell off the little
ones? Fill me in!

From my very limited experience long ago...

In the '70s and prior, tandems for the public tended to be sold as
"his and hers" bikes, and weren't taken seriously. They often had
wheels that weren't up to the task of carrying two large adults (as a
pair of my friends of that day discovered) and generally weren't built
for anyone over 6 feet tall as I recall. The manufacturers may have
understood that their wheels were too flimsy to put 400 lbs on the
bike, for that matter, so they may have been avoiding the issue by not
providing a tandem that tall people would want, on the theory that
weight is generally proportional to height. (Not that this would have
protected them here in Texas!)

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Bob said:

I came up with a spur of the moment idea that a Tandem might be nice
to have for me and the babe. So, I started poking around the web a
bit for vintage tandems since I'm a vintage guy. Most of the tandems
that I've run into seem to be on the small side - front frame c-t or
21" at most, rear in the 18" range.

Is there some reason that Tandems seem to be smaller? I'd normally
ride a frame in the 22.5 range... shouldn't I expect the same for the
front of the Tandem and size the rear similarly for the babe ? Maybe
people hold onto the larger Tandems and only sell off the little
ones? Fill me in!

Thanks,
Bob

PS - if there are other things I need to know about buying a tandem
that a normal vintage bike geek would not know, do tell.

Yeah. Don't buy a vintage tandem. First, tandem seat tube sizing does
run smaller, captain's top tube doesn't. Older tandems have shorter
stoker top tubes than modern tandems. Get a modern one. Your stoker
will thank you and be much happier. Trust me. You don't have to buy new
but buy a modern one.
Phil Brown

I would stay away from buying an old tandem if you actually want to ride it.
The tube sets on old (> 10 or 15 years old) frames are usually flimsier than
present day frames use, making frame flex quite apparent, the stokers top
tubes are generally too short for anyone except a really short stoker, the
brakes are often inadequate, and you'll have trouble finding spares because
standards for parts have changed.

For information on buying tandems have a look at
http://www.thetandemlink.com/, or more specifically
http://www.thetandemlink.com/LearningCenter.html.

Nick

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I came up with a spur of the moment idea that a Tandem might be nice
to have for me and the babe. So, I started poking around the web a
bit for vintage tandems since I'm a vintage guy. Most of the tandems
that I've run into seem to be on the small side - front frame c-t or
21" at most, rear in the 18" range.

Is there some reason that Tandems seem to be smaller? I'd normally
ride a frame in the 22.5 range... shouldn't I expect the same for the
front of the Tandem and size the rear similarly for the babe ? Maybe
people hold onto the larger Tandems and only sell off the little
ones? Fill me in!

Thanks,
Bob

PS - if there are other things I need to know about buying a tandem
that a normal vintage bike geek would not know, do tell.

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Hmm. Well, compared to a single bike, it's more important for the
captain to be able to get both feet on the ground quickly, since it's
common to support the bike at stop lights while your stoker is clipped
in and perhaps wiggling around.

Both feet? I only ever get both feet on the ground when I call dismount.
Stopping just takes the left foot, lean the bike a bit to the left into my
leg, and trust the stoker not to try and pick a coin off the ground
without telling me first.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Olethros, March - a weekend.

David Damerell said:

Quoting <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Hmm. Well, compared to a single bike, it's more important for the
captain to be able to get both feet on the ground quickly, since it's
common to support the bike at stop lights while your stoker is clipped
in and perhaps wiggling around.

Both feet? I only ever get both feet on the ground when I call dismount.
Stopping just takes the left foot, lean the bike a bit to the left into my
leg, and trust the stoker not to try and pick a coin off the ground
without telling me first.

For short stops, I use one foot. For longer ones (like a long traffic
light) I often use both feet. YMMV.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

David Damerell wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both feet? I only ever get both feet on the ground when I call dismount.
Stopping just takes the left foot, lean the bike a bit to the left into my
leg, and trust the stoker not to try and pick a coin off the ground
without telling me first.

For short stops, I use one foot. For longer ones (like a long traffic
light) I often use both feet. YMMV.

I agree with Frank (happens occasionally...). On a single, one foot
down is more than enough - with a stoker in the equation, you really
want to be ready to catch the bike moving away from your "down foot"
(which can happen really fast if the stoker moves suddenly - like
turning around to check traffic / in response to a sound, etc.).

When I do stop "one footed" at a light, I'll place the foot further
away from the bike and lean the bike into that leg significantly.
This will prevent any small movement by the stoker from causing the
bike to fall away the other direction.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Quoting Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Both feet? I only ever get both feet on the ground when I call dismount.
Stopping just takes the left foot, lean the bike a bit to the left into my
leg, and trust the stoker not to try and pick a coin off the ground
without telling me first.

For short stops, I use one foot. For longer ones (like a long traffic
light) I often use both feet. YMMV.

I agree with Frank (happens occasionally...). On a single, one foot
down is more than enough - with a stoker in the equation, you really
want to be ready to catch the bike moving away from your "down foot"

I've thought about this more, and I still don't get it. With one foot
down, the crossbar is nestled safely close to my crotch; if the bike tries
to go right, I can resist it with my right thigh muscle. My stoker weighs
more than I do and this still seems perfectly easy.

Perhaps it helps that we have an 80s frame with a high level top tube.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Monday, March.

David Damerell said:

I've thought about this more, and I still don't get it. With one foot
down, the crossbar is nestled safely close to my crotch; if the bike tries
to go right, I can resist it with my right thigh muscle. My stoker weighs
more than I do and this still seems perfectly easy.

I assume your left foot is the "down foot". The thing is, if the
stoker does anything that puts the center of gravity further to the
right than you can counteract with the counterbalance of your body
position, over ya' go (if you can't get the right foot out of the
clip, of course, which CAN be difficult from the position you
describe). Granted, a "good stoker" won't do that very often, but
just let one of 'em see a pair of shoes or a cute puppy going by on
their right, and they might make a move that surprises you... ;-)

Yeah, I stop with one foot down most of the time too - but if there's
ANY doubt I'll use both.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame