[CR]Classic tandems vs. current ones

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

In-Reply-To: <20021027200001.22636.46845.Mailman@phred.org>
References: <20021027200001.22636.46845.Mailman@phred.org>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine@mindspring.com>
Subject: [CR]Classic tandems vs. current ones
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 14:08:31 -0800

Never having ridden a Singer tandem, I have ridden and competed in long-distance events on an 1957 Herse, two 1980s Jack Taylors, and many of the current U.S. crop (Cannondale, Trek, Co-Motion, Davidson, etc.) Most of these bikes were loaners. All of these bikes have "oversize" tubing.

All except the Trek ride acceptably, even with two strong male riders on board. (The Trek, newest of the bunch is instable and still doesn't corner well). But the beauty of the Herse, Taylor and, to a lesser degree, Davidson is that the stoker does not affect the bike's handling. The geometry is such that the stoker can reach for bottles, scratch their nose, etc., without the bike veering into the ditch. There is no tradeoff in cornering, because all these frames are sufficiently stiff (even the open-framed Herse). Obviously, you need to tug on the bars a bit to initiate a turn since leaning doesn't affect the bike, but I never found that to detract. In fact, with their longer wheelbases and added weight (thus better planted on bumps), the better tandems corner faster than I dare on a single. Singles that manage to hold our wheel on descents usually are dropped once the road gets twisty.

(The fact that tandems shouldn't react to leaning was pointed out by Tony Oliver in his book "Touring Bikes" - I cannot claim I came up with that idea.)

The rear BB may flex a bit under hard climbing on the less-braced models, but it doesn't detract nor slow down the bike. On the Taylors, I can take my hands off the bars at speeds above 15 mph without even warning the stoker.

Most American tandems use geometries of single bikes, which react strongly to shifts in weight (as a single should). Thus, stokers need to be trained not to move at all, which can be pretty difficult for a stoker on a longer ride. To me, this is an unnecessary constraint, if the geometry is thought out more carefully.

Rear top tube length: I know we North Americans like our space, hence our disliking of public transportation. :) And for teams of greatly different sizes, a long rear top tube is essential, because otherwise butt of captain and head of stoker overlap. But otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the stoker adopting a more upright, more comfortable position. Their head will be above the captain's back, making for a very aerodynamic, maneuvrable bike. It does help if they get along.

For a short report and photo of a Jack Taylor tandem coming first in our annual "Mountain 100 km" ride (1700 m of elevation gain), go to http://www.seattlerandonneur.org/newsletters/2002/oct/index.html (scroll down some). (Disclaimer: Yes, I was on the bike.)

Of course, old Schwinn Paramounts, Peugeots, Gitanes and other tandems with undersized (i.e., single-bike-sized) tubing may handle entirely different. I have successfully steered clear of those!

A future issue of Vintage Bicycle Quarterly (another shameless plug, more info at http://www.mindspring.com/~heine/bikesite/bikesite/index.html) will cover classic tandem, with emphasis on French ones.

For me, I prefer a Taylor or similar bike any time over the modern stuff.

So, Dave, how does the Singer ride in this comparison. Are the tubes oversize? Does all that bracing stiffen the rear BB? I know that Singer and Herse only added bracing if you begged and pleaded, making yours a special bike indeed.

Jan Heine, Seattle