Jan wrote:
> While Santana's contribution to _popularizing_ quality tandems cannot
> be overlooked, they hardly were the first to make worthy machines. I
> know Mr. McCready has been good about making bold claims, but... I
> still prefer the Taylors and Herse tandems. And I have ridden many
> for long distances (about 15 modern tandems, although, admittedly, no
> Santana).
Given that I was the co-founder of a tandem club in the 80's, have sold many, ridden at least 50 different ones (including many Santanas) and still own 2 tandems of my own (neither Santana), I believe I can give a reasonably unbiased opinion on this topic. Santana were the sole company responsible for the 'rebirth' of widespread tandem riding in North America. You would indeed need to go back many decades prior to the arrival of Santana before you found another period in which the percentage of tandems as part of the overall number of bikes sold was as high. They have also easily outsold any other tandem maker in the last 30 years. It is even likely that their total sales volume could have outsold the total sales volume of all other quality makers combined in this period. As such, I believe it is unfair to question Santana's contribution to tandemming. It should also be pointed out that they were the first to bring out a mass-produced quality tandem. At prices that were not that much higher than other mass-produced tandems, they brought a ride that was guaranteed to be head and shoulders above all other mass-produced products. It was in fact far superior to many of the custom builders of the day. For proof, just take a full-Campagnolo period Colnago, Cinelli, Pinarello etc... for a comparison ride.
> I continue to be amazed by the machines that were built as
> early as the late 1930s. Oversize, tapered tubing, useful geometries
> (tandems that don't veer off course when the stoker moves!),
> tandem-specific components, 110 mm front hub spacing and 135 mm rear
> combined with smaller 650B wheels for super-strong wheels - you name
> it. They were thinking in the 1930s, and didn't stop. If you wanted
> an oversized aluminum tandem, Barra and later Marcadier
> would build you one that looks
> remarkably similar to an early Cannondale.
By the 1930's, tandem design had already been widely established. None of the elements described above were new to the period and much less so tandem specific. These were all known and tried solutions. For proof, all you need to do is go back as far as the late 19th century or early 20th century, you will find: oversize tubing (I have it on my 1878 Rudge), tapered tubing (again used on my 1878 Rudge), stable geometries that don't veer of course (check out the pacer tandems, triplets, quads... of the 19th-20th century change period), bicycle specific components (there was a time when bikes were made with every component being made specifically for the individual bike in question. This, in my eyes, is neither a plus nor desirable, but that is another discussion.)
> If the old machines were so unworthy, why were the PBP tandems
> records (both male and mixed) set in 1951 only broken 48 years later?
> And that year, 1999, had tailwinds both ways, much better conditions
> than 1951. The single-bike records didn't last nearly as long. On
> 1200 km, even minor flaws, especially in comfort, translate into
> large time losses. You can't "tough it out" for 48 hours!
Perhaps before intimating that older tandems were on a par or better because of one single result obtained in the PBP, you should also point out a number of other PBP statistics. Things such as the total number of participants, the percentage of those riding tandems, the amount of attention given to the 'race' aspect and the quality of the riders involved. If I am not mistaken, the 1951 tandem record holders were effectively among the last professionals to ride for the tandem 'record'. It was also a time in which the ride was at its zenith for participation and marketing importance as a 'race'. While there has been a recent resurgence in the quantity of riders participating, nobody looks to a PBP 'winner' as a marketing tool anymore and the 'race' has therefore taken on a greatly different aspect. As far as stating that it is not possible to tough it out for 48 hours, I am certain that if you were to speak to the 1951 record-breakers, you would hear that that is exactly what they did.
> The mass-producers, however, were trying to copy most of the
> appearance of the better machines at a cut-price. The results are
> less than exciting. But to conclude from a Peugeot that all old
> tandems are not much good isn't quite fair. These machines cost a
> lot less than a Santana, too.
Your average Santana today, costs comparably less than a Herse or Singer in their day. They can rightly be compared to the Motobécane or Gitane of their day. In the early 80's, I sold Motobécane tandems at about 3 times the price of a similarly equipped single. A 2004 Santana Arriva costs about 3 times the price of a similarly equipped single, hence no major change. It also costs considerably less than the cheapest new Singer single, let alone tandem.
> The long rear top tube is an American invention, but a doubtful
> contribution. Nothing wrong with sitting more upright as a tandem
> stoker: Usually it's more comfortable, you can see over the captain's
> shoulder (big plus, that!), it makes for a shorter, more maneuverable
> tandem with a stiffer frame. All Taylors seem to have the same
> (short!) rear top tube length, yet even my occasional stoker Mark,
> who measures a bit over 6', finds it very comfortable for 200+ miles.
I too am not a lover of long stoker toptube tandems. I don't see the need for it. I have and still own tandems with both configurations. I do however believe the shorter the total wheelbase, within reason, is almost always best on a tandem. I used to be able to fit my aforementioned Bob Jackson inside the trunk of my parents 1980's Pontiac Parisienne with the lid closed, so it has an obviously very short wheelbase. It however remains a great riding tandem, both in the pilot and stoker position. The more upright position required in the stoker position will never be the same as that found on your single, but then again there is no need for it to be. You get the advantage of sightline that Jan describes, as well as freer breathing to your lungs and aerodynamics. The improved handling also allows you to avoid many road hazards that would be taken on full speed on a less agile, long wheelbase tandem. For those of you that are convinced that short toptube tandems are incompatible with stoker confort, I hope to bring my tandem to le cirque and will let you take it for a spin. I am sure that you will then realize that both solutions are valid.
> My problem with most newer tandems is that they don't have the right
> geometry. They are affected by leaning, like a single bike. So when
> the stoker reaches for a waterbottle, the tandem veers off course.
> When following a modern tandem, you will see that it moves along in
> very slight zig-zags, robbing power and requiring constant input from
> the captain. Over 52 hours, that will wear you out! The best old
> machines run as straight as an arrow, until they are asked to turn,
> which they do with alacrity.
I don't believe that it is the 'new' geometry that is wrong, but rather that the builders have decided to compromise in a different fashion. In fact, no tandem will ever handle like a single. It is simply not possible. You must therefore decide which elements to compromise on. For a given wheelbase, you can either have stability or small turning radius, you cannot have both. In my experience, the stability question can always be worked out between two compatible riders, so I prefer to have the better handling conferred by the smaller turning radius. As far as zig-zagging of tandems on the road, it is my belief that this generally occurs when the stoker is comparatively too strong or the pair are not sufficiently supple, hence a lack of compatibility. In my past personal time-trial results, when switching between stoker and captain positions with my partner, we always went faster with better times when the stronger rider was the captain. It is open to debate why this occurs, but the results have been clear both for me as well as all others who I know to have tried to compare.
-- Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
PS: If somebody has copies of old Bicycling! magazines from the late 70's or early 80's, they should be able to find a comparison roadtest of an early Santana as well as a few other tandems. I would be interested to review the results that they obtained.