> Especially with regard to tandems, the ability to ride no-hands seems a
> very useful test of the quality of a tandem's design..unless it's a
> track tandem, or something equally specialized.
I borrowed a crappy entry-level road tandem from the bike shop yesterday to use with Jake on a group ride today (a KHS Tandemania Milano, several years old, which the shop has sold and then gotten back again at least three or four times by now). Pursuant to this discussion, I tried taking my hands off the bars to see what would happen. I kept them hovering close, since I don't really want to let go with a stoker in back, but the bike behaved itself no differently than if I were holding on. It's a crappy bike and it doesn't fit us, but it did handle very nicely, even for a couple that hasn't been on a tandem in a few years.
But getting back to the original topic, here's a new question: How has cadence changed over the years? Increases in the range of cassettes and decreases in the spacing between gears allow modern riders to maintain a much more constant cadence than used to be possible, and allow riders to climb steeper hills at a higher cadence. Lance Armstrong is famous for spinning long cranks at a high cadence (in a high gear, too... good to be Lance) and people try to emulate his technique. But in addition to the influence of famous riders who have perfected one style or another, frame geometry and typical (or easily available, or generally preferred) crank length, among other factors, will also have an effect on which styles are most efficient for which riders. So, have cadences changed? Has thinking on cadence changed? Have orthopedists' views on the subject changed (what's healthy)? Or trainers' opinions, or just "conventional wisdom"? In particular, I always find it interesting how conventional wisdom morphs over time, often based on a set of new, but equally unfounded misconceptions or misinterpretations.
The link that was posted to the article on style on the wooljersey site was interesting to me, because not all of the things it described as desirable sounded desirable to me. In particular, the article discussed Dennis Clamp's perfect TT position, although my guess is that by modern standards his top tube would be considered too short. He may be riding on the rivet, but the way his back is curved doesn't look particularly comfortable to me, and a modern TT fit would probably try for a flat back (even if one were to be optimizing a TT position for use with drop bars as opposed to aerobars). Maybe that's another place where preferences have changed?
Emily again, Medford, MA
Emily O'Brien
Medford, MA