# Non Tandem parts that work



## Jay P (Dec 16, 2005)

So after 15 years of racing my wife and I have bought a tandem, Vicious Jeepster hardtail.
We should have it by December and I will be taking my time to build it. We are booth very experinced in endurance racing and are looking to do the same with this bike. TT'ing the Great Divide trail is a main objective. We will be doing mostly gravel road touring and of course challenging ourselves to some singletrack here and there.
I don't want to be using all the tandem specific parts as I want to be bulding the lightest most reasonable tandem race bike.
My question is mainly geared toward suspension forks, wheel builds and cranks.
What non tandem specific parts have people used with and without success on a tandem build.
Total wieght of riders and gear would be ~300-320lbs.
Thanks for any info.
Jay


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

What items are you looking for? I think the only "tandem specific" item we have on our tandem is the crankset, otherwise, it is just mountain bike stuff. Our wheels aren't light, but they keep on ticking without a lot of complaint. We have 36h Sun Rhyno Light rims laced to XT hubs with 14g spokes and brass nipples. A tandem team could lose some weight there if you "ride light" and smooth. 

With the advent of the "all-mountain" category, you'll find many items that will hold up to tandem use that aren't excessively heavy. 

I am sure Big Nut will chime in on this, as he has a lot of knowledge on what parts work and what parts don't work for tandem use.


----------



## Trails4Two (May 12, 2008)

*Tandem parts*

By "tandem specific", I assume you mean parts warrantied by the manufacturer for tandem use. Basically forks and brakes. BigNut can correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the prime areas of failure on tandems is the freehub, followed closely by cassettes and chains. A great deal will depend on your riding style and terrain. My team rides somewhat light since the only thing we have ever broken is one xt freehub and one chain. Both were easy fixes, but changing a freehub during an endurance ride would be a hassle. I don't honestly know if any of the "freeride/all-mountain" wheels have a stronger freehub than a standard XT. It's a good question. Brakes: avid mechanicals are good basic brakes and are tandem rated as are some of the hydro Hopes. You might shave a few grams here by using non-tandem gear, but not much. Forks are where you could save the most weight. If you can find a Maverick anywhere you could get tandem rated and light. If you browse the photos on the Ventana website http://www.ventanausa.com/main_owners3.html you can see that a lot of folks run non-tandem single crown forks. I have only used tandem forks, so don't have direct info about their performance.

Post a pic of the jeepster when you get it. They are beautiful bikes.


----------



## arly (Apr 20, 2005)

Best thing about light weight parts is when you have to carry, or push your bike home. We’re a sub 300lb team of limited strength and we’ve busted just about every part on them, tandem rated or not. From that experience we’d prefer to ride .


----------



## sparrow (Dec 30, 2003)

Concentrate on reliability for drive train components, especially the rear hub. We've had great mileage out of a Chris King Heavy Duty with stainless steel axle and stainless steel freehub body (broken XT, DT, Phil Wood, Hope, White Industries). Chain/cassette are worth looking long and hard at as well. Ti cassettes don't last under too many off road tandem teams! Cranks, well you are sorta limited to tandem specific cranks, but that is fine, good low geared tandem cranks are not plentiful or common.

But everything else can be from the ATB/All Mountain and even a little DH spec parts readily available. I think you can come up with a pretty light tandem from the myriad choices that have evolved from the modern ATB.

To be specific, we've had good luck with Rock Shox Pike (290 lb team) in the air version and the Fox 36 Float (air sprung). Neither given tandem duty okays from the manufacturer. And I can see why, a fork on a tandem gets absolutely tortured. I'd recommend the Cane Creek 110 headset, fantastic, better than a King by far. Wheels, well, build up a fine high tension and strong rim, wide is smart, look at the Salsa Gordo if you are going 29er! or some of DT's rims. King's rear hub (heavy duty option) has been our salvation in that department.

Early 9 speed cassettes failed too often for us, but the newer XTs with 5 support arms hold up well.

Look for old square taper cranks (shimano XT, Ritchey or Specialized) in 74 x 110, you can get stainless steel small rings and go 24, 34-38, 46-50 easy enough so you have good gear choices in that. And slap in Phil Wood bbs, those will last ya' and be light.

Ti seatposts (or carbon stoker's), light carbon bars, light stem can all do wonders, light seats x 2, etc. You can really build up a light tandem! But a light team is still extra rugged on an offroad tandem. A 290lb single-bike rider doesn't put out near the forces a 290lb team does!

My stoker has always been fairly light, svelte even. I recently dropped from 225lbs to 160 and now the tandem is built up with some overkill parts! But it rocks.


----------



## Dirtsurfer (Dec 19, 2003)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most tandems run 145 or 160 on the rear axle (MTB 135).


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

I know the DT hubs get slapped around when in discussions about tandems and ours hasn't been perfect either. I want to add some good stuff about them and this is based off our recent failure of one.

Our hubs had the star ratchets built with the DT specified Molycote lube. We had a failure on a local trail and walked it out. After pulling it apart, I noticed the ratchet was moving (sliding), but not moving crisply. The grease in the hub was original 1998 with almost no miles.

Cutting to the chase, the repair parts were cheap at $20, the repair can be done with no tools, the repair could be done on the trail with ease in about 10 minutes (good for epic rides).

Obviously no one likes failures, but I like walking less. For now we plan to stay with DT and carry an extra set of star ratchets on board in the fly a way kit.

I also opted to not use their molycote grease, in favor of Mobil 1 oil and a bit more preventative maintenance. 

FWIW We are a big team riding stupid tight single track, the failure happened while transitioning from a stop while balanced, a slight back pedal and then a huge output to climb the immediate small winding climb. 

Just some thoughts.

PK


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

Dirtsurfer,

It depends on the tandem. My C'Dale MT2000 takes 135mm hubs, as do some FS tandems...it just depends on the brand.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Since the OP specified non-tandem parts, I can't really make any recommendations on such parts. But I can put this out there:
The misconception that parts are tandem-rated just because they're overbuilt and heavy is often just that - a misconception. Tandem use rating of a part usually results from it's being well-designed and constructed using very good materials. Chris King hubs and daVinci and Middleburn cranksets are great examples, since those parts are some of the lightest of their type out there, tandem-rated or not. 
Other parts aren't actually tandem-rated, but instead have been found to be up to the stresses placed on them by tandem teams, and therefore are considered tandem-worthy by folks who ride and put together off-road tandems. One can try using lighter parts, but it may be wiser and less expensive to learn from the experiences of others with regard to what works and what doesn't on off-road tandems (just like the good ole' days on single mtb's).
Some parts have to be heavier because of the loads placed on them. Rims/wheels are a great example. One wouldn't ride ultra-light XC rims/wheels on a DH bike without catastrophic failure at some point, and one could expect similar results from using ultra-light rims/wheels on an off-road tandem. 

The lightest 29" tandem fork is the Maverick DUC, which is probably as light as or even lighter than any non-tandem fork that folks are using on tandems, approved or not. Getting one is a problem though as they're out of production until 2010 model year. Rumor is that a carbon version will replace the existing one, weighing even less.
WB's magic 100T is the next lightest 29'er version, and is well suited for racer types. If one weighed the WB Magic 100T, one would find it to be very similar in weight to the non-tandem rated forks out there that are being used, like the Fox 36 and RS Pike. 

Of couse, if weight is the primary concern, one would go full rigid and save that pesky 3+ extra pounds of suspension fork weight. Also, if weight is the primary concern, one should probably start with an aluminum or carbon 26" wheel frame instead of steel 29" frame. 
The Vicious is 145mm rear spacing on the hardtail 29'er and 135mm spacing in the FS 29'er.
Arly said it best; light parts are great when you're pushing the bike back to the trailhead.
For a 300+ lb team that intends to finish endurance events, weight would be my second concern.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

PMK said:


> I know the DT hubs get slapped around when in discussions about tandems and ours hasn't been perfect either. I want to add some good stuff about them and this is based off our recent failure of one.
> 
> Our hubs had the star ratchets built with the DT specified Molycote lube. We had a failure on a local trail and walked it out. After pulling it apart, I noticed the ratchet was moving (sliding), but not moving crisply. The grease in the hub was original 1998 with almost no miles.
> 
> ...


PMK, you hit the solution right on the head; the DT hub grease is where their hub durability reputation problems all started. There weren't any structural or design issues with the current version of the hub. There are lots of teams out there that have done the same thing and are getting very good service life out of the DT hubs. I think they're a viable product for off-road tandems.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

I do not believe that setting a weight that a tandem has to be is a very smart idea. Every part should be analyzed more for its durability then how much the part weighs. Weight is a consideration somewhat, but should come at lest second.
My current Ventana El Testigo is my 4th tandem, and 3rd Ventana, it is also the heaviest at 55 lbs, but it is noticibly the fastest all around. While building this tandem, the wheels, fork and brakes were my first concern, I opted for a RS Boxxer Team fork, handbuilt DT Swiss FR hubs, 36 14g DT Competition spokes, brass nipples and Mavic X729 rims and Hayes HFX Mag brakes with 203mm rotors. All of the other parts are standard wares.
Although I am happy with this tandem, I will be switching to a Fox 40 fork and Hope Moto 6 brakes in the near future.
If your going take on the Great Divide trail on your tandem, I'd hope that my advice would be considered, since having a breakdown on a stupid light part, miles for nowhere, would really suck!


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> I do not believe that setting a weight that a tandem has to be is a very smart idea. Every part should be analyzed more for its durability then how much the part weighs. Weight is a consideration somewhat, but should come at lest second.
> My current Ventana El Testigo is my 4th tandem, and 3rd Ventana, it is also the heaviest at 55 lbs, but it is noticibly the fastest all around. While building this tandem, the wheels, fork and brakes were my first concern, I opted for a RS Boxxer Team fork, handbuilt DT Swiss FR hubs, 36 14g DT Competition spokes, brass nipples and Mavic X729 rims and Hayes HFX Mag brakes with 203mm rotors. All of the other parts are standard wares.
> Although I am happy with this tandem, I will be switching to a Fox 40 fork and Hope Moto 6 brakes in the near future.
> If your going take on the Great Divide trail on your tandem, I'd hope that my advice would be considered, since having a breakdown on a stupid light part, miles for nowhere, would really suck!


I'm not certain how the Boxxer triple clamps offset compares to the Fox 40 when installed on the Ventana. I do know that when I recently borrowed and installed a FOX40 on our Cannondale, the turning radius was unacceptable for the single track riding in our area.

The FOX40 turning would have been acceptable for more open and flowing trails. Consider also that you may need to have a spring wound that's more appropriate for the weight.

Nice stuff though.

PK


----------



## Olga_icannot (Apr 5, 2007)

*Tandem hubs*

Speaking of tandem rated parts. Looking to build some new wheels and was curious if anyone has experience with white industries hubs on a tandem. They appear to have just borrowed their standard freehub design and plugged it into a wider shell. Is it strong enough? I've blown xt and phil wood hubs so i'm a little leary of standard srung pawl style freehubs. We're a light team (maybe 280 with our full camelbacks), but we do occasionally tow a trailer.
Thanks.


----------



## Trails4Two (May 12, 2008)

*Tandem Whites*

Whites do very well on a tandem. Chris Kings are the gold standard, but Whites are not far behind in terms of reliability. Maybe other riders have heard different, but I haven't heard of a White failure due to structure. I have whites on both of our off-road tandems and have had zero issues and zero maintenence.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

Well I do know that I will lose a slight amount of turning radius( due because of the size of the sliders from the RS to the Fox), in which you will always lose with a dual crown fork. I believe for most tandems, that a dual crown fork should be used. The Fox as well as the Boxxer that I'm using now do need the firmer springs, I run a extra heavy/ heavy springs the the Boxxer.
I have changed my riding style on the tandem in tight single track and switchbacks. I have found, especially in switchbacks, that we carry our speed a little more around switchbacks, as opposed to slowing down too much and turning the bars in a way that the front wheel does not track the front. In my years of riding mountain tandems, we have been down some very tight sb's in which other riders told that a tandem could not make.

It seems to me that your problems with the Fox 40 fork on your Cannondale are more related to the travel and length of the fork not being compatible.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Olga_icannot said:


> Speaking of tandem rated parts. Looking to build some new wheels and was curious if anyone has experience with white industries hubs on a tandem. They appear to have just borrowed their standard freehub design and plugged it into a wider shell. Is it strong enough? I've blown xt and phil wood hubs so i'm a little leary of standard srung pawl style freehubs. We're a light team (maybe 280 with our full camelbacks), but we do occasionally tow a trailer.
> Thanks.


We've used hundreds of WI hubsets over the years as the basis for our standard wheelset. Over 7 years, we have had 3 documented failures of the hubs due to freehub/pawl failure. On two of them, a new freewheel put the hub back in business (so no structural failure to the hub body). On the third one, the hub body was also damaged (but the frame was damaged too, so those folks must have been VERY caffiened-up or something).
So statistically speaking, they're very very good hubs.
They're also very competitively priced compared to the other choices.
We've had less success with PW hubs, and Shimano XT's were eliminated as a viable choice several years ago by virtue of several failures on off-road tandems.
No failures with Chris King.
No structural failures with Rohloff (though there have been some issues with attachment points).
The Rholoffs get the hardest use by expedition-type teams who pull trailers and stuff.
I9 may also be a viable option, but I don't think there are enough out there getting tandem abuse for long enough to know for sure. The I9 cassette body is alloy so one has to run a riveted cassette, which can be a weak point itself.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> It seems to me that your problems with the Fox 40 fork on your Cannondale are more related to the travel and length of the fork not being compatible.


Jeff thanks for your input. For us the FOX40 was installed but never ridden. I was very optimistic about it, but immediately realized the spring was too soft.

Regardless of the spring being to soft, I considered the turning loss compared to our Moto Fork. With the FOX40 set at 6" of travel, and the frame stop bumpers allowing maximum lock, I knew our local trails would no longer be rideable. Here's why. South Florida is not known for wide singletrack. The melaleuca trees grow about 30" from each other. Many of the local trails have sections for a hundred or more feet where it can give a single bike fits. The tandem requires some turns to be navigated at a near stop and the front wheel turned almost 90 degrees left or right. With trees on either side, leaning would be impossible.

I do realize that if we were able to ride locations like Santos, Boyette or Alafia each time, the more open trails without melaleuca would make the fork a fine fit.

So my saga continues. We'll continue with the Moto fork for a bit. Meanwhile I'm deciding what I like and don't like, plus feel comfortable with for us.

In honesty, I'm very intrigued with a leading link type setup, and may see if I can build or adapt an existing one to our application. There are a few designed for off road motorcycle racing with sidecars, and like a tandem they are not known for having a light front end.

Other options have me talking with Alex about some forks he offers, so this is another option.

All in all, time will tell.

PK


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

FWIW, this is what I'm considering trying to accomplish, obviously bicycle converted or exclusively designed for the bicycle.

http://www.bspa.ch/techhome.htm

PK


----------

