# World's first 2x10 Mountain Tandem?



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

http://salsacycles.com/culture/prototype_talk_-_lets_discuss/

Go check it out.


----------



## giff07 (Jun 7, 2010)

I think PMK is running 2x 9 or 10 with drive side sync chain on his Fandango. Not sure if that Marz is tandem rated. Like the brakes but not the captains thud buster. Salsa seems a little behind thinking they are innovative with a 29er tandem, right Alex?


----------



## Mike Gager (Jul 30, 2010)

i just dont get the appeal of a tandem mountain bike. theres no way you could ride one on the trails around here


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

It's cute, but the Fandango 29r has the little details worked out that this thing will have issues with.

We are running a 2x9 all right side drive, and matching cranks. So all right side is doable.

Like every tandem we own and have owned, much of the proof is in the ride and handling.

PK


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Mike Gager said:


> i just dont get the appeal of a tandem mountain bike. theres no way you could ride one on the trails around here


We hear that a lot. Funny though when you catch and pass single bikes. Granted there are some limitations, but most folks are in disbelief to see the sections a tandem will ride without a dab.

PK


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

giff07 said:


> Salsa seems a little behind thinking they are innovative with a 29er tandem, right Alex?


 Huh? We didnt claim we were innovative with the 29er thing, Ive been aware of Fandango for quite some time. This is just a prototype as well, we aren't ready to go to production yet, although Alex is already there.

I was just posting here for some fun, to show off a 2x10 drivetrain on it. Check our blog for the details of this prototype.

Tim, Salsa Cycles


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

PMK said:


> the Fandango 29r has the little details worked out that this thing will have issues with.


You sir, are correct. Its just a rough prototype, and we have already identified a few things we would change before production.

Care to share your thoughts and help us out?


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Tim not knocking your efforts but how serious is it meant to be ridden?

I'm guessing the frame is steel, and while I don't mind steel as a single, and loved the ride of our old Co-Mo Speedster, almost any compliance in the frame is tough for the captain when controlling the bike. Obviously the frame can be made stronger but is tough to do without a weight penalty. The steel DH tandem of recent posts tips the scales close to 70lbs.

If I'm wrong and the frame is aluminum, my apologies.

The first small thing I would change is to get rid of the low hanging cable route.

Those of us that have had Cannondales know the effects of cables along the bottom.

The link mentioned stuff like the captains Thudbuster, but as I looked, why Thudbuster ST and not LT? (Rereading the link, it stated LT's but the photo sure looks like elastomer blocks as used on the ST's. LT's have the cylinder shaped elastomers, just didn't look like that but tough to see in the photo.)

Lot of good comments on the link about wheels spacing, rims and dropouts. If you go with a movable dropout, you might want to serrate or have stop adjusters. Some teams will explode unbreakable stuff ( I recall a couple of times shaking my head in disbelief looking at our injured bike).

A nice prototype, with winter coming you should get #2 built for spring. 

Honestly I'm more curious about how your right side drive compares to ours on the Fandango. We have a bunch of miles on it but I still want it better. Know what I want to test next to be 100% bombproof but waiting on some parts and time.

Care to share any details or closeup photos of the drivetrain? Especially the stokers right side from the top.

PK


----------



## malaclemys (Oct 22, 2010)

Tim,

On a related note, are you planning on making proper stoker stems? As you may already know there aren't a lot of options for MTB tandems atm. It appears you are using a (long) regular stem w/a shim I presume.


----------



## giff07 (Jun 7, 2010)

Tim,
If I offended you with my reply I apoligise. I agree with Paul on the frame material. Alu is a better choice. Most of the other things I would change have to do with componentry so they might not apply since I understand that it was assembled with on hand components. That said I would go with twist grip shifters and not put the bar ends on the stoker handle bars. I also think a 145 spacing works better with a 29er. I would route cables under the Capt. and stoker top tubes. I do like the idea of converting to a single speed. A lot of the places we ride close to home would be compatible with that and the 29 wheels would make it fly. Good luck with the project , looking foward to seeing version #2.
Ed Gifford


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Seatpost QR's and Wheel QR's look the part...Other than color, just like our Co-Mo.

Side bar topic, any changes to the Front Wheel QR's, Ours has eaten a few sets of the centering springs, so now we save weight and don't use them.

PK


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

giff07 said:


> Tim,
> If I offended you with my reply I apoligise. I agree with Paul on the frame material. Alu is a better choice. Most of the other things I would change have to do with componentry so they might not apply since I understand that it was assembled with on hand components. That said I would go with twist grip shifters and not put the bar ends on the stoker handle bars. I also think a 145 spacing works better with a 29er. I would route cables under the Capt. and stoker top tubes. I do like the idea of converting to a single speed. A lot of the places we ride close to home would be compatible with that and the 29 wheels would make it fly. Good luck with the project , looking foward to seeing version #2.
> Ed Gifford


Yes Tim, myself too, am not attacking you or the bike, just noticing things.

Ed, why bother with a singlespeed, lock it up and run it as a fixie...be brave and tread where few will follow. Screw some cleats onto steel toed work boots and destroy those rock gardens...

PK


----------



## de lars cuevas (Jun 19, 2006)

The frame definitely looks undersized. Lateral and top tube are 2 piece, welded to the captains seat tube. Head tube is not tapered. 

Furthermore, why run a 2x10? On a mountainbike tandem you do need the bandwidth of a triple.

the big wheels look nice though


----------



## giff07 (Jun 7, 2010)

Hey Paul the idea did cross my mind but some of the single track around here goes into pretty deep ruts so you can see the problem with fixed. I use to run my fixed gear single with CX tires in the woods and learned my lesson. Fixed on the road, SS in the woods.
Ed


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

i wonder if running the cranks 90 degrees out of sync would result in smoother power output for powering through rockgardens and such. Are those 205 rotors, i could see 225's even depending on the terrain, how about shimano saint brakes ,i heard those test out as the most powerful,oops my mistake i think that's what's on there..


----------



## ds2199 (Sep 16, 2008)

*It's a tandem thing...*



Mike Gager said:


> i just dont get the appeal of a tandem mountain bike. theres no way you could ride one on the trails around here


Right, if you don't get it, then you maybe you should try it OR just go participate in the forums that are appropriate for those trails trails around you (um the ones that there's no way you could ride a tandem on).

In all seriousness, you'd likely be surprised what CAN be ridden on a MTB tandem. Sure we walk the super-tight switchbacks, but we frequently get the, "I've never seen a TANDEM bike on THIS trail before". But the best is when we have to ask someone to please give us a line as we ride past them as they are pushing their bike! :thumbsup:


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

I vote for Hawt! I'd ride the **** outta that. I agree w/making it compatible with kid stoker kits. Its about the only way I'd ride it...


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

ds2199 said:


> But the best is when we have to ask someone to please give us a line as we ride past them as they are pushing their bike! :thumbsup:


Amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That happened with us last year at Alafia. Singles pushing up climbs and debating if they could ride down them. We requested a hole, they moved over, we climbed and descended while they watch. The best part was hearing folks on other ridgelines cheering as we dropped in. At dinner a bunch of folks came up and politely explained that we were crazy.

Getting back to the bike, that type of riding is not worth attempting on a flexy frame. Aluminum seems so much better without a weight penalty.

As for the brakes, someone mentioned Saints and big rotors. The linked post listed them as 180 or 185. Enough in the back for fairly flat xc riding but kind of subpar if you go down any amount of terrain or ride in the wet. We ran a 185/203 setup on a previous bike. It was ok but we never pushed the bike hard before we sold it.

PK


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

If you keep the 135 rear spacing alternator dropouts, can you make them Rohloff compatible (i.e OEM-1)?


----------



## Okayfine (Sep 7, 2010)

Mike Gager said:


> i just dont get the appeal of a tandem mountain bike. theres no way you could ride one on the trails around here


If you have someone to share a tandem with, the rest is gravy.:thumbsup:

Echoing the "steel vs. aluminum" debate, we have an aluminum Ventana FS tandem and a steel Burley road tandem. Despite all the extra work that is riding a tandem off road, my arms always feel the extra effort of keeping the Burley straight and true. I never have to rest my arms when riding dirt trails.


----------



## drdoak (Feb 7, 2005)

Mike Gager said:


> i just dont get the appeal of a tandem mountain bike. theres no way you could ride one on the trails around here


He must be joking?

Either way... Salsa + tandem = :thumbsup:


----------

