# What's new?



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

:d!!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

So, whaddya think?


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

29er?
Rohloff OE-1 dropout compatible?
2 eBBs?
Whats not to like. It can be SS'ed, or Fixied!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

itsdoable said:


> 29er?


Yep



itsdoable said:


> Rohloff OE-1 dropout compatible?


Yep



itsdoable said:


> 2 eBBs?


Nope



itsdoable said:


> Whats not to like. It can be SS'ed, or Fixied!


$1,599.00?

I decided against the 2 EBB setup for a number of reasons, mostly because I have built a few Rohloff tandems with double rings in front, and an EBB negates that, plus the added weight/expense. This frame also has 73mm rear bb shell, which would make the eccentric be inset a bit.

Frame pictured is a 19.5/17.5 size, set up for my 6' 3" self and 5' 6" stoker.

Thanks


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

Ahh, not quite easily SS able, or Fixieable.

But then, how many people go for the Rohloff / SS / Fixie option anyways.



BigNut said:


> $1,599.00?


OK, but it's a tandem...


----------



## Dirtsurfer (Dec 19, 2003)

That rear caliper bolt looks like a pain in the butt to tighten/adjust the brakes.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Dirtsurfer said:


> That rear caliper bolt looks like a pain in the butt to tighten/adjust the brakes.


It's not. The post-mount caliper bolts are accessible from directly above with any long 5mm allen tool. The IS mounting bolts are accessible from the side of the bike. 
Shimming the IS mount is a little more difficult as far as maneuvering room, but most of the brakes we use use post-mount adaptors, so it's an easy install.
The one issue I have noticed is that the Avid mechanical fixing bolt for the cable is directly under the seatstay and not accessible. I'll rebuild the tandem with the Avids after some test rides, and come up with a solution to that one.
We wanted the chainstay-mounted brake for a variety of reasons, most to do with Rohloff compatibility and better cable routing. As with anything Speedhub, there are workarounds that solve any issues.


----------



## crackhead (Dec 27, 2006)

LM and endo?


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

crackhead said:


> LM and endo?


???


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

*Fff*



BigNut said:


> ???


large marge and endomorph....probably not in the rear, huh?


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

MichiganClydesdale said:


> large marge and endomorph....probably not in the rear, huh?


Doh!
Rear clearance is more enough for a 2.55 Wierwolf LT with good room to spare. The current 2.3" WTB Stout leaves 7.5mm on each side at the widest point of the tire (measured at 2.36" with the calipers).
I don't think a 3.7" tire's going to fit though.


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

_Verrry_ niiice... :ihih:

So the Rohloff version of this frame will use the same dropouts (just spaced @ 135 instead of 145)? The intention being to use a chain tensioner for Rohloff/singlespeed setups?

Let us know when that beauty sees some singletrack! Can't wait to read the first ride report...

Still saving for mine! 

winbert


----------



## Bob Brown (Feb 15, 2005)

Alex, looks great, even better when you consider the price.

Just took my new 29'er tandem out for it's first ride yesterday, finally.

Bob

www.bobbrowncycles.com


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Winbert, you are correct; the Rohloff frame is spaced at 135mm and the conventional drivetrain frame is spaced at 145mm (or 150mm if I could find decent hub choices). The second eccentric introduced extra cost and other issues that I thought were better served by retaining the conventional tensioner/derailleur hanger setup.
I suspect at some point, someone at or associated with Rohloff will come up with a 145mm adaptor setup, so we can then space everything at 145mm (or 150mm if I could find decent hub choices). 
We have a frame here with your name on it....

Bob, how was the first ride on that beautiful tandem? Glad the Fandango isn't as pretty as your frames; if it was, I'd have a hard time getting it anywhere near dirt!

Thanks


----------



## Bob Brown (Feb 15, 2005)

The ride was great, after some adjusting of saddle heights, things were quite smooth. I was immediately impressed by how good the Maverick DUC felt up front, smoother than any tandem fork I've owned. I really wanted to go Rohloff on this bike, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it when I already had a brand new X9 drivetrain and King wheelset, so I'll have to suffer with those  

Actually part of my hidden agenda is to test out the spot belt-drive system on my single and hopefully tandem timing chain this season, then maybe try a rohloff/full belt drive set-up later on the tandem. But for this year that set-up made me too leary since I'm taking the bike to Leadville. I'd have to make my own Roholff belt-drive cogs (Spot doesn't have them yet) and I worry about how much walking I'd have to do if I break a belt or cog at Leadville. Not to mention if there would be belt skipping issues with that two people's torque on the rear cog.

All these fun things to try... And, I don't care how pretty a bike is, it's supposed to be ridden!

Bob


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

Looks good, but I'd love to see better shots! Some riding ones would be killer.


----------



## Bob Brown (Feb 15, 2005)

I'll work on it. Seems like when we ride we don't often have a third person around to take pictures!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

We got some quality time on the new Fandango over the weekend. My first impression, confirmed by my stoker, was that it doesn't feel much different from the 26" versions as far as handling. That was our first design benchmark.
We'll play with the effective head angle a bit more to see what happens with various adjustments in that area, but the initial setup is pretty close to what we were looking for. 
The ride was very smooth, especially for a hardtail. Kim noticed that as well, and since we are usually on a Ventana FS, our initial impressions are a good confirmation of one of the advantages of the larger wheels. They seemd to roll over more trail noise with less drama. 
One difference I noticed over the weekend is that that rear tire traction seems much better than the 26" tandems. We spent Sunday on a rocky, rooty, steep, washed out excuse for a trail that has seen primarily horse use, and we rode up and down some pretty loose stuff. The rear tire spun once in the entire days' adventure riding (finding trails, losing trails, backtracking, etc). 
We are running WTB's Stout Race tires, 2.3 front and rear. The excellent traction is partially due to the tread pattern, I'm sure. We also ran about 35lbs rear pressure, lower than we normally do. On the rooty secions I felt what seemed like the rim hitting the roots, but no pinch flats and no dings on the rims (Sun Rhyno Lite). So it was either my imagination or Kim's Thudbuster was bottoming out. The wheels are still true after dinging off roots, rocks and such, so that's another good showing for Sun's rims. Wheels are White Industries hubs and Sun Rhyno Lite rims with 40 Sapim Strong spokes, brass nipples, of course. I didn't feel much in the way of wheel flex or side-to-side deflection, but common sense tells me 29" wheels will have more flex than 26" wheels. 
Either way, the tandem did well on everything we threw at it, except downhill switchbacks. And since I'm pretty useless at downhill switchbacks, can't really fault the bike for that.
We've had White Brothers build us some Magic 100T forks with springs in both sides instead of one side, and a more aggressive damping platform. The extra spring has helped transform the fork; where we ran 150lbs of air preload before, we're running 75lbs now. The fork is closer to plush than anything I've ridden from WB. I think we'll have them all built this way in the future. 
The jury's still out on the damping platform, as I was more interested in the bike's charactaristics off-road. 
No frame flex (would be surprised if it did; this frame is well-built, and SUBSTANTIAL). Very good power transfer. No timing chain issues with loading and unloading, due to both the stiff frame and the Middleburn cranks. Power transfer from the pedals to the ground was immediate.
Was playing around with the frame last night, and the rack and fender mounts, combined with actual clearance for a rear fender mean this thing can be set up for loaded touring as well. 
Issues? I'm still playing with the bb heights. This tandem is tall, and it feels like it with an adult stoker on back. The good part is that we cleared both log crossings at the local trail with nothing more than a little kiss of the chain over the log top. Bad part is that we don't have that much clearance on the FS tandems, and they're supposedly higher bb's. Looks like we might need to check some shock preload...
We also forded several streams and mudholes, and the bike drove through them easily, and stayed on track very well. In fact, our feet didn't get nearly as wet as the kids' did on their singles. 

More testing to follow,of course; I want more time in tight singletrack to see if I can make this tandem change directions quicker than most without making it twitchy. Part of that is the wheelbase, which we've worked to keep short, and part of it is the geometry, which is the magic combination of compromises to suit one particular use more than others.
The toughest part of this is remaining neutral in my opinions of the tandem's characteristics, both good and bad, through this process.


----------



## befoot (Mar 11, 2006)

*Sweet!* look'n good Alex, We'll need to wear out our C-dale a bit before I can think about a new tandem...that and a job might help.

good news is my my rear hub fix is holding up just fine no more movement in the dropouts.

keep up the good work
Billy


----------



## Trails4Two (May 12, 2008)

*Insider trading a good thing?*

Hey Alex,

Compare these:
1)fandango dropout

2)new Ventana El Chivo dropout

You and Sherwood have a thing going?


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Trails4Two said:


> Hey Alex,
> 
> Compare these:
> 1)fandango dropout
> ...


Yebbut, ours was FIRST!

I guess it isn't hard to figure out who's making the new Fandango frames for us, is it?


----------



## Trails4Two (May 12, 2008)

No shame in having Sherwood as your welding slave...

Beautiful frames!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Trails4Two said:


> No shame in having Sherwood as your welding slave...
> 
> Beautiful frames!


Slaves can't/don't charge for their work. Sherwood certainly does... 

You're right; I can't think of a better source for this project.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Wow, Alex, beautiful!

I'm tuning in a bit late here so this is all news to me. Please, ride reports and more photos when you're able.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 24, 2007)

*Fandango 29er!*

Looks nice! I really like that build kit that's on there - and the all black looks super-cool.

Can hardly wait to get to try one!

That complete build would look extra-nice with some disc-specific rims. Those machined sidewalls are bugging me. A few bucks more, likely, but would look so good!


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

So Alex, logged any more singletrack miles? Had a chance to tinker w/ the fork to adjust BB height & headtube angle? Inquiring minds want to know ...

winbert

p.s. I finally picked up a Maverick DUC32 fork & front wheel for the 29er tandem project. I think the last thing I need is a stoker stem, and oh yeah, a Fandango frame . Still saving my pennies (looking for loose change in parking lots, checking payphone coin returns, etc. )...


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Been shipping these as fast as I can build them, so no pictures. There will be more posted here shortly. Here's a Grinch Green small DC9:


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

BigNut said:


> Been shipping these as fast as I can build them, so no pictures. There will be more posted here shortly. Here's a Grinch Green small DC9:


Got any going out with Speedhubs attached?

Who is posting ride reports? I'd love to see some owner pics and commentary!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

A white TIO finished today. This is the production large size frame (20/17.5). 
Starting the two Rohloff builds tomorrow. Should be interesting. Have worked out most of the put-together issues with the standard drivetrain by now, though we're still playing with rear bb spindle lengths.
Have pinged the new owners for ride reports or pictures, but nothing substantial yet. Hopefully that's because they're out riding the wheels off the things!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Speedub.Nate said:


> Got any going out with Speedhubs attached?


Here's one:
Pictures are as follows:
Overall shots left and right. The Rohloff build is much cleaner looking than the geared bike.
Next is the stoker's BB area showing the brake line routing and mucho tire clearance. The tire is a 2.1 WTB Vulpine.
Next shot shows the loops on the left seatstay for the Rohloff housing. this and the looped cable stops/guides enable full housing for Rohloff builds, but standard setup for conventional builds.
Next are a couple of shots of the seatstay and chainstay clearance with the 2.1 Vulpines again. Plenty of room for 2.4's or bigger back there.
Final shot is the left rear dropout, showing the Rohloff slotted dropout in use, the location of the shift box and the brake. Makes a little cleaner setup, and the shift cable routing is much cleaner and should last longer before the cables/housing get dirty and shifting suffers.
I'd put captions between the pics but can't figure out how to do that yet...
Anyway, hope you guys enjoy!


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

I like the Rohloff with all driveline on one side. Very Nice. How small are the timing chainrings, 32t?

Is the Rohloff anchor positioned in the dropout slot?

PK


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Any reviews on front rim flex?

It may be harder to notice with a nice fork on there, but those big wheels must see some serious stress.

Thanks,
-F


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

PMK said:


> I like the Rohloff with all driveline on one side. Very Nice. How small are the timing chainrings, 32t?
> 
> Is the Rohloff anchor positioned in the dropout slot?
> 
> PK


Yes, 32T Timing rings and 38T drive ring. The Rohloff OE axle plate tab is in the slot. It's hard to tell because I'm not much use as a photographer, but it's in there.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Fleas said:


> Any reviews on front rim flex?
> 
> It may be harder to notice with a nice fork on there, but those big wheels must see some serious stress.
> 
> ...


The front wheels do flex, yes. It's actually much more noticeable in the parking lot than on the trail. I feel it when I'm doing a full-lock turn and really pushing the front wheel sideways; I'm sure some of that is tire flex as well. Have tried both the RhynoLite and Velocity Cliffhanger rims, both 40 spoke; can't feel any difference between the two. 
I haven't really felt it that much on the trail though. Tracking feels very straight and the tandem does not wander. It does, however, go exactly where you point it!


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Gorgeous, Alex, thanks for that. I'm showing it to Anne.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

You could probably eliminate the tensioner with a FC eBB for standard BB shells (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=490528), or the Exzentriker version. That would look pretty clean. Hummm.....


----------



## bsdc (May 1, 2006)

itsdoable said:


> You could probably eliminate the tensioner with a FC eBB for standard BB shells (http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=490528), or the Exzentriker version. That would look pretty clean. Hummm.....


Oh, yea ... That would tiddy up the bike a bit.


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

*Next batch?*

So any word on timing for the 2nd batch of 29er Fandangos??? :ihih: :yesnod:

winbert


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

TandemNut said:


> Fleas said:
> 
> 
> > Any reviews on front rim flex?
> ...


You are a darn good salesman.
-F


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

winbert said:


> So any word on timing for the 2nd batch of 29er Fandangos??? :ihih: :yesnod:
> 
> winbert


Next batch of frames is now here and ready to build up (or ship). I have Black or Red in either size, 135mm or 145mm spacing. Want one?


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

TandemNut said:


> Want one?


Definitely interested in a larger size, 145mm spaced frame. Was thinking black, but can we please a pic of the red?? Wondering if it's the Ventana darker red (metallic?), or a brighter primary-color red?

Thanks,
winbert


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

winbert said:


> Definitely interested in a larger size, 145mm spaced frame. Was thinking black, but can we please a pic of the red?? Wondering if it's the Ventana darker red (metallic?), or a brighter primary-color red?
> 
> Thanks,
> winbert


This red is medium, primary color sort of red, but it's not a metallic color like the Ventana red is.
Sort of a Flag red, but a touch lighter. I'll get some pics up for you later in the week when we return to the shop. 
Thanks


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Fleas said:


> You are a darn good salesman.
> -F


That's funny! I haven't heard that before.
I always try to tell it like it is. Some tandem and component manufacturers will confirm this fact with some irritation.
I do, however, always try to accentuate the positive


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

*Fandango Red*

Any updates on the Fandango Red sample pic? Is it the same as the Fandango Roadie pic on your Customer Gallery?










thanks,
winbert


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

winbert said:


> Any updates on the Fandango Red sample pic? Is it the same as the Fandango Roadie pic on your Customer Gallery?
> 
> thanks,
> winbert


Very close to that one. I'll have pictures as soon as the weather and my schedule cooperate. Thanks


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Forgot to post a picture of the red one. Luckily a customer sent me a photo...
Here's the stock red color:


----------



## TheBrick (Dec 8, 2008)

Hello, just nosing around and stumbled on this thread as I'm interested in Tandems and 29ers.  I have the the 29er but not the tandem.

I notice you use WI hubs, and hence I presume the 145 mm rear spacing. If the tandem is custom made and with the wide selection of 150 mm downhill rear hubs also offering low or zero dish wheels why are these not as popular with tandems? Maybe a upgrade of freehub to cope with the extra force required there but otherwise surly a good strong 150 mm downhill hub would be a good choice?


----------



## Trails4Two (May 12, 2008)

I'm sure Alex will have a more complete answer but I'll mention two things 1) White hubs come in a variety of spacings not just 145. The 145 is a choice for wheel strength (my guess). 2) As you suggested, one of the things that makes a "tandem" hub is the strength of the freehub system. Many downhill hubs do not actually have stronger freehubs, just stronger axles and shells. Also most downhill hub makers haven't yet tested or approved their hubs for tandem use.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

TheBrick said:


> Hello, just nosing around and stumbled on this thread as I'm interested in Tandems and 29ers.  I have the the 29er but not the tandem.
> 
> I notice you use WI hubs, and hence I presume the 145 mm rear spacing. If the tandem is custom made and with the wide selection of 150 mm downhill rear hubs also offering low or zero dish wheels why are these not as popular with tandems? Maybe a upgrade of freehub to cope with the extra force required there but otherwise surly a good strong 150 mm downhill hub would be a good choice?


The 145mm spacing was based on a couple of factors:

1. It is the widest spacing for which a variety of off-road tandem-capable hubs are available. While there are DH hubs available in 150 and bolt-on, the drive mechanism on those hubs would likely suffer the fate of most other MTB hubs on the back of a tandem: CRUNCH! WI, CK, Hadley and PW all offer 145mm hubs.Since 150 narrows our hub choice, it didn't make sense. 160 narrows the choice even more.

2. To allow for decent chainline without extreme Q-factor, as the frames have very short (relatively speaking) chainstays. Even with the 145mm, the ideal spindle lenght in the rear is 122mm.

Overall, I'm more concerned with front wheel strength than rear wheel strength; the 145mm spacing and the correct choice of wheel components and builder seems to be working well so far...


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Here's a blue one we built recently:


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

29'er ECDM in Army Green. Has the Fandango geometry.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

A stock DC9 in black, 17.5x15.5


----------



## TheBrick (Dec 8, 2008)

Thanks for the information. It's a whole new world of slightly diffrent information to take in. I'd never considered front wheel strength to be an issue but of course because of the increase wheel base the resulting moments the weight will be more evenly distributed. I know this is all obvious to you but not being in tune with tandems mechanics it's less intuitive.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

TheBrick said:


> Thanks for the information. It's a whole new world of slightly diffrent information to take in. I'd never considered front wheel strength to be an issue but of course because of the increase wheel base the resulting moments the weight will be more evenly distributed. I know this is all obvious to you but not being in tune with tandems mechanics it's less intuitive.


Nothing's obvious for us except that each element of improvement or specialization of a tandem design has a corresponding element of compromise.
Intuitively, I thought 29" wheels would make less of a difference on tandems, since they're spread out over a longer wheelbase. Experientially, I believe they're actually more of an improvement because of the larger wheel diameter's increased ability to roll over obstacles while carrying signifcantly more weight than a single. 
(that may be what you were saying too, but I wasn't sure...)
Front wheels get "pushed" more on tandems, especially on switchbacks and such. and I feel the front wheel flexing more on the 29'ers. 
However, I will also say that we just built ourselves a Fandango with an ATC fork, and there is a noticeable difference in front end stiffness, more so than I would expect. So the WB fork may have more give in it than we accounted for.
We also had Sun make us some 29" MTX33 rims with 40 spoke drilling, and the first batch of those wheels should be available this week. Based on our experience with the 26" version of that wheel, I expect good things from the 29" version.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

When we tested the ATC fork, it was compared against a headshok moto fork. Turn in and stiffness criteria they felt about the same.

This is a good thing. 

The other nice feature about the ATC is the triple clamps / crowns. The design has the axle inline with the fork tube centerline, and uses the clamps to build offset as opposed to a leading axle design. This is huge in regards to steering lock angle. That fork lets the tandem turn the wheel closer to 90 than most other double crown forks, except a moto.

As a suspension guy I like technical forks, this is a pretty low tech fork that for us worked very well with little effort to dial in.

PK


----------

