# Tandem - Clydesdale Comparison



## phill77 (Aug 31, 2008)

Is it realistic to compare the experience of the clydesdale / heavier riders with us when it comes to discussing parts and set up choices?

Do we (tandem teams) actually put the suspension, brakes, wheels and drivetrain under any more load than an equivalent weight single rider?

My logic says that:
- to the brakes kinetic energy is the same regardless of whether it's two people or one that make up the mass.
- a large strong rider stomping on the pedals could quite likely produce more torque than a lightweight couple, putting the same load through the chain and freewheel.
- wheels and suspension probably have an easier time on a tandem, as our mass is always more evenly distributed. A heavier rider on a single bike could easily put all their weight over one wheel or the other, in a way I'd never manage with my wife on the back!

Where are the flaws in my logic, or why do we worry about using 'tandem rated' stuff so much when the heavier guys just have to choose what they believe to be good enough?


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Not to be a smart ass, but we would be one heavy Clydesdale. Plus our tandem adds to the equation in regards to additional weight.

In regards to brakes, yes stopping is stopping and is mass related. Don't forget though, the brakes also MUST disipate the heat they generate.

Rear suspension, for the most part may be similar, but again, I know our rides have almost no unweighting of the rear end going over stuff.

Like the rear suspension, the front takes a bit of abuse as most trail items are sort of a controlled crash over them without falling. A clyde can hopefully float the front wheel.

The obvious answer is tandem rated is not a bad thing. Regardless, anything can be broken, or with the proper team last a long time.

As a personal preference, the most important item for us is a fork we won't have structural failure without warning (hopefully). Broken wheels, bad brakes, or driveline failures can hurt, but the thought of a fork failure doesn't make me smile.

PK


----------



## Okayfine (Sep 7, 2010)

Heh, I've not seen any 360lb single riders Me, plus stoker, plus gear (pack/tools, water) and we're at 360 pounds. So, in our case at least, we're above and beyond Cylde weight and probably put the hurt on components moreso as well.

We cracked a tandem frame, and if that's not tandem rated... 

I'd echo PMK's observations regarding single riders' abilities to float the front or rear as required, versus the inability to do so on a tandem. Being able to manual a rock/log/ledge versus smashing up and over it would make for much less component stress.


----------



## phill77 (Aug 31, 2008)

Okayfine said:


> Heh, I've not seen any 360lb single riders


There's a chap on the Clydesdale section who is 6'10" and about 420lbs...



Okayfine said:


> I'd echo PMK's observations regarding single riders' abilities to float the front or rear as required, versus the inability to do so on a tandem. Being able to manual a rock/log/ledge versus smashing up and over it would make for much less component stress.


But by the same token, if they get it wrong, all that weight can go on one end or the other, where on a tandem it tends to be more equally distributed.


----------



## Okayfine (Sep 7, 2010)

I've never seen anything close to a 6'10"/420lb rider. But then I guess that's why there's a Cyldesdale forum.

To your original question, I concern myself with tandem-rated parts for two reasons. 

First, whether or not it makes a real difference, I have a bit more confidence in parts/companies when their makers feel confident enough in them to rate 'em for tandem use. Whether tandems put parts in more distress (or different distress), having a manufacturer in this day and age say it's okay on a tandem is something I look for.

Second, when it comes to warranty issues, I'm not going to lie about what bike the part was on. Much easier when it's not an issue as the manufacturer rated it for tandem use.

In reality, the tandem market isn't big enough to have much made specifically for it, so "tandem rated" doesn't mean the part is stronger than a single bike version, just that it is strong enough.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

While the weights may be similar to a clydesdale (though not in our case), the dynamics are markedly different. For expample, tandems have a tendency to "push" the front wheel much more than any single bike does, a function of mass and wheelbase.
The rear wheel often runs inside on turns, hitting and deflecting off obstacles. So, more side loads rear as well. 
Also, tandems don't "unweight" for obstacles, so the ground-touching components have to absorb impacts differently than on a single bike, and way more often. 
The longer frames have more flex, torque, twist, etc than a single bike, and some of this will be transferred to the wheels, suspension, and contact points. 
Suspensions are carrying more weight than a single in MOST circumstances, so spring rates, damping, and durability are affected differently.
Brakes will work harder because the bike has more weight on the wheels, and can therefore brake harder and longer before losing traction, or nose-wheelie-ing, etc. 
I would suspect the average team weight with gear is something over 300 lbs or more. While there are exceptions, there aren't that many clydesdale riders out there of such weight. 
The torque of two riders will most likely exceed that of one large rider (even being one, I still believe that). Plus, image what happens when someone my size (6'3", 250lbs) gets on a tandem. Also, that torque may mot be delivered as smoothly as a single rider, since even the best teams may get uncoordinated somewhat during technical sections.
I wish it were a simple as body weight, but history and the busted parts bin tells me that the tandem reality is more than just a weight difference. I think the bike industry figures the average rider weight at around 175lbs or so.


----------

