# Future Tandem Developments: Full suspension plus? Full Suspension Fat?



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

When will we see a plus sized full suspension tandem?

I asked Sherwood about it last year before we ordered our El Jefe.

If I could get the El Conquistador with a plus sized triangle, I do believe that'd suffice 

I'd also be interested in a full suspension El Jefe, that would be too cool for words!


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> When will we see a plus sized full suspension tandem?
> 
> I asked Sherwood about it last year before we ordered our El Jefe.
> 
> ...


You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

TandemNut said:


> You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.


Does it lower the bb at all? How does it affect handling?


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm also interested in a FS El Jefe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

sisu said:


> Does it lower the bb at all? How does it affect handling?


It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing. 
Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

TandemNut said:


> It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
> Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
> Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.


Could you get Sherwood to modify the rear triangle to fit plus tires?

I like 27+, I run them on my bike and was running them on the Jefe, but for a tandem mtb, 29+ is where it's at for roll over and bridging obstacles that can't be avoided.

I like the Jefe, but my wife wants a cushier ride and I think FS would improve handling.


----------



## ds2199 (Sep 16, 2008)

Nurse Ben said:


> Could you get Sherwood to modify the rear triangle to fit plus tires?
> 
> I like 27+, I run them on my bike and was running them on the Jefe, but for a tandem mtb, 29+ is where it's at for roll over and bridging obstacles that can't be avoided.
> 
> I like the Jefe, but my wife wants a cushier ride and I think FS would improve handling.


You should ride a 29er ECDM with 2.4 tire on 35mm rim. It's pretty darn close to what you are talking about.

Admittedly not the same...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I rode 29 x 2.4 Ardents on wide rims, it is not even close to the ride I get on 29+ Dirt Wizards.

Tandems are so much better handling on fat tires.



ds2199 said:


> You should ride a 29er ECDM with 2.4 tire on 35mm rim. It's pretty darn close to what you are talking about.
> 
> Admittedly not the same...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

TandemNut said:


> You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.


How much clearsnce in mm at the stays and bridges? Which tire are you using?


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> How much clearsnce in mm at the stays and bridges? Which tire are you using?


I'll have a couple of builds coming up shortly and can measure the actual gap then. 
The gap is very similar to the Ardent 2.4 when using the WTB Trailblazer 2.8.


----------



## deuxdiesel (Jan 14, 2007)

Me as well. I would think a new rear triangle for the ECDM would be a much easier build than a whole new frame. Sticking with 27.5+ or 29+ would allow keeping the standard BB shell.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

deuxdiesel said:


> Me as well. I would think a new rear triangle for the ECDM would be a much easier build than a whole new frame. Sticking with 27.5+ or 29+ would allow keeping the standard BB shell.


Yes, but when I asked Sherwood about modifying the rear triangle, he said he didn't have time.


----------



## deuxdiesel (Jan 14, 2007)

TandemNut said:


> It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
> Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
> Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.


Do you happen to have any pictures of B+ rear clearance?


----------



## sam-eye-am (Jun 30, 2004)

I too am interested in 27+. Rode a Salsa Pony Rustler in Sedona - AMAZING. Think that would be a sweet spot for tandem mtb. Only have a road tandem presently, but keep dreaming about pulling the trigger on an ECDM (Have 2 single ventana's for myself). 

While off topic from wheel size, but on topic for future development - anyone know of applications of the Pinion gear box on a tandem? A quick google search says pinon was testing one, but that was it. Think the gear range of the P1.12 at 600% vs Rohloff at 526% makes it attractive as well as not having all the mass as rotating mass (thought Pinion is heavier than Rohloff). Seems like it would be a good fit for tandem overnights...and Ventana is already making a HT single bike for the Pinon gear box (wolfram). Co-motion has it too on a single bike - but doesn't look like it is on any of their tandems...yet.


----------



## laksboy (Sep 4, 2007)

If it's just traction and suppleness you're after, you should try the Schwalbe Procore system. I ride my 26" ECdM with my 8 year old son with the rear tire at ~14 psi in a wider than labeled 2.35 Kenda Excavator, and 50 psi in the ProCore chamber. It's a FANTASTIC solution to getting more grip without the risk of burping tubeless or rim damage. Our terrain is loose, technical, and chundery. It's greatly enhanced the capability of the ShredSled.


----------



## reamer41 (Mar 26, 2007)

I've got a ½ dozen rides on my 29+ hard tail (single bike) and am convinced that 29+ is the way to go for MTB tandems. I'm amazed at the difference in the way it rolls thru a rock garden compared to the 29x2.4s on my FS bike. 


Of course, finding a good tandem-rated 29+ suspension fork might be tricky.


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

reamer41 said:


> I've got a ½ dozen rides on my 29+ hard tail (single bike) and am convinced that 29+ is the way to go for MTB tandems. I'm amazed at the difference in the way it rolls thru a rock garden compared to the 29x2.4s on my FS bike.
> 
> Of course, finding a good tandem-rated 29+ suspension fork might be tricky.


I wonder if the Wren will take a 29+. I believe it is tandem-rated.

I'd be happy with a 27.5+ tandem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ebnelson (Oct 30, 2006)

There are really only forks that hold up to tandem use and not "tandem rated" ones. No tandem specific fork standards exist. Some of the smaller manufacturers give their forks a nod as being up to tandem use and that's fine, but this should not be interpreted as tested to a tandem standard.

The new Fox "Speed Pedalec" are designed for ebikes and have thicker stanchions and steer tube. The 110mm fork spacing is + bike ready. The Pedalec 34mm uses 32mm internals because of the increased wall thickness and is stiffer than the regular 36mm. It seems like the beefier 36mm Speed Pedalec would be pretty hard to break. Don't hold your breath waiting for Fox to say they are "tandem rated" though.


----------



## StanleyJ (Dec 11, 2010)

ebnelson said:


> There are really only forks that hold up to tandem use and not "tandem rated" ones. No tandem specific fork standards exist. Some of the smaller manufacturers give their forks a nod as being up to tandem use and that's fine, but this should not be interpreted as tested to a tandem standard.
> 
> The new Fox "Speed Pedalec" are designed for ebikes and have thicker stanchions and steer tube. The 110mm fork spacing is + bike ready. The Pedalec 34mm uses 32mm internals because of the increased wall thickness and is stiffer than the regular 36mm. It seems like the beefier 36mm Speed Pedalec would be pretty hard to break. Don't hold your breath waiting for Fox to say they are "tandem rated" though.


From the riders on Fox in here, even the vanilla 36mm is stout enough (short of going double crown with a Fox 40mm)... seems Speed Pedelec chassis should be enough, given the motor power is 250~500W, which is about the output of a decent cyclist... the S-Pedelec doesn't quite add the weight of an extra person, though halfway there in terms of loads being less nimble through terrain...


----------



## reamer41 (Mar 26, 2007)

StanleyJ said:


> From the riders on Fox in here, even the vanilla 36mm is stout enough (short of going double crown with a Fox 40mm)... seems Speed Pedelec chassis should be enough, given the motor power is 250~500W, which is about the output of a decent cyclist... the S-Pedelec doesn't quite add the weight of an extra person, though halfway there in terms of loads being less nimble through terrain...


Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?

Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StanleyJ (Dec 11, 2010)

reamer41 said:


> Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?
> 
> Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pretty sure PMK runs a 29er tandem with travel reduced Fox 40s... lateral clearance should be fine even for 29x3.0, though may need to reduce travel another 10mm to around 150mm if going the mid-fat 29er route... as with all half-bike-used-on-tandem things, appears to be "suck it and see". 

Oh, and when the Krampus came out, didn't the existing F34 29er already was "OK" with 29x3.0? Was a bit tight however it did work. So by rights I can't see the 36 29er S-Pedelec being an issue running 29x3.0?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

reamer41 said:


> Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?
> 
> Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A 90-110mm travel x 150 hub spaced Wren fork will clear a 29+, but you need to look into the differences between the various hub spacings, it could be different with 110, 135 hub spacing.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

sisu said:


> I wonder if the Wren will take a 29+. I believe it is tandem-rated.
> 
> I'd be happy with a 27.5+ tandem.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, it does.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

StanleyJ said:


> Pretty sure PMK runs a 29er tandem with travel reduced Fox 40s... lateral clearance should be fine even for 29x3.0, though may need to reduce travel another 10mm to around 150mm if going the mid-fat 29er route... as with all half-bike-used-on-tandem things, appears to be "suck it and see".
> 
> Oh, and when the Krampus came out, didn't the existing F34 29er already was "OK" with 29x3.0? Was a bit tight however it did work. So by rights I can't see the 36 29er S-Pedelec being an issue running 29x3.0?


Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.


----------



## reamer41 (Mar 26, 2007)

PMK said:


> Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.


Yeah, I've got an older Fox 40 on our ECDM -- definitely no room for a 29" wheel. Probably not even a 27.5.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StanleyJ (Dec 11, 2010)

PMK said:


> Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.


Whoops, my bad... stand corrected.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

StanleyJ said:


> Whoops, my bad... stand corrected.


No worries about that, just did not want others to think the big wheel would fit...


----------



## Dr. Paul Proteus (Sep 26, 2004)

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone know of a good resource for info or a how to on shortening up travel on Fox forks? All the chat about them here got me back to thinking I'd like to try one out, but I really don't want to put a long front fork on the ECDM (currently running a DUC32 that's using the internals from a SC32 to lower it/reduce travel... never felt right with the longer, stock DUC32 travel).


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Dr. Paul Proteus said:


> Not to hijack this thread, but anyone know of a good resource for info or a how to on shortening up travel on Fox forks? All the chat about them here got me back to thinking I'd like to try one out, but I really don't want to put a long front fork on the ECDM (currently running a DUC32 that's using the internals from a SC32 to lower it/reduce travel... never felt right with the longer, stock DUC32 travel).


Honestly the method to shorten the travel varies depending on the fork model or design. Some are pretty easy with production parts others require some thought, design and fabricating one off parts.


----------

