# 29+ Tandem



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm thinking that this, or a 27+ tandem would be ideal. Tandems are ideal with big tires, 3" or so.

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/trail-tech-exploring-27-5-42832/


----------



## mactweek (Oct 3, 2011)

After riding a Krampus for several months I have to agree. A 29+ tandem would be SWEET.


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

Will current suspension tandem forks take Rabbit Holes/Knards? Riding on wet leaves lately with that setup gives me lots more confidence.


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

http://waltworks.blogspot.com/2014/12/matts-29-tandem.html?m=1

The future is here.


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

And:

http://www.traversbikes.com/store/p53/Tandem_29__Frame_bespoke.html

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Quoted from one of the linked articles

*"There is no getting around the fact that 29+ is a lot of rubber far from the hub. Sure, it's squishy and grippy and fun. But man is it slow, and heavy and cumbersome - 27.5+ gets you most of the advantages of the bigger tire, but dramatically reduces the inertia," Cogger said.*

Sorry my friend, I agree with the concept of the big tires being slow, heavy and cumbersome. I don't buy into all of the big tire stuff. Tandems with big wheels most times require stronger wheels than their 26" sisters. This all adds up to rotating mass that needs to be kept in motion, accelerated and braked.

For Jeanne and I, we could easily tell the difference in effort on winding technical single track of Florida when we owned both a 26 and a 29.

Unless you ride soil that needs a big squishy tire, like sand or snow, is it really worth the added effort. For short distance rides it may be fun, I just can't imagine pushing those size tires more than 40 miles or longer.

PK


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

Wider rims and tires also offer better traction in loose stuff as well as wet stuff. We ride all year here in MI, and for several months the trails are covered in leaves. Picking a line becomes guesswork because you can't see the trail surface under those leaves. Having a bigger contact patch means there is a bigger fudge factor.

Winter brings the wet, and here again, the bigger contact patch means it more likely that you'll stay upright.

For summer, I can see switching to lighter, skinnier 29er or 27.5 tires.

A bike you can ride all year has to fit those wide tires, tho.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

sisu said:


> Wider rims and tires also offer better traction in loose stuff as well as wet stuff. We ride all year here in MI, and for several months the trails are covered in leaves. Picking a line becomes guesswork because you can't see the trail surface under those leaves. Having a bigger contact patch means there is a bigger fudge factor.
> 
> Winter brings the wet, and here again, the bigger contact patch means it more likely that you'll stay upright.
> 
> ...


I now understand where you are going with this. Run fat tires when needed and skinny tires when fat is not needed.

I guess I am old, just prefer normal tire size with grippy rubber and good suspension to pound across whatever goes under the tires.

PK


----------



## sisu (Sep 16, 2006)

Yep. In summer, unless you are on the lakeshore here (sand) our trails are hard, smooth dirt. Perfect for "regular" mtb tires. But from Oct to April, all hell breaks loose: leaves, mud, snow, ice, wet...and any combination of the above.

Yesterday my buddy and I rode on leaves covered by a 3mm layer of ice with a 2mm layer of snow. And, being overcast on the afternoon of Dec. 21, visibility was poor. I was on 4" rubber and rode it like it was stolen. He plodded along on 2" rubber that worked ok, but just wasn't the right tool for the job.

Horses for courses, they say...


----------

