# Rohloff Tandem 29er....advice?



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

I've read some really insightful posts on this forum - it's been a big help. I'm hoping the experts can offer further advice - I'm talking to a builder about a 29er Mtn tandem built around a rohloff hub. This will be used for father/daughter riding and some open-xc type racing. 

Here's some specs: double EBB, full housing routing, Disc brake (203 or 185 front and rohloff 160 rear with mechanical avid's). I'm figuring on using standard cranks, with a right-side timing chain at 34T and the Drive chain at 40T in the rear (Race Face Isis 180/175 with SKF BB's per BigNutt's input...thanks Alex). Maybe even crank-spider supports on the small ring holes. Planning on building the Rohloff into a 32h Sun RhynoLite 700c rim, or a Kris Holm? Front will be 20mm TA, 36h, on a Sun RhynoLite, and it'll be rigid but suspension corrected for 80mm. 

anyone see anything Obvious that I'm doing wrong or missing? input much appreciated.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

I like where you're going. I'd suggest at least 203 rotors on both ends -- the Avid mechs work great, and we're a heavy team on steep descents. You're not going to find anything TOUGHER than the Kris Holm rims. But you'll find nothing HEAVIER,either.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Nate's right; you need to run at least 203mm brake rotors on both ends. 
With the caveat that I err to the side of caution, I would lean towards the KH rims. The larger wheel diameter / no suspension combination points me towards the strongest wheels I could build. Since spoke count is limited by the hub, the best place to reinforce the wheel strength is in the rim and spoke combinations. This is even more applicable when one uses Clydesdale in one's user name  (I can say that 'cause I is one).
Sounds like a very cool tandem. Please post pics when you get 'em. Is SQ building it for you?


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

*Rhyno Lite might do the trick*

I have been running 40H Rhyno Lites on my 29er tandem and they have been absolutely bomber strong requiring little maintenance at all to stay perfectly straight. Typically team weights are 330-380lbs depending on stoker and we run front suspension so it isn't a perfect comparison to your setup. I will add though that we certainly don't baby the wheels (as you probably know from our racing Yankee Springs, Iceman, Ore-to-shore and Lumberjack 100). I have been amazed by how much stronger 29er wheels are then I expect based on the weight of the rims, spokes used, spoke count... Assuming you are talking typical Michigan trails, as long as you don't run narrow tires or really high pressure when riding off-road I would guess that you are totally fine with the Rhyno Lites (assuming your wheel builder knows what he/she is doing). Run a Weirwolf 2.55 or similar volume casing and you should be good to go.


----------



## benwitt11 (May 1, 2005)

Salsa's Gordo rim may also be a good option. They seat tires very well, build up to tension great, and are lighter than KH's by a bit. Mike C has been hucking them around ledges and rocks in CO, if it's good enough for that... 

I am looking at a similar project, and I am probably going that route. Mine will most likely be 36h with traditional hubs to start, though I lust after a Rohloff.


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

*disc options*

thanks for the reassurance so far...but a couple issues arise, especially since I'm a 230lb clyde and typical rider weight will be 380ish:

As far as I've seen, the only disc option for the rohloff is the 4 bolt 160mm rotor that is specific to the hub - is a larger one available, because I'd love to run the 203, and thanks Nate, we're planning on the avid mechanicals to start with. 
KBS, the rohloff only comes in 32h, so how much confidence would you have in the sun rhyno rim, with only 32h? I have a great wheel builder (my brother), but we're probably looking at a standard 3x with 2.0 spokes?
Alex, yes, SQ will be building it, just like bbudells. 
Ben, I'm with you - my current tandem has standard hubs and it's been fantastic, but I figure if I'm having it done, do it right - it's really not that much more $$, not having to buy a drivetrain.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

Rohloff specific disc rotors are available in 160, 180, and 203. You can probably get 190 and 220 as well. I have 203 rotors for tandem use.

I'm using WTB dual duty disc rims. If they don't hold up, I'll pick a beefier rim.


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

*32h Rhyno w/ a symmetric hub should hold up*

I would guess that a 32H Rhyno Lite with a symmetric build will hold up. If you can get them, I would go with Sapim 13/14 butted spokes to add a bit of security. Whatever your beefiest nipple option is - probably brass - is also a good move. In this type of application I would also run higher tension then is normally recommended. With the eyelets in the rim, fatty spokes and strong nipples you should be able to pump up the tension for increased strength without any undue fatigue on the components.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

David-

If you don't want to make the jump up to the KH rims, use the new Salsa Gordo Disc rims instead. No comparison whatsoever between these and the Rhyno Lite. Gordo rims are stiffer in every plane, hold tension better, exhibit none of the 'Sun softness', are easier to get tires on and off of, yet (conversely?) have a tighter bead hook meaning you gotta want that tire to come off in order for it to do so. Very confidence inspiring if you happen to pinch while hauling the mail.

I'd build them 36f and 32r, using 3x DT Alpine 3's and DT Prolock brass nipples.

Best of luck,

MC


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

*gordo*

thanks Mike, if you're that high on them, I probably should be too. where's the best place to pick up mis-matched set, 36/32?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MichiganClydesdale said:


> thanks Mike, if you're that high on them, I probably should be too. where's the best place to pick up mis-matched set, 36/32?


If your LBS doesn't want to order 'em in for you I'd be happy to ship a set over.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

"Sun Softness"? 
We've used Sun rims on tandems for 7 years. We've built a boatload of tandem wheels on Sun MTX, Mammoth, and Rhino Lite rims, and have not had one rim-related failure on any wheelset we've built. This includes rims used on heavily-loaded off-road touring tandems, etc, and by folks who abuse their tandems regularly off-road. 
Sun's DoubleTrack rims were softer than some preferred, and I believe they stopped making that rim. 
On the other hand, Sun has made some great products, like the ones we use regularly. 
Using such broad terms does a disservice to this forum, and the folks who come here for accurate unbiased information.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BigNut said:


> "Sun Softness"?
> We've used Sun rims on tandems for 7 years. We've built a boatload of tandem wheels on Sun MTX, Mammoth, and Rhino Lite rims, and have not had one rim-related failure on any wheelset we've built. This includes rims used on heavily-loaded off-road touring tandems, etc, and by folks who abuse their tandems regularly off-road.
> Sun's DoubleTrack rims were softer than some preferred, and I believe they stopped making that rim.
> On the other hand, Sun has made some great products, like the ones we use regularly.
> Using such broad terms does a disservice to this forum, and the folks who come here for accurate unbiased information.


Sorry if my honesty offended you. Seems odd that it would, but...

I've been building wheels for about 15 years now. For the first several years I built nothing but Sun rims. Then I 'graduated' to others and immediately felt the difference from the way the Sun rims built up to the way most everything else builds up. Over the years I've heard many other competent wheelbuilders refer to it as 'softness' so I adopted that term as it seemed to fit. If you have a better term to describe their lack of firmness or rigidity even at final tension I'm happy to consider using it instead.

You do make a good point about the MTX--that thing is as burly as a bag of bricks. For anyone willing to push the weight around or ride 26" wheels, it is a very durable and not-soft rim.

Lastly, you finished with this:


> Using such broad terms does a disservice to this forum, and the folks who come here for accurate unbiased information.


This is an enthusiast site aimed at sharing and disseminating opinions. I shared my professional opinion, which happens to be a form of bias gained through years of paying attention to what I'm doing. Sorry that it doesn't line up with whatever it was you came here to read.

MC


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

A blanket condemnation of all of a manufacturer's products, in this case, is neither accurate nor unbiased. It's a generalization, and in this case is inaccurate. Sort of like Shimano makes crappy bike parts. Kind of general, and kind of inaccurate.

I won't presume to question your years of experience with building wheels. I will tell you, as I stated before, that our (and our customers') experiences with MTX and Mammoths and Rhino Lites has been markedly different from yours, apparently. And these wheels we've built and sold get the hardest use of all, on tandems. In fact, we have wheelsets out there that are going on 7 years of pretty hard tandem use that have not even needed trueing. That's very different results, and not consistent with your reference. Those results would point towards the rims being pretty durable and stable when built correctly. Perhaps it's the particular rims we've used, or perhaps it's the way we build the wheels. I don't know. But real world results can't be ignored.

Since these bikes heap more abuse on parts than virtually any other bike, it's often a matter of component survival (and the resulting team safety) to know what works and what doesn't. For the most part we've been very lucky with this forum in that we haven't had to weed through a lot of BS to get to the truth about what works and what doesn't for tandems used off-road. Since you're a professional, I'd look to you to provide good, hard facts about products you know about, not anecdotal referrals from others. 

Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, you chose to personalize it by asking why your honesty offends me. It'd take a lot more than that to offend me. You made a blanket statement that was inaccurate, and I posted an exception to that statement. Nothing personal unless you want to go there.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BigNut said:


> A blanket condemnation of all of a manufacturer's products, in this case, is neither accurate nor unbiased.


I made a point of clarifying that there is actually *one* Sun rim that doesn't fit the 'soft' description. It happens to be a 26" rim and also happens to have little (nothing?) in common with any Sun 29" rim I've seen or built. That's from a building *and* riding perspective.



> I will tell you, as I stated before, that our (and our customers') experiences with MTX and Mammoths and Rhino Lites has been markedly different from yours, apparently.


Understood. Clearly we've had different experiences with these rims. Nothing unusual about that. Worth noting is that the OP was asking about 29" rims specifically, and my response was directed thataway. Since the Mammoth and MTX are not nor have they ever been made in 29", they don't seem applicable to this discussion.



> these wheels we've built and sold get the hardest use of all, on tandems. In fact, we have wheelsets out there that are going on 7 years of pretty hard tandem use that have not even needed trueing. That's very different results, and not consistent with your reference. Those results would point towards the rims being pretty durable and stable when built correctly. Perhaps it's the particular rims we've used, or perhaps it's the way we build the wheels. I don't know. But real world results can't be ignored.


That's impressive and clearly you're doing something right. I'm happy to add that tidbit to my ever growing mental notes on rim quality and durability. But you're right that it isn't consistent with my results.

And, whether you intended it or not, I don't really appreciate the passive aggressive suggestion that your wheels are built correctly and mine are not. I make no claim to be infallible or to not have made mistakes. I am and I have and I will continue to no doubt.

I find it, however, difficult to add up the math (or is that subtraction?) on ALL sun 700c/29" rims being soft, where ALL DT or Mavic or _____ rims I've built with have been 'firm' or whatever word you approve of calling them. Comparing a 32h DT rim (that happens to be ~100g *lighter* than the Rhyno Lite) laced with identical spokes, nips, and equivalent final tension to a 36h Rhyno Lite, the DT builds a stiffer wheel in every plane and holds its true far better.

To be clear, 4 fewer spokes, 100g lighter rim, everything else equal, and the DT comes out the 'winner'.

And if you/me/whomever were to build 100 of each of these wheels to the same specs, my experience says that 100 times out of 100 the DT comes out lighter, stiffer, stronger, and more durable long term.

How would you 'splain that? Questioning my build quality (or calling my opinion BS in a backhanded way, below) don't seem to apply.



> Since these bikes heap more abuse on parts than virtually any other bike, it's often a matter of component survival (and the resulting team safety) to know what works and what doesn't. For the most part we've been very lucky with this forum in that we haven't had to weed through a lot of BS to get to the truth about what works and what doesn't for tandems used off-road. Since you're a professional, I'd look to you to provide good, hard facts about products you know about, not anecdotal referrals from others.


You lost me there. I feel somehow insulted but I'm not sure if what you wrote was really what you meant to write.



> Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, you chose to personalize it by asking why your honesty offends me. It'd take a lot more than that to offend me. You made a blanket statement that was inaccurate, and I posted an exception to that statement. Nothing personal unless you want to go there.


Actually, I did clarify but you chose to miss the point. Not much I can do about that.

You can call my opinion inaccurate and I could (if I chose to) do the same with yours. But we can probably agree that they're just opinions, and I'm willing to bet that (if we could stop with the finger pointing and holier-than-thouness) we could probably narrow down some of the variables to understand where the differing opinions are coming from. Disc v. rim brake wheels? Front v. rear? 32 v 36? Tire size and pressure? Rider weight? Terrain ridden on? Aggressiveness of riders? Spoke gauge, spoke type, lacing pattern, final tension, tension balance?

However, I think we're at a point where we need to agree to disagree. It seems to boil down to the fact that we've had different experience with these rims, although it isn't totally clear that we're both discussing 29" wheels. Anyone that wanders through here in the future can read this thread, see that there are two differing opinions about the quality of Sun rims, draw their own conclusions, and move on.

Best,

MC


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

mikesee said:


> And, whether you intended it or not, I don't really appreciate the passive aggressive suggestion that your wheels are built correctly and mine are not. I make no claim to be infallible or to not have made mistakes. I am and I have and I will continue to no doubt.


You're personalizing my comments, taking offense where none was intended, and over-analyzing this discussion. 
Our results with Sun rims have been very different than yours, and in direct conflict with your blanket condemnation of their products. I simply pointed that out. 
I don't think this is going anywhere constructive at this point; my sincere apologies to the OP for helping get the thread off-track. I hope you continue to have great success with the products you use and the wheels you build.


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

BigNut said:


> I don't think this is going anywhere constructive at this point; my sincere apologies to the OP for helping get the thread off-track.


No apology needed, it was actually informative and entertaining - listening to two experienced, well spoken (well keyboarded) veterans of the sport rant their case. Over the years, I've gained much insight from posts by both of you, because of your experienced opinions. keep it up.

David


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

BigNut & mikesee said:


> ... Sun Softness ...


I actually agree with both mikesee and BigNut. I have not built as many wheels as mikesee, but when I first heard people talk about "Sun Softness", it was probably the closest 2-word description of the behavior of the SUN rims I was building wheels with at the time. However, the behaviour was apparent mostly with wheel building, once they were properly stress relieved, they made a rock solid wheel - except the really light rims, like the ds1's and sub-0s, those were hit&miss, which may be because I didn't have a fine enough touch with the final true. We were mostly building rhinolites, because they were cheap and held up well. The main complaint we've had about SUN rims is how hard it is to get a tire on/off.

I went from Mavic to Sun years ago, back when most of the Mavics crazed and cracked at the eyelet (usually in the first year) and Mavic told us there was no problem with their rims. Despite the "softness" issue, I've continued to build with Sun rims, although I've built a lot of Alex rimmed wheels recently.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

In the dual-sport motorcycle world, a set of spoked wheels is a must for true off-pavement use. The wheel's ability to flex and absorb impacts vs cracking or breaking like a cast- or solid type wheel is the basis for that.
So there's the thought that some of the success we've had using Sun rims is because their rims DO flex more, absorbing such things that a more rigid rim couldn't flex around to accomodate? It's hard to think of an MTX or Mammoth as flexy, especially with Sapim Strong spokes involved, but it makes sense from a durability standpoint that a wheel that is not over-rigid would last longer in rough conditions. Steel spokes would tend to have a longer lifespan for the same reason, their ability to absorb loading and unloaded more.
But that also may be confusing flexibility with softness, where softness is easily flat-spotting or denting instead of flexing and returning to the original shape.
The Mavic issues itsdoable noted above were, I believe, the result of too much rigidity or brittleness in the rim metal, the opposite end of the spectrum. We had the same problem early on, went to Sun stuff, and got very good results.

I think this discussion proves as much as anything why wheelbuilding is considered such an art.


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

Has anyone built any 29'er wheels with Velocity's Blunt rims?


----------

