Steel or alu road tandem?
10-04-09, 10:16 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
364 Posts
Not again!
You don't ride on steel or aluminum or titanium or carbon fiber. You ride on a bicycle frame that was made with those materials. There are so many factors that can be manipulated, metallurgy, tubeing diameter, wall thickness, length etc. that I think that it's really simple minded to think all aluminum bikes or all steel bikes must ride about the same.
You don't ride on steel or aluminum or titanium or carbon fiber. You ride on a bicycle frame that was made with those materials. There are so many factors that can be manipulated, metallurgy, tubeing diameter, wall thickness, length etc. that I think that it's really simple minded to think all aluminum bikes or all steel bikes must ride about the same.
12-13-18, 10:34 AM
#27
Full Member
Picking up the thread: Steel or Alu road tandem
I realize this thread is nearly 10 years old, but the link showed up in a Google search of 'tandem bike frame material' so it was right on topic.
We are a 330lb team and currently have an older Cannondale RT1000, perhaps it's a 1999, and a 2005 Co-motion Speedster. Both of these bikes were purchased off of Craigslist, so they're not exactly 'custom' built for us. We took what we could get. We mostly ride the Speedster, but have the C'dale as a back-up.
Once again, all impressions are subjective and are affected by many factors. The Cannondale was purchased first and we rode the hell out of it. The frame is the correct size for us (as correct as an off-the-shelf standard size can be). It is a very stable ride, like riding on rails with no control issues. Even though it is an 'old' aluminum frame, I have never felt the ride was harsh or buzzy. We have a LT Thudbuster in the stoker compartment and no complaints there either. I have no problems taking a hand off the bars for a drink. Very little stoker movement comes through to affect steering. This bike worked out well for us.
But since this was an older Cannondale it had some 'update' issues which were a bit of a challenge. The most notable of these is the 140mm rear dropout spacing. This made building new wheels a little difficult as there are fewer choices in rear hubs. And the 110 bolt circle Sugino cranks drove me crazy - why did they hide one of the chainring bolts under the crank arm? Anyway, perhaps all these minor complaints were just an excuse to buy another bike.
When the Co-motion showed up we swooped in on it. The frame is a bit smaller for us than C'dale. But it had current standard rear spacing, 130mm BC cranks and the price was too good to pass up.
Checking the geometry of these two frames they are quite similar except for the lengths of the head and seat tubes. I figured this could be mitigated with stem and seat post positioning.
The ride of the steel Speedster is very different from the aluminum C'dale. It seems to be much quicker to accelerated and is much snappier to maneuver. I can't really say the ride is any smoother on this steel frame than what is supposed to be a harsh feeling aluminum frame.
The one downside is that stoker movement comes right through to my handlebars. It is more difficult for me to take a hand off the bars to point out an obstacle in the road if we are riding w a group or to take a drink.
Just as a point of information, the wheels are identical builds.
I don't know why the Speedster is more difficult to handle. Is it the responsive steering, a more compliant frame material or because the frame is a bit too small?
All 'theories' would be welcomed!
Joe Ruge, Tucson AZ
We are a 330lb team and currently have an older Cannondale RT1000, perhaps it's a 1999, and a 2005 Co-motion Speedster. Both of these bikes were purchased off of Craigslist, so they're not exactly 'custom' built for us. We took what we could get. We mostly ride the Speedster, but have the C'dale as a back-up.
Once again, all impressions are subjective and are affected by many factors. The Cannondale was purchased first and we rode the hell out of it. The frame is the correct size for us (as correct as an off-the-shelf standard size can be). It is a very stable ride, like riding on rails with no control issues. Even though it is an 'old' aluminum frame, I have never felt the ride was harsh or buzzy. We have a LT Thudbuster in the stoker compartment and no complaints there either. I have no problems taking a hand off the bars for a drink. Very little stoker movement comes through to affect steering. This bike worked out well for us.
But since this was an older Cannondale it had some 'update' issues which were a bit of a challenge. The most notable of these is the 140mm rear dropout spacing. This made building new wheels a little difficult as there are fewer choices in rear hubs. And the 110 bolt circle Sugino cranks drove me crazy - why did they hide one of the chainring bolts under the crank arm? Anyway, perhaps all these minor complaints were just an excuse to buy another bike.
When the Co-motion showed up we swooped in on it. The frame is a bit smaller for us than C'dale. But it had current standard rear spacing, 130mm BC cranks and the price was too good to pass up.
Checking the geometry of these two frames they are quite similar except for the lengths of the head and seat tubes. I figured this could be mitigated with stem and seat post positioning.
The ride of the steel Speedster is very different from the aluminum C'dale. It seems to be much quicker to accelerated and is much snappier to maneuver. I can't really say the ride is any smoother on this steel frame than what is supposed to be a harsh feeling aluminum frame.
The one downside is that stoker movement comes right through to my handlebars. It is more difficult for me to take a hand off the bars to point out an obstacle in the road if we are riding w a group or to take a drink.
Just as a point of information, the wheels are identical builds.
I don't know why the Speedster is more difficult to handle. Is it the responsive steering, a more compliant frame material or because the frame is a bit too small?
All 'theories' would be welcomed!
Joe Ruge, Tucson AZ
12-14-18, 08:45 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 558
Bikes: HP Velotechnik Streetmachine GTE, 2015 Devinci Silverstone SL4, 2012 Cannondale Road Tandem 2, Circe Morpheus, 2021 Rose Backroad, 2017 Devinci Hatchet
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times
in
12 Posts
My bet would be the shorter head tube. That has probably pushed you to install a longer stem. There is a point at which steering becomes much more twitchy. I have had this on my single bike with a smaller frame. Installed a 130mm stem (coming fro. 70-80mm?) and riding single-handed required much more attention (background: this is a 2007 hardtail MTB with straight bar in commuter duty). Now I have backed off to about 110mm and things are fine.(
12-14-18, 05:06 PM
#29
Full Member
Some questions: The wheels are identical builds, but do they have the same tires and pressure? Are the spokes tensioned properly on both sets? Are the hubs and bearings in good shape? No frame damage anywhere? What fork is on the Speedster? Same width for the captain’s handlebars?
Our first tandem is a very stiff and stable aluminum 2005 Trek T2000, which we still ride occasionally if it’s wet. We now mostly ride a 2005 Speedster which we bought because it has couplers. I don’t notice a huge difference in handling from the Trek. Certainly there is no issue with using one hand to steer. We can easily ride out of the saddle for butt breaks or steep middle ring climbs. I do notice a bit more stoker input, and we both notice a difference in ride quality with the steel frame. Both bikes are sized properly for us, and we’ve been professionally fitted on the Speedster. Our Speedster has the Woundup carbon fork. I am running tires that measure at 32F/34R mm width.
Perhaps the smallish frame is the issue. Bigger tires might help if you are running narrow.
Our first tandem is a very stiff and stable aluminum 2005 Trek T2000, which we still ride occasionally if it’s wet. We now mostly ride a 2005 Speedster which we bought because it has couplers. I don’t notice a huge difference in handling from the Trek. Certainly there is no issue with using one hand to steer. We can easily ride out of the saddle for butt breaks or steep middle ring climbs. I do notice a bit more stoker input, and we both notice a difference in ride quality with the steel frame. Both bikes are sized properly for us, and we’ve been professionally fitted on the Speedster. Our Speedster has the Woundup carbon fork. I am running tires that measure at 32F/34R mm width.
Perhaps the smallish frame is the issue. Bigger tires might help if you are running narrow.
12-15-18, 03:19 PM
#30
Full Member
Technical nitty gritty
Thanks guys. You have given me a few things to think about. Perhaps it came across that the Speedster is a nightmare to control. It's not. It's just that the Cannondale seems to be on rails, rock solid.
However, your responses do give me some additional things to consider. As best as I can 'feel' both wheelsets seem fine; same tires (Continental Grand Prix 4000sll, 700x28) same pressure, same spoke tension. Headsets adjusted, same bars. The stem on the Co-mo is 10mm longer.
A video I saw a while ago showed two Brits (sort of famous bike guys on YouTube) testing how stem length affected bike control. Their test seemed to indicate that a longer stem (up to a point) slowed steering or reduced twitchiness, while a shorter stem worked better when you needed more precise control, say on a Mtb with technical descent down a rocky trail.
So from that video it would seem that a longer stem should help smooth things out. Thinking about it now, I think I put the slightly longer stem on the Co-motion for that reason and my memory is that it did help.
I still think the main difference is the beefy stoutness of the aluminum tubes on the C'dale and the slender springiness of the Co-mo. But you guys have given me a few things to think about regarding these two frames.
But less get down to brass tacks; Given that the C'dale frame has the old 140mm dropout spacing, and the Co-mo is a bit small, I have 'good' reason (perhaps it should be called an 'excuse') to keep an eye out for a another tandem. Though it will likely come down to what comes up for sale on Craigslist and the like first, what frame material would you look for? Is Carbon the bomb? I've been reading the stuff on Rodriguez Cycles website. His arguments for a steel tandem are quite compelling.
However, your responses do give me some additional things to consider. As best as I can 'feel' both wheelsets seem fine; same tires (Continental Grand Prix 4000sll, 700x28) same pressure, same spoke tension. Headsets adjusted, same bars. The stem on the Co-mo is 10mm longer.
A video I saw a while ago showed two Brits (sort of famous bike guys on YouTube) testing how stem length affected bike control. Their test seemed to indicate that a longer stem (up to a point) slowed steering or reduced twitchiness, while a shorter stem worked better when you needed more precise control, say on a Mtb with technical descent down a rocky trail.
So from that video it would seem that a longer stem should help smooth things out. Thinking about it now, I think I put the slightly longer stem on the Co-motion for that reason and my memory is that it did help.
I still think the main difference is the beefy stoutness of the aluminum tubes on the C'dale and the slender springiness of the Co-mo. But you guys have given me a few things to think about regarding these two frames.
But less get down to brass tacks; Given that the C'dale frame has the old 140mm dropout spacing, and the Co-mo is a bit small, I have 'good' reason (perhaps it should be called an 'excuse') to keep an eye out for a another tandem. Though it will likely come down to what comes up for sale on Craigslist and the like first, what frame material would you look for? Is Carbon the bomb? I've been reading the stuff on Rodriguez Cycles website. His arguments for a steel tandem are quite compelling.
Last edited by joeruge; 12-15-18 at 03:24 PM.
12-15-18, 09:07 PM
#31
Senior Member
I realize this thread is nearly 10 years old, but the link showed up in a Google search of 'tandem bike frame material' so it was right on topic.
We are a 330lb team and currently have an older Cannondale RT1000, perhaps it's a 1999, and a 2005 Co-motion Speedster. Both of these bikes were purchased off of Craigslist, so they're not exactly 'custom' built for us. We took what we could get. We mostly ride the Speedster, but have the C'dale as a back-up.
Once again, all impressions are subjective and are affected by many factors. The Cannondale was purchased first and we rode the hell out of it. The frame is the correct size for us (as correct as an off-the-shelf standard size can be). It is a very stable ride, like riding on rails with no control issues. Even though it is an 'old' aluminum frame, I have never felt the ride was harsh or buzzy. We have a LT Thudbuster in the stoker compartment and no complaints there either. I have no problems taking a hand off the bars for a drink. Very little stoker movement comes through to affect steering. This bike worked out well for us.
But since this was an older Cannondale it had some 'update' issues which were a bit of a challenge. The most notable of these is the 140mm rear dropout spacing. This made building new wheels a little difficult as there are fewer choices in rear hubs. And the 110 bolt circle Sugino cranks drove me crazy - why did they hide one of the chainring bolts under the crank arm? Anyway, perhaps all these minor complaints were just an excuse to buy another bike.
When the Co-motion showed up we swooped in on it. The frame is a bit smaller for us than C'dale. But it had current standard rear spacing, 130mm BC cranks and the price was too good to pass up.
Checking the geometry of these two frames they are quite similar except for the lengths of the head and seat tubes. I figured this could be mitigated with stem and seat post positioning.
The ride of the steel Speedster is very different from the aluminum C'dale. It seems to be much quicker to accelerated and is much snappier to maneuver. I can't really say the ride is any smoother on this steel frame than what is supposed to be a harsh feeling aluminum frame.
The one downside is that stoker movement comes right through to my handlebars. It is more difficult for me to take a hand off the bars to point out an obstacle in the road if we are riding w a group or to take a drink.
Just as a point of information, the wheels are identical builds.
I don't know why the Speedster is more difficult to handle. Is it the responsive steering, a more compliant frame material or because the frame is a bit too small?
All 'theories' would be welcomed!
Joe Ruge, Tucson AZ
We are a 330lb team and currently have an older Cannondale RT1000, perhaps it's a 1999, and a 2005 Co-motion Speedster. Both of these bikes were purchased off of Craigslist, so they're not exactly 'custom' built for us. We took what we could get. We mostly ride the Speedster, but have the C'dale as a back-up.
Once again, all impressions are subjective and are affected by many factors. The Cannondale was purchased first and we rode the hell out of it. The frame is the correct size for us (as correct as an off-the-shelf standard size can be). It is a very stable ride, like riding on rails with no control issues. Even though it is an 'old' aluminum frame, I have never felt the ride was harsh or buzzy. We have a LT Thudbuster in the stoker compartment and no complaints there either. I have no problems taking a hand off the bars for a drink. Very little stoker movement comes through to affect steering. This bike worked out well for us.
But since this was an older Cannondale it had some 'update' issues which were a bit of a challenge. The most notable of these is the 140mm rear dropout spacing. This made building new wheels a little difficult as there are fewer choices in rear hubs. And the 110 bolt circle Sugino cranks drove me crazy - why did they hide one of the chainring bolts under the crank arm? Anyway, perhaps all these minor complaints were just an excuse to buy another bike.
When the Co-motion showed up we swooped in on it. The frame is a bit smaller for us than C'dale. But it had current standard rear spacing, 130mm BC cranks and the price was too good to pass up.
Checking the geometry of these two frames they are quite similar except for the lengths of the head and seat tubes. I figured this could be mitigated with stem and seat post positioning.
The ride of the steel Speedster is very different from the aluminum C'dale. It seems to be much quicker to accelerated and is much snappier to maneuver. I can't really say the ride is any smoother on this steel frame than what is supposed to be a harsh feeling aluminum frame.
The one downside is that stoker movement comes right through to my handlebars. It is more difficult for me to take a hand off the bars to point out an obstacle in the road if we are riding w a group or to take a drink.
Just as a point of information, the wheels are identical builds.
I don't know why the Speedster is more difficult to handle. Is it the responsive steering, a more compliant frame material or because the frame is a bit too small?
All 'theories' would be welcomed!
Joe Ruge, Tucson AZ
The frame material doesn’t necessarily make a difference between these two bikes. The Cannondale may be a little stiffer laterally than the Co-Motion. You’d feel that difference with a very wiggly stoker or heavy rear panniers.
12-16-18, 10:57 AM
#32
Full Member
Aha! I think you may be on to something. I had not thought about the effect of fork rake and the resultant trail. I'm gonna have to puzzle on this for a while.
My stoker is very 'wiggly.' But for the sake of couple harmony, after five years riding together I have given up pointing this out to her (believe it or not, enough other riders have pointed this out to us, in one way or another). So, this wiggliness is the source of my control issues.
There may be something I'm missing in your description of the effect of trail. It was my understanding that the longer the trail, the more
likely the bike was to keep a straight line.
"...for any given head tube angle, decreasing amounts of fork rake will move the contact patch for the front wheel away from the steering axis, where it will be more inclined to self-centre..."
So, unless I'm misunderstanding the geometry, the Co-mo with the smaller fork rake, should have a greater trail and therefore should be more stable, no?
Now, I may not be clear on the effect of trail on a tandem, which has the center of mass further from the contact patch than a single bike.
As crazy as it seems, I think it would be possible to switch the forks to see what difference I could feel. A lot of work for this largley academic discussion.
My stoker is very 'wiggly.' But for the sake of couple harmony, after five years riding together I have given up pointing this out to her (believe it or not, enough other riders have pointed this out to us, in one way or another). So, this wiggliness is the source of my control issues.
There may be something I'm missing in your description of the effect of trail. It was my understanding that the longer the trail, the more
likely the bike was to keep a straight line.
"...for any given head tube angle, decreasing amounts of fork rake will move the contact patch for the front wheel away from the steering axis, where it will be more inclined to self-centre..."
So, unless I'm misunderstanding the geometry, the Co-mo with the smaller fork rake, should have a greater trail and therefore should be more stable, no?
Now, I may not be clear on the effect of trail on a tandem, which has the center of mass further from the contact patch than a single bike.
As crazy as it seems, I think it would be possible to switch the forks to see what difference I could feel. A lot of work for this largley academic discussion.
12-16-18, 07:05 PM
#33
TKramer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 87
Bikes: Paketa V2r, Co-motion Equator Co-pilot, Bingham BUILT. tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Aha! I think you may be on to something. I had not thought about the effect of fork rake and the resultant trail. I'm gonna have to puzzle on this for a while.
My stoker is very 'wiggly.' But for the sake of couple harmony, after five years riding together I have given up pointing this out to her (believe it or not, enough other riders have pointed this out to us, in one way or another). So, this wiggliness is the source of my control issues.
There may be something I'm missing in your description of the effect of trail. It was my understanding that the longer the trail, the more
likely the bike was to keep a straight line.
"...for any given head tube angle, decreasing amounts of fork rake will move the contact patch for the front wheel away from the steering axis, where it will be more inclined to self-centre..."
So, unless I'm misunderstanding the geometry, the Co-mo with the smaller fork rake, should have a greater trail and therefore should be more stable, no?
Now, I may not be clear on the effect of trail on a tandem, which has the center of mass further from the contact patch than a single bike.
As crazy as it seems, I think it would be possible to switch the forks to see what difference I could feel. A lot of work for this largley academic discussion.
My stoker is very 'wiggly.' But for the sake of couple harmony, after five years riding together I have given up pointing this out to her (believe it or not, enough other riders have pointed this out to us, in one way or another). So, this wiggliness is the source of my control issues.
There may be something I'm missing in your description of the effect of trail. It was my understanding that the longer the trail, the more
likely the bike was to keep a straight line.
"...for any given head tube angle, decreasing amounts of fork rake will move the contact patch for the front wheel away from the steering axis, where it will be more inclined to self-centre..."
So, unless I'm misunderstanding the geometry, the Co-mo with the smaller fork rake, should have a greater trail and therefore should be more stable, no?
Now, I may not be clear on the effect of trail on a tandem, which has the center of mass further from the contact patch than a single bike.
As crazy as it seems, I think it would be possible to switch the forks to see what difference I could feel. A lot of work for this largley academic discussion.
12-17-18, 10:28 AM
#34
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
We started tandeming by borrowing a friend's Cannondale while they were on vacation. We were hooked, though I thought it rode like a truck. We bought our used Speedster because of recommendations on it's handling quality. I think it rides like a sports car. It really comes into its own over 30 mph. It's an absolute pleasure to descend on. It climbs well, too. That said, no, I never take my hands off the bars. I also seldom take my eyes off the road ahead. Stoker navigates. She absolutely loves the bike. She has one of those carbon shock-absorbing posts. We run 28mm Conti IIs tires at 95 lbs. on 23 mm rims, 285 lb. team.
Looking at tandem weights, it's good to look at bare frame weights. Differences in tandem weights are frequently more due to component weights. More expensive bikes will be lighter as a general rule.
Looking at tandem weights, it's good to look at bare frame weights. Differences in tandem weights are frequently more due to component weights. More expensive bikes will be lighter as a general rule.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
12-19-18, 09:39 AM
#35
Full Member
Sounds like Carbonfibreboy's experience is similar to mine. I think the Cannondale does feel a bit more like a 'truck,' though I might more favorably characterize it as 'reassuringly stable.'
I'm also starting to understand the 'longer trail - more customer steer' previously described by Oneisallyouneed. To be honest, I don't fully appreciate what's going on here, but I'm considering this as the major factor affecting handling. Good call!
I'm also starting to understand the 'longer trail - more customer steer' previously described by Oneisallyouneed. To be honest, I don't fully appreciate what's going on here, but I'm considering this as the major factor affecting handling. Good call!
12-21-18, 12:35 PM
#37
Senior Member
I have only ever used one tandem, ours. It's a solid, fairly heavy, steel (Rodriguez) bike, made for us (we couldn't find an off-the-shelf tandem that fit us right).
Although I have never been on another tandem, I can compare the ride to my aluminum former half-bike, and my CF present half-bike. This tandem is smooth, stable and forgiving, unlike my old aluminum half-bike. The only significant thing I notice switching between my CF half-bike and the tandem is how much more nimble the half-bike is. But they're both equally comfortable.
Although I have never been on another tandem, I can compare the ride to my aluminum former half-bike, and my CF present half-bike. This tandem is smooth, stable and forgiving, unlike my old aluminum half-bike. The only significant thing I notice switching between my CF half-bike and the tandem is how much more nimble the half-bike is. But they're both equally comfortable.
12-21-18, 11:25 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,474
Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times
in
253 Posts
I've had 4 and 1/2 tandems. Half because I took one to a frame builder to modify for my 10 year old to stoke.
I have not ridden Ti or carbon (on a tandem). The alloy is light and nimble. The steel fell better.
Actually, rake / trail is a big part of that. But I think steel is better general purpose. If I was to try to go as fast as I could - might choose alloy, or CF.
I can believe Ti is a great material. We have Ti single frames. For those that stand and sprint (I used to) I think Ti is less than ideal.
I have not ridden Ti or carbon (on a tandem). The alloy is light and nimble. The steel fell better.
Actually, rake / trail is a big part of that. But I think steel is better general purpose. If I was to try to go as fast as I could - might choose alloy, or CF.
I can believe Ti is a great material. We have Ti single frames. For those that stand and sprint (I used to) I think Ti is less than ideal.
12-22-18, 08:30 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 1,092
Bikes: 1980's Spectrum 10 sp Campagnolo Centaur, 1990 Eddy Merckx 10 sp Campagnolo Centaur, Bushnell Tandem, Co-Motion Speedster Tandem
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times
in
65 Posts
Our first good tandem was a Canondale which was just a little be small for me. It ride well but I couldn't get my bars high enough. Our next is one of our current tandem s which is a Bushnell which rides great, I didn't notice a lot of difference. We now also have a Co Motion which rides very well, not a lot of difference then the Bushnell. I really didn't notice a lot of difference between the three bikes.
