sixtiescycles

Thanks for the comments! The whole point of the exercise is that it's a travel tandem. So, admittedly there's a few components that could be lightened, but it's a durable package that's ready for any (reasonable) terrain. In answer to your specific questions:
--Not just a triple, but a super-wide-range triple
--The Recon cassette shifts as well as the stock Campy, IMO. I was surprised. To be fair, though, durability is TBD. Again, the reason for picking that over the Campy was to get wider gear range.
--Chainrings are all off-the-shelf FSA
--Of course I thought of Athena and we'll try it out sometime, but I knew I could get the Centaur/Record 10s setup (which I've worked with a lot) to perform the way the customer wanted. It all takes time...
--Zona stems...well, maybe. The stoker in this case is 4'11" tall so the long adjustable was a good place to start, but they'll probably end up with an appropriate-length fixed stem. Bob Davis is still around but production has definitely slowed down.
--Tires...yes, lots of options, and easily swapped. Travel bikes need durability, and these are pretty good that way.

No photos yet, but the whole bike with all the tools necessary for traveling with it (hex wrenches, S&S coupling wrench, etc.) and pedals (!) in the travel case is still under the 50 lb. airline weight limit. That was another requirement the customer had. There's lots of legitimate reasons why traveling with a single bike case is viable. It's a trade off, for sure; one "bike" charge (on most airlines) vs. multiple bags and the weight of two cases instead of one with a 4-coupling tandem. And it'll still fit in any taxi.

waynesulak

I agree - Good to see a triple.
Ti cassette - I wonder how many miles the 12-15 tooth cogs will last at $290 per cassette. ouch

https://fairwheelbikes.com/recon-tita...tte-p-800.html

DubT

A couple of comments, why the "original" Gates belt and not the CDX and when I contacted American Classic about using the 420 wheels on a tandem they did not recommend them. If this is supposed to be a durable tandem then why use wheel that are not recommend for tandem use by the manufacturer. I would have thought Spynergy wheels would be more durable although a little heavier. You did address the adjustable stoker stem, I would have wondered why you used it since a fixed stem is much lighter.

waynesulak

I had to go back and reread some of the posts about the Paketa D2' 24.7 lb tandem. I now see that the bike has not been delivered or really ridden. At this point it is more of a show bike. A fun possible build. A little different animal than I bike that has been ridden and components changed to fit real world use.

Ritterview

Finding an appropriate length (and angle) fixed stem is no easy task. Hmmm... is there 3-D printing of magnesium?

Turbotandem

Not at all the case. The paketa's race history says something about how hard they are ridden. My stoker and I ride our Paketa 7500 miles, 350,000 feet a year, friends ride theirs 11,000 miles a year, they hold up as well as any tandem. I don't know what about the recent coupled paketa strikes you as less than durable or not real world; campy, FSA, etc. parts and all. That tandem is new, yes, but headed to a happy owner, as sixty cycles explains, it's for a customer with specific requests not just a concept bike for shows. Our paketa is of the same ilk, but with a tone of miles on it without issue.
Concerning the prior posting, the AC wheels have a long test bed of miles on Paketa tandems for many satisfied teams. I agree that teams over 350# or touring teams might choose to add some 100g to the wheel set. Our wheels are those few grams heavier, but not the synergy wheels, and for me feel just a touch stiffer on the descents than the AC wheels we rode for a few years.

waynesulak

I think we might be interpreting the term “real world” differently. I don’t interpret that term to mean a very small number of riders using them with good results. For me “real world” means that it is useful for most riders under their normal conditions. An example of the difference is the use of tubular tires on singles. That is definitely a reliable technology that riders have used for millions of miles. I know a guy that commutes 20 miles each way on tubular tires. For me they are a niche item and not “real world” because the vast majority of riders have decided they are not appropriate for their needs. The view that tubular tires are “real world” is a valid one but just different than the way I think of it.

That being said, for me those wheels with a rider weight limit of 235 lbs (see attached) don't appear to be real world for most tandem teams. Neither does a Ti cassette but I guess if you want to replace a $280 cassette every time the smaller Ti cogs are worn it could be real world. I don't know too many teams that run DA cassettes with just the larger cogs in Ti or full Ti Campy cassettes. I wonder how many pro tour rider's training bikes have all Ti cassettes.

Don't get me wrong, I can see those choices for a racing bike, which is the way I think of a Pateka. They certainly make it an interesting build. I also know there are some happy teams putting a lot of miles on their Paketa tandems. That is great. I love an innovative cutting edge bike.

uaz04

Does anyone believe it's possible to get a tandem, as ridden [means everything but waterbottles], under 24 lbs? Gearing for major Alpine climbs [over 20 percent], and sufficient braking for the same descents?
It must be durable, and reliable.
And inexpensive? [Ok, I'm joking on that one!]

Ritterview

There are examples upthread that come close to this, but presumably you require a triple and a disc brake.

Well, this is our bike, which we had just ridden on a century (I did remove the saddlebag and Garmins). It has a triple, 12-29 cassette, and an Avid disc with 203 mm rotor. We've been riding it for three years now, and it is reliable.

It could get below 24 lbs. These changes, might get it there without affecting reliability.

• Replace adjustable stoker's stem with fixed.
• Lighter tires, eg Conti GP4000's.
• Lightweight Avid caliper, and ICE rotor.
• Wheels with lighter spokes, hub, 45 instead of 65 rim.
• Lighter stoker's saddle.
• Lighter pedals with Ti stem.
• Naked carbon

uaz04

Ritterview, you were a major inspiration for our build. Our Co-Motion is well under 24 lbs, and it has withstood many kilometers of extreme riding. We face a gradient of 18 percent to and from our house daily, and we often look for longer and steeper. The stress this puts on a tandem have been evident on our equipment, but we sorted that out early on. Topolino wheels are great, but not for our riding. By contrast, our old original set of Rolf Tandem wheels remains our daily set, in use since 2007 - bravo to RD! We had to re-engineer the Lightning Cranks to cope with the stress on climbs. Swissstop has even asked us to test their newest brake pad compound against their previous best for alu rims. Actually, the braking issue was the most difficult to address in the planning phase. My conclusion is that, at this extreme end of build/ride, it is also a question of technique as it is equipment. On the most severe descents on hot days, there is little room for taking it easy/slowly and riding the brakes down.
The Conti GP 4000s 25s are our only tire now, after testing many. We do use heavier and stronger tubes, since road surfaces around here vary widely in quality and we learned our lesson with lightweight ones.
I'll have to add a few more grams, as Marijana does not get enough climbing grip from my homemade stoker 'nubs'. Initially, she only needed a resting pad, but now that we can climb standing for longer stretches a real hand grip will be added. You might also question why we have drop bars for the stoker - that is her preference and I won't question it
Another word on wheels worth mentioning, that as much as I want the lightest wheels possible, especially for climbing, it turns out that our heavier wheels climb even better. They are also more stable on descents and roll much better on the flats. I think they climb better because they are stiffer when standing, considering the sideways forces. At least it feels that way to both of us.
As for the belt drive, although I've read that it has more friction than the chain, I still like it for other reasons.

Your build still puts questions in my mind if another tandem frame were in our future. Would we forego 145mm hub in the rear, use light disc brakes, and have a broader range of light, carbon wheels to choose from? Could be interesting, as I love the LW Obermayers on my single bike. Road disc technology over the next couple of years might make this a no-brainer.
Sun is out...time to go
The pic is from the Sella Ronda 2012, along with the wife of a former world champion. Easy to guess which champion

sixtiescycles

On the issue of American Classic 420 wheels, we've used them for years--well, since the first Paketa tandem in early 2005, built for me (it's still on the road; my neighbor across the street now owns it). We've had very, very good durability with these wheels despite the "235 lbs." official weight limit. Why? I've discussed this topic before--even earlier in this thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...t12687648--but it comes down to having a deep rim section with a well-designed hub. The American Classic cassette hubs are pretty much bomb-proof in my experience. The front hubs are fine except for the smallish bearings, and I usually find I have to replace the bearings about once a year (or about 5000 miles of riding). Big deal: it's a 5-minute operation and the bearings are about ten bucks. The hubs are easy to work on.

The deep(er) rim section not only makes the wheels stronger and stiffer, it also means there's more surface area to dissipate brake heat. I did a lot of testing on rims about 15 years ago to verify the advantages of deep-section rims, and for most tandem teams in most riding conditions it works very well. We also have a Bilenky triplet that's traveled all over the world that uses rim brakes. It weighs 500 lbs. with 3 adults on board. How is that possible? The rims are 40 mm section depth FIR Rialtos; NLA but there's a very close match in the KinLin XR-380 (38 mm section depth) today for those who need the extra stiffness, strength, braking surface, and durability. I've used them on a number of tandem wheel builds for people wanting extra durability for touring use. There's nothing wrong with adding a disc brake--about 1/3 of Paketa customers do, in fact--but it's not needed in the majority of cases if you're already using the right wheels. As with everything bike-related (or life-related!), it's a trade off: weight and added complexity of a disc brake vs. slightly heavier rims to get essentially the same benefit. I like putting the additional weight into the rims because not only do they work better in braking but they're also stronger and stiffer.

Dave Walker
PAKETA CYCLES

sixtiescycles

Actually, no, it's not a show bike at all (although it certainly could be--we'll have a similar bike at NAHBS); here's the photo of the new owner (well, the stoker) with the bike on top of their Mini Cooper.

There's nothing on the bike that's not up to the task of world travel. I already said that the Ti cassette lifetime is "TBD," but that's a minor issue and cassettes are easily swapped. Durability is not the same as reliability, and as far as reliability goes, it's up to the task and ready to go anywhere.

We're working on the stem issue; stay tuned.

Ritterview

Is this the World Champion of which you speak?



If so, your mission is to inspire the Fondriest's into becoming a tandem team, and so inevitably Fondriest Bici will develop a carbon tandem using the same manufacturing sources as their half-bikes.

uaz04

We've had 6 bikes made by Fondriest, but I fear there is not enough Brunello di Montalcino to convince Esperia [who now own the Fondriest line] to make high-end tandems. In fact, there is not one single tandem manufacturer in Europe who is willing to make a tandem without the 3rd lateral tube, even as a one-off custom job! The only European tandem I would consider would be Cyfac, but I think only after the Stateside companies. Co-Motion, Paketa, Calfee, Ruegamer are at the head of my list. I think Santana has done so much to advance tandems and tandeming, but I can't list it as one for me because I think we are light enough to make the 160 rear unnecessary.

uaz04

Love the tandem on the Mini!

TandemGeek

Ref. Reugamer, dba Rue Sports, this was my summation of their last departure from the frame building market in the fall of 2011:
https://tandemgeek.wordpress.com/2010...in-gone-again/

I believe 'Bre' landed in Portland and now goes by the surname Rue, possibly working for Planet X Bike and some other firms as a designer.

uaz04

Sad story for everyone, and a loss for the cycling community. It was exciting to see the tandem boundaries pushed.

sixtiescycles

Paketa D2r 2-coupling S&S travel tandem, something under 22.5 lbs (10.2 kg)

This is our own tandem, the latest and best that we're capable of. No awards at NAHBS, and not a flashy bike, but intended for world traveling. Judge for yourself. Having been dinged by the various airlines for overweight and excess baggage on past trips, my goal was to put together a bike with case that would be safely under the IATA (International Air Transport Association) limit of 50 lbs. I think we've succeeded with a packed weight of just 44 lbs. (20 kg) in a Biknd Helium case, enough to allow for packing helmets, pedals, or other accessories in the same case and still keeping the total under 50 lbs.


Specifications include:

--Paketa D2r Medium-size, right-side timing frame with "straight 44" head tube, Enve tapered 1.5/1.125" fork, Chris King head set
--Custom Ti couplings designed by S&S and Paketa
--Ceramic coated frame
--SRAM Red shifters, front and WiFli (medium-cage) rear derailleurs, 11x28 cassette
--Lightning carbon cranks with ceramic bearings, 175/172.5 mm length, 130 BCD front & 110 BCD rear spiders
--34x52 FSA chain rings
--Paketa-designed and fabricated compact crank adapter, compatible with Gates CDC (old style) or CDX (CenterTrack) belt drive sprockets
--KMC X10 SL "DLC" (diamond-like coating) chain
--EE brakes
--Ritchey 260/WCS stems front and rear
--Zipp SL handlebars with Deda bar wrap
--KCNC 27.2 seatposts and clamp collars
--Selle San Marco Aspide Carbon saddles
--American Classic Argent tubeless-ready wheelset
--Hutchinson Atom 700x23 tires/tubes
--Far and Near Ti skewers

The whole bike without pedals weighs in at under 22.5 lbs. This is an honest weight, as at the show we put the bike on the same scale several times and it was in the range of 22.39-22.46 lbs. I took the attached photo outside tonight in the fresh snow (if you were at NAHBS, you experienced yesterday's blizzard!) and the scale appears to be reading a bit low in the frigid air--some indication that you should take any advertised (or photo'ed) weights with a certain grain of salt, as digital scales suffer their own limitations: A number is just a number without an attached uncertainty. I'll work on that. I do believe that 22.5 lbs. is, if anything, conservative.

A few comments on the spec:

--The compact crank adapter addresses the main issue some prospective buyers have had with the low-end gearing. A 34T chain ring combined with a 36T rear sprocket (using an XX rear derailleur, as we have for a number of tandems with a Red drive train) provides a low gear of 25" or 0.97:1 ratio. We'll be fine with the 28T low cog ourselves, but it's nice to know that we'll be able to live with it in the coming years, no matter what.
--The ceramic coating is something we've been working on for a while. It has a Mohs hardness of 9, same as sapphire or ruby. Diamond has a hardness of 10. In other words, extremely tough and scratch resistant. It's also remarkably flexible; enough so that it won't chip or flake off even if you suffer a minor dent in the tube. And, it adds less than 50 g (2 oz.) of weight to the entire frame.
--Although the tires are only 23 mm, the wider Argent rims (22 mm width) with the Hutchinson Atom 23 mm tires measure 24.8 mm in maximum tire carcass width, while a Conti 25 mm Gator Hardshell on a 19 mm width rim measures 23.8 mm in width, so overall this appears to be a reasonable approach.
--The main protest I would envision would be the rock-hard Aspide carbon saddles. In response, I'll submit that we fitted these mainly because it looks good for a show bike. But, both my wife and I have ridden on this saddle and, although unpadded, it's actually remarkably comfortable as the shape is oh-so-right for my backside--and hers. In any case, the saddles weigh 130 grams each on my digital scale, and my wife's usual Specialized Toupe Ti saddle (fitted on all of her road bikes) is 158 grams, and I can very easily ride the same saddle for 100+ miles. She rode this saddle for 206 miles at LoToJa in September of last year, for example. With two Toupe saddles fitted it would only add 56 g or 2 oz. of weight, so the total weight would still be around 22.5 lbs.

Dave Walker
PAKETA CYCLES

uaz04

Excellent, Dave! In many respects, this is similar to ours...but there are a few major differences. It's coupled, which is phenomenal at that weight!! The double crankset/synchro belt on the same side is also a very trick idea. Is this 145mm rear?
We can't avoid using a triple crankset, as our climbs here have us at times in our lowest gear more often than we would like to admit. I don't think we could get up Zoncolon with a 34/28 on our best day, and even the 28/36 is a tortuous grind
We use the 125gm Selle Italia saddles, with a bit of padding and center cut out....they work well on both of our bums, although I make sure we get enough standing time to avoid pain.
Last year, just to prove it can be done, we did a bit of loaded touring with this tandem - street clothes and shoes, tent for 2, sleeping mats, sleeping bags, toiletries, extra cycling kit. It worked, but with a few changes we will make this year it will be perfectly ride-worthy through the Alps. Tricks included a titanium rear rack, and ultralightweight camping gear.
For us, tandeming is the best of all possibilites - racing and traveling together in the places we find most beautiful, and sacrificing nothing in speed, distance or gradient.

Artmo 

[QUOTE
Dave Walker
PAKETA CYCLES[/QUOTE]

Dave, this has probably been answered elsewhere, but I've long been curious as to why you named your company PAKETA, which, in Cyrillic characters, translates to "Rocket" in English. How do you prounce it? Paketa or Rakyeta?

sixtiescycles

It's 130 mm rear spacing, as are most of the tandems we're delivering these days--although we can do anything, and 135 mm (disc brake compatible) and 145 mm (conventional tandem) are frequently done.

Low gear on this bike would be 34x36, so there's still a justifiable need for triple cranks. Many years ago (before compact cranks became common) a close friend of mine commented that we need to modify Ben Franklin's famous quote; to wit: "Only three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and a triple chain ring."

My wife and I concur fully on your tandeming sentiments: we simply love it, whether touring in Italy or New Zealand, day riding around our native Boulder County, or racing; it's all good. No, not just good, but fabulous.

sixtiescycles

Good question. The etymology you suppose is correct: it's Cyrillic, and should be pronounced, "Rah-kyet-ah," with a rolled "r," in Russian. The first frames imported by the company were manufactured in Moscow in a former Soviet aerospace (read: defense industry) factory. They're actually pretty good; my wife still has her first road bike, which has one of the Russian-made magnesium frames. Since late 2004, though, all frames have been entirely Colorado-made, even including the tubing, which was (I say "was" because all the production equipment has now been moved to Mexico; another casualty of high labor costs in this country) extruded in Denver. The same tubing (i.e., same alloy and produced in the same plant--not necessarily the exact tube sizes or shapes) was used in the original Pinarello Dogma FP magnesium road model.

We've anglicized the pronunciation to "Pah-ket'-ah" these days. I rather prefer the original, myself, but we'll answer to either

Dave, this has probably been answered elsewhere, but I've long been curious as to why you named your company PAKETA, which, in Cyrillic characters, translates to "Rocket" in English. How do you prounce it? Paketa or Rakyeta?[/QUOTE]

Ritterview

So, most of the Paketa tandems have 130 mm without a disc brake dropout. If the customer wants disc brake capability, then at least 135 mm is used.

Example of no disc brake dropout Paketa.



No dropout:


If you used 135 mm, you would arguably gain wheel strength, and inarguably gain the option for the frame to have a disc brake dropout, and thus the option for a disc in the future, even if initially the team was satisfied with calipers.

There seems to me no dramatic advantage to having 130 mm in lieu of 135 mm, a possible disadvantage in decreased wheel dish and thus strength, and a definite disadvantage of not having the option for a disc in the future.

Disc brakes are making inroads into road cycling, and new developments are likely to make discs more advantageous relative to calipers in the future. So too will these developments favor the 135 mm OLD with hub availability, etc. It can be foreseen that a 130 mm dropout-less tandem will be increasingly anachronistic.

If the tandem team finds that calipers are insufficient, or that their riding evolves to include more technical descents, or they move/travel to a vertiginous region, or they want to do loaded touring, or want to sell their frame to a team wanting discs, then they are out of luck, locked into a no dropout frame.

I just don't see why 130 mm.

sixtiescycles

The rationale for 130 mm is simple: compatibility with conventional road wheels. As far as wheel strength goes, it's entirely possible to build 130 mm wheels that are up to tandem duty. The fact that most of our customers are using 130 mm wheels (over eight years of tandem production--in fact, the very first tandem we built, which was my own, was 130 mm spacing, and it's still in use) should be sufficient to prove that. The difference between 130 and 135 spacing is minor in comparison to proper wheel design, as I've written about extensively. See for example this thread: https://fairwheelbikes.com/cycling-bl...-overload.html

We're following the road disc brake scene--see the Campy Super Record EPS (electronic shifting)-equipped road bike with disc brakes we showed at NAHBS as an example--but it's not clear that it's the best solution for the majority of tandem riders. An auxiliary disc brake, perhaps (and that's a fairly common fitment on our tandems), but as a primary stopper, not at this time. We'll see how the technology evolves.

As our frames have a replaceable dropout, it's an easy transition to fit a disc brake: just swap out the left side dropout for a disc brake version. If you specify so, you can have the requisite cable stops on the frame from the factory for a clean installation.

Ritterview

According to Bike Rumor
So, for bikes destined for discs, the 135 mm spacing appears to be the new road standard. You indicated that 135 mm is what you use for discs.

Is your SR equipped disc road bike 130 or 135 mm? That looks like a DT Swiss Disc brake hub, which is 135 mm.



Ok, you can fit a dropout onto a dropout-less 130 OLD frame (I'd like to see a pic of that). But you'd still have a 130 OLD frame, which is not the optimal width for discs. There are a lot more 135 mm non-disc hubs available than there are 130 mm disc hubs.

Maybe it is not clear that [discs are] the best solution for the majority of tandem riders. But, I think that it is clear that the future option of a disc is optimal for the majority now, and that in a disc-compatible 135 mm OLD frame.

If a team finds that it has a 135 mm frame and it is fine with calipers, there is very little downside. There are plenty of non-disc hubs and wheels available in 135 mm. But if the team discovers that with 130 mm that their the calipers are insufficient, then to retrieve their situation they may have to replace their frame to obtain the braking power they need. They are literally hemmed in by the 130 mm OLD. I don't see where the abundance of 130 mm road wheels makes this restricted choice of brakes worthwhile.