Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Tandem Cycling
Reload this Page >

Planning the new Ritchey breakaway tandem build

Notices
Tandem Cycling A bicycle built for two. Want to find out more about this wonderful world of tandems? Check out this forum to talk with other tandem enthusiasts. Captains and stokers welcome!

Planning the new Ritchey breakaway tandem build

Old 11-29-21, 05:18 PM
  #26  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Well, looks like this is going to be more complicated than I thought.

I was going to convert the FSA Gossamer triple crank to a 50/34 double. But turns out no one makes a 34 tooth chainring with a 74 BCD! So now I'm stumped. Maybe I'll have to do a 48/32, or I don't know what. It's really not straightforward, a tandem drivetrain...
samkl is offline  
Old 11-29-21, 08:54 PM
  #27  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Does anyone know if itís possible to replace the FSA Gossamer stoker crank with a regular, non-tandem Gossamer double crank on the drive side? Or is the spindle not long enough?

Thatíd be cheaper and simpler than the other options Iím looking at.
samkl is offline  
Old 11-29-21, 09:16 PM
  #28  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,039
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1881 Post(s)
Liked 387 Times in 277 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Well, looks like this is going to be more complicated than I thought.

I was going to convert the FSA Gossamer triple crank to a 50/34 double. But turns out no one makes a 34 tooth chainring with a 74 BCD! So now I'm stumped. Maybe I'll have to do a 48/32, or I don't know what. It's really not straightforward, a tandem drivetrain...
Me again. Just ran some numbers through a gear calculator. What range cassette were you thinking? No normal cassette is going to make either of your choices workable. It's really hard to find a cassette that doesn't start with 11 teeth. 50x11 = 122 gear inches. You won't use that a whole lot. Next down is 50x13 = 103". That one you will use. You've wasted a gear and you don't really have any to spare. The low end is just as limited. 34x 34 is 28 gear inches and that is ok (kind of) for a 1/2 bike, but a tandem needs to do much better. 20", 18" even. Let's look at the 48/32 --- 48x11 = 117" That isn't bad actually. I'll just cut to the chase: if you can stomach the cost, a 48/32 x 11-50 12sp makes for about the only 2x system I would send a tandem out into the real world with.

Last edited by Leisesturm; 11-29-21 at 09:23 PM.
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 11-30-21, 07:13 AM
  #29  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
I am not at all sure but I don't see why an FSA Gossamer road double crank could not replace the triple. The axle should be shorter because it is a double, but it should still fit a standard BSA 68 BB. You should have less chainlink issue with the double than with the triple run as a double.

Our new tandem (which I'm still building up) will have 46/30 and 11 speed 10-42 with GRX di2 shifting. We have not ridden it yet but plenty of people have used GRX with a 42 tooth cassette, with a RoadLink DM. 46x10 is a bigger gear than 48x11, and in our area (New England) we are often spun out (>30 mph) on our current tandem. Low gear with this setup is 19 gear inch which we use often and goes a little under 3 mph.

I went with Light Bicycle WR 45 rims laced to 32 hole DT 240 hubs. Not the cheapest wheelset for sure and they have not stood the test of time, but I seriously doubt they are not strong enough.

I had a set of TRP Hy/RD brakes on a gravel bike and would never recommend them for a tandem. I know others have used them with success and it sounds like it really matters what levers you are using. The main issue I had was not power but getting that power without the lever bottoming out. It just so happens I had Rival levers. I don't understand the resistance to hydraulic brakes in the tandem world. But that is another thread!
Chilepines is offline  
Old 11-30-21, 08:51 AM
  #30  
DangerousDanR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Fargo ND
Posts: 375

Bikes: Lynskey R350, Ritchey Breakaway, Ritchey Double Switchback, Lynskey Ridgeline, ICAN Fatbike

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 184 Times in 104 Posts
Originally Posted by Chilepines View Post
I don't understand the resistance to hydraulic brakes in the tandem world. But that is another thread!
I do understand the reason OP wants to go with the TRP cable brakes. This is a Ritchey Breakaway, The idea is to take it apart and put it in a couple of cases so you can fly with it. With cable actuated brakes an inexpensive and dead reliable coupling is available from several sources.

I have mine setup as a flat bar bike partly so I can easily remove the brakes from the bike and pack them in leak resistant plastic bags when we fly. With a drop bar setup you would have to leave the levers/master cylinder on the bars and find a bag big enough to hold both the brakes and the bars, or get very fast at taping the bars.
DangerousDanR is offline  
Old 11-30-21, 11:32 PM
  #31  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Does anyone know if itís possible to replace the FSA Gossamer stoker crank with a regular, non-tandem Gossamer double crank on the drive side? Or is the spindle not long enough?

Thatíd be cheaper and simpler than the other options Iím looking at.
BTW - the new FSA Gossamer Road Double has many chainring size options, including 48/32 and 46/30. Since you have the FSA tandem set already, why not give FSA a shot at answering your question and let us know the answer!
Chilepines is offline  
Old 12-01-21, 09:23 AM
  #32  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Just heard back from FSA, and sadly it won't work. The tandem cranks and regular cranks use a different spindle. Ack.

So, I decided to go ahead and do a 48/32 double with a 11-32 cassette. Considering the FSA triple comes with a 30t small ring (traditional tandem gearing), I don't think 32t is outrageous. If we ever travel somewhere really hilly (we live in the prairie) I'll pop on an 11-40 with a roadlink. 48-11 still gets us to 31.5mph pedaling at 90rpm.

Originally Posted by Chilepines View Post
BTW - the new FSA Gossamer Road Double has many chainring size options, including 48/32 and 46/30. Since you have the FSA tandem set already, why not give FSA a shot at answering your question and let us know the answer!
samkl is offline  
Old 12-01-21, 09:29 AM
  #33  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Just heard back from FSA, and sadly it won't work. The tandem cranks and regular cranks use a different spindle. Ack.

So, I decided to go ahead and do a 48/32 double with a 11-32 cassette. Considering the FSA triple comes with a 30t small ring (traditional tandem gearing), I don't think 32t is outrageous. If we ever travel somewhere really hilly (we live in the prairie) I'll pop on an 11-40 with a roadlink. 48-11 still gets us to 31.5mph pedaling at 90rpm.
Good to know. One can only imagine the reason for using a different spindle. It would be nice if the manufacturers would make this easier!
Chilepines is offline  
Old 12-01-21, 05:32 PM
  #34  
Alcanbrad
Senior Member
 
Alcanbrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 388

Bikes: '14 CoMo Carrera, '11 CoMo Primera co-pilot, '98 Santana Visa, a Plethora of road bikes, A commuter/Gravel beast (and 1 MTB)

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked 34 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Well, looks like this is going to be more complicated than I thought.

I was going to convert the FSA Gossamer triple crank to a 50/34 double. But turns out no one makes a 34 tooth chainring with a 74 BCD! So now I'm stumped. Maybe I'll have to do a 48/32, or I don't know what. It's really not straightforward, a tandem drivetrain...
I believe that Precision tandems sells both and 34 and 36 in 74BCD. I put a 36 on our gossamer triple when I converted it to a double when upgrading to eTap Red 11 speed a year or so back.

We now run a 36/50 with an 11-42 and that puts us almost right at the lowest we had with the triple while we gave up a little on the high end. If you play with the combinations in a spread sheet you should be able to see if any combination would work for you.
Alcanbrad is offline  
Old 12-04-21, 04:41 PM
  #35  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Does anyone know if itís possible to replace the FSA Gossamer stoker crank with a regular, non-tandem Gossamer double crank on the drive side? Or is the spindle not long enough?

Thatíd be cheaper and simpler than the other options Iím looking at.
I tried putting the FSA Energy double from my gravel bike on the tandem I'm building up and the problem is that the tandem rear hub is 148 mm - the crank arms hit the chainstays. So that is going to be a problem if what you are switching out changes the axle. Some FSA cranks have the BB spindle on the drive side; their modular cranks have the spindle on the non drive side and then it should be possible to switch out the drive side.
Chilepines is offline  
Old 01-23-22, 05:03 PM
  #36  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Update: Ritchey got one of these back in stock, and we snapped it up. First impressions are great. The paint is gorgeous! The Breakaway clamps took some fiddling with, but I bet that'll get easier with practice.

They forgot to include a cable guide under the stoker's BB, so I'm awaiting one of those so I can get the cables routed properly.

Currently halfway built (still need to get a MegaExo bottom bracket tool...):

samkl is offline  
Likes For samkl:
Old 01-29-22, 09:55 AM
  #37  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
That frame looks nice!
I'm curious to know how the crank set up is working out. You said you are going with a 48/32 double - but which? You already found out from FSA that the standard road double will not work so what does?
Chilepines is offline  
Old 01-31-22, 10:51 AM
  #38  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Chilepines View Post
That frame looks nice!
I'm curious to know how the crank set up is working out. You said you are going with a 48/32 double - but which? You already found out from FSA that the standard road double will not work so what does?
​​​​
Funny you should ask--this is exactly what's driving me crazy right now.

I got 48/32 chainrings to convert my FSA Gossamer tandem crankset from a triple to a double, putting the 48 in the middle position and the 32 in the small position.

But when I installed the new chainrings the spacing was clearly off: the chainrings were way too close to each other. If there was a chain on it, it would rub against the 48t chainring bolts. So I'm totally stumped. The new chainrings are 11-speed, and the old were 9 speed, but I don't see how that would create this problem.

I'm considering getting chainring spacers to fix it, but I'm very open to suggestions. Otherwise I might sell the FSA crankset and get a proper double, but I can't seem to find any tandem doubles except for ultra-expensive carbon ones.
samkl is offline  
Old 01-31-22, 02:17 PM
  #39  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Did you get a new chain? If not, that could be the reason - although that only makes partial sense since 9 spd worked before and it's the same crank.
Your new setup has a much bigger jump in ring size between the inner and middle rings and with the chain rubbing on the 48, that sounds like a chainline problem. Moving the crank out (is possible) should help.
Curious to hear other thoughts.
Chilepines is offline  
Old 01-31-22, 08:58 PM
  #40  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Thinking about this again - did you use the original chainring bolts on the 48? There used to be 2 rings there and now there is 1, so you need shorter single ring bolts.
Chilepines is offline  
Old 01-31-22, 09:35 PM
  #41  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Chilepines View Post
Thinking about this again - did you use the original chainring bolts on the 48? There used to be 2 rings there and now there is 1, so you need shorter single ring bolts.
Interesting thought, but i donít think thatís it. I did use the original bolts. I tried single ring bolts too, but they were actually too short. The original bolts fit fine, and there was enough excess thread that they could still tighten.

The chainrings are just too close to each other, and Iím totally confused as to why.
samkl is offline  
Old 02-07-22, 11:15 AM
  #42  
headasunder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
Interesting thought, but i donít think thatís it. I did use the original bolts. I tried single ring bolts too, but they were actually too short. The original bolts fit fine, and there was enough excess thread that they could still tighten.

The chainrings are just too close to each other, and Iím totally confused as to why.
Are the chainrings orientated correctly the small ring has writing facing towards the frame and the large ring is the opposite
headasunder is offline  
Old 02-08-22, 02:10 AM
  #43  
scycheng
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 145

Bikes: Too few

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post
​​​​
But when I installed the new chainrings the spacing was clearly off: the chainrings were way too close to each other. If there was a chain on it, it would rub against the 48t chainring bolts. So I'm totally stumped. The new chainrings are 11-speed, and the old were 9 speed, but I don't see how that would create this problem.
When I did 3x8 to 2x11 conversion on my Merlin road bike, I needed to replace the chain ring spacers on the Mavic crankset so the chainring spacing is correct for 11S chain and chainring. Vague memory of using 3mm down from 4mm but I could be wrong on the precise thickness.
scycheng is offline  
Likes For scycheng:
Old 04-05-22, 12:39 PM
  #44  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
After much delay, we just got back from our first trip… and first ride on the new bike!





I couldn’t figure out the chainring issue so I had to swap out the Ultegra drivetrain for a 3x9 with bar-end shifters.

Overall impressions: we like it a lot. Compared to our old Burley, it’s much quieter, the drivetrain works much better, and my stoker says it’s much more comfortable (probably the eeSilk seatpost). For me it’s a little more comfortable too. It’s also stiffer—noticeable when climbing out of the saddle. I think it’s 10lbs lighter too. Overall we love it.

It feels very sturdy, which is unexpected because the breakaway clamps seem so insubstantial in your hand.

The most noticeable thing to me is the handling. The steering is so sluggish that I thought the headset was too tight! But no, I triple checked it. It just has very high trail. I’m sure I’ll get used to it but it’s pretty weird.

The disc brakes are interesting. They work great on flat surfaces, but the lack of a drum brake made descending a short, twisty, steep mountain a little sketchy. I didn’t ride the brakes but when we got to the bottom, I poured water on the 203mm rotors and it sizzled like a hot frying pan.

Overall we’re looking forward to many adventurous miles on it!

Last edited by samkl; 04-15-22 at 09:36 AM.
samkl is offline  
Old 04-05-22, 09:01 PM
  #45  
Chilepines
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152

Bikes: 1984 homemade 531SL road bike; 1988 Ritchey TimberComp; 1997 Nashbar tandem; 1998 Kona Explosive; Specialized Epic, Scott CR1 Pro; Salsa Beargrease; Curtlo custom Tandem.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by samkl View Post

The most noticeable thing to me is the handling. The steering is so sluggish that I thought the headset was too tight! But no, I triple checked it. It just has very high trail. Iím sure Iíll get used to it but itís pretty weird.

The disc brakes are interesting. They work great on flat surfaces, but the lack of a drum brake made descending a short, twisty, steep mountain a little sketchy. I didnít ride the brakes but when we got to the bottom, I poured water on the 203mm rotors and it sizzled like a hot frying pan.
Interesting about the handling feel. I'm doubtful it is high trail with a 71.5 degree head angle and 47 mm offset the trail comes out to 63 mm. That is pretty standard. Could also be different weight distribution depending on reach and stem length.

And don't throw water on your hot rotors! They'll warp.
Chilepines is offline  
Old 04-05-22, 09:50 PM
  #46  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Chilepines View Post
Interesting about the handling feel. I'm doubtful it is high trail with a 71.5 degree head angle and 47 mm offset the trail comes out to 63 mm. That is pretty standard. Could also be different weight distribution depending on reach and stem length.
Hm, interesting. Whatever it was, it was definitely noticeable, but Iím sure Iíll get used to it.
samkl is offline  
Old 04-06-22, 12:01 PM
  #47  
reburns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The valley of the heart’s delight
Posts: 384

Bikes: 2005 Trek T2000; 2005 Co-motion Speedster Co-pilot; various non-tandem road and mountain bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 29 Posts
A bit off topic but interesting story: my wife/stoker and I drove our tandem from our home in the south sf bay to the coast to ride one of our favorite routes near Pescadero, CA. Driving back home up steep narrow Alpine road, we came upon a tall couple riding a sky blue tandem at a fast pace uphill. When we could pass safely, I glanced over and saw that it was Tom Ritchey and his wife, with big smiles on their faces. I go "that’s Tom Ritchey!", and my wife says "who’s Tom Ritchey?" They seemed to have no problem with how the bike was handling ☺️
reburns is offline  
Likes For reburns:
Old 04-14-22, 11:22 PM
  #48  
uspspro
Tandem Mountain Climber
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 4,103

Bikes: Calfee Tandem, Litespeed Gravel, SuperSix Evo HM, Larry vs. Harry Bullitt (e-cargo)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
I really wanted to build one of these for travel. But the fact they only come in one size was deal-breaker. Sweet bike!
uspspro is offline  
Old 04-15-22, 09:38 AM
  #49  
samkl 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 484

Bikes: 2004 Trek 520, resto-modded 1987 Cannondale SR400, rando-modded 1976 AD Vent Noir; 2019 Wabi Classic; 1989? Burley Duet

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 44 Posts
Thanks. We really like it. Quite a bargain too with the couplers and the cases included.
samkl is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.