Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501

    Future Tandem Developments: Full suspension plus? Full Suspension Fat?

    When will we see a plus sized full suspension tandem?

    I asked Sherwood about it last year before we ordered our El Jefe.

    If I could get the El Conquistador with a plus sized triangle, I do believe that'd suffice

    I'd also be interested in a full suspension El Jefe, that would be too cool for words!

  2. #2
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    When will we see a plus sized full suspension tandem?

    I asked Sherwood about it last year before we ordered our El Jefe.

    If I could get the El Conquistador with a plus sized triangle, I do believe that'd suffice

    I'd also be interested in a full suspension El Jefe, that would be too cool for words!
    You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut View Post
    You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.
    Does it lower the bb at all? How does it affect handling?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    I'm also interested in a FS El Jefe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    Does it lower the bb at all? How does it affect handling?
    It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
    Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
    Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut View Post
    It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
    Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
    Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.
    Could you get Sherwood to modify the rear triangle to fit plus tires?

    I like 27+, I run them on my bike and was running them on the Jefe, but for a tandem mtb, 29+ is where it's at for roll over and bridging obstacles that can't be avoided.

    I like the Jefe, but my wife wants a cushier ride and I think FS would improve handling.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Could you get Sherwood to modify the rear triangle to fit plus tires?

    I like 27+, I run them on my bike and was running them on the Jefe, but for a tandem mtb, 29+ is where it's at for roll over and bridging obstacles that can't be avoided.

    I like the Jefe, but my wife wants a cushier ride and I think FS would improve handling.
    You should ride a 29er ECDM with 2.4 tire on 35mm rim. It's pretty darn close to what you are talking about.

    Admittedly not the same...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    I rode 29 x 2.4 Ardents on wide rims, it is not even close to the ride I get on 29+ Dirt Wizards.

    Tandems are so much better handling on fat tires.

    Quote Originally Posted by ds2199 View Post
    You should ride a 29er ECDM with 2.4 tire on 35mm rim. It's pretty darn close to what you are talking about.

    Admittedly not the same...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut View Post
    You can run 27.5 x 2.8" tires on 35mm rims in a 29'er ECDM frame and fork. We're doing a few builds like that now. Rear tire clearance is similar to 29x2.4" Ardents.
    How much clearsnce in mm at the stays and bridges? Which tire are you using?

  10. #10
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    How much clearsnce in mm at the stays and bridges? Which tire are you using?
    I'll have a couple of builds coming up shortly and can measure the actual gap then.
    The gap is very similar to the Ardent 2.4 when using the WTB Trailblazer 2.8.
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,610
    Me as well. I would think a new rear triangle for the ECDM would be a much easier build than a whole new frame. Sticking with 27.5+ or 29+ would allow keeping the standard BB shell.
    "Wait- I am confused" - SDMTB'er

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    Me as well. I would think a new rear triangle for the ECDM would be a much easier build than a whole new frame. Sticking with 27.5+ or 29+ would allow keeping the standard BB shell.
    Yes, but when I asked Sherwood about modifying the rear triangle, he said he didn't have time.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut View Post
    It lowers the BB slightly, but the 29'er is higher than the 26'er and 27.5'er, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
    Not enough time on it to have anything definitive on the handling yet, other than it feels like it turns quicker like a 27.5 does, but also feels a bit longer (which it is). Still playing with the tire pressure on the 35mm rims as well, and that will have a major effect on handling.
    Hoping to try some slightly wider rims shortly as well.
    Do you happen to have any pictures of B+ rear clearance?
    "Wait- I am confused" - SDMTB'er

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    401
    I too am interested in 27+. Rode a Salsa Pony Rustler in Sedona - AMAZING. Think that would be a sweet spot for tandem mtb. Only have a road tandem presently, but keep dreaming about pulling the trigger on an ECDM (Have 2 single ventana's for myself).

    While off topic from wheel size, but on topic for future development - anyone know of applications of the Pinion gear box on a tandem? A quick google search says pinon was testing one, but that was it. Think the gear range of the P1.12 at 600% vs Rohloff at 526% makes it attractive as well as not having all the mass as rotating mass (thought Pinion is heavier than Rohloff). Seems like it would be a good fit for tandem overnights...and Ventana is already making a HT single bike for the Pinon gear box (wolfram). Co-motion has it too on a single bike - but doesn't look like it is on any of their tandems...yet.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    133
    If it's just traction and suppleness you're after, you should try the Schwalbe Procore system. I ride my 26" ECdM with my 8 year old son with the rear tire at ~14 psi in a wider than labeled 2.35 Kenda Excavator, and 50 psi in the ProCore chamber. It's a FANTASTIC solution to getting more grip without the risk of burping tubeless or rim damage. Our terrain is loose, technical, and chundery. It's greatly enhanced the capability of the ShredSled.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    721

    Future Tandem Developments: Full suspension plus? Full Suspension Fat?

    I've got a ½ dozen rides on my 29+ hard tail (single bike) and am convinced that 29+ is the way to go for MTB tandems. I'm amazed at the difference in the way it rolls thru a rock garden compared to the 29x2.4s on my FS bike.


    Of course, finding a good tandem-rated 29+ suspension fork might be tricky.
    --Reamer

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    I've got a ½ dozen rides on my 29+ hard tail (single bike) and am convinced that 29+ is the way to go for MTB tandems. I'm amazed at the difference in the way it rolls thru a rock garden compared to the 29x2.4s on my FS bike.


    Of course, finding a good tandem-rated 29+ suspension fork might be tricky.
    I wonder if the Wren will take a 29+. I believe it is tandem-rated.

    I'd be happy with a 27.5+ tandem.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    231
    There are really only forks that hold up to tandem use and not "tandem rated" ones. No tandem specific fork standards exist. Some of the smaller manufacturers give their forks a nod as being up to tandem use and that's fine, but this should not be interpreted as tested to a tandem standard.

    The new Fox "Speed Pedalec" are designed for ebikes and have thicker stanchions and steer tube. The 110mm fork spacing is + bike ready. The Pedalec 34mm uses 32mm internals because of the increased wall thickness and is stiffer than the regular 36mm. It seems like the beefier 36mm Speed Pedalec would be pretty hard to break. Don't hold your breath waiting for Fox to say they are "tandem rated" though.
    2 wheels == True

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by ebnelson View Post
    There are really only forks that hold up to tandem use and not "tandem rated" ones. No tandem specific fork standards exist. Some of the smaller manufacturers give their forks a nod as being up to tandem use and that's fine, but this should not be interpreted as tested to a tandem standard.

    The new Fox "Speed Pedalec" are designed for ebikes and have thicker stanchions and steer tube. The 110mm fork spacing is + bike ready. The Pedalec 34mm uses 32mm internals because of the increased wall thickness and is stiffer than the regular 36mm. It seems like the beefier 36mm Speed Pedalec would be pretty hard to break. Don't hold your breath waiting for Fox to say they are "tandem rated" though.
    From the riders on Fox in here, even the vanilla 36mm is stout enough (short of going double crown with a Fox 40mm)... seems Speed Pedelec chassis should be enough, given the motor power is 250~500W, which is about the output of a decent cyclist... the S-Pedelec doesn't quite add the weight of an extra person, though halfway there in terms of loads being less nimble through terrain...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyJ View Post
    From the riders on Fox in here, even the vanilla 36mm is stout enough (short of going double crown with a Fox 40mm)... seems Speed Pedelec chassis should be enough, given the motor power is 250~500W, which is about the output of a decent cyclist... the S-Pedelec doesn't quite add the weight of an extra person, though halfway there in terms of loads being less nimble through terrain...
    Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?

    Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --Reamer

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?

    Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Pretty sure PMK runs a 29er tandem with travel reduced Fox 40s... lateral clearance should be fine even for 29x3.0, though may need to reduce travel another 10mm to around 150mm if going the mid-fat 29er route... as with all half-bike-used-on-tandem things, appears to be "suck it and see".

    Oh, and when the Krampus came out, didn't the existing F34 29er already was "OK" with 29x3.0? Was a bit tight however it did work. So by rights I can't see the 36 29er S-Pedelec being an issue running 29x3.0?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    Will a Fox 40 take a 29x3.00?

    Yeah, I've never been too concerned by "tandem rated" but the number of stout-enough 29x3 capable forks may be a bit limited.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    A 90-110mm travel x 150 hub spaced Wren fork will clear a 29+, but you need to look into the differences between the various hub spacings, it could be different with 110, 135 hub spacing.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,501
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    I wonder if the Wren will take a 29+. I believe it is tandem-rated.

    I'd be happy with a 27.5+ tandem.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes, it does.

  24. #24
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyJ View Post
    Pretty sure PMK runs a 29er tandem with travel reduced Fox 40s... lateral clearance should be fine even for 29x3.0, though may need to reduce travel another 10mm to around 150mm if going the mid-fat 29er route... as with all half-bike-used-on-tandem things, appears to be "suck it and see".

    Oh, and when the Krampus came out, didn't the existing F34 29er already was "OK" with 29x3.0? Was a bit tight however it did work. So by rights I can't see the 36 29er S-Pedelec being an issue running 29x3.0?
    Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by PMK View Post
    Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.
    Yeah, I've got an older Fox 40 on our ECDM -- definitely no room for a 29" wheel. Probably not even a 27.5.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --Reamer

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by PMK View Post
    Correcting what was posted, we run a Fox 40 reduced travel for 26 with a 26 wheel on our ECDM.
    Whoops, my bad... stand corrected.

  27. #27
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyJ View Post
    Whoops, my bad... stand corrected.
    No worries about that, just did not want others to think the big wheel would fit...
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    106
    Not to hijack this thread, but anyone know of a good resource for info or a how to on shortening up travel on Fox forks? All the chat about them here got me back to thinking I'd like to try one out, but I really don't want to put a long front fork on the ECDM (currently running a DUC32 that's using the internals from a SC32 to lower it/reduce travel... never felt right with the longer, stock DUC32 travel).

  29. #29
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Paul Proteus View Post
    Not to hijack this thread, but anyone know of a good resource for info or a how to on shortening up travel on Fox forks? All the chat about them here got me back to thinking I'd like to try one out, but I really don't want to put a long front fork on the ECDM (currently running a DUC32 that's using the internals from a SC32 to lower it/reduce travel... never felt right with the longer, stock DUC32 travel).
    Honestly the method to shorten the travel varies depending on the fork model or design. Some are pretty easy with production parts others require some thought, design and fabricating one off parts.
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 04:26 AM
  2. Full Suspension 29er Tandem
    By ds2199 in forum Tandem Mountain Bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-28-2011, 04:27 AM
  3. Full Suspension 29er Tandem Review
    By ds2199 in forum Tandem Mountain Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-21-2011, 01:25 PM

Members who have read this thread: 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •