Tandem wheel choice?

[David L. Johnso]

I recently acquired a NOS, but somewhat shopworn, Schwinn "Duo Sport" tandem frame. It's from the
early '90s, and is a nicely-done lugged steel mixte-back design, and will fit both myself and my
wife well enough to try this idea out.

I was able to get, by swapping parts, the three special cranks needed. Now all I need are a fork
(tough to find maybe, 1.125") and wheels, and the rest will be easy.

Biggest problem is the rear wheel, since the frame is sized for 700c or 27" wheels, and has 130mm
spacing. I am thinking of using Sun Rhyno Lite rims, which Sheldon has in 700c/36hole, or
CR-18/48-hole, but the 130mm spacing limits my choices. Here is what I see as the options:

1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me use
cassettes and whichever shifters I can find cheap...

2) Get a Suzue freewheel hub, which is available in 48 hole, 130mm size. This would limit me to
whatever freewheels I can find, and also would probably mean friction shifting.

3) Spread the rear to 140 or 145 and get one of the several modern tandem cassette hubs, again
48-hole. This would give a stronger wheel and would allow me to use cassettes. But would the
frame spread that much? Would spreading the frame weaken it?

I did have an old road bike cold set to 130mm, and that worked OK, but 15mm seems to be quite a bit
of spread. Is 140mm enough to make a significantly stronger wheel? On the other hand, with these
rims, would 36 spokes be enough? Neither of us is particularly light, and our combined weight will
be well over 300 pounds no matter what we do. The 36-spoke option certainly would be the
cheapest/easiest. The freewheel hub is my least-favored option at the moment.

The bike would be used mostly for club rides, and possibly the occasional blind-stoker event. If we
ever got to the point of doing loaded touring, it would be a good excuse for a new bike.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are
extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

[A Muzi]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I recently acquired a NOS, but somewhat shopworn, Schwinn "Duo Sport" tandem frame. It's from the
> early '90s, and is a nicely-done lugged steel mixte-back design, and will fit both myself and my
> wife well enough to try this idea out.
>
> I was able to get, by swapping parts, the three special cranks needed. Now all I need are a fork
> (tough to find maybe, 1.125") and wheels, and the rest will be easy.
>
> Biggest problem is the rear wheel, since the frame is sized for 700c or 27" wheels, and has 130mm
> spacing. I am thinking of using Sun Rhyno Lite rims, which Sheldon has in 700c/36hole, or
> CR-18/48-hole, but the 130mm spacing limits my choices. Here is what I see as the options:
>
> 1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me use
> cassettes and whichever shifters I can find cheap...
>
> 2) Get a Suzue freewheel hub, which is available in 48 hole, 130mm size. This would limit me to
> whatever freewheels I can find, and also would probably mean friction shifting.
>
> 3) Spread the rear to 140 or 145 and get one of the several modern tandem cassette hubs, again
> 48-hole. This would give a stronger wheel and would allow me to use cassettes. But would the
> frame spread that much? Would spreading the frame weaken it?
>
> I did have an old road bike cold set to 130mm, and that worked OK, but 15mm seems to be quite a
> bit of spread. Is 140mm enough to make a significantly stronger wheel? On the other hand, with
> these rims, would 36 spokes be enough? Neither of us is particularly light, and our combined
> weight will be well over 300 pounds no matter what we do. The 36-spoke option certainly would be
> the cheapest/easiest. The freewheel hub is my least-favored option at the moment.
>
> The bike would be used mostly for club rides, and possibly the occasional blind-stoker event. If
> we ever got to the point of doing loaded touring, it would be a good excuse for a new bike.

My suggestion would be to go to 140 or 160 with a cassette and 48 holes.

The frame alignmnent is straightforward ( but get an in-person opinion from someone who regularly
does frame repair/alignment first). Check out Santana's built wheel offerings - they are a good
value IMHO. Cassette axles, as you know, are much better in service than freewheel axles due to the
bearing placement at the outside, cassettes are more avialable and cheaper than freewheels and
standard nine speed stuff is the current standard with a range of equipment (new and used) and both
the widest selection and availability.

That also makes your tandem compatible with your other bike for Ergo equipment. A Shimano-format
nine cassette shifts just fne in an Ergo setuup and the new 92mm-cage Campagnolo rear derailleurs
are great with a 34t Sachs nine cassette.

(Although you found proper tandem crank arms, pedal threads may be easily reversed with a
5/8"=>9/16" steel insert) -- Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1
April 1971

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

david-<< 1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me
use cassettes and whichever shifters I can find cheap..

I say pick a shimano hub with outboard axle support, best idea for a tandem,
IMO.

<< 2) Get a Suzue freewheel hub, which is available in 48 hole, 130mm size. This would limit me to
whatever freewheels I can find, and also would probably mean friction shifting.

I wouldn't use a freewheel hub for a tandem.

Or space the wheel to 135mm and get a 40h hub and rim...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Paul Kopit]

On Mon, 19 May 2003 00:08:43 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Biggest problem is the rear wheel, since the frame is sized for 700c or 27" wheels, and has 130mm
>spacing. I am thinking of using Sun Rhyno Lite rims, which Sheldon has in 700c/36hole, or
>CR-18/48-hole, but the 130mm spacing limits my choices. Here is what I see as the options:
>
>1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me use
> cassettes and whichever shifters I can find cheap...

My Cannondale Road Tandem is only spaced to 135 and it has given outstanding service on regular MTB
hubs. My team weight is usually between 325 and 350 lbs. If you don't need the threading for a drum
brake, you can get XT hubs something like a CRT-18 and have everything you need. There is a version
of the XT tandem hub that can be spaced down for 135 too.

 

[David Ornee]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I recently acquired a NOS, but somewhat shopworn, Schwinn "Duo Sport" tandem frame. It's from
> > the early '90s, and is a nicely-done lugged
steel
> > mixte-back design, and will fit both myself and my wife well enough to
try
> > this idea out.
> >
> > I was able to get, by swapping parts, the three special cranks needed. Now all I need are a fork
> > (tough to find maybe, 1.125") and wheels, and the rest will be easy.
> >
> > Biggest problem is the rear wheel, since the frame is sized for 700c or 27" wheels, and has
> > 130mm spacing. I am thinking of using Sun Rhyno
Lite
> > rims, which Sheldon has in 700c/36hole, or CR-18/48-hole, but the 130mm spacing limits my
> > choices. Here is what I see as the options:
> >
> > 1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me use
> > cassettes and whichever shifters I can find
cheap...
> >
> > 2) Get a Suzue freewheel hub, which is available in 48 hole, 130mm size. This would limit me to
> > whatever freewheels I can find, and also would probably mean friction shifting.
> >
> > 3) Spread the rear to 140 or 145 and get one of the several modern
tandem
> > cassette hubs, again 48-hole. This would give a stronger wheel and
would
> > allow me to use cassettes. But would the frame spread that much? Would spreading the frame
> > weaken it?
> >
> > I did have an old road bike cold set to 130mm, and that worked OK, but 15mm seems to be quite a
> > bit of spread. Is 140mm enough to make a significantly stronger wheel? On the other hand, with
> > these rims, would 36 spokes be enough? Neither of us is particularly light, and our combined
> > weight will be well over 300 pounds no matter what we do. The 36-spoke option certainly would be
> > the cheapest/easiest. The freewheel hub is my least-favored option at the moment.
> >
> > The bike would be used mostly for club rides, and possibly the
occasional
> > blind-stoker event. If we ever got to the point of doing loaded
touring,
> > it would be a good excuse for a new bike.
>
>
> My suggestion would be to go to 140 or 160 with a cassette and 48 holes.
>
> The frame alignmnent is straightforward ( but get an in-person opinion
from
> someone who regularly does frame repair/alignment first). Check out Santana's built wheel
> offerings - they are a good value IMHO. Cassette axles, as you know, are much better in service
> than freewheel axles due
to
> the bearing placement at the outside, cassettes are more avialable and cheaper than freewheels and
> standard nine speed stuff is the current standard with a range of equipment (new and used) and
> both the widest selection and availability.
>
> That also makes your tandem compatible with your other bike for Ergo equipment. A Shimano-format
> nine cassette shifts just fne in an Ergo
setuup
> and the new 92mm-cage Campagnolo rear derailleurs are great with a 34t Sachs nine cassette.
>
> (Although you found proper tandem crank arms, pedal threads may be easily reversed with a
> 5/8"=>9/16" steel insert) -- Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1
> April 1971
>
I agree totally. You might also check URLs: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/home-pages/wade/tandem.html
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/home-pages/wade/tandem.html for more innformation.

David Ornee, Western Springs, IL

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 19 May 2003 08:26:47 -0400, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> I wouldn't use a freewheel hub for a tandem.

We did it for years, but the best tandem grade freewheels are no longer available. And back in the
day, even with the strongest freewheels, some teams (e.g., John Bayley and Pamela Blalock) had
freewheels disintegrate under their power. One would be well advised to use a cassette hub if at
all possible.

 

[Bill Putnam]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I recently acquired a NOS, but somewhat shopworn, Schwinn "Duo Sport" tandem frame... Biggest
> problem is the rear wheel, since the frame is sized for 700c or 27" wheels, and has 130mm spacing.
> I am thinking of using Sun Rhyno Lite rims, which Sheldon has in 700c/36hole, or CR-18/48-hole,
> but the 130mm spacing limits my choices. Here is what I see as the options:
>
> 1) Use either Campy or Shimano 36-hole road hubs, which will fit in the frame and let me use
> cassettes and whichever shifters I can find cheap...
>
> 2) Get a Suzue freewheel hub, which is available in 48 hole, 130mm size. This would limit me to
> whatever freewheels I can find, and also would probably mean friction shifting.
>
> 3) Spread the rear to 140 or 145 and get one of the several modern tandem cassette hubs, again
> 48-hole. This would give a stronger wheel and would allow me to use cassettes. But would the
> frame spread that much? Would spreading the frame weaken it?
>
> I did have an old road bike cold set to 130mm, and that worked OK, but 15mm seems to be quite a
> bit of spread. Is 140mm enough to make a significantly stronger wheel? On the other hand, with
> these rims, would 36 spokes be enough? Neither of us is particularly light, and our combined
> weight will be well over 300 pounds no matter what we do. The 36-spoke option certainly would be
> the cheapest/easiest. The freewheel hub is my least-favored option at the moment.

I obtained an old Santana tandem recently, and had the rear stays spread from 140 to the current 160
mm spacing to reduce (eliminate) dish to help strengthen the wheel. This was a fairly substantial
increase in spacing, and the shop that did the work (Andy Muzi, Yellow Jersey) did un braze the
bridge and re braze it to help accommodate the re spacing. You should talk to a competent shop
locally to see if they consider 130 mm- 160 mm advisable. If you can go to 160 mm, I would encourage
you to consider this. If not, 145 mm with a 7 speed cassette would be the next strongest set up.
There's plenty of used and NOS 7 speed equipment on the market, and it's often less fiddly to get
working well than the newer 8 and 9 speed equipment.

Bill McCready of Santana has a write up on the history of drop out spacing and tandems which is at
http://www.sudibe.de/articles/wheandhub.html

How strong a wheel depends on how you plan to use your tandem, and how much you and your companion
weigh. I would definitely not use a 36 hole 130mm spaced 9 speed rear wheel on a tandem, that
situation is IMHO insufficient for many single bikes. 300+ pounds on a tandem with that set up is
asking for trouble. Reducing dish is very important for building a durable wheel, and 48 spokes will
help as well.

If you have to buy new components anyway, the most durability for the dollar is probably with a 48
hole Shimano HF-07 hubset spaced to
160mm. The marginal cost over a 145 mm spacing (basically the only additional parts needed are a
longer axle and a spacer) is well worth the expense in my opinion.

Taking a step back, however, have you considered whether the total cost of this project is really
less expensive than buying a good used tandem? A good used Santana will already have appropriate
components on it, if it's not ancient it will already have 160 mm rear spacing, and it will have a
good resale value if you decide to sell it. Also, it would likely be a much better bike to ride-I'm
very impressed by how much better even a 15 year old Santana feels than many newer tandems.

Bill Putnam

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 19 May 2003 12:23:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Putnam) wrote:

>I obtained an old Santana tandem recently, and had the rear stays spread from 140 to the current
>160 mm spacing to reduce (eliminate) dish to help strengthen the wheel.

The majority of new tandems use 145 spacing and the wheels hold up fine. Four hundred plus tandems
use this spacing. You spent lots of money to dance to the tune of the piper Santana.

The wheels are as good as the builder and the spacing will make little difference in use.

 

[James Annan]

Bill Putnam wrote:

>
> I obtained an old Santana tandem recently, and had the rear stays spread from 140 to the current
> 160 mm spacing to reduce (eliminate) dish to help strengthen the wheel. This was a fairly
> substantial increase in spacing, and the shop that did the work (Andy Muzi, Yellow Jersey) did un
> braze the bridge and re braze it to help accommodate the re spacing. You should talk to a
> competent shop locally to see if they consider 130 mm- 160 mm advisable. If you can go to 160 mm,
> I would encourage you to consider this. If not, 145 mm with a 7 speed cassette would be the next
> strongest set up.

I don't believe there is any sound substantive argument in favour of 160mm wheels over 145, but
this is probably better discussed on the tandem mailing list where there are at least as many
opinions as members.

James

 

[Paul Westall]

"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... <snip>
> I don't believe there is any sound substantive argument in favour of 160mm wheels over 145, but
> this is probably better discussed on the tandem mailing list where there are at least as many
> opinions as members.
>
> James
>
Is there a tandem newsgroup as well? If not, can you direct me to the mailing list? TIA Paul

 

[Baird Webel]

On 05/19/2003 18:19, in article [email protected], "James Annan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill Putnam wrote:
>
>>
>> I obtained an old Santana tandem recently, and had the rear stays spread from 140 to the current
>> 160 mm spacing to reduce (eliminate) dish to help strengthen the wheel. This was a fairly
>> substantial increase in spacing, and the shop that did the work (Andy Muzi, Yellow Jersey) did un
>> braze the bridge and re braze it to help accommodate the re spacing. You should talk to a
>> competent shop locally to see if they consider 130 mm- 160 mm advisable. If you can go to 160 mm,
>> I would encourage you to consider this. If not, 145 mm with a 7 speed cassette would be the next
>> strongest set up.
>
> I don't believe there is any sound substantive argument in favour of 160mm wheels over 145, but
> this is probably better discussed on the tandem mailing list where there are at least as many
> opinions as members.

I would agree on 145 vs. 160, but disagree on switching the forum...this has been beaten to death on
the tandem list, please for the love of God do not bring it back up there. It would be more
interesting to hear from folks on
r.b.tech, I think the overall level of tech knowledge is higher here.

Baird

--
Baird Webel Washington DC

 

[James Annan]

"Paul Westall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Is there a tandem newsgroup as well?

Nope

> If not, can you direct me to the mailing list?

Yes, but in deference to Baird Webel I'm not going to.

James

PS Google is your friend.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Baird Webel <[email protected]> wrote:

>I would agree on 145 vs. 160, but disagree on switching the forum...this has been beaten to death
>on the tandem list, please for the love of God do not bring it back up there. It would be more
>interesting to hear from folks on
>r.b.tech, I think the overall level of tech knowledge is higher here.

Heh heh heh.

FWIW, my own (old) Santana has 140mm dropouts, 36 rear spokes, and I've never, ever had a problem. I
certainly would rather my rear wheel have slightly less lateral strength (though it's nearly
dishless, so that's just not a problem), than have to adapt to ride "John Wayne style" with horribly
wide spacing on the cranks.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Bill Putnam]

Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 19 May 2003 12:23:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Putnam) wrote:
>
> >I obtained an old Santana tandem recently, and had the rear stays spread from 140 to the current
> >160 mm spacing to reduce (eliminate) dish to help strengthen the wheel.
>
>
> The majority of new tandems use 145 spacing and the wheels hold up fine. Four hundred plus tandems
> use this spacing. You spent lots of money to dance to the tune of the piper Santana.
>
> The wheels are as good as the builder and the spacing will make little difference in use.

The cost to me was quite reasonable, the bike has an old Suzue freewheel hub which had a bent axle
so that needed replacing anyway. My additional cost to do go to 160 mm instead of 145 was
essentially zero, as I needed a new axle and skewer (the old axle was bolt on and I wanted a quick
release) anyway. Cost for a new axle, new axle cones and bearings, skewer, respacing the rear
triangle, and professional quality touch up respray (the paint was pretty rough after years of use)
around the rear triangle was under $85. Now if I want to upgrade the wheel to a cassette format the
bike will be ready for it.

With tandems I don't think there's anything wrong with building up a wheel that may be a bit
stronger than is needed. With less dish a wheel will be stronger and more durable, all other things
being equal. I've seen enough tandems with failed rear wheels that I'd rather be on the conservative
side when it comes to strength. Especially now with the generally poor design rims that are
available (Oh give me a Super Champion Mod. 58), having even spoke tension is that much more
important to maximize the life of the rim. The weight penalty from the longer axle and skewer is
practically insignificant. I bought another Santana tandem (160 mm rear spacing, EDCO cassette hub)
new in 1993 and after nearly 10,000 miles of riding it has needed tires, drive chains, brake pads,
and a bit of oil and grease. Nothing else. The wheels have never gone out of true. I know other
people with tandems locally that have not fared so well, and all of them had 145 mm spaced rear
wheels. Granted you can take good parts and a good design and a poor wheel build will still produce
junk, but why not make a tandem wheel as strong as possible when the cost is minimal?

Bill

 

[Bill Putnam]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Baird Webel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I would agree on 145 vs. 160, but disagree on switching the forum...this has been beaten to death
> >on the tandem list, please for the love of God do not bring it back up there. It would be more
> >interesting to hear from folks on
> >r.b.tech, I think the overall level of tech knowledge is higher here.
>
> Heh heh heh.
>
> FWIW, my own (old) Santana has 140mm dropouts, 36 rear spokes, and I've never, ever had a problem.
> I certainly would rather my rear wheel have slightly less lateral strength (though it's nearly
> dishless, so that's just not a problem), than have to adapt to ride "John Wayne style" with
> horribly wide spacing on the cranks.
>
> Mark Hickey

After spreading my Santana from 140 to 160 mm, the same TA pro 5 vis cranks and bb axle still work
fine. Chainline is not a problem with this set up as thankfully the Santana has reasonable length
chainstays. 145 mm will provide a wheel with reasonable dish if you use a 7 speed rear cassette, but
most new bikes use 9 speed rear cassettes, which increases the dish.

 

[Mark Janeba]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> I did have an old road bike cold set to 130mm, and that worked OK, but 15mm seems to be quite a
> bit of spread. Is 140mm enough to make a significantly stronger wheel?

I really don't think so. HOWEVER, arranging the spacing for a dishless rear should help a bunch,
that's my opinion. I think the limiting factor in choosing rear width is the available hub selection
and type of freewheel/cassette you want, not strength.

> On the other hand, with these rims, would 36 spokes be enough? Neither of us is particularly
> light, and our combined weight will be well over 300 pounds no matter what we do.

I have two sets of wheels for my tandem. Since it's 70's vintage, it has 125mm dropouts. I use Phil
rear (freewheel) hubs spaced to take a
5/"ultra-6" cluster and provide a nearly dishless wheel.

With 130 mm you could probably fit 7-speed (if you can find the stuff) and still have only mild
or no dish.

As to number of spokes: I have one set of 36's for club/unloaded rides. Our combined weight for most
of our heavy-mileage years was about 280 (riders only, probably 320-330 counting bike+junk). I have
a set of 48's for loaded touring. That's for combined weights of around 500 lbs (we travel heavy).
In about 20,000 miles, I don't believe I've broken a rear spoke. At least very few. The 36's have
had a variety of rims (MA-2, Gentleman, mostly Araya aero clinchers). The 48's have had Wolber/Mavic
mod. 58 rims.

You might consider a cheap/quick 130mm rear wheel now, then go some custom route in the future as
you find your preferences. With the 130 you could probably borrow wheels off a single; IIRC you have
posted against 'stupid light', so your single stuff might work for a while.

Other points: About 7 years ago, Suzue freewheel hubs were synonymous with "trouble" on the tandem
listservs. Don't know if their quality or reputation has improved since. (See
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/home-pages/wade/tandem.html for info on the tandem@hobbes list)

Phil hubs of old were (are?) legendary for outperforming (outlasting) other tandem hubs. They may
have more competition these days. There appear to be several serviceable hubs that have debuted
since then in both freewheel and freehub format.

Let us know how it turns out. I'm thinking about having our bike respaced, 6 cogs is limiting, but I
am nervous; it's our engagement bike, so I've gotta be careful with it.

Regards,
--
Mark Janeba remove antispam phrase in address to reply

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:24 +0000, Mark Janeba wrote:

> I have two sets of wheels for my tandem. Since it's 70's vintage, it has 125mm dropouts. I use
> Phil rear (freewheel) hubs spaced to take a
> 5/"ultra-6" cluster and provide a nearly dishless wheel.
>
> With 130 mm you could probably fit 7-speed (if you can find the stuff) and still have only mild or
> no dish.

That would be what the Suzue could do, I think, but with any cassette hub it wouldn't matter whether
it were 7 or 9, the dish would be the same. A skinny 7-speed freewheel hub might be better.

> Other points: About 7 years ago, Suzue freewheel hubs were synonymous with "trouble" on the tandem
> listservs. Don't know if their quality or reputation has improved since.

I would doubt it, since they are the same (probably NOS) hubs. I am particularly unhappy about the
axles, which are 10mm. I managed to break a solid axle on a single bike a few years ago, and have
not lost that much weight since. Granted, it was a re-spaced 30-year-old hub, but the distance
between dropout and bearing, and the size of the axle, are the same.

> Phil hubs of old were (are?) legendary for outperforming (outlasting) other tandem hubs.

And outcosting, but I will keep an eye out for one. That seems to be my best hope. I really
hesitate to re-space the rear without a testimonial from someone who has done it with this frame or
one like it.

> They may have more competition these days. There appear to be several serviceable hubs that have
> debuted since then in both freewheel and freehub format.

But only in wide-to-wider format.
>
> Let us know how it turns out. I'm thinking about having our bike respaced, 6 cogs is limiting, but
> I am nervous; it's our engagement bike, so I've gotta be careful with it.

Well, this one took 20 years to show up, so I don't want to blow it, either, at least until she gets
hooked enough to go for the new Santana....

--

David L. Johnson

__o | I don't believe you, you've got the whole damn thing all wrong. _`\(,_ | He's not the kind
you have to wind-up on Sundays. --Ian (_)/ (_) | Anderson

 

[Baird Webel]

On 05/20/2003 01:07, in article [email protected], "James Annan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Paul Westall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Is there a tandem newsgroup as well?
>
> Nope
>
>> If not, can you direct me to the mailing list?
>
> Yes, but in deference to Baird Webel I'm not going to.
>
> James
>
> PS Google is your friend.

Now, I wasn't trying to close the list to new people...I learned a lot the first year that I got
into tandeming from it and still do. But rather than google, you might try:
http://search.bikelist.org/ and search on tandem@hobbes.

Baird

--
Baird Webel Washington DC

 

[James Annan]

Baird Webel <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BAF064C4.2367B%[email protected]>...
> On 05/20/2003 01:07, in article [email protected], "James Annan"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Yes, but in deference to Baird Webel I'm not going to.
> >
> > James
> >
> > PS Google is your friend.
>
> Now, I wasn't trying to close the list to new people...

I know, I was only joking. But I did think that if he couldn't find the list from my comment (or
even without it) we could probably survive without him

James

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 19 May 2003 13:50:12 GMT, "David Ornee" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree totally. You might also check URLs: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/home-pages/wade/tandem.html
>http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/home-pages/wade/tandem.html for more innformation.

Did you mean to paste two different URLs there?

Jasper