Re: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

From: "Tom Harriman" <>
To: <>, Classic Rendezvous <>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:11:37 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?

Hi Eric. In my experience I would advise against moving the spacing back to 126. The problem with the old style hubs and freewheels was that when you combined the weight the the tandem with the weight of two adults, then added the combined work of two adults, you got allot of broken axles. Hitchhiking home with a broken rear wheel isn't the fun part of owning a tandem. Modern hubs are much stronger, and come in spacing of 130 for a road bike model, and 135 for a MTB model. You should be able to resolve this with off the shelf parts from just about any neighborhood bike shop. I hope this helps. Tom HarrimanSan Francisco, Ca.
> From:
> To:
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:18:35 -0800
> Subject: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?
> i was going through the '77 paramount tandem and discovered that the
> rear spacing has been spread. the original spacing was 126mm and was
> fitted with a campy HF hub. i took off the rear wheel and discovered
> that it now stays open at around 133mm and that the hub that's crammed
> in there now is 135mm.
> i want to replace the wheelset. should i look for a rear hub with
> 126mm spacing, like the campy/phil wood hubs? or look for a 130/135 hub?
> is reducing the spacing back to 126 from 133 too big of a reduction?
> eric acuna
> santa rosa, ca, usa