brilliantly simple tandem bike

How to make a tandem bicycle from two bikes! no welding, no fancy tools needed other than a power drill.

Step 1: Parts

you're going to need:

-crescent/ adjustable wrenches
-chain breaker
-extra chain
-electric drill
-bolts/ nuts
-two bicycles, nothing fancy (possibly a smaller frame for the stoker if you'd like, and if you're picky and want certain cranks, go with frames with square/ taper BB's)
-crank puller (optional)
-allen keys
-basic bike tools
-probably some other stuff I can't remember right now.

Comments

[rickharris]

There is no reason not to keep the back wheel and have 2 separate drive systems .

[msspurlock]

I love this. It really is brilliantly simple. Now can you start work on a tandem that's side-by-side? I want to put an electric motor on it. Oh, and a penny-farthing conversion. That'd be cool. I don't ask much, do I? :-)

[richardmasoner]

Of course, if it's side by side then it's not in tandem. But for a realization of that concept, see this.

[genhalftrack]

Look what I dug up in the old photos box, from the late 80's. After a benefit ride, Aramis and Clinique, two Estee Lauder brands, gave these away as Drawing prizes, Hope they show.

[msspurlock]

That's pretty ingenious in itself. Similar to the buddy configuration, but less geared to filming. Lately what I've been wishing for in my space-challenged life, is a tandem add-on, kind of like the one in this article, that's easily separable from the whole. I know they make the Third Wheel, but that's somebody leeching off the pedaller. I have a design in my head, but it would really be slow, since it involves a modified crankset. That also violates the rule of not requiring a modified mother bike.

[carlitos]

Here you go.. just published my.Side by Side Bicycle instructable.

[msspurlock]

LOL! Yeah, I was searching for the right term. Then I thought, to be that technical, is a tandem cycle, usually with three or four wheels, even a bike or bicycle? "Buddy bike" does kind of say it, I suppose. I was picturing more of a four wheel configuration, but this is intriguing, too.

[john3347]

"Back in the day" I used to weld a washer onto the dropouts and spread the fork blades and slide one fork over the rear wheel of another bicycle and make no additional modifications. This way, the bicycle would bend in the middle in turns and not require 40 acres and skidding the tires through turns. The fork would quickly work its way out of the axle of the front bicycle without the 360 degree retention provided by the washer welded to the fork dropout. The chain that is connecting the two bicycles together in this example is completely unnecessary. It is not only not necessary to prevent the rear fork from pivoting in turns, but quite undesirable. both forks should be able to pivot.

As another poster here discusses, I used to string 3 or 4 bicycles together by this method. I never tried more than 4.

FYI: "Tandem" refers to the arrangement of one in front of another; not to quantity. Mother duck and all her little ducklings following along behind her are "in tandem".

[Nkevin90]

True; I know your comment is old and I hadn't really ever gotten around to replying to it, but my goal was to make a connected-drive tandem, as most real tandems are. It did take a lot more effort to set this particular version up for something that turns less efficiently than what you described, but this had more of a genuine tandem feel (minus that third wheel) than simply stretching out the fork on a beater bike and attaching it to another.

At any rate, if I build another one, it probably will have independent drivetrains!

[grannyjones]

My brothers did this 50 years ago.
We laughed so hard!

[alexpuffs]

Hey !
It's a very nice idea !
I'll try to make one as soon as possible,
congratulations!

[O-Budd-1]

If I may?

It steers like a truck because it can't flex around the middle wheel.

Back in the middle of the last century (ok, I'm an old coot ), we used to chain as many as 15 bikes together by hooking the fork of one over the axle of the bike in front, usually for parades. Watching them snake thru the floats was wild as all the riders usually dressed up as clowns.

Each bike kept it's own chain drive and coaster brake (pre-ten-speed era), but the lead guy decided where you went ... and no arguing about it.

Take the bolts out, disconnect the rear bike drive from the front bike and you'll find it works a lot better.

Budd

[zogworth]

I just thought I should let you know, a side by side is usually known as a sociable, because you can chat :) 

[Dan Marshall]

Check out http:/TinyURL.com/TandemEquivalentTinyURL.com/TandemEquivalent
It shows another solution to the same problem which is arguably simpler and more manuverable.

[jalbert_designer]

The reason that you have to make really wide turns, cross streets by walking the bike, never take turns too quickly, and the whole bike is difficult to turn, is the fact that you've bolted the head tube, preventing the bike frame from pivoting in a turn. However, a bike with three (in-line) wheels MUST have a pivot point to turn properly.
While (I agree) this would be catastrophic for the drive train that you've built, it would work fine if each bike were to keep it’s own (independent) drive train.
What I mean is, why not just connect the front fork of the rear bike, to the rear axle of the front bike, and be done?..
And best of all, this way you wouldn't need to splice a super-long chain together, or deal with complications of trying to share the drive train.

[Nkevin90]

oh yeah, of course I've thought of that, but it's not as tandem-esque without the synchronized drivetrain ; ) I'm not sure how the rear wheel would fasten on though without a super oversized axle though, because the fact that the rear is a front hub with a rear axle gives you enough play to fasten them together. it'd be interesting to see how a pivot bike would work though. turning would probably be wicked confusing for the stoker.

[laughingcoyote]

Old Man Mountain uses super long axles with their axle-mounted racks. Might be able to get some from them and perhaps use some ideas from their mounting.

[Megawatt]

does it work?

[SirJoey]

Pretty funny, & definitely original! Kudos! :)

[vinnygx3pimp]

Hey Kevin I didn't know you were a member of instructables though I kinda thought you were. It's Vincent from South. You know the kid who doesn't know what to cut on the frame.

[technodude92]

this must confuse the heck out of onlookers!

[Nkevin90]

oh, it does. one kid said to me "NICE BIKE!", and I say "thanks," because it is, and all borat-style or something, he comes back with "NOT!" I couldn't help but laugh. he had to be jealous.

[technodude92]

yes, after BORAT, the world will never be the same.

[discontinuuity]

I'm sure there's a way to make it bend in the middle, you just would have to have two different drivetrains. Maybe you would need to change the angle on the rear steering tube. After all, these things work fine:

[trebuchet03]

Excellent execution - I've had a very similar idea on the back burner for some time now :) More along the lines of independent drive trains though :)

[shooby]

Good idea. That shifter looks like a plastic artichoke.

[Nkevin90]

uhhh, of course : )

[TheScientist]

really cool, although i don't know if i'd be game enough to ride it! i do have a couple of spare bikes in the shed though.... to prevent having to bend forks, have you considered staggering them? so have each side of the fork on the left (or right) of its corresponding rear dropout (assuming the same width of fork and rear dropout). I'll try to illustrate: | | ||--|| | | so the top two "|" are the rear dropout (looking down over the axle) and the bottom two are the fork, the "-" is the axle. on one side the fork will be on the outside, on the other the dropout will be on the outside :) don't know if it would foul the chain though

[Nkevin90]

huh, that actually sounds like a pretty decent idea- I'll have to get back to you on it and tell you if it works. it's not bad to ride, I promise. or, uh, as long as I'm the captain. ha haa.

[TheScientist]

craptastic the diagram didn't workk in the post, but did in the preview. hopefully you can see what i mean!

[The Rocketizer]

Sweeet...I was thinking of pretty much the same idea but gave up when the forks didn't fit over the back dropouts, I didn't want to have to bend them. It looks great though, good job

[Nkevin90]

yeah, that was a super last minute idea, and of course, those were some really crappy forks.

[uldics]

Wery nice work! A little note - imho the pictures are too close taken. Since you know exactly every detail of things and process, but we (on the other side of pictures) dont, its a bit hard to see the whole idea from the pictures. Wasnt it easier to leave each bikes chain systems separate?

[Nkevin90]

probably would be, and I might make another one with such an idea, and in that case, a "swingable" rear bike, but I figured it'd be more fun to make a tandem with the same feel as a real one.

[PKM]

Well the middle wheel is a "front wheel" so has no sprockets, so without modification the "captain" couldn't pedal.

[Nkevin90]

right, and with that in mind, you couldn't get a freewheel in, just because of the axle spacing. soo, imagine you replaced that middle wheel with a rear wheel, took the freewheel off, spun on a bmx style single speed cog in the back; it's totally do-able.

[Kiteman]

I'll second uldics' comments about the too-close pictures, and isn't the join between the bikes a weak-point? Would it not be better to add some sort of cross-bracing between the two bikes? Still the pictures in steps 6 & 7 are great - it takes a double-look to be sure how many bikes you are looking at.

[Nkevin90]

probably wouldn't hurt, but it's been on a few rides so far, and no problems to date. the flexing actually helps with turning a little bit.

[PKM]

I think the advantage this way is that the bike can pivot about the... transverse axis? at the middle wheel axle, which is necessary as it has three wheels. If the frame was completely rigid imagine what would happen when you hit a speed bump. If you had some pretty serious suspension on the front fork and back frame it might not be as necessary. I'd like to see what would happen to the handling if you didn't lock the back bike's forks...

[Visitor]

If the middle fork was not locked, then the bikes would lean in different angles when cornering. Because the middle fork is leaning backwards, the front bike would lean more in the corner and rear bike would lean less. Handling while cornering would be tricky. All in all, this design is on a dead end track. A neat way to spend a day tinkering, but it will never produce a properly working bike. I mean trike.