SWB vs Easy Racer



Status
Not open for further replies.
From the perspective of some one who builds both styles: To speak about the speed, first let me say
I have several different tests and test equipment for my bikes. One is a coast down test on a .8
mile long road. Test two is a climb test on the same hill using a Powertap hub ( max watts and
average watts) with heart rate monitor. Test three is a half hour of laps in local high school
parking lot that has some slope to it i.e. every lap goes up and down. Last test is the 65 mph test.
Some of what I've found defies logic. My only criteria is speed. All tests are done by me with no
back up numbers from other riders. The Tiger model (swb) has the smallest frontal area with a higher
crank. The Pursuit model (lwb) has lower cranks and more frontal area. Yet it is the Pursuit that
tests fastest in all tests which is puzzling. Almost all other brands and types of recumbents as
well as a few uprights have been tested on the same courses with similar results. My conclusion is
that for speed, longer is better. Longer also is helpful for stability at high speed. (65 mph test)
Don't get me wrong short bikes are wonderful for many reasons but if your only criteria is speed...
Happy cycling Steve "Speedy" Delaire

David Cambon wrote:

> Short Wheel-Base vs Easy Racer
>
> Sorry for bringing this topic up again but I have seen a lot of discussion on this newsgroup that
> is not all that clear. For the sake of newbies a few things should be clarified by you
> level-headed and objective scientific types who read this list.
>
> By SWB I mean all the highracers (eg Bacchetta Aero, Vision Saber etc) and all the non-lowracer
> SWB's with the smaller front wheel (eg Burley HepCat, Lightning P-38, Rans V-Rex, Turner T-Lite,
> Bachetta Giro, TerraCycle Terraza, Vision R40, Angletech etc).
>
> By Easy Racer I mean the Tour Easy, GRR, TiGRR and all clones of that configuration made by
> other people.
>
> There has been a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth, drooling and just plain ga-ga over the new crop of
> Bacchettas. I want one too so don't start flaming me just yet. That Bacchetta mesh seat is more
> comfortable than my furniture at home. I love those bars too. However, the basic idea is not new.
> Just go to Europe and have a look for yourself. The Bacchetta Aero even comes with Bram Moens seat
> from the Netherlands.
>
> The problem I have is the people on this list who are running out and buying a Bacchetta (or its
> ilk) based on completely unscientific observations that have been posted on this group. I wouldn't
> toss your TiGRR onto the composter based on what you have seen here.
>
> You can't just go and try out a couple of bikes and declare one unequivocally faster based on your
> "feelings" or even a trip around your test loop. There are many factors that determine the speed
> of a bicycle. Yes, one factor is the coefficient of drag. Another factor is the cyclist! SWB's and
> LWB's use different positions and physiological attributes. Each position takes time to acclimate
> to. Some people apparently don't acclimate to sky-high bottom-brackets (I like the HepCat, for
> instance, because it has a lower bottom-bracket).
>
> I now submit myself for a manly third-degree flaming by saying this: some of you fat old guys ride
> differently than skinny superathletes. A super-fit thin guy with no real job can make different
> bikes go fast than a pasty-faced outta-shape desk jockey. There is also the issue of real-world
> cycling conditions. Most people do not ride at a steady pace of 25mph (as some of the people on
> this group seem to be doing). Most people actually ride slower - where wind resistance is much
> less important.
>
> Here's my 2 cents worth: I ride all types of bikes. My preference around here (in the Coast
> Mountains of British Columbia) is a LWB because of the high-speed descents where it possible to
> hit tremendous speeds for long periods of time (eg speed-trapped at 126kph). The LWB just feels
> better than any SWB at speed. I am acclimated to both SWB's and LWB's. I am a strong, fast rider
> who weighs 225 pounds and I drop like a stone on descents. On flat ground riding all day I am
> faster on an unfaired LWB than I am on a SWB. The explanation is not obvious. The LWB (a
> Recumbonie) is undoubtedly more laterally flexy than a Tour Easy GRR and heavier too. However, the
> seat is lower so it could be slightly more aerodynamically efficient (but I doubt that really
> makes any difference). I also prefer the lower LWB pedals in stop-and-go city traffic. On the
> other hand, many SWB's fit into transit bus racks (which the transit buses have around here).
>
> I'd do a more scientific test with an Easy Racer but they are not readily available in this part
> of the world.
>
> Anyway, c'mon smarty-people, get your responses in!

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
An honest responce...

Given a SWB and a LWB of comparable construction, i.e. Riding position, frame stiffness, weight,
wheels, etc...

They are going to climb the same, decend the same, maintain the same average flat land speeds.
Moving the wheels closer or farther apart does not inherently affect anything accept for one item:
Stability/Aglity.

Whed designing a bicycle you will find that stabilty/agility are at odds with each other, you can
only try to find a happy medium between the two, tailored to your customers needs.

The only logical reason the SWB would climb better is a potentially lighter weight/stiffer frame.
That's it... BTW, would a low-racer ever qualify as a SWB? I would think not. Thusly by
definition, a SWB could never have the low seating and aerodynamics of a low racer or LWB low
racer (Rotator Pursuit). So you would probably have to give the speed edge to MWB and LWB
bikes(this includes low racers).

The length of the bike should be determined by your personal preferance. Do you want a nimble/agile
bike that may be a handfull at higher speeds (think MANGO) or rock solid high speed performer that
may not have the sheer nimbleness (is that even a word?) of a SWB? The lack of turning ability by a
LWB is a complete myth, I can do a complete 360 in an 8 foot circle on a GRR/TE. While you may be
able to do this in a 5-6 foot circle on a SWB, it's really not a big differance.

I think it's easiest to compare to cars. Would you want to commute to work every day in a Porsche or
Cadillac? People will choose both, there is no absolute answer.

Now to stir the pot a little... My own preferance is the LWB, in my opinion the only downside is
portability and "maybe" for some people a smidge less climbing ability (has anyone ever done any
real testing? I'm curious as to how much, if any, differance there really is). On the plus side, you
get a super comfy, stable ride, tons of room for baggage, and I REALLY enjoy 50-60 mph decents, puts
cycling into an entirely different sporting category for
me.

1 last item... Independant coast down testing has shown a faired LWB still beats anything but a low
racer or another faired bike.

Please note, I am horribly biased and anything I say should be ignored! Also, I am speaking from
personal experience and am in no way speaking for my employer(Easy Racers).

Enjoy your bike, whatever you ride!

Gabriel DeVault
 
[email protected] (stratrider) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> David, I agree. I have been riding a lwb (Rans Stratus) for about 3 and 1/2 years. I still come
> down off extended descents at speeds approaching 50 mph. The bike is rock solid. I have never trid
> a swb at that speed. I wonder how it would feel?
>
> Jim Reilly Reading, PA

It depends on the SWB. I've had my P-38 close to 60 without any issues beyond my cheeks going
whuppa-whuppa-whuppa.

Jeff
 
Why are most European recumbents swb rather than lwb? Is it because you civilized guys know how to
build swb?
--
Bill "Pop Pop" Patterson Retired and riding my Linear, my front drive low racer and our M5 tandem.
 
Cletus Lee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>>It depends on the SWB. I've had my P-38 close to 60 without any issues beyond my cheeks going
>>whuppa-whuppa-whuppa.
>
>
> Which cheeks?
>

He must not have been grinning hard enough if his facial cheeks were flapping in the wind. I won't
comment if he was speaking of the 'other' cheeks. ;-)

--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____
 
"> The Pursuit model (lwb) has lower cranks and more frontal area.
> Yet it is the Pursuit that tests fastest in all tests which is puzzling. Almost all other brands
> and types of recumbents as well as a few uprights have been tested on the same courses with
> similar results. My conclusion is that for speed, longer is better. Longer also is helpful for
> stability at high speed. (65 mph test)

One area where size does matter is boating. Boats with a long water line are generally faster than
boats with a shorter water line, when sailed by equally compentent crews. Although water is some 800
times thicker than air, I wonder if there is any correlation between length of bike and aerodynamis,
particularly if a fairing (hull) is involved?
 
Although water is some 800 times thicker than air, I wonder if there is any correlation between
length of bike and aerodynamis, particularly if a fairing (hull) is involved?

Reynolds Number is used to compare flows of various densities and speeds.
 
bentnut wrote:
> ... BTW, would a low-racer ever qualify as a SWB? I would think > not....

How does seat height have anything to do with whether a bike is a SWB or not? I would certainly
consider my Sunset to be a SWB bike.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
"> Almost all other brands and types of recumbents as well as a few uprights
> have been tested on the same courses with similar results. My conclusion is that for speed, longer
> is better. Longer also is helpful for stability at high speed. (65 mph test)

I just got a job after 2 years off, I'll probably be calling this summer, Steve.

A)I wonder if it is length, more than any of the other variables, help the aerodynamics. I notice
Bonneville Salt FLat streamliners, car, bike, or whatever, are loooong indeed. Any aero experts
have any input ?

B) LOOKS FAST = GOES FAST (lol). Good paint jobs help too !
 
Bill Patterson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> IMHO the lwb designer has a much easier job. A lwb responds less to control displacement, so will
> not overreact at higher speed.

This is primarily because the LWB typically has its balance point (a point on the line between the
contact patches directly under the CG)

> The SWB designer needs to have sufficient "Control Spring" or what Mark Stonich calls "centering
> spring".

Perhaps you can remind me when I might have used such a silly term.

> THe added force on the controls reduces the bikes sensitivity at high speed. Control spring
> increases with wheel mass, trail and tiller. THe designer should adjust these values to get a bike
> that handles well for normal folks.
>
> A big error is for the designer to use himself as the test rider. He gets so good at riding his
> own bikes that he doesn't notice peculiarities. He should use df riders, as many as possible, as
> his test riders.

We agree on that much.

> I have a tandem with 5 inches of trail and a very stiff frame. It feels like a rail road train
> above 30. I must admit it is a handful at low speeds.

I have a tandem with zero inches of trail and a very stiff frame. It feels like a rail road train
above 30. I must admit it is a handful at low speeds.

>Ride a motor cycle at 80 mph. Your bike can and should feel the same, no matter what its wheelbase.
 
If there is room between the wheels for your body how is it a SWB? I think any SWB requires you to
sit up higher to clear the wheels. Any Low Racer I have seen I would call a MWB.

Just my thoughts, how you define a SWB may be different, and that's ok.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> bentnut wrote:
> > ... BTW, would a low-racer ever qualify as a SWB? I would think >
not....
>
> How does seat height have anything to do with whether a bike is a SWB or not? I would certainly
> consider my Sunset to be a SWB bike.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
Gabriel DeVault wrote:
>
> If there is room between the wheels for your body how is it a SWB? I think any SWB requires you to
> sit up higher to clear the wheels. Any Low Racer I have seen I would call a MWB.
>
> Just my thoughts, how you define a SWB may be different, and that's ok.

The definition I and many others use for a SWB is a bike that has the BB mounted on a boom that
extends beyond the head tube.

Similarly, a MWB has the BB adjacent to the headtube (e.g. HP Velotechnik Spirit, Vision R-32,
Radius C-4).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
To anyone who doesn't know already... Steve went 62 mph in a looong streamliner at Battle Mountain
last year (the Big Gun http://www.easyracers.com/images/PICT0701.jpg). He also won the Cherry Pie
Criterium last year in his looong faired Rotator Pursuit
(http://www.easyracers.com/images/DSC01204.jpg). He may be afraid to toot his own horn... but I
think Steve is on to something. In talking to Matt Weaver, he says that this is one of the
"branches" in aerodynamic theory. Least surface/frontal area or ideal shape? It only gets more
complicated...

"S. Delaire "Rotatorrecumbent"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From the perspective of some one who builds both styles: To speak about the speed, first let me
> say I have several different tests and test equipment for my bikes. One is a coast down test on a
> .8 mile long road. Test two is a climb test on the same hill using a Powertap hub ( max watts and
> average watts) with heart rate monitor. Test three is a half hour of laps in local high school
> parking lot that has some slope to it i.e. every lap goes up and down. Last test is the 65 mph
> test. Some of what I've found defies logic. My only criteria is speed. All tests are done by me
> with no back up numbers from other riders. The Tiger model (swb) has the smallest frontal area
> with a higher crank. The Pursuit model (lwb) has lower cranks and more frontal area. Yet it is the
> Pursuit that tests fastest in all tests which is puzzling. Almost all other brands and types of
> recumbents as well as a few uprights have been tested on the same courses with similar results. My
> conclusion is that for speed, longer is better. Longer also is helpful for stability at high
> speed. (65 mph test) Don't get me wrong short bikes are wonderful for many reasons but if your
> only criteria is speed... Happy cycling Steve "Speedy" Delaire
>
>
> David Cambon wrote:
>
> > Short Wheel-Base vs Easy Racer
> >
> > Sorry for bringing this topic up again but I have seen a lot of discussion on this newsgroup
> > that is not all that clear. For the sake of newbies a few things should be clarified by you
> > level-headed and objective scientific types who read this list.
> >
> > By SWB I mean all the highracers (eg Bacchetta Aero, Vision Saber etc) and all the non-lowracer
> > SWB's with the smaller front wheel (eg Burley HepCat, Lightning P-38, Rans V-Rex, Turner T-Lite,
> > Bachetta Giro, TerraCycle Terraza, Vision R40, Angletech etc).
> >
> > By Easy Racer I mean the Tour Easy, GRR, TiGRR and all clones of that configuration made by
> > other people.
> >
> > There has been a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth, drooling and just plain ga-ga over the new crop of
> > Bacchettas. I want one too so don't start flaming me just yet. That Bacchetta mesh seat is more
> > comfortable than my furniture at home. I love those bars too. However, the basic idea is not
> > new. Just go to Europe and have a look for yourself. The Bacchetta Aero even comes with Bram
> > Moens seat from the Netherlands.
> >
> > The problem I have is the people on this list who are running out and buying a Bacchetta (or its
> > ilk) based on completely unscientific observations that have been posted on this group. I
> > wouldn't toss your TiGRR onto the composter based on what you have seen here.
> >
> > You can't just go and try out a couple of bikes and declare one unequivocally faster based on
> > your "feelings" or even a trip around your test loop. There are many factors that determine the
> > speed of a bicycle. Yes, one factor is the coefficient of drag. Another factor is the cyclist!
> > SWB's and LWB's use different positions and physiological attributes. Each position takes time
> > to acclimate to. Some people apparently don't acclimate to sky-high bottom-brackets (I like the
> > HepCat, for instance, because it has a lower bottom-bracket).
> >
> > I now submit myself for a manly third-degree flaming by saying this: some of you fat old guys
> > ride differently than skinny superathletes. A super-fit thin guy with no real job can make
> > different bikes go fast than a pasty-faced outta-shape desk jockey. There is also the issue of
> > real-world cycling conditions. Most people do not ride at a steady pace of 25mph (as some of the
> > people on this group seem to be doing). Most people actually ride slower - where wind resistance
> > is much less important.
> >
> > Here's my 2 cents worth: I ride all types of bikes. My preference around here (in the Coast
> > Mountains of British Columbia) is a LWB because of the high-speed descents where it possible to
> > hit tremendous speeds for long periods of time (eg speed-trapped at 126kph). The LWB just feels
> > better than any SWB at speed. I am acclimated to both SWB's and LWB's. I am a strong, fast rider
> > who weighs 225 pounds and I drop like a stone on descents. On flat ground riding all day I am
> > faster on an unfaired LWB than I am on a SWB. The explanation is not obvious. The LWB (a
> > Recumbonie) is undoubtedly more laterally flexy than a Tour Easy GRR and heavier too. However,
> > the seat is lower so it could be slightly more aerodynamically efficient (but I doubt that
> > really makes any difference). I also prefer the lower LWB pedals in stop-and-go city traffic. On
> > the other hand, many SWB's fit into transit bus racks (which the transit buses have around
> > here).
> >
> > I'd do a more scientific test with an Easy Racer but they are not readily available in this part
> > of the world.
> >
> > Anyway, c'mon smarty-people, get your responses in!
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
> Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
Bill Patterson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

OOPS! MY CAT JUST JUMPED ON MY LAPTOP WHILE I WAS TYPING, WHICH SOMEHOW CAUSED ME TO POST AN
UNFINISHED MESSAGE. PLEASE DISREGARD

> IMHO the lwb designer has a much easier job. A lwb responds less to control displacement, so will
> not overreact at higher speed.

This has as much to do with weight distribution as wheelbase. Which helps explain why P-38s are user
relatively friendly at high speed. Their steering ergonomics, (some tiller, reasonable reach and
handgrip orientation that lets the elbows hang naturally) and minimal trail are the other factors.

> The SWB designer needs to have sufficient "Control Spring" or what Mark Stonich calls "centering
> spring".

Perhaps you can remind me when I might have used such a term.

> THe added force on the controls reduces the bikes sensitivity at high speed. Control spring
> increases with wheel mass, trail and tiller.

Many years of experimentation has shown me that trail/wheelflop actually negates some of this
"Control Spring".

You also neglect to mention "Reach", the distance between the riders shoulders and handgrips. Reach
determines how much force gravity causes your relaxed arms to pull back on the grips. If reach is
too short (Praying Hamster)your arms hang limp, providing little of Bill's "control spring". If it's
too long (Superman)you end up pulling back with quite a bit of force, (which is hard on my arthritic
hands) but even small corrections require you to move nearly your whole arm. Ideally you want to be
able to make balancing corrections quickly, with a simple movement of the wrist, before larger
movements are needed. For general riding, reach and handgrip orientation as shown at;
http://bikesmithdesign.com/EvoBars/EvoBarSetup.html is a good starting point.

>THe designer should adjust these values to get a bike that handles well for normal folks.
>
> A big error is for the designer to use himself as the test rider. He gets so good at riding his
> own bikes that he doesn't notice peculiarities. He should use df riders, as many as possible, as
> his test riders.

We agree on that much. Although someone who rides a wide variety of different 'bents, such as a
multi-brand dealer, also provides useful feedback.

> I have a tandem with 5 inches of trail and a very stiff frame. It feels like a rail road train
> above 30. I must admit it is a handful at low speeds.

I have a tandem with zero inches of trail and a very stiff frame. It feels like a rail road train
above 20. At speeds above 45 I usually ride with one hand to reduce aero drag. Yet I can easily ride
with one finger, at speeds too low to register on my Cayeye. Low speed balance is so good that,
despite an 86" WB, I can ride a figure 8 crossways on the 28' wide street in front of my house.

>Ride a motor cycle at 80 mph. Your bike can and should feel the same, no matter what its wheelbase.

IMHO you can design an SWB such that this statement is true. However, such a design is going to be
somewhat longer than typical for an SWB.
 
hmmm, by that definition the rear wheel could be 6 feet back from the front.... When I think SWB I
think P-38, Rotator Tiger, etc... Location of the BB doesn't define the wheelbase, the axle to axle
distance does... for me anyways...

look at http://www.bentrideronline.com/2002%20Buyer's%20Guide/SWB%202002.htm not one of these SWB
bikes boast the ultra low seating of a true lowracer.

Anyways, my original point was that in order to get a super low seating position, you have to push
the wheels farther apart. If you wanna call that SWB then so be it. I'll try to conform!

Once again just my 2 cents, you have to generalise somewhat, the lines between styles of bikes can
be very blurred.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Gabriel DeVault wrote:
> >
> > If there is room between the wheels for your body how is it a SWB? I
think
> > any SWB requires you to sit up higher to clear the wheels. Any Low Racer
I
> > have seen I would call a MWB.
> >
> > Just my thoughts, how you define a SWB may be different, and that's ok.
>
> The definition I and many others use for a SWB is a bike that has the BB mounted on a boom that
> extends beyond the head tube.
>
> Similarly, a MWB has the BB adjacent to the headtube (e.g. HP Velotechnik Spirit, Vision R-32,
> Radius C-4).
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
On 6 Feb 2003 19:45:52 -0800, [email protected] (Mark Stonich) wrote:

>> IMHO the lwb designer has a much easier job. A lwb responds less to control displacement, so will
>> not overreact at higher speed.

>This is primarily because the LWB typically has its balance point (a point on the line between the
>contact patches directly under the CG)

I haven't measured exactly, but it looks to me as if the same is true of my SWB. Which is also
stable at high speed.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
Mark Stonich wrote:
>
> OOPS! MY CAT JUST JUMPED ON MY LAPTOP WHILE I WAS TYPING, WHICH SOMEHOW CAUSED ME TO POST AN
> UNFINISHED MESSAGE. PLEASE DISREGARD

"Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd" - Unknown :)

> This has as much to do with weight distribution as wheelbase. Which helps explain why P-38s are
> user relatively friendly at high speed. Their steering ergonomics, (some tiller, reasonable reach
> and handgrip orientation that lets the elbows hang naturally) and minimal trail are the other
> factors.

I find the RANS Rocket (which has a reputation among some for being twitchy) to be very similar to
the P-38 in this regard. It should be noted that I have the 1999-2000 frameset [1] with the shorter
chainstays, I am tall enough (45"/114 cm x-seam) to have the seat fairly far back [2], the Flip-It
is adjusted for moderate tiller, and the P-38 that I have ridden is an XL size. Speeds in the 40-50
mph (65-80 kph/ .54-0.67 Mach) [5] do not feel particularly fast in terms of bike handling.

My Sunset is also very stable at high speeds, but has more of a "praying hamster" position [3] (for
knee clearance) with the "Earl Russell" steering set-up [4].

[1] It has a 1999 serial number, but was sold as a 2000 with the updated 2000 seat.
[2] Enough that I have experienced front wheel hop on very steep grades
[3] < ftp://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >
[4] This uses RANS parts: Flip-It hinge, cut-down and inverted LWB riser, and shortened "T-bars".
Earl has put this steering on several Sunset in (or formerly in) the Chicago area.
[5] I need a longer and/or steeper hill than I have ridden on so far to exceed 50 mph by a
significant amount.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2003 19:45:52 -0800, [email protected] (Mark Stonich) wrote:
>
> >> IMHO the lwb designer has a much easier job. A lwb responds less to control displacement, so
> >> will not overreact at higher speed.
>
> >This is primarily because the LWB typically has its balance point (a point on the line between
> >the contact patches directly under the CG)
>
> I haven't measured exactly, but it looks to me as if the same is true of my SWB. Which is also
> stable at high speed.

I believe that Mark Stonich's post was prematurely sent before completion by the intervention of a
member of the species Felis Sylvestris Catus (also known as "pillow denters" and "recumbent seat
warmers"), therefore the thought posted is incomplete (as indicated by sentence structure and
missing end punctuation).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
Gabriel DeVault wrote:
> ... Anyways, my original point was that in order to get a super low seating position, you have to
> push the wheels farther apart. If you wanna call that SWB then so be it. I'll try to conform!

I am following the terms currently used by RCN, as it happens to be by far the longest running North
American publication devoted to recumbent bicycles.

It should be noted that in the past (up to the late 90's), RCN used to define bikes solely by
wheelbase, e.g. the P-38 was a MWB. However, with the design trends favoring shorter booms than were
common a few years age (for greater frame stiffness and better weight distribution), average
wheelbase length for production "BB on a boom" bikes has increased, so referring to them all as SWB
bikes makes sense in my opinion.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.