It's really all what you're accustomed to and prefer. Moreover, unless someone rides the different bikes back to back AND is sensitive to the subtle differences in handling, they might never notice the difference. Again, some folks flop around when they ride but don't seem to mind, whereas others will finish a ride and the captain is totally spent. Conversely, there are teams who find even a Bilenky's handling to be sporty and they spec. even less steering trail than Santana. Jan Heine makes a very compelling case for the very different geometry found on the classic French tandems that he prefers in terms of both performance and ease of handling.

Again, about the only time there is any point in discussing steering geometry is when someone is contemplating a change like USPSPRO is, where the stock geometry is being altered and/or for anyone who finds their tandem's handling to be less than desirable for any reason. My RTR article was really trying to frame the problem that most folks encounter when they have a discussion about bicycle handling and terms like stability while also trying generalize the two prevailing philosophies on how a tandem should be designed, i.e., Co-Motion vs Santana and the various adherents as well as those who use a different approach, e.g., Bilenky again being VERY conservative with their geometries and Erickson being way out in front at the other extreme.... but noting both are still "in the box" that USPSPRO mentioned earlier.