You've totally missed the point, and again posted in an entirely contentious manner.
Contentious works...
The "error" you found was contingent on one narrow exception (only for frames with a S rear section),
No offense, but you clearly aren't familiar with Cannondale's specs. For the past decade 3 of the 5 frame sizes sold by Cannondale had stoker compartments that were
significantly shorter than Santana's 28" standard length stoker compartment (M/S, L/S X/S), with a fourth that was the same size (X/M) and only one size -- the largest frame they made (J/L) -- that came with a stoker compartment that was longer than Santana's standard of 28". Therefore, and given that Cannondale produced fewer numbers of the smallest and largest frames, what you believe is a narrow exception accounted for more than 80% of the tandems produced by Cannondale for the past decade.
So, let's go back and look at your advice to our 5'8", 145lb captain with the 32" inseam (
this is what I would refer to as a relevant data point) who couldn't possibly ride a Jumbo/Large Cannondale:
Originally Posted by mtnbke
Save your money. If you're looking at an aluminum tandem look for a used Cannondale instead.
You'll get a more robust, stiffer, stronger frame, the cockpit for the stoker will be infinitely more roomy (Santana uses less stiff and smaller tubing so they can't build their bikes with as long of a wheelbase), and you'll get a faster tandem for the same effort.
As already stated, you made factual errors in your statements, I pointed out your error, I have given you sound advise regarding how to guard against doing so in the future by qualifying your statements and filled in the void in your knowlege of Cannondale's frame sizing.
Posting again, again in a contentious and contrarian fashion, to assert that you are, in fact, not being contrarian, is just kind of funny actually.
Please go look up the term contrarian; it's roots are based in economics. Contentious, as already noted, is not a bad choice: feel free to check my bio as I'm well aware of my on-line demeanor.
Here's the deal. I'm not looking to "prove that people are wrong", as that serves no purpose in and of itself. My goal here was and remains to make sure the folks who come to this forum leave here with accurate information, yourself included. That you take umbrage when presented with constructive criticism is your perrogative and, well, par for the course for many folks surfing internet forums.