91cm wheelbase, 35cm chain-stay. Agile and maneuverable like no other. A hoot that always brought a smile to my face. Did several 100km+ hauls and toured on it across the width and breadth of South Korea.

A bike has the wheelbase it needs for the style it is. Changing out the whole bike for a similar one with a slightly different wheelbase would be... nuts.

An average current MTB has about a 125 cm wheelbase.

The funniest thing Riv has done so far is make a Dutch bike out of Rivendell parts. I remember the blog when they were in development - it was too flexible. Well duh, some bikes are supposed to be "gas pipe"

I used 45.3cm on my touring frame. Mainly just to avoid dreaded pannier footslap. But it rides very nicely too.

Descending: racing bike technology: the wheelbase stayed similar and the head tube was reshaped along with the fork blades. This gave the bike more stability in fast descents.

The head tube used to be a somewhat cylindrical shape and now it is shaped to handle the loads. During that change of head tube design, some people did not like it but look nowadays, they're all shaped different than years ago. The fork blade design appears to be consistent with the head tube shapes.

The fork: in the prior days, the fork blades were to be "aerodynamic" which led to very thin blades. I think this was redesigned and you will see nowadays, the fork blades less of an aerodynamic design and now more for stability. There you go with the fast descents .

This is my observation, not particularly of great authority.

I was told by our Trek sales rep that Tim Issac used the same geometry for ther sport touring and grand touring bikes, the only difference being the chainstay length.

As a size 15 shoe wearer, I appreciate longer chainstays.

In third world country the bigger the load you will carry the bigger the wheelbase recommended... look this "pick up truck" equivalent

Just take it easy defending. Nothing to prove. One cradh @ 50 and you’ll wish you did.

Riv bikes with the megastays, that on the surface are hard to ignore, well there's more to it than those alone. The entire frames design. I have a Riv Bombadil, pre megastay(47cm and uses a normal 114-116 link chain). While it fits me as I define fit, there something about the handling I have never gotten used to. I call it the wheelbarrow effect, wheel floppiness. Yeah, it's like riding a wheelbarrow. When the bike tilts, there's a feeling of falling off an edge. Cornering, out of the saddle, and slow uphill it's very "in your face", so to speak. Meaning I can't ignore it, and I can't make it go away and I can't change it. It's not intuitive to me. It's not that it's unrideable, it can be enjoyable as long as I adjust my expectations for a given ride. (I would not buy another though). Most Riv lovers comment on how stable they ride, and I get that. But how that stability is acheived/exectuted is what I don't agree with. Or that it is necessary, or even a good thing.. It's assumes to take a certain control-ability away from the rider. As if the rider doesn't know how to ride, or needs help. Well that's way art goes. Caging a bird to keep it "safe" is not safety, you know ?

Contrast that with my custom Franklin road bike, with neutral handling. I think it was termed "sport/touring" frame design, but it's definitely more sport than touring. A raised BB(low 70's), and 45.5cm stays. The 62cm C-T frame has a 62cm TT. It handles just like what appeals most to me, the classic racing bikes I grew up with in the 70/80's, just longer overall. While I loved the bikes, they never fit me well, too short of overall reach. The Franklin was/is exactly what I envisoned an extended length version of those would be. One that fits ! Slow, fast or cruising, it's all very "neutral", instantly responding to my inputs in a most intuitive and natural manner. Easy to maintain straights or corners with equal precision. The frame being longer both fore and aft doesn't change the marvelous, precise and intuitive handling of it. When I switch between those two bikes it takes a few minutes to "remember" how to ride each one, they are like night and day in steering/handling. For reference, the wheelbases of the two bikes is within an inch, less I think.

The longer chainstays can afford more tire clearance. More comfortable ? Again, that depends on the tires, wheels and the rest of the frame ! Plus, "me" the perceiver.

My RANS Velocity Squared Recumbent's WB = 162", that's 411.48cm AND that's not the Long WB Model

Are you sure? Google AI says "The wheelbase of a RANS Velocity Squared Recumbent is approximately 48 inches."

My numerous measuring tapes are all in agreement and fairly certain that my BSCE degree qualifies me as being able to accurately read tapes.

Now to get out on my 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL with 38.5" WB (97.79cm) for a few miles.

Sorry that you're a bit uncomfortable on the TRACK BIKE, if me I'd find a way to make that sucker geared and FUN on the road. BTW, 75yo in July

So your recumbent has a 13.5-foot wheelbase? That's hard to picture.

Also, I don't follow the reasoning regarding adding derailleurs to a track bike to make it more "fun." I've always had a lot of fun riding track bikes, starting with my Helyett in 1964 at age 13. (Not sure what your age has to do with the topic, but I'm 73.)

My Felt TK2, the one with the 95-cm wheelbase, is fun, too, and extremely stable, as you would expect of a bike with that wheelbase. It's just that it reacts too quickly to road imperfections, which I recognize sounds like nonsense. I guess you'd have to find a bike with a similarly short wheelbase and ride it to understand.

Editing to add a link to a Bicycling! magazine review of a Rigi bike, with a 95.5-cm wheelbase, or 0.5 cm longer than the Felt TK2 track bike. The article includes several mentions of how weird it is to ride a bike (a geared bike, at that) with such a short wheelbase.

There is no way that is correct. 48 inches is a pretty typical short wheelbase recumbent dimension. The V2 is definitely longer than that.

I suspect cm values on the tape are being interpreted as inches. 162cm is 63.8 inches, which is about right for a compact long wheelbase recumbent. (as opposed to a true long wheelbase bent which would be a little bit longer. Say, high 60s - in inches.)

OOPS --- -- early AM and stuck a 1 in front of the 6, SORRY - geezer error

to you --

I was wondering. 162" puts it halfway between the two 2-person sailboats I used to race.

Isn't 48" about right for a short wheelbase recumbent where the front wheel is under your knees? I took Prof. David Wilson's short wheel base 'bent for a quick spin almost 50 years ago. My bike racing days. That bike was a fun ride! Felt quick and steered well enough to this racer that I don't have memories of anything that caught my attention. Just a good bike that did exactly what it was asked. Sat on a similar short wheelbase Vision decades later at a bike show in Seattle. Rode it on the stand. Just a stand so no idea how the bike felt to balance and steer but again the fit and concept felt right to me. Seems too bad from my perspective that those short wheelbase 'bents with the under the knee handlebars never took off. It's a very natural seating position, low, stable, getting started is easy. Aero and speed rate a slightly better than an upright. Not extreme or as fast as it can be, but a very workable combo. I used to encounter Prof. Wilson on his commute home from MIT as I was headed out for afternoon sessions and ride a while with him. I could leave him in the dust easily but I was a 25 yo racer at the top of my game and he was a middle aged prof. But slowing to ride with him was no burden at all. With not light commuter wheels, that bike was no dog. (And I was riding club race ready tubulars on my good bike.)

Since then I've ridden a largish wheel 'bent where my position was quite laid back and high. Yes, I could learn to start that bike and ride it fast but it wasn't easy and I'm not sure I would ever feel as confident as I do on so many diamond frame bikes. Fastest bike I've ever ridden but it won't happen again. Maybe I'll go to a long wheelbase bent as I lose balance but relearning the basics of navigating tight spaces on a bike so much longer doesn't appeal to me and I suspect adds up to at least one 'learning' crash .

Or more likely - I'll just keep riding these diamond things of varying WBs that I love so much. The bike of my avatar is so perfect I would change nothing if I had to start all over again. (I hope the builder kept good notes. If this got destroyed by a car I'd just call him and say "make me another".) The road bike he built me first is another except it has the glitch of high speed wobble. Not an issue at all when I got it when I was 17 years younger, stronger and more confident but an issue now. Too bad because the rest of its handling is simply sublime. Weight distribution over the wheels is as good as it gets under this body. And my Pro Miyata - early '80s racer. Early '80s tire widths. And handling that is again, sublime but as a pure racer. Best descender I've ever ridden (probably). (I'll never test it at the speeds I went on my Fuji Pro in the '70s. Smuggler's Notch without touching the brakes? Nah!)

Curious: what are the wheelbases of the bike in your avatar and of the one with the speed wobble?

The RANS rides like my FIL's old Lincoln Town Car and wife's Grandmother's Sedan Deville Caddy from way back when. Not good on SLOW SPEED U-TURNS -- OUCH!!!!

Unicycles seem to get along with a wheelbase of 0, tandems, on the other hand sport immense wheelbases.
Reading the different responses of short wheel bases that are stable, longer ones that are agile, etc. reminds me that, tempting as it is, it is folly to try to reduce an N-dimensional phenomenon like bicycle ride feel to a single number.

How about a single word? I have 'boingy' and 'quick', and am looking for 'scrumptious'...

Ridden a few longer and shorter wheelbase bikes and it is incredible how twitchy the shorter wheelbase bikes become even only 10/20mm shorter.

Wheelbase dimensions or any singular dimension will probably not address your desending issues as much as specifically addressing what is your issue in descending. Who knows maybe you need different bar/ brake lever position or posture. I did most of touring on raod bikes, sport tour and standard road racing bikes. 50 yrs later I’m on a ClemSmithJr off road most of the time and love it. Descending, ascending, gliding, floating, crasing into a cartwheeling heap aren’t about an extra inch in wheelbase.

[QUOTE=LeeG;23463129]Wheelbase dimensions or any singular dimension will probably not address your desending issues as much as specifically addressing what is your issue in descending. Who knows maybe you need different bar/ brake lever position or posture. I did most of touring on raod bikes, sport tour and standard road racing bikes. 50 yrs later I’m on a ClemSmithJr off road most of the time and love it. Descending, ascending, gliding, floating, crasing into a cartwheeling heap aren’t about an extra inch in wheelbase.[/QUOTE

It is 100% my lack of mountain experience. Someday I’ll figure out how to actually live in the mountains, hopefully before I get too old to ride.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sawdust;23463140]I assume this is all paved road riding and not descending trails where front suspension can make a huge difference. What exactly is it about descending that gives you problems? Are you allowing gravity to take you to speeds you’re not comfortable with? You have brakes to control speed. Are you getting tense on the bars and pulling your weight back from the front end? Safe to say between a relaxed responsive posture with weight between arms, pedals and butt and rigid tight grip planted on the saddle one is more likely to cause you problems than the other.