electric / default rider 183 cm
Energica Eva EsseEsse9 vs Horwin SK3 ergonomics
Energica Eva EsseEsse9 and Horwin SK3 have modeled posture scores within three points for the 183 cm default rider. Treat this as a planning estimate; posture preference, data confidence, and a real test sit still matter.
Modeled fit comparison
Energica Eva EsseEsse9
All contacts reached
Horwin SK3
All contacts reached
The modeled scores are within three points, so the result does not distinguish a higher-scoring bike. Treat the result as a planning estimate and compare each bike's geometry confidence before a real test sit.
Rider fit: reaching the ground
The Energica Eva EsseEsse9 lists a 790 mm seat; the Horwin SK3 lists 790 mm, within a few millimetres of each other. Seat height is only a first-pass ground-reach input. It does not establish safety or actual foot contact. Seat width, suspension sag, boots, mobility, load, and individual proportions can materially change the result.
Geometry snapshot
| Spec | Energica Eva EsseEsse9 | Horwin SK3 |
|---|---|---|
| Seat height | 790 mm | 790 mm |
| Wheelbase | 1,465 mm | 1,360 mm |
| Wet weight | 260 kg | - |
| Displacement | - | - |
Posture metrics
Knee angle
- Energica Eva EsseEsse9
- Sport (58.1 deg)
- Horwin SK3
- Sport (57.9 deg)
Hip angle
- Energica Eva EsseEsse9
- Neutral (93.8 deg)
- Horwin SK3
- Neutral (95.9 deg)
Elbow angle
- Energica Eva EsseEsse9
- Relaxed (143.3 deg)
- Horwin SK3
- Relaxed (143.3 deg)
Torso lean
- Energica Eva EsseEsse9
- Neutral (12.2 deg)
- Horwin SK3
- Neutral (10.7 deg)