Basstar

I am truly interested in doing more distance type rides, including some long rail trail rides.

From my online searching, though, I do not see bikes that are designed for this type of riding that are reasonably light.

The bikes that I see that are light usually have high Road gearing. The bikes with the lower gearing on the other hand seem to be heavier.

What are some bike choices you would recommend or is it necessary to customize or build a bike for these purposes?

Thanks

clasher

Light bikes aren't a big advantage on most brevets, aero is more important since it's "always on" so to speak. Gravel "race" bikes tend to be lighter than the regular versions, something like that salsa warroad vs the warbird. Most endurance road bikes are great rando bikes, and lower gearing is as easy getting a 48/31 or 46/30 crank/chainrings, and/or an 11-34 cassette works with most shimano road groups now.

Basstar

Thanks so much for the tips and the explanation.

I’m a bit new and age wise a bit late to the cycling world so I have a ton to learn.

GhostRider62

I was dreaming about doing an off road endurance race and the Specialized S-works Diverge STR was on my radar. It is about $750/lb but has suspension front and rear

Bikes like these generally will have large tires and rims, which weight at least a pound more compared to a road bike. If your requirements add suspension, then the bike gets heavy

I am of the opinion that much of the energy from sharp vertical movements are absorbed into one's body tissue. A suspended bike with proper tires and pressure should be more efficient and help ward off the trashed out fatigue that always comes.

If you want more road and less trail, the Trek Domane SLR 2023 version might be of interest, I think they ditched the suspension up front but kept the one on the rear. The top of the line version is under 17 lbs.

Bacciagalupe

What qualifies as "reasonably light?" It should be pretty easy to get a 22 lb aluminum bike, or a 20 lb CF bike.

How much are you willing to spend to shave a few pounds off the bike? Are you willing to spend $15,000 for a 13 pound Aethos?

Why are you worried about weight anyway? Lighter bikes aren't faster, unless you are Everesting.


What is your purpose? 100 miles on pavement? 200 miles? 300 miles? Are you planning on tons of climbing? Are you trying to be fast, or competitive, or just finish a long distance event?

jadmt

Check out something like a canyon endurace cf7 or cf8 under 20lbs and can do rough roads or gravel but still cruise at ~20mph. Very comfortable bike to do 100 miles on.

Tourist in MSN

Before you get too deep into selections based on weight, think about tire clearance.

I regularly ride three different rail trails, one has a fairly hard packed surface and I often use 32mm wide tires which my rando bike has. But one trail often has a bit more mud or soft spots, for that rail trail I usually use my light touring bike with 37mm wide tires, they handle the soft spots better. And one rail trail often has washouts and erosion problems, sometimes it is maintained with loose sand in the eroded areas, any tire gets questionable. That said, I think a lot of bikes with 37 to 40mm wide tires would work quite well for most people that want to ride most rail trails. I would not suggest anything narrower for a maximum clearance for a bike that is intended for that purpose.

Talk to others that ride the same trails that you are interested in, ask them what tire widths they like for the trails.

You want a bike frame and fork that can take the maximum width that you might want to use.

Later you might consider a second set of wheels if you want to use the bike for paved roads too. I can't comment on the cost of a second set of wheels, you likely are looking at a through axle bike, that could rule out older used budget wheel sets.

tangerineowl

Jack Thompson an ultra-cyclist, will be attempting a record run on the Munda Biddi in a couple weeks, on a STR.

Hope the temps stay down a bit for his run.

picaf

Helpful Thread

Turnin_Wrenches

I am a long-distance / ultra-distance cyclist, and I like "endurance" bikes for this purpose (generally speaking). However, over the past few years "endurance" geometry has gotten progressively more relaxed (i.e. slacker head tube angles, taller stack, shorter reach), the handlebars have gotten wider, and tire clearance has increased. It's reached a point where "endurance" bikes are now marketed as dual-purpose bikes suitable for road and gravel. This is all very well and nice if you are a road cyclist with very poor flexibility or someone who actively rides road and gravel. For the rest of us, the "endurance" category has left us behind.

I mention this because I recently had to replace my "endurance / gravel" bike, which was a 2020 Basso Palta. Basso originally marketed the Palta as a gravel bike, but it's geometry and overall design was (more or less) a relaxed version of Basso's road geometry with wider tire clearance for gravel applications. It made for an awesome endurance bike on paved surfaces, which was my primary use. As a gravel bike, it was average at best and should have never been marketed for gravel. However, since 2020 the Palta's geometry has gotten much slacker. It is now firmly in the gravel category and no longer suitable for serious road riding.

As I began my search for a replacement bike for long-distance and ultra-distance events I quickly found myself looking at full-on aero bikes and climbing bikes. Since 2020 road bike geometry has gotten more relaxed as manufacturers have realized that mere mortals aren't comfortable (for any distance) stretched out and folded over like a taco with a flat back. As a result, the stack on race bikes in 2023 / 2024 is now slightly taller and the reach slightly shorter, to the point that a reasonably flexible club-level rider can (in many cases) be properly fit on a super-sexy aero or climbing race bike. I'm not so thrilled about the head tube angles dipping below 72 degrees on some race bikes or chainstays growing longer than 410mm (but that is personal preference).

Long-story short, I ended up purchasing a Time Alpe D'Huez (disc) frameset. It's marketed as a "climbing" bike, which is no surprise based on the model name. However, I live in Florida. I primarily train and race in Florida. I am not a climber and will not be using this bike for climbing. The geometry of the Time Alpe D'Huez, which in my opinion is ideal for use as an "endurance" bike, is what got my attention.

The lesson learned and the main takeaway from my recent experience of having to replace my endurance bike is: Don't pay attention to the marketing or the category labels. Pay close attention to the geometry charts and buy that which fits you and your intended riding style. This approach should open your search to more possibilities, and you might be surprised what you find.

bderw

This might be said to death elsewhere, but lightweight HT steel is very compliant and comfortable over long distances. I have a Soma Grand Rando, v2, and with lights and fenders and a repair kit and pump it weighs like 23 lbs.

Carbonfiberboy 

Yeah, the best endurance bike is also the fastest bike. The object of the game is to reduce your saddle time. Carbon is the way to go. Compact bars and a slammed stem, low enough gears that you won't bog down on the hills in Z3. You want a frame that goes where it's pointed, not twitchy, easy to hold a line on.

Steel Monkey

My riding is very simplistic and limited to the frames I have (2 steel 90's MTBs). Given that, the decade of commute riding has taught me that (comfortable) distance is a matter of seat, and seat positioning. If the seat is comfortable for extended miles, then everything else seems ok (at least for me). That's just an everyday man's experience/interpretation. If you are looking for more technical expertise, then former/later thread comments will/have made a mockery of my limited knowledge

znomit

A rail trail won't have any sustained steep climbs so normal road gearing should be fine. I'd use my cyclocross or gravel bike depending on surface quality.

unterhausen

There are light gravel bikes with lower gearing that will work fine for longer rides. But on rail trails, I don't think I ever shift out of my big chainring. There is one rail trail near here that features 50km of steady climbing. It gets tiring, but your gearing doesn't have to be particularly low. Now that I think of it, the Pine Creek rail trail features a full 100km of steady climbing. It's vaguely tiring for some reason that you can't put a finger on if you haven't looked at an elevation profile. Then when you go back downhill, it doesn't help much because the gravel slows you down.

Salubrious

You might want to consider what you mean by 'more distance type rides'. What sort of surface will you be on? The Colorado Trail is about 500 miles but you really do need a mountain bike for that. But if you're riding the Mickelson Trail a gravel bike might be overkill.

Salubrious

Tourist in MSN

It has been 15 years since I rode the George S Mickelson trail, but when I did I was glad to have 37mm wide tires.



But we also were carrying camping gear for part of it.