gt3racerich

I would love to get a Canyon Aeroad but am wondering if it would be a mistake and I should get an Ultimate.
I am 59 yrs old and started riding again after 10+ years off.
I am riding a 2000 Litespeed Palmares. When I first got back to riding it was killing my neck and back and I was going to purchase an Endurace (endurance bike). I made some tweaks to my bike and really improved quickly. I am riding 60 miles (about 25 miles of hills) with only minimal pain. I moved on from wanting an Endurace to the Ultimate but as I said, I would really love an Aeroad.
When I look at the geometry, my Litespeed is actually more aggressive then the Ultimate and even the Aeroad. They did not have reach and stack numbers in 2000 so I estimated fairly closely.
The reach on the Aeroad is less then my bike but the stack is less as well. I am at the small end for needing an XS so the stack would not be so extreme? I don't know if I am missing something or an Aero bike would have more things to consider?
Another thing I don't understand is how the Aeroad for an XS frame has a top tube of 527 (the same as an Endurace?) and a reach of 376 yet an XS Utimate has a top tube of 529 and a reach of 378. Those numbers would mean the Aeroad (aero bike) is slightly less aggressive then the ultimate (road bike)?
Sorry for the long post but look forward to any thoughts. I know Canyon offers a 30 day exchange but would rather order the right bike to begin with.
Thanks in advance for any replies.

Samuel D

Reach and stack only tell part of the story. The main thing for comfort is saddle setback from the bottom bracket. Too little and you end up with too much weight on your hands unless pedalling hard (people try to solve this with padded bars, a double layer of bar tape, padded gloves, etc., but the underlying problem is an overly steep seat-tube angle). For long-distance, i.e. slow, riding in comfort, you need a comparatively slack seat-tube angle.

Doge

Go for fit, handling, weight, the feel of bike. Going for aero, unless racing, at 59 is a mistake.

Dean V

+1
Aero bikes with integrated/custom components are also not as easy to work on.

Seattle Forrest

I know they just became available here, can they be test ridden? I don't know if they exist on shop floors, or just the internet and in peoples' homes. I tend to agree with Doge but if you can get a long test ride, that would be worth a lot more than my opinion.

pvillemasher

Why would you love to get a Canyon Aeroad? Just curious, what is it that you like about it more than other bikes?

Doge

I'm saving this.

datlas 

Get the Endurace. Do it now and thank me later.

Maelochs

Buy what you like if you are not riding professionally.

People tell me the aero benefit doesn't even being to kick in until you hit 18 mph .... and riding position has a lot to do with aero as well. if you cruise all day at 24 mph you might gain a few seconds with an aero bike ....

If one-third of your ride is climbing, I'd think you'd want a light bike .... but again the differences are marginal.

In fact, unless you are Seriously competing, and tenths of seconds over hours matter to you .... Fit is pretty much the whole show. If the bike is comfortable and pleasant to ride, you will enjoy it and ride it.

Weight? I have a nice CF "climbing bike" but once I load it down with what I think are "necessities"--lights, pump, multi-tool, spare tubes, tire levers, two bottles in cages (for the summer anyway) and my phone/computer I am over 20 lbs (with full bottles, way over.) The rest of my bikes are five-ten pounds heavier, loaded for the road. Plus, I am 70-80 lbs. overweight.

Handling? What does that even mean? Again, unless you are pushing the bikes's limits, I don't think
"handling" is an issue. If the head tube is near vertical and if you blink hard the bike does a ninety-degree turn ... maybe then ... but otherwise ... will it affect smiles per mile?

I'd say, if you Really like some particular bike for whatever reason, test-ride it if possible, and if it doesn't suck, buy it. For the differences in absolute performance between an old steel bike or a new CF bike or whatever .... buy what excites you.

Doge

At age 59, that is a given.

Ability to deal with changes in momentum.

To resit the unwanted, and to respond to the wanted changes in momentum.

That is not the only thing that contributes to the feel of a bike, but it is mostly what the handling is about.

green123

Endurace

Bah Humbug

This. Wifey's next road bike will not be an aero bike. It might even be a titanium beastie - standard BB, standard headset, standard seat tube, standard brakes, standard everything. Not like she's racing it, so what's a few watts? When she wants to go fast she has the P3.

Mr IGH

How silly, it's as if you are unaware that seatposts come with a variety of setbacks to compensate for seat tube angle.

McBTC

If you're wanting a comfortable fit along with an aero riding positon I'd say go with an endurance road bike with usual taller head tube that more easily accommodates a more upright riding position and a saddle that allows you to comfortably ride on the nose so that you can more effectively utilize aerobars, but... you may need shorter cranks when riding in an aero positon than customarily are provided on the size frame you need (e.g., 165mm instead of 175s) and a helmet that doesn't cover your vision ahead when in an aero position (or, it'll kill you neck).

Bah Humbug

How silly, it's as if you are unaware that proprietary aero seaposts on aero bikes are often not available with a variety of setbacks.

RShantz

IME, my aero bike is faster at a given power output when ridden back to back with my non-aero bike. However the aero bike is less comfortable to ride. Therefore, I almost always ride my Emonda.

I'll take the aero bike out on flatter events & on group rides where I'm thinking there's a chance of getting dropped. Of course, who knows if there's an actual difference when riding in the pack or if it's just mental????

Dean V

I have ridden my aero bike (Giant Propel) vs non aero (Giant TCR) around a velodrome at a constant 230W. Same riding position, same wheels. 37kph with both bikes. Any speed difference was very small. Certainly less than 0.2kph. I think nearer to 0.1kph.

datlas 

Shhhh....don't let the word out that so-called "marginal gains" are actually so marginal as to not be meaningful to most of us.

Shhh.

ddub

If you like the bike, pull the trigger. Find your current bikes stack and reach then buy the Aeroad that is the closest. Don't fret about top tube length, seat tube length. You can figure out seat setback and stem length from the difference in S/R numbers. Seat tube angles on most modern racy road bikes don't normally vary more than 1/2 degree. On the smaller frames toe overlap is common. The only caveat being maybe a slightly harsher ride. But remember we're just people on the internet with lots of opinions.

Campag4life

Depends but generally pushing on 60 y.o. an endurance geometry is vastly preferred. I am 63 and pretty fast for my age but no mistake, I need that endurance geometry.
That said, I ride with other fast old guys and some can ride slammed. One 65 y.o....a nationally ranked rider in our group rides TdF level slammed...big drop. Most oldsters need the head tube length in advancing years.


A bellwether of sorts is, if you can pretty easily touch the floor lock kneed, you can consider a std. race bike. Most old guys can't however. I can't...fit and trim, just don't have the flexibility. But again, I ride with some exceptions so depends. Based upon my experience among fit and faster old riders, 50/50 if a rider can ride 'race fit' Btw, riding more upright one can still stay with the slammed crowd. We just work a little harder and use the drops more.

Wittyname

Buy the bike that makes you want to ride it

Abe_Froman

I’m wondering now if my next bike should be a proper road bike, or a cyclocross bike to pull double duty for road rides and cyclocross racing.

I’m wondering what the aero differences are between say a Canyon Endurace and an Inflite? Or a Cannondale Synapse vs CaadX, etc.

popeye

In other words the ability to miss that wheel in front of you that did the unexpected.

canklecat

At 60, with chronic neck pain, a more comfortable and lighter weight bike would make far more difference than aero considerations for my longer rides. So far neck spasms around the 30-50 mile mark have thwarted my attempts at a standard 100 mile century. The legs and lungs are fine, although the climbs are tough on an older 23 lb steel road bike that weighs nearly 30 lbs with all the crap I carry.

Even on an '89 steel road bike, using the finest of 1980 tech (the Centurion Ironman was a nice bike but hardly revolutionary by the late '80s), with way too much wind-grabbing stuff on my handlebar (phone, light, camera), etc., and no aero clothing, I'm still making decent speed on downhills and flat terrain.

But I'm a slug on climbs. Unless there's a strong head wind, aero wouldn't help. I need a better engine. At 60, the engine ain't gonna get much better. A lighter bike that I could ride comfortably all day would matter more.

I don't wear aero kit, other than tighty shorts for longer rides on windy days. Switching from casual fit to snug jerseys would matter more than an aero bike. I don't even use foot retention, just casual Merrell walking/cycling shoes and platform pedals. There are many little things I could improve in my approach before an aero bike would matter.

One of my local riding buds is in his 40s, a strong rider but devoted retro guy. Steel bikes, retro jerseys, toe clips, etc. I think he may have one older carbon bike with clipless pedals, but doesn't ride it as often. He's quite a bit faster than me, and managed to average about 17.4 mph not only during the summer's Hotter 'N' Hell Hundred (which wasn't hotter 'n hell this year but still pretty warm), but rode to the ride overnight, more than 100 miles, and back home for 345 miles in 32 hours without sleeping. On a Mercier Serpens steel non-aero bike.

Doge

3t exploro