Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Endurance vs Race Geo? Marketing Hype or Real World Impact?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Endurance vs Race Geo? Marketing Hype or Real World Impact?

Old 12-18-17, 06:02 PM
  #1  
In2daBlue
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Endurance vs Race Geo? Marketing Hype or Real World Impact?

Sorry for the long post. For those who read it, I'd appreciate some insight.

Long-time lurker, first time poster. I've been going crazy thinking about the replacement for my 2012 Focus Izalco Ergo that crapped out on a ride (don't ask, it can't be fixed and I've parted the kit out) and don't know which direction to go.

Background: I don't race. Just love riding anything with 2 wheels outside. I typically ride 5,000 miles/year with 75% of that on pavement and the rest spread over MTB, CX, snow, and gravel. I have bikes for each discipline and the replacement for the Focus will not need to cross over (gravel).

The Focus was my first road bike and I put 15k+ miles on it over the years. I learned that while the relaxed geo was nice when learning to ride, as I progressed I found myself wanting a more aggressive position while on flats and descents, although it was great for longer days and for climbing (I live in Colorado and climb a lot).

Earlier this year, I took in a 2017 Madone 9.9 H2 and have enjoyed the hell outta of it, pedaling 2,000 since August. I've found it's a great speed machine, surprisingly comfortable, and the aero design is a welcome aid when I'm lone wolfin' across flat or rolling terrain. BUT, when I have a long day of climbing ahead of me, I find myself leaving the Madone on the rack and grabbing the Focus instead as it's just more comfortable to climb with and/or put 4 hours in on the saddle.

Now that I'm looking to replace the Focus, I'm unsure where to go. On one hand, an endurance frame like Wilier Cento10 NDR or Time Fluidity will very closely replace geo of the Izalco (in general, not to a T) and would be good for the climbing and longer days that I intend to use it for. But, I also worry that I'm buying my way back into the Geo problems I loved and hated about the Focus.

I've noticed some of the so-called Race-Endurance frames such as the Pinarello K8-S or the Canyon Endurance are splitting the difference between the categories and that appear to offer a racier geo than a pure endurance bike, but that also pay more attention to compliance and comfort than bikes made purely for speed (F8 and Aerod/Ultimate). I'm wondering if that "class" of endurance bike would allow me to have my cake (good climber, comfortable for long rides) and eat it to (still a racy bike that I don't feel totally upright on when not pedaling 10% grade or on hour 4 of a 6-hour ride.)

Unfortunately, coming from experience with only two ends of the road bike spectrum (pure endurance frame with Focus Izalco Ergo and pure race bike with the Madone), I have never spent much time riding bikes that fall between short of 20-mile test rides and jaunts with friend's bikes.

I know the easy answer people give to these questions (I'm a lurker) is that I should go out and test ride a bunch of bikes and see what I like. And while I see merit in that, I also know that it's often not until I'm 300 - 500 miles into a bike that I really know how she likes to be held, stroked, and pushed to her potential. I've literally bought bikes that I test rode for 20 miles thinking "I love this bike!" only to sell it 400 miles later because I realized it's not what I thought. In those instances, the bike never changed, just my understanding of being on it.

Does anyone here own a bike with one of these racier-endurance geometries like the k8-S or Endurance or something else? If so, what have been your experiences after riding the bike for 500 miles? Is there much of difference between endurance bikes and race bikes in general? I feel the difference between the Madone and the Focus is big but those are opposite ends of the spectrum. Am I buying into the marketing hype that I need a specific bike built for x,y,z or is there a real world difference?

Thanks for those who read all of this. Thanks even more to those who respond.

Last edited by In2daBlue; 12-18-17 at 06:05 PM.
In2daBlue is offline  
Old 12-18-17, 06:34 PM
  #2  
fietsbob
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,598

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times in 861 Posts
Trek has 3 top line bikes Domane , adds some comfort features that dont weigh much, Modone and Emonda are different.


their competitor specialized has their own set of features towards that end


Randonneur bikes have been developed to ride the endurance classic Paris-Brest-Paris... whole different approach.

US made MAP is a hand made bike in that tradition 650b wheels wide , tires , expensive casings.. so easy rolling..

See Compass Cycles for one source VO has tried making some in that style , steel not carbon.





....

....

Last edited by fietsbob; 12-18-17 at 06:58 PM.
fietsbob is offline  
Old 12-18-17, 06:50 PM
  #3  
alcjphil
Senior Member
 
alcjphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 5,869
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1792 Post(s)
Liked 1,671 Times in 955 Posts
My experience with any bike is unlikely to mirror yours. There is no such thing as an objective road bike review, either from an average consumer or from a professional reviewer who rides multiple bikes. The consumer can only give impressions of bikes that they are allowed to ride for fairly short distances, and you will have no idea about what previous experience they have. Professional reviewers have a vested interest in providing positive reviews, too many negative comments may mean that bike companies will not want to lend out a high end bike to someone who might diss their bike. Apart from that, what a really good rider might take from some rides may not apply to you. What one person perceives as "twitchy" may be what someone else thinks as " responsive". it is very much like buying a car, but cheaper. The last car I bought had a CVT transmission almost universally described as "awful". As far as I was concerned, it worked just fine. Sometimes you have to discount the opinions of the "experts" and rely on your own impressions
alcjphil is offline  
Old 12-18-17, 08:35 PM
  #4  
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 12,098

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1240 Post(s)
Liked 94 Times in 65 Posts
If your concern is simply how upright the position is, keep in mind that is quite a simple task to flip a stem, and voila, two bikes in one. If your concern is 'comfort' features, just make sure to buy a frame that can accept wide-ish tires (28-30mm ought to do).
joejack951 is offline  
Old 12-18-17, 09:25 PM
  #5  
tyw214
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I own a Specialized Diverge (Endurance), a Cannondale CAAD12 (normal race/climbing), and a Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8.0.


I have to say, from left to ride, I have to bend lower and lower for the same position on the hood. With the Diverge and the CAAD12 actualy not THAT much difference. The Aeroad though... definitely gotta get lower :x

I am a small build for male, so I ride the smallest size from each company XD 48, and 2XS >_>

tbh, the CAAD12 is surprisingly compliant if you upgrade it with the Cannondale carbon flex post. It feels really good. However, the Aeroad actually have less buzz overall (but bumpier on the butt). I would not ever get an Endurance bike again tbh even if I wanted something more 'relaxing', I'd just get one of those normal 'race' geometry (non-Aero ones, Giant Propel, Aeroad, Specilaized Shiv), and upgrade it with more 'compliant' seat posts. I really dont' feel a difference between CAAD12 and Diverge <_<
tyw214 is offline  
Old 12-18-17, 10:08 PM
  #6  
Esthetic
Senior Member
 
Esthetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Bridgewater , NJ
Posts: 415

Bikes: 2019 Felt FR2 Etap Disc*2017 Wilier Cento10Air Ramato Etap*2020 Trek Domane SL6**2018 Trek ProCaliber 8

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 10 Posts
I've seen some really good deals on ebay on Focus Izalco Ergo and Cayo frames. Was actually very tempted to build one up, always had a thing for Focus.`

Both my current bikes are race machines, coming off a CAAD9 to boot, so i too wonder if the next one should be endurance with disc brakes or just go straight for a steel bike. The thing is they both climb well and have done a metric century on both just fine, so not sure what i really gain. Even the TCR fits 28c's...making it harder to justify, as i find it very compliant.

I say go for the bike you really want next, the distinction between most endurance bikes from a race can be close to nulled with the right rise, stem length and spacer height at the cockpit. My buddy is a climbing monster, and his main ride is a Supersix Evo Hi-Mod with an upright stem. Looks a bit funny to me but he loves it that way. Has a Spesh Crux which he alsolutely hates too, go figure.

Last edited by Esthetic; 12-18-17 at 10:22 PM.
Esthetic is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 10:33 AM
  #7  
In2daBlue
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I appreciate all who read my TLDR post and commented back. Helpful thoughts here. My wife gets tired of me talking about bikes (she has little interest) and my friends who ride bikes are more of the "if it pedals down the road and cost $1,000, it's good to go" and don't understand my intense study and spend on bikes. So, these comments are helpful.

tyw214 wrote: I would not ever get an Endurance bike again tbh even if I wanted something more 'relaxing', I'd just get one of those normal 'race' geometry (non-Aero ones, Giant Propel, Aeroad, Specilaized Shiv), and upgrade it with more 'compliant' seat posts. I really dont' feel a difference between CAAD12 and Diverge <_<

I think this is one of the most compelling things I've heard in a while and corresponds with my instinct after coming off the Focus Izalco Ergo.

Esthetic wrote: I say go for the bike you really want next, the distinction between most endurance bikes from a race can be close to nulled with the right rise, stem length and spacer height at the cockpit.

Thanks for the comment. Josh Poertner (formerly w/ Zipp, now Silca) has said after decades in the industry and knowing all the makers intimately, he chooses his personal bikes based upon the people behind the company and the paint job. The rest of the noise, he says, doesn't really matter.

Still. When you're getting ready to drop a wad, it's tough to say screw it! I'll just buy the first think that comes along.

Thanks again for the replies.
In2daBlue is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 09:05 PM
  #8  
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,373

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3078 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times in 1,005 Posts
It sounds like the OP may want to look for a bike that’s just a tweak to the Madone H2 geometry to give it a little more comfort and stability, rather than swinging wildly into another category of ride characteristics altogether.

So what I’m thinking, for example, is keeping a nice and sporty head tube angle, but getting a little bit more HT length; get some extra wheelbase, especially in longer stays, but maybe a little more trail, too ( via more fork offset), to reduce steering reactivity (i.e. reduce flop).

You see this term more in the UK/EU context, but maybe look for bikes described as “gran fondo” or simply “fondo.”
chaadster is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 10:37 PM
  #9  
tcarl
tcarl
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 561

Bikes: Roark, Waterford 1100, 1987 Schwinn Paramount, Nishiki Professional, Bottecchia, 2 Scattantes, 3 Cannondale touring bikes, mtn. bike, cyclocross, hybrid, 1940's era Schwinn

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
My opinion - based on what I own: I have two "racing" bikes. One is definitely a criterium bike - very fast, very quick handling, but not comfortable for more than about an hour or so of riding. The other is a Waterford 1100 (from around the year 2000) - a stage racing bike. It sounds to me like that's what you want. For "medium speed" riding (15 or so mph) it works fine, is comfortable, handles nicely. If you push it, it really comes alive when you get your speed up into the 20's. It does just what you'd want in a stage race. It's stiff - good hill climbing and acceleration, handles nicely enough for the peloton, yet I can certainly see using it in one of those 150 mile, 5-6 hour long road race stages. It's comfortable and stable enough for those hours long rides. It sounds like that's what you want. The only problem is where do you find one. About the only racing done in this country is triathlons (time trials) and criteriums. Last I checked Waterford still made stage racing geometry frames (along with what used to be called "sport touring" [I'm guessing that's today's "endurance" geometry] frames), but I don't know what your budget is or if you want a steel frame. Just thought I'd throw out my experience with what I have. Mine is built up with Ultegra parts and is really a great medium to fast speed bike for flat and (mod.) hilly terrain.
tcarl is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 10:59 PM
  #10  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4905 Post(s)
Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
It's this type of thread here that ranks right up near the top of my personal favorites. Mind you, not for the original question, but for the wide array of responses, from the rational to the utterly absurd. I feel like the phenomenon where 1cm of chainstay or half a degree of ST angle is the difference between the sublime and the unrideable is a uniquely BF experience.

I put 20k miles on a 6061 aluminum CX frame that I bought based on the Competitive Cyclist online fit calculator. When it broke, I replaced it with a steel CX frame of near-identical geometry, and have about 7k miles on that. My CF bike I test rode for 10 minutes. It's logged 2,000+ miles in 5 months. According to what I've gleaned on here, every frame I've had has been aggressive-- with 4+ inches of saddle to bar drop. My steel CX is still comfortable after 9+ hours in the saddle. Just make sure the frame fits your body, and the saddle fits your ass.

Fit is a whole lot more important than geometry, IME.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 01:55 AM
  #11  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,824
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,456 Times in 949 Posts
There is no "endurance" or "race" geometries. One company's race is another's endurance. They are marketing terms not classifications. Choose a bike by what that model specifically does, not by whether it has a label on the brochure.
Kontact is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 02:42 PM
  #12  
nayr497
Senior Member
 
nayr497's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nilbog
Posts: 1,705

Bikes: How'd I get this many?

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I have far less time than I used to for road riding - son, wife, full-time job. At this point, because my fitness (and waistline!) are not where they should be, I definitely prefer riding a more relaxed geometry. My body just isn't use to the positioning you have on a pure road bike right now.

My favorite bike to ride these days is my Van Dessel Gin & Trombones cross bike with 40mm Continental gravel tires. Still plenty fast on road and gravel, but more upright position and not as stretched out. If I had to downsize my bicycle collection, I'd get a nice cross bike with two sets of tires - road-ish ones, and off road ones.
nayr497 is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 03:26 PM
  #13  
gettingold
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 1,018

Bikes: 2018 Lynskey R 260 Disc; 2008 Trek 4.7 Madone; 2017 Framed Minnesota 3.0 Fat Bike; 1984 Nishiki International

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
"Earlier this year, I took in a 2017 Madone 9.9 H2 and have enjoyed the hell outta of it, pedaling 2,000 since August."

Wondering how the OP "took in" a high-end Madone. Maybe leave kibbles on the porch and hope for a stray?
gettingold is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 04:01 PM
  #14  
Hiro11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,608

Bikes: 2022 Specialized Allez Sprint custom build, 2019 Giant Defy Advanced Pro 0, 2018 Seven Mudhoney Pro custom build, 2017 Raleigh Stuntman, various others

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 782 Post(s)
Liked 475 Times in 238 Posts
I have a very racy road bike with a relatively small frame that I've set up with a 5" saddle to bars drop. I also have a monster cross bike with a much bigger frame that I've set up with a 1" saddle to bar drop.

Both are comfortable to me on long rides but in different ways, if that makes sense. Both also handle very differently. So yes, on the extreme ends of geometries there are large differences in how a bike handles. When things start varying by a few MMs or fractions of a degree, I'm not sure I could discern a difference.
Hiro11 is offline  
Old 12-20-17, 07:47 PM
  #15  
In2daBlue
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for the comments. It's helpful to read people's comments to my OP. Really appreciate the knowledge of the forum.

To respond to some specific things: my budget is what it takes to buy the right frame for the next 20,000 miles... and I mean that, within reason. I have a budget but most high-end brands fall within it... Parlee doesn't, but most do.

I'm not inclined to get an "endurance bike" as much as I'm chasing geo/characteristics to serve a specific purpose (light-weight, fast when needed and fun, but comfortable for long days and hilly terrain). Trying to research what that actually looks like in terms of geo or a given bike is harder as the stuff I find on Google tends to be mouthpiece literature/marketing for bike makers and because guys at different LBS seem a hard time talking about bikes they can't sell, making the "if not this, than what?" conversation hard to have with honesty.

Chaadster, your comment was helpful in that sense. I don't understand geo enough to know how to best fill my need. Once I do, I can research the heck out of different frames that fit that spec (or close) and then ensure a proper fit.
In2daBlue is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 07:04 AM
  #16  
gettingold
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 1,018

Bikes: 2018 Lynskey R 260 Disc; 2008 Trek 4.7 Madone; 2017 Framed Minnesota 3.0 Fat Bike; 1984 Nishiki International

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
The qualities you seem to be looking for are what I have found in my Lynskey. It's called "sport" geometry and it's definitely comfortable for either endurance or faster rides. Longer wheelbase and relaxed head tube but still rides efficiently. I'm no racer but I enjoy fast group rides and the bike feels great.
gettingold is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 08:50 AM
  #17  
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,373

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3078 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times in 1,005 Posts
@In2daBlue, I took a look at the 9.9 H2 geo, and it's pretty much in the middle of what I'd call the range between Race and Endurance (remembering, as has been mentioned, these are not hard categories). It's not particularly short, nor steep, nor low; in fact, it had me thinking that geo looks pretty good for me...but, the price! The Izalco Ergo I looked at too, and it's definitely more laid back at the front end, but about the same wheelbase due to shorter stays. Not knowing which frame sizes you have, these are just my general overviews.

Taken together, while an Izalco replacement might suit well to have a 73º or shallower head tube angle for more relaxed climbing behavior and posture (assuming that's coupled with a correspondingly shorter top tube than the Madone), I wonder if the biggest factor might not be simply different ride characteristics between the two bikes, primarily in the area of flex and comfort.

Not knowing anything about these bikes personally, I'm assuming that the Izalco was more of a compliant, forgiving frame whereas the Madone is much stiffer and less forgiving. Certainly that Madone aero seatpost doesn't look prone to forgiving flex!

If those presumptions are true, there are a few elements you can look for in the replacement which might make it more suitable, rather than needing to be super dialed-in on geometry. Stick with geometry numbers falling between the two bikes in most respects, but skew towards that sub-73º HT angle. A few millimeters in most dimensions won't make a huge difference either way, and can be adjusted for at the stem and seatpost; don't go out longer than the Madone TT, though, or shorter than the Izalco HT length.

In terms of frame features, I'd suggest looking for compliance elements, like thinner stays and a smaller seatpost diameter (27.2mm) where you can expect some flex and vibration absorption. Absent ride experience, listen also to what the manufacturer and reviewers have to say about the ride quality, looking for clues as to whether it's super stiff or more comfortable; it's hard to look at carbon bikes and guage how they ride, because layups and fiber types are invisible.

I hope that helps!
chaadster is offline  
Old 12-21-17, 10:20 PM
  #18  
In2daBlue
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chaadster
@In2daBlue, I took a look at the 9.9 H2 geo, and it's pretty much in the middle of what I'd call the range between Race and Endurance (remembering, as has been mentioned, these are not hard categories). It's not particularly short, nor steep, nor low; in fact, it had me thinking that geo looks pretty good for me...but, the price! The Izalco Ergo I looked at too, and it's definitely more laid back at the front end, but about the same wheelbase due to shorter stays. Not knowing which frame sizes you have, these are just my general overviews.

Taken together, while an Izalco replacement might suit well to have a 73º or shallower head tube angle for more relaxed climbing behavior and posture (assuming that's coupled with a correspondingly shorter top tube than the Madone), I wonder if the biggest factor might not be simply different ride characteristics between the two bikes, primarily in the area of flex and comfort.

Not knowing anything about these bikes personally, I'm assuming that the Izalco was more of a compliant, forgiving frame whereas the Madone is much stiffer and less forgiving. Certainly that Madone aero seatpost doesn't look prone to forgiving flex!

If those presumptions are true, there are a few elements you can look for in the replacement which might make it more suitable, rather than needing to be super dialed-in on geometry. Stick with geometry numbers falling between the two bikes in most respects, but skew towards that sub-73º HT angle. A few millimeters in most dimensions won't make a huge difference either way, and can be adjusted for at the stem and seatpost; don't go out longer than the Madone TT, though, or shorter than the Izalco HT length.

In terms of frame features, I'd suggest looking for compliance elements, like thinner stays and a smaller seatpost diameter (27.2mm) where you can expect some flex and vibration absorption. Absent ride experience, listen also to what the manufacturer and reviewers have to say about the ride quality, looking for clues as to whether it's super stiff or more comfortable; it's hard to look at carbon bikes and guage how they ride, because layups and fiber types are invisible.

I hope that helps!
Thanks for the detailed response. This is super helpful and really helps to refine my understanding. It makes me wish I tapped this resource earlier.

Are there good frame comparison tools online or is it an exercise in a good old Excel workbook?
In2daBlue is offline  
Old 12-22-17, 08:28 AM
  #19  
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,373

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3078 Post(s)
Liked 1,631 Times in 1,005 Posts
Originally Posted by In2daBlue
Thanks for the detailed response. This is super helpful and really helps to refine my understanding. It makes me wish I tapped this resource earlier.

Are there good frame comparison tools online or is it an exercise in a good old Excel workbook?
Sorry, but I do not know of online comparison tools, though I’m sure they exist; hopefully someone else can chime in.

I would suggest, though, that you don’t need a deep-dive into geometry; most road bikes, especially production road bikes, are all within a fairly narrow band of variance in terms of handling characteristics, and so really all you need to have a handle on is gross sizing. I think you’re on track with the whole “endurance” thing with regards to being more comfortable and upright hands-on-bar-tops position for long climbing days. That’s why I was saying to keep it in between the bikes you know; if we had a stack dimension for the Izalco, that’d be ideal, but I didn’t see one anywhere, but that “endurance” tag should get you reasonably in the ballpark.

That said, I’m not trying to dissuade you from looking at the numbers closely; real differences exist, and they influnce handling and fit. Rather, I’m simply saying I don’t think you need to in order to find that comfy, all-day climber.
chaadster is offline  
Old 12-23-17, 12:33 AM
  #20  
ddeand 
Senior Member
 
ddeand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 46 Posts
One of the things I stressed when I worked at a bike shop was that with a high mileage road bike, the rider may not know if the bike is a good fit untill hundreds of miles have been logged. Fortunately, for most of us, a few tweaks are all that’s needed to get things dialed in. Because of the lack of a long-range return policy, your purchase (however well researched) will still be somewhat of a crapshoot at most bike shops. I’m going to recommend that you look at the selection of bikes at REI (the Denver store probably has the largest selection). They have a fairly broad selection of bikes, but most importantly, you have a year in which you can return the bike. Not many shops offer that service. If you find a bike that works from Trek, you most likely will find a counterpart fron Specialized or Cannondale. But if the name on the bike is more important that the geometry and ride, then you probably have limited your possibilities already. It sounds like you need quite a few miles on the bike to determine if it’s going to be a keeper - that’s why I recommend REI (because of the return policy).
__________________
Some days, it's not even worth gnawing through the restraints.
ddeand is offline  
Old 12-23-17, 11:19 PM
  #21  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,888

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1543 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times in 39 Posts
A distinguishing characteristic shared by bikes that pioneered comfort (endurance) sizing was the length of the head tube but all of the head tubes have gotten longer. For example, the length of the head tube for both Ergo and Madone in my size are nearly equal (both over 220) as well as the frame angles. And, with more bikes going to disk brakes, huge tire sizes can be put on about anything. For significant differences, I think you need to be looking at an aero or tri bike to see a more aggressive body position, short wheelbase and skinny tires baked into the geo.
McBTC is offline  
Old 12-24-17, 12:56 PM
  #22  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
Originally Posted by In2daBlue
Thanks for the comments. It's helpful to read people's comments to my OP. Really appreciate the knowledge of the forum.

To respond to some specific things: my budget is what it takes to buy the right frame for the next 20,000 miles... and I mean that, within reason. I have a budget but most high-end brands fall within it... Parlee doesn't, but most do.

I'm not inclined to get an "endurance bike" as much as I'm chasing geo/characteristics to serve a specific purpose (light-weight, fast when needed and fun, but comfortable for long days and hilly terrain). Trying to research what that actually looks like in terms of geo or a given bike is harder as the stuff I find on Google tends to be mouthpiece literature/marketing for bike makers and because guys at different LBS seem a hard time talking about bikes they can't sell, making the "if not this, than what?" conversation hard to have with honesty.

Chaadster, your comment was helpful in that sense. I don't understand geo enough to know how to best fill my need. Once I do, I can research the heck out of different frames that fit that spec (or close) and then ensure a proper fit.
I really agree with the ambiguity of the terms you and the manufacturers are using. I want to suggest considering a little modern history, the Specialized Roubaix. I haven’t owned one, but they were lauded as comfortable bikes that were decently fast.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 12-25-17, 07:42 AM
  #23  
alias5000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 558

Bikes: HP Velotechnik Streetmachine GTE, 2015 Devinci Silverstone SL4, 2012 Cannondale Road Tandem 2, Circe Morpheus, 2021 Rose Backroad, 2017 Devinci Hatchet

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Just because chaadster dropped the term and my road bike is a devinci: devincis current road bike 'leo' is labeled as 'Gran Fondo'. I like their bikes and style, but have I insufficient experience to really comment further in this thread. Just came to mind as I visited their website a few days ago.
alias5000 is offline  
Old 01-03-18, 09:47 AM
  #24  
tyw214
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
tbh, the biggest and most notable difference between endurance, race, and aero is how 'upright' your body is when riding on the hood.

The more upright, the more 'comfortable' for most people and less 'aerodynamic' hence "slower". and 'endurance' bikes are usually the most upright.

Also i do feel like 'endurance' bikes' wheel base are bit more further apart than say the 'race' bikes.

However, since most air drag is produced by the rider, you could theoretically just slam the stem on an endurance bike and tuck into a more aero position to produce the same type of 'aero' effect and still have the 'endurance' geometry available if you want to revert to it? XD although the bike frame for say an Aero bike is definitely engineered differently than an "endurance" bike, and also the 'road shock absorbing' ability is also quite different.
tyw214 is offline  
Old 01-03-18, 02:51 PM
  #25  
Esthetic
Senior Member
 
Esthetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Bridgewater , NJ
Posts: 415

Bikes: 2019 Felt FR2 Etap Disc*2017 Wilier Cento10Air Ramato Etap*2020 Trek Domane SL6**2018 Trek ProCaliber 8

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 10 Posts
In2daBlue,

I won a bid for an excellent condition 2013 Focus Cayo Evo Di2 carbon 54cm frame on ebay from BicycleBlueBook. $157 plus shipping.

Excited to get my hands on it next week. Will be fun to build it .
Esthetic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.