PeteHski

Endurance road bikes actually reduce the need to own multiple specialist road bikes. Their increased versatility is a main part of their attraction. If I did have a $8000 dedicated and uncompromising race bike, then there is every chance I would want a second training bike or winter bike.

Kontact 

Perhaps the problem is we have gotten back to designing road race bikes as specialty equipment instead of the general road riding bikes they have been for most of history.

seypat

Could be. If you go back in time to when the roads were bad, that's the way it was. Ride to the race carrying you race wheels/gearing, change it out and race. Reverse the process, then ride home.

mstateglfr 

Longer wheelbase is simply one part of the what typically differentiates a race bike from an endurance bike. It is not some be all end all feature that must the be primary motivating factor for why someone chooses one style over the other. You phrased you comment in a way hat makes it seem like wheelbase is the reason why people choose an endurance bike. This is the same thing you did when you complained about frame suspension features and made it seem like those are on ALL endurance bikes and/or is the single reason why people choose an endurance bike over a race bike. That narrative was easily countered by pointing out some of the popular endurance bikes that dont even have the feature you complained about.

So now you are focusing on wheelbase as your complaint of the day. Ok then, here is some food for thought on that-
- You act like nobody has been able to answer you, but before this morning, had you asked in the thread why people specifically like a longer wheelbase? Wheelbase length has been mentioned in the thread, but it was hardly a focus on either side of the discussion. I bet you will get specific responses now that you have specifically claimed wheelbase length preference is something nobody has been able to explain.
- Wheelbase is just part of the bike geometry overall. When you add a little bit of length to the chainstay to allow for larger tires or to add a little smoothness, the wheelbase gets larger. Further, since most people arent taking their bike's capabilities to the limit and dont need it to corner on rails, adding a bit of wheelbase length to increase stability and smoothness does not penalize the rider from a performance perspective.

- And here is the biggest bullet point of all so it deserves space on its own and to be in bold...a lot of endurance bikes dont have wheelbases that are significantly longer than the brand's race bikes. Yes there are obviously some endurance bikes that have longer wheelbases, but there are also many that have nearly the same wheelbases as the brand's race bike.

• Cannondale
  • race- Supersix EVO has 1024mm wheelbase
  • emdurance- Synapse has 1028mm wheelbase
• ​​​​​​​Canyon
  • ​​​​​​​race- Endurace has 1044mm wheelbase
  • endurance- Ultimate has 1042mm wheelbase
• ​​​​​​​Cervelo
  • ​​​​​​​race- R5 and Soloist have 1028mm wheelbase
  • endurance- Caledonia has 1047mm wheelbase
• ​​​​​​​Giant
  • ​​​​​​​race- Propel and TCR have 1020 wheelbase
  • endurance- Defy has 1040 wheelbase

The race bikes listed above are ridden in the World Tour. The endurance bikes from these brands have anywhere from 2mm to 20mm longer wheelbases compared to the race bikes. Seriously- a couple have 2mm and 4mm longer wheelbases. Thats it.
None of these mentioned above have the compliance features you clearly hate so much.


It deserves to be mentioned once more- you seem to not grasp or accept that there is no one way for 'endurance' to be defined. It is defined how each brand wants it defined. Some have compliance built in. Some are simply different geometry in subtle but meaningful ways. Some are different geometry in significant ways.
You are determined to paint with a broad brush and the result is exactly what everyone would expect- important details are covered up.




Me personally?
- My main road bike has geometry that I would consider to be endurance. It is a steel frameset that I built in a class, but the geometry is definitely on the endurance/comfort/all day side- 430mm chainstay, 32mm GP5k tires, 73deg HTA with 59mm of trail.
It corners perfectly for me with how I ride, how I steer, what skills and risk I want to take. It is comfortable on long rides since the geometry fits me perfectly and the ride is smooth. It is plenty 'snappy' for how I ride since I dont race in crits.
- My main backup road bike, and the one I rode primarily this year, is a '97 Cannondale CAAD3 that I fixed up, painted, added a carbon fork, and added modern Ultegra shifting to. It has a 73.5deg HTA, 40.64mm chainstays, and 54mm of trail. Its significantly more aggressive feeling and definitely 'jumps' when I push hard. Its a blast to ride. I took it on multiple 50-85mi rides this year, but it is not what I will reach for to do long rides next year when both bikes are built up. It simply isnt as comfortable and I dont actually get any more performance out of it than my main road bike.



There ya go- some examples that counter your latest narrative about wheelbase lengths and some personal reasons for why a longer wheelbase is enjoyed.

eduskator

Perhaps the problem is the end users not buying the right product. I wouldn't daily drive a Lamborghini and complain it's stiff and rough on my back.

And I love my SL8 because it's versatile. As Specialized says: one bike to rule them all.

mstateglfr 

Sure, the problem could be that road race bikes are too specialized.
Or, and hear me out on this, it could be that too many people are trying to use that specialized equipment for general road riding. What?! AHHHH! Crazy thought!





In reality though, there is no problem. 2 road bike geometry options from a brand allows each consumer to select the geometry that best fits their body and intended use. What you view as a problem is actually really great for everyone else.

seypat

Funny you should mention that. Last week a guy passed me on 95 South about 5 miles before a rest stop. He was in a mid engine Corvette. He stopped at the rest stop as did I. I headed in to relieve my self. He got out and started using his car to do some stretching exercises. When I came out, he was gone. He didn't use the head. Maybe he was just sleepy. I was thinking how uncomfortable those cars must be for longer trips.

TMonk

thread us tl;dr. options are good. that's all I gotta say.

I have a ~2016 specialized venge that I use for go-fast time. It handles like crap and I hate it, but it works well for it's intended application. Separately, I have a 2022 TCR Pro with Di2 12 speed and disc brake as my daily driver or hilly race bike. It's a wonderful machine that is comparably very easy to ride. I haven't compared the geometries, but I think it could be interesting to do so. Possibly some difference in HT/ST angle etc.

a couple things regarding my choices as a consumer:

1) The specialized was bought from the shop at cost at the end of the season. It was part of a fleet on loaner to the elite team, back when amatuers were more supported with equipment pre pandemic

2) I'd have two bikes regardless so I have a backup in case one of them has mechanical issues. Would I have chosen something different? IDK. I like the idea of having a frame that is marketed as "aero" and configuring it as such, and then another one that is lighter/more comfortable for routine use. I do find it intriguing/interesting that some modern superbikes are marketed as jack-of-all-trades, like eduskator's aforementioned tarmac. If I owned one of those, I might be a bit more puzzled with what I did for my second road bike. But in a good way!

genejockey 

So, your objection is to the idea of making bikes that are better at what different riders want to do? You want a situation where, instead of every rider being able to get what he wants, we all have to compromise and give up some things? And why? Because it bothers YOU?

PeteHski

Or maybe there simply isn’t a problem here.

Eric F 

I don't see it as a problem. However you like to ride, there are bikes that are designed to optimize that experience.

We've seen here on BF that there are folks who like to ride primarily/exclusively on the road, but are turned off by the idea of a "race" bike. They aren't interested in optimizing speed. It is not uncommon for comments to be made that only people who are racers need a race bike, and it's a waste for everyone else. I don't necessarily agree with that POV, but it's an indicator that there is a market for bikes with a non-racy attitude, but are still fast and efficient machines. The term "endurance" is just marketing, but it conveys an appropriate message - here's a bike that's optimized for riding all day!

bbbean 

Very well said.

genejockey 

It does seem as if there are a number of people on BF who want to define what others should ride.

tomato coupe

… and how much they should spend.

Alan K

As I read more posts here, your comment rings true in many different ways.

Kontact 

No. Why are you so unsuccessful at guessing?

Every rider can want or get whatever, but as we have seen for a very long time, a lot of riders want what is marketed to them that season rather than what would be a better choice. You only have to look at the history 20c high pressure tires and super stiff frames to realize that manufacturers and consumers aren't buying the "best" bike - they are buying the trending bike. And I think some features of endurance bikes fall into this category - essentially depriving the folks who would buy a tall stack road race bike from getting what they want, because they have to go to a different kind of bike to get the stack that some road bikes had.

Kontact 

I guess I'm wondering where that idea comes from. Are racy bikes awful to ride? That R5 that keeps getting mentioned was a very mannerly, shock absorbing bike with predictable handling. People seemed to really like many of those sort of bikes from that era, and we sold many more of them than aero S3s and S5s. Were those bikes poor long distance rides for many cyclists? Or are the current equivalent bikes to the 2014 R5 unpleasant in comparison?

There should be tall, easy fitting road bikes that a reasonably smooth riding with traditional geometry - regardless of whether there are endurance bikes as well. But it seems like consumers don't get to choose between the Lamborghini and a GT, but have to go all the way to a sedan if they don't want a racer.

tomato coupe

When no one can determine the point of your thread, it's not due to their inability to guess your point, it's about your inability to make the point.

Trakhak

Endurance bikes are road bikes. They're just not road bikes with the racing geometry that the majority of non-racers (at least, those who weren't as fit as road racers) have had to adapt themselves to since the mid-1980's.

Racing geometry is great. At 5'8" tall, I won't buy a road bike with a head tube longer than 120 mm and a wheelbase that exceeds about 97 to 98 cm. But, during the season, I do training rides of upwards of 16 to 20 hours a week, and sometimes more. I imagine that you're similarly skinny and fit, and so the comparative lack of, as you say, short-wheelbase bikes with tall head tubes seems wrong.

I honestly don't know if bikes with tall head tubes and short wheelbases would ride better than identical bikes with slightly longer wheelbases. But intuitively, it feels as though bikes with taller head tubes would ride better with a longer wheelbase.

Dunno. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the bikes in a given use category (road racing, touring, utility, etc.) that have a higher handlebar position have generally also had a longer wheelbase.

As I used to explain to customers who wanted to know what type of (road) bike would be right: if you see yourself riding at something close to a competitive runner's training effort level, that's what racing bikes are designed for. If you're thinking that you'll mostly ride at a moderate jogging effort level, a sport touring bike (or, now, an endurance bike) is worth test riding. For the equivalent of a brisk walk, consider a hybrid.

Those characterizations are open to argument, of course. But the point is, the most obvious difference between the frames of bikes in those different categories is that, generally speaking, both the wheelbase and handlebar height increase for lower average speeds and decrease for higher average speeds.

genejockey 

It's also worth noting that "Endurance bikes" aren't a monolith, either. Some are essentially the "race bike with longer head tube" the OP mistakenly bemoans the absence of, while others are much close to the slack-angled, long wheelbased, shock absorber-bearing sort he imagines all Endurance bikes to be.

Trakhak

True. I just figured that citing three main broadly defined categories (racing, sport touring, and hybrid bikes) would make the correspondence between wheelbase/handlebar height and use case clearer.

Kontact 

Especially when you declare any bike with a tall head an endurance bike.

genejockey 

Not always. Only when it's funny.

mstateglfr 

This exists. Multiple examples have been listed in this thread, multiple times.
You just ignore the examples because they don't support yout current argument or you can't understand geometry and that the bikes are what you wish existed.
I'm guessing that if this thread makes it to page 7, you will move the goalposts once more and argue something new while gaslight ing everyone and claiming your newest argument is what your been arguing the whole time.

Eric F 

Bikes with aggressive race-optimized geometry and position can be awful for people who aren’t comfortable in that position. At 55, I’m thankful that my good spinal flexibility allows me to ride comfortably with nearly the same setup I used when I was racing 20 years ago. Not everyone is built like me, or wants to ride in an aggressive position, or has stayed flexible.

As I mentioned before, there are also folks who are turned off by the idea of a “racing” bike. It’s not a just physical thing, but a perception and attitude about riding and riders. We see this on display on BF regularly.

I don’t agree with your conclusion that the only options are a Lamborghini or a sedan. The options for road bikes optimized for variations in riding styles seem pretty broad, not unlike the variations in MTBs or gravel bikes. If you limit yourself to only looking at one manufacturer’s lineup, maybe you could come to a polarized conclusion. When you look at the wider marketplace, it’s not so black and white, but many shades of grey.

Hell, even the most aero, go-fast, road bikes of today are more versatile than the bikes I raced 20 years ago simply because disc brakes have opened up the possibility for wider tires.