mstateglfr 

Bike from a different angle.

Kontact 

A tall head tube doesn't steer any different than a shorter one, so I would call that fit geometry because it dictates the range of bar heights.

Chainstay length, BB height, trail are what I would call ride geometry, because they dictate how the bike steers, climbs and tracks.

genejockey 

The latter is a subset of the former.

Kontact 

And which bikes labeled "road" rather than "touring", "endurance", "sport touring", "all road" etc aren't also "road racing" bikes? Give us an example of a model that labeled simply "road" where it is not a road racer.

PeteHski

I’m not sure what statements I have ignored? I’m still struggling to understand your Lamborghini, GT, Sedan argument and you never did answer my question about where the Domane fits into that labelling, given that the Madone was your Lambo. I would have said it was very much the GT road bike you said we were missing.

BTW I don’t care about scoring points. Your thread title asks us what we get out of our endurance bikes, which I answered very clearly about 12 pages ago. But you keep banging on about specific geometry features that you don’t like in endurance bikes ie long wheelbase, suspension “widgets” and high trail. None of which are defining traits of a modern endurance bike and few endurance bikes include all 3 of those traits simultaneously.

We’ve already covered the Canyon Endurace geometry and I don’t think the Roubaix fits your endurance caricature either. So how about you give us a specific example of a current endurance bike that fits the premise in your opening post?

mstateglfr 

category- ROAD BIKE
possible subsets- race, endurance, touring, all road, touring, cx, gravel, audax, commute, and more.

No model needs to be labeled as literally just 'road' for any of the subsets. You are once more creating an argument to prove a point by challenging someone who didnt even take the opposite view of your new argument. There is a term for that, but you got angry when it was mentioned earlier.

genejockey 

What he said.

genejockey 

Here's an example: 2 road bikes. Same manufacturer, same year.

Race bike:


Sport Touring Bike:

Oh, I suppose you COULD race the Classique, but then, you could race a Hybrid if you were so inclined. But that's not what it was built for, whereas the Supreme above it was built to race.

seypat

If you look at the lineup from Lotus in 83/84 they had a Legend and a Legend Comp. The Legend was the sport frame with eyelets and wider gearing. The Legend Comp frame had no eyelets and different frame geometry specifically for racing. It was the entry racing frame under the Supreme. I have one of each, but am too lazy to post pics. On the flip side, I also have a 72 Crescent 320 Pepita. It was one of their top models. Eyelets, relaxed geometry, toe overlap, etc. It also wears the World Championship stripes because evidently, a lot of races were won on that frame including some type of world championship. You also have Sean Kelly and all of those races he won with those noodly Vitus frames.

seypat

I also have a 72 Condor. The original owner bought it while he was working in London BITD. He did everything on that bike. Race, tour etc. He would just change out components/equipment to suit his needs.The original wheelset was Campy hubs laced to lightweight 27" aluminum rims with Schrader valves. Here's the sweet 57T Campy chainring he would mount for TTs. I'm getting a picture frame for it and will mount it on a office wall.

Eric F 

Same with most bike categories. Not all "race" bikes are exactly the same, either. Delineations between bike types can generally be made fairly easily when comparing the range of bikes of one brand (although much of it may be found in the marketing), but when you start comparing bikes of other brands, those lines can get blurry pretty quickly.

IMO, it's not necessary that bikes need to fit into rigid boxes where each type of bike must have the same set of defining features, expressed exactly the same way. We are served better by having more options than fewer.

genejockey 

I mean, the big thing about categories is that they make it simpler. They don't have to be rigidly defined with clear delineations and no overlap. They just need to tell you what part of a spectrum you're looking at.

PeteHski

Every manufacturer has slightly different ideas about bike categories, but they all seem to recognise that riders want more choice and they need to make it clear what choices they are offering. It's the same with cars. There is far more choice today than there was 40 years ago.

I don't believe the entire bike industry has gone wrong with endurance bikes, otherwise they simply wouldn't sell and in practice they usually outsell their equivalent race bikes. The main demographic for consumers of higher end road bikes is the MAMIL who is likely to be entering Gran Fondos and other endurance rides. This is the market for endurance road bikes. It isn't rocket science

genejockey 

I guess at 66, I'm no longer a MAMIL. I'm an OMIL.

eduskator

Totally agree with you! At the end of the day, it's all a matter of what you need or want (both are often different unfortunately!).

bbbean 

You are assuming you know better than a lot of riders what the "best choice" would be for them, despite them selecting some other bike?

unterhausen

I deleted a lot of posts. There were some infraction-worthy posts in there, and some of you are close to being banned temporarily or permanently. We can discuss subjects like this without insults.

Eric F 

You know how it works. When the topic runs out, or starts to circle, the thread is kept alive by insulting each other.

mstateglfr 

Only a moron would think this!

Eric F 

seypat

Is that "the crank" on the red one? It shined up well.

Turnin_Wrenches

In an attempt to be helpful ... I put together a geometry comparison of the regular Domane SLR vs the Domane RSL in a size 56cm frame. The Trek Domane is one example of a specific model offered in an endurance geometry and a race geometry. Same name, two very different bikes. The RSL (race shop limited) is the race bike used by Lidl-Trek in some of the UCI cobble races. The SLR is the endurance version, the one that is more familiar to the general public and the one referenced earlier in this thread.

The SLR has a stack height in the realm of a beach cruiser , while the RSL is pretty long and low.

datlas 

Kontact 

You seem to be taking this thread way too seriously. I don't have a specific thesis that is going to blow anyone's mind. I'm just airing my belief that many endurance bikes fulfill an unnecessary function because there is nothing wrong with standard road bikes now that they accept such large tires and have recently had high stacks.

And I don't keep "banging on". I reply to the steady stream of questions from you and several other frequent posters. If you don't like the topic, why are you so engaged? Stop complaining.

Kontact 

Except that's not the reality. Like "alloy" implies aluminum, if you say road bike without any more information you are talking about a race type bike. Otherwise, you use a modifier like "touring" or "flat bar". And you can argue all you want, but you know very well that you can say road bike and people will not be confused what kind of bike that is. Because if you wanted a touring bike, you would have said that.

Like alloy, road bike is both a type and a general heading.