Kontact

Well, that's just a money thing - saying an entry level road bike isn't good enough to race.

Kontact

They don't have to be the same, but we don't really have formal road race bikes categories like we have categories like endurance or gravel. Sure, we can call a bike "climbing" or "aero" or "crit", but we don't get too wrapped up in that stuff because they aren't really mutually exclusive - a road bike can be aero, light and fast handling.

Kontact

No. I'm saying that a lot of riders don't actually know why they needed a feature like "stiff bottom bracket", but they get the impression that the engineering that went into them is valuable and that they should value it.

That doesn't mean that endurance bike features are bad. I would happily recommend a good endurance bike for the right cyclist. But I'm not addressing consumers - I'm having a conversation with thoughtful insiders who are aware of more aspects of cycle design than what's featured in an ad.

Kontact

Cool post!

Interesting how the RSL ends up with about the same wheelbase because it shaves off about 1cm with a degree of steeper head tube angle, then puts it back with more rake. And what is the magic formula for a cobble race bike? Low trail for stability on rough ground.

Kontact

Honestly, why bother deleting the posts if there is no consequences to violating either the spirit or rules of the forum? Leave them up for all to admire.

base2 

I don't know about endurance. But, this thread has persistence.

genejockey 

I see my error was having taken you seriously.

Kontact

Thank you for adding yet another childish insult to a thread full of them. Anonymity is your friend. Bye.

mstateglfr 

This definition of 'road bike' is hardly universal.

Amongst an A group ride, sure I could see 'road bike' consistently meaning 'race bike'.
But most everyone else? Most of those peasants will say 'road bike' when referring to their endurance road bike because it's absurd to say 'endurance road bike'. It likely doesn't matter to most whether or not they identify their bike in the specific category that the brand marketed it.

A road bike is a bike that typically has drop bars, typically has 32mm or narrower tires, and typically puts the rider in a more aggressive position compared to hybrids and other more upright bikes.
There are a lot of generalizations in that definition because there are a lot of exceptions.
A bike that was designed for CX but has 28mm slick tires and miniV brakes? - road bike.
A bike that was designed for a less aggressive position compared to the brand's race model? - road bike.
A bike that was designed for gravel but runs 28mm tires and a 2x with an 11-28 cassette? - road bike.

Nobody with an mtb and a road bike should be like 'honey, the box is in the garage next to my endurance bike' because that's dumb. They just say 'road bike' to differentiate that bike from the mtb.


Same for mtb- when someone at work says 'I saw a mountain bike on your rack in the parking lot- cool', does anyone respond with 'oh, you mean my downcountey hardtail.'?? Sure hope not.

rsbob 

Getting away from the drama… what my endurance bike did for me today was a 3 mile 980’ gravel climb. Would not do it on my race bike.

Kontact

I'm ignoring you. Stop quoting me, please.

Kontact

Why not? You can put gravel tires on any them. I worked with a guy who did a big gravel race on his Dogma.

rsbob 

not going to bite, Go argue with someone else.

Kontact

Than get off my thread if you can't politely discuss the topic. Is this just the Road subforum that is so toxic?

Eric F 

I don’t quite agree. We have definitely seen manufacturers with race bikes sub-categorized and marketed for different optimizations. For example, Canyon’s Aeroad vs. Ultimate, where aero features come at the cost of extra weight. That said, there seems to be a push by some manufacturers towards homogenizing the race category with one bike to rule them all - light and aero.

As for gravel, there are definitely different sub-categories. Canyon again provides an example with the Grizl vs. Grail. Gravel “race” bike features have common variations from “adventure” bike features (actual marketing terms may vary).

IMO, manufacturers are responding to the way people want to ride.

Eric F 

This is not your thread. Being the OP does not give you any authority.

Kontact

You said you disagree, than say what I did - that a bike can be a combination of all the various categories. That's very different than defining something by how it is mutually exclusive from another kind of bike.

Thanks. Why no lecture for all the insulting posters? Are you part time forum police?

Eric F 

Being able to do a “big gravel race” on a road bike with gravel tires doesn’t mean he faced the same level of terrain challenges as rsbob did on his recent ride. The gravel races I’ve done - including the well-known Belgian Waffle Ride in CA - have been less technically demanding than local trails I regularly ride on my gravel bike. Many of those same local trails are often included in my MTB rides, but I would never consider for my road bike, regardless of tires.

Eric F 

A single bike can do lots of things if you want it to. I’m talking about refinements that offer marginal gains in specific areas. For some people those refinements matter.

It strikes me that you’re trying wanting to find more rigid boundaries between categories than actually exist.

Kontact

Then I'm confused. As repeatedly discussed, endurance bikes are for road use, and are not gravel bikes. Are you saying that endurance bikes make better gravel bikes than road bikes do?

Kontact

No, I'm just pointing out the difference between defining something by what it has going for it and defining something by what negative qualities it lacks.

I'm not the one that coined the term endurance bike and made it a category. People have been making road bikes with endurancy qualities for a very long time without needing to draw a line.

Eric F 

I don’t think you’re confused at all.

Yes, I am…but this is just my opinion. The typical features that are found on an “endurance” road bike lean towards the “gravel” spectrum more than “race” bikes do. This includes rider position, steering dynamics, and tire clearance. Tire clearance being the biggest factor.

FWIW, I have not said that an “endurance” bike is exclusively for the road. Likewise, I don’t think a “gravel” bike is exclusively for the dirt. Both are slices from the wide spectrum of bicycles, and very often, those slices overlap. How each rider uses their bike(s) may vary significantly from another rider due to preferences and/or skills.

mstateglfr 

Ignore me then. My post was not improper. I did not insult you and I responded to a comment with genuine thought and context.
This thread, like all threads, is read and contributed to by the community. You may not want to read my comments, that's cool. It others may want to read my comments. Further, others may find benefit to my many detailed responses with actual data that helps show differences and similarities between road bike categories. Even further than that, others may find value in my actual examples which show how a taller person may fit on a brand's endurance bike while not fitting on the brand's race bike, this helping them see there is justifiable benefit in the endurance bike.

Quit complaining about a post that is respectful and informative and ignore me if you want to ignore me.

genejockey 

Clearly, you aren't.

Eric F 

The “line” is from the marketing department. The “line” is also not in a consistent place (based on frame dimensions) from manufacturer to manufacturer.