Aerlix

Hi,
I'd appreciate some help deciphering Canyon's Endurace range and pricing.
I have a Cyclescheme price limit of £3000. The Endurance CF 7 eTap and Endurace CF 7 All-Road (eTap) caught my eye, and I was preparing to order.
Then, I noticed that the CF 8 was considerably less, and the Endurace CF SL 8 also fit into the budget.
Maybe I'm getting hung up on product numbers, but would anyone have any insight into whether there is a significant difference between these?
Is the 7 an "inferior" bike the 8, but costs more because eTap is expensive? I like the idea of eTap, but equally, spending the best part of a grand more for an inferior frame to get it might be a suspect choice.
Thanks!

Iride01 

Does the CF 8 have etap? If not that is probably why it's less expensive..

Components are what drives up the price of any model of bike frame. And most bike manufacturers have many different models of the same bike frame with different components. Don't know in SRAM speak what to say, but in Shimano speak the difference from DuraAce to Ultegra components will make a big difference in the price of a particular model.

However if the bikes are similarly equipped, then maybe Canyon has too many of one and needs to unload them for future models coming down the pipe.

We are talking new right? All bets are off for used. Have no idea what cyclescheme is. Suspect you aren't from around here! <grin>

GhostRider62

I have been considering the Endurace recently and I agree about the difficulty deciphering what one is potentially buying. They leave a lot of very important information out.

From what I recall, those three bikes have different groupsets, different wheels, and the SL is a much lighter carbon frame. I THINK the 7 and 8 frame w/o the SL designation are the same carbon buildup. The CF 7 etap has Rival components and regular, nonaero wheels whereas the SL 8 disc uses R8000 Shimano components, the same wheels, and the lighter frame. Whether the lighter SL frame is better? I have no idea but Rival vs Shimano R8000 and frame are the two main differences in the $300 price.

Aerlix

Thanks for the replies.

So the issue is that like you say, groupset usually determines price, which is intuitive. The CF8 (the higher-tier, yet cheaper bike) has Ultegra 8000 kit, while the CF7 eTap has the Rival wireless groupset. So why the lower tier number, surely the CF7 eTap should be worthy of CF8 designation?

This may all be psychological, I'm just wondering if I'm missing something big, paying more for the lower "tier" with the expensive robotic gearing. From Canyon's own comparison tool, they are basically the same kit, so pick your groupset, which makes it a simpler decision, in theory...

The SL looks like the usual "pay to remove weight" option, along with some goodies like the upgraded seat post, wheels, integrated stem etc.

Iride01 

I don't look at Canyon's often enough to know how they denote the various permutations of the same frame. However the number CF 8 vs CF 7 might be just the component group and not so much that one is higher end components. Especially when the components are of a different manufacturer.

It should be enough just to know that the CF 7 will cost you this much and the CF 8 will cost you that much. If you'd post links to the specific bikes you are comparing, then maybe you'd get some better opinions. I don't know that I'm looking at the same bikes as you since again, I'm not real familiar with Canyon other than I do look at them sometimes. Scott will be way more better IMO <grin>

Aerlix

Thanks, I am thinking you have the right way to look at it, and forget Canyons tiered number system. There was a similar question on ******: https://www.******.com/r/CanyonBikes...m_source=share

These are the bikes:
https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/road-bi...nfarbe=BK%2FBK
https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/road-bi...nfarbe=BK%2FBK
I think now that I've looked at it in greater detail, it really does seem to come down to whether or not you want eTap. I'm tempted, after riding mechanical road bikes for nearly 20 years...

PeteHski

Yeah, these are the same frame i.e. CF level. It gets a bit confusing with the 7 and 8 designation. They use the number to denote the groupset level with 105/Rival = 7 and Ultegra/Force = 8
But because Rival eTap is more expensive than mechanical Ultegra it makes that lower number designation a little unintuitive. But there are also a few other component differences (eg. wheels) between those 2 bikes. It's all listed in the component spec.

One thing of note with the CF frame is that it has 5 mm more tyre clearance than the CF SL frame (35 v 30 mm) and also has additional top tube bag mounts. So the CF frame is slightly more gravel/touring friendly if that matters to you.

I recently bought the Endurace CF SL8 Disc eTap and I think it's a fantastic bike. Even better than I was expecting to be honest. I would say the eTap is a decent upgrade, although certainly not essential. But let's say I'm not going back!

PeteHski

What very important info is missing? The model designations are a bit of a mouthful, but the spec was pretty clear to me when I bought mine. There are 3 carbon frame levels i.e. CF, CF SL and CF SLX available with various component builds. 7,8,9 designations for the groupset tiers. Full component spec is listed for each build, along with comparable weights.

GhostRider62

It is just a sequential number. Don't attach some mental gymnastics around it. CF = carbon fiber. SL = lighter carbon. If you see aero, it has the Swiss 1400 or 1100 aero wheels. Electronic shifting costs more in general, the model number means nothing functionally. You could always debadge it like some people do when buying a 4 banger BMW when they really wanted the 8 cylinder.

GhostRider62

chainrings
crank length
bar reach
bar drop
bar width
stem length
seatpost offset

I could think of others but those come quickly to mind.

PeteHski

All of the above are listed in the component spec and geometry tables for each bike.

Eg. Endurace CF 8 size M

chain rings = 52/36
crank length = 172.5 mm
bar reach = 70 mm
bar drop = 130 mm
bar width = 420 mm
stem length = 100 mm
seatpost offset = 20 mm

GhostRider62

Maybe in England.

Not ALL of that information is listed. It varies by model. I have yet to see handlebar width or crankarm length for instance.

The descriptions of the frame by model vary despite in many cases being the same frame making it confusing to the buyer.

In some photos, it shows 30 mm tire clearance and 32mm in others. Yet, you say 35 mm is ok.

The models are not clearly delineated and I have found important information missing.

GhostRider62

I'm looking at the dura ace one

No crank length, chain rings, stem length....

https://www.canyon.com/en-us/road-bi...rGridContainer

PeteHski

It's all there on the US site as well. You obviously haven't found the "component geometry" tab. Tyre clearance for the CF frame shows 35 mm for me on both US and UK sites. No idea what you are looking at.

GhostRider62

In contrast, look at trek. They lay out the model differences very clearly right up front

On the specific models, they tell you exactly what stem, rings, crank that you are getting.

The information is clear and easy to understand. Not so much with Canyon. Op was confused. So was I. Sorry.


https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/domane/

PeteHski

Click on "Geometry and Dimensions" then open the "Component Geometry" drop down, where it lists crank length, chain rings and stem length etc.

PeteHski

Not saying Canyon designations are exactly intuitive, but the information is all there and not THAT hard to find.

GhostRider62

Show me the crank length and rings for the dura ace model. Show me the handlebar width. Just three pieces of important data on a $10k bike. I don't see it. I know how to click on the all components tab. It shows a 32 mm tire coming with the bike, while others show a 30 mm tire, I do not see listed 35mm anywhere. This is a critical piece of info and a prospective buyer should not have to rummage around to find it or divine that the CF and CF SL can take different widths. Not well laid out. Sorry.

GhostRider62

Trek shows 38 mm on the first page.

If someone is buying an endurance bike, they want to know what tires it can take. It is critical. For the same bike to have 30mm or 32mm listed as max tells me the frames are not the same and the bikes are different. I have not found the 35 mm spec listed for tire width but trust you. As a prospective buyer, this lack of clarity is enough to turn me away.

PeteHski

35 mm is the MAXIMUM tyre clearance for the CF frame, not the tyres it comes with (which varies by model). Max clearance for the SL and SLX frames is 32 mm.

Crank length, rings, bar width are listed under "Geometry & Dimensions" as I explained in the post above.

PeteHski

You have lost the plot mate! 32 mm tyre clearance on the Dura Ace model you are looking at is listed as the number one main feature of the bike! The 35 mm clearance is listed as the main feature for the CF frame.

aliasfox

Not Canyon specific, but as someone who rides a frame listed as 28mm compatible, be careful what tires you end up running if you pick the frame with narrower clearance. My bike came with 28mm Continental Ultra Sport 2 tires on Vision Team 30 wheels, which actually inflated to nearly 32mm across and ended up rubbing on the chainstays when I got out of the saddle. So if you want to run fatter tires or wheels with a big internal width, just be aware that there may be a little trial and error before you get a perfect match.

GhostRider62

Just my opinion, not a straightforward website especially when compared to competitors.

The bike I am interested in shows a Dura Ace 9200 crankset in the pictures but the Component pulldown lists a Rotor ALDHU24 Inspider for the crank but does not specify which aftermarket chainrings will be shipped. This is not a small detail. Will they be Praxis? 11 speed Rotor? Does Rotor even make 12 speed rings? 50/34, 52/36, 53/39? What length arms. Not confidence inspiring.

The main page says 700 x 28.

GhostRider62

I learned something that may help someone. Canyon seems to use a nonstandard stem diameter. This means you cannot easily change stems for fitting or for other reasons. This critical dimension is omitted from the component listing. Could be a big deal for some.

Iride01 

I agree with you on this, but I fear that other bike manufactures sites might soon follow. This idiotic way of displaying things seems to have caught favor over the last few years at other sites outside of the realm of cycling.

IMO, Makes it 10 times more difficult to compare models. You almost have to know exactly what you want when you go to websites with that scheme.