Racing Dan

You should read the the insults I had to endure when I proposed having more padding in the seat rather than in the pant Its the nature of internet forums. Some ppl just cant handle difference in opinion.

Kontact 

You may have typo in there - Kestrel makes three road models currently - the Legend SL, RT-1100 and Talon X.

The size large RT-1100 has a stack of 565 and a reach of 395 for a ratio of 1.43. That's from Kestrel:
Kestrel Bicycles | Road | RT 1100 Series - RT-1100 - SRAM RED eTap

I used Madone H2, not even H3. H1-H3 are all considered race bikes by Trek. They have a different model, the Domane, that provides a high end endurance.

If the Addict is no longer a race bike, then we'll take it off the list. Done.


I don't think Cervelo is "disingenuous" any more than the taller Madone is. These are some of the top pro racing bikes out there, have been produced for many years with this same geometry and they sell really well. How could a winning pro race bike that sells well be a bad example if fits like the Emonda?


It would be nice to be able to disqualify the Treks, Kestrels and Cervelos from the discussion to make some sort of different point about geometry, but the fact is that the Madone, Domane, Cervelos and RT-1100 ARE racing or endurance bikes, even if you don't wan them to be. And it really just takes one to break the "rule" before you say "that isn't a good rule."


Not really. It looks like "all marketing" if you try to parse race vs endurance by just geometry - because there is so much overlap. But the point of an endurance bike is that it is comfortable, and as long as an endurance model achieves that goal, then the manufacturer has achieved theirs - regardless of the numbers. Bike companies don't want to trick people into buying an overly stiff, twitchy handling bike by simply labeling it "endurance", they want you to try the bike they engineered with features (some geometry, some not) that make the bike easier to ride for long distances.

Fiery

Thanks for the responses.

For some reason I read the Kestrel model as RT-1000 in your posts. But yeah, there are some problems with the RT-1100 geometry too that are bugging me: Take a look at the top tube and head tube measurements for size L. I see 565 and 195 mm - just looking at the numbers, they seem to clash with the declared stack and reach measurements. I entered the provided numbers into the bikegeo.net calculator and it gives 598 and 388 mm for stack and reach (plus or minus a few mm for the fork axle-to-crown height guesstimation), for a ratio of 1.54. To achieve anything like the declared stack and reach measurements it would have to have the fork length of less than 340 mm, hardly likely for a 700c wheel bike.

Regarding the Madone, yes, I would say that using the H2 geometry in this discussion is just as disingenuous as using the Cervélo. It is a widely known and promoted fact that these geometries are primarily adapted for recreational and casual riders, to enable a more upright position than what pro racers would typically ride. The way that I see it, you want to use what was explicitly made to be an exception to the rule, as an argument there is no rule at all (though I would call it a strong and clear trend rather than a rule anyway).

Finally, it's interesting that you are so strict when it comes to the "rules" of race vs. endurance geometry regarding rider positioning, yet you are quite a bit more lax regarding handling. Take a look at that Kestrel RT-1100 in size L. I see 405 mm chainstay length, 988 mm wheelbase (another questionable measurement though; bikegeo.net calculates it as 993 mm), 69 mm BB drop, 73.5 degree seat tube, 73.2 degree head tube, 57 mm trail (or 55 mm, per Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net)... All the numbers point to an aggressive, sharp handling race bike, except for that unusually tall head tube which enables a more upright position. Shouldn't you argue then that there is no discernible distinction whatsoever between race and endurance bike geometries?

Amusingly enough, I have very little to disagree with in your response to Racing Dan.

Kontact 

How about stepping away from charges of disingenuity and just deal with the reality?

Are the Emonda, Madone H2 or Cervelo race bikes or not? If not, are they endurance bikes? If neither, what category do you want to invent to put them in?


Because if someone asked me for an endurance bike recommendation, it sure wouldn't be a Cervelo R5.



"Strict" and "lax"? Have you read my posts?

The only thing that I am "strict" about is that you can't reliably label bikes between the two categories on geometry alone. If a manufacturer makes a bike with "race geometry" that rides like an endurance bike and they call it an endurance bike - it is an endurance bike. No amount of post-game analysis is going to make it not an endurance bike. And this has been going on in bike construction for many years before anyone coined the term "endurance".

The flip side is that no one is making race bikes with radically tight geometry any more. The minimum chainstay length is 408, while 399mm chainstays weren't unusual 10 years ago. The old Lemond bikes were pretty much described as "bikes for spending all day in the saddle", but today are considered to have very racy geometry.


All of this is so gray that the final product matters much more than the geometry, and we normally credit bike manufacturers with knowing what they are doing. So if Trek says that the Madone is a race bike and Kestrel says the RT-1100 is not, that's the end of the debate.

Kontact 

Just to add an additional wrinkle to the stack part of the discussion, one reason a real racer might buy an H2 Madone is that it is excellent geometry for those with short torsos and long legs. Tall head tubes allow those folks to emulate low race bikes because they have more seat post showing than the average rider. They get a much better fit than using a regular low race bike with short stem.

Dean V

This is true. I have a Madone and Domane, both 56cm. They are H2 fit and give me 11cm drop with minimal stem spacers. If I were to go H1 the drop would be too much for me and even alot of "proper racers". Could of coarse add spacers, flip stem etc but ...

IronM

A proper bike fit (seat height, reach, bar height, etc) should be the same on either a race or endurance bike. With a taller head tube, an endurance bike may have less spacers under the stem if you need a more upright position; that would be the most visible difference. What you can't see if the feel - a race bike has tight geometry and can feel twitch when compared to an endurance. A race bike might (not always) have higher grade carbon and a stiffer feel for maximum power transfer. The difference is noticeable, but not extremely so. There will also be similar difference between manufactures, and for wheels. Personally, while I'm still racing masters I'll be on a race bike. But when I finally give it up, I'm sure I'll trade up for some comfortable Ti model with disc brakes & plenty of stability.

Kontact 

So you don't think someone riding 30 mile crits should have their bars lower than the bike they do randos on?

IronM

Personally, no. The bar height and reach on my crit bike is identical to my road machine, and to my gravel bike. I've messed up my back before just changing bar height too much at one time. At least in my experience, consistency matters.

Kontact 

I don't entirely disagree, largely because I don't think raising the bars alone actually makes people more comfortable. But I can see locating a race bike bar a few cm lower than a century bike's. Perhaps a good way to look at it is that I would use a deep drop bar on the century bike, and a shallow drop bar on the race bike with the bottoms of the drops at the same height. So you would never lean over further on either bike, but your hoods and tops would be less upright on the racer than the century bike.

But I wouldn't want to have the same position otherwise and 10cm of extra bar stack with one bike.

Fiery

You seem to think I'm trying to somehow redefine and re-assign bike categories, but that is not my intention at all. I simply disagree with those arguments in your posts that are factually wrong or disingenuous in my opinion.

See, you are contradicting yourself here. In one post you say Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride, not a different type of fit. In another (and thanks for pulling this quote, I did indeed miss it) you say Some race bikes have the same, or even "relaxed" steering geometry. Finally: And it really just takes one to break the "rule" before you say "that isn't a good rule."

Then you disregard manufacturer's own classification of their bike (Addict, Roubaix), you proclaim that a bike with a bike with 195 mm head tube for a 565 mm top tube has a low head tube (RT1100) and you use bikes that are known and promoted for being unusual (R3, H2 Madone/Emonda) all in order to deny a clear trend as if it was a mathematical theorem that can be disproven by a single counterexample.

I'm starting to think that you are just trying to win an argument here, rather than share information.

So, a few new questions, if you don't mind:

• From your quotes above, you seem to feel neither fit nor steering are reliable parameters for differentiation between race and endurance bikes. What exactly are race and endurance bike categories about then, in your opinion?
• When you describe a race geometry bike that rides like an endurance bike, what exactly do you mean by "race geometry" and what exactly do you mean by "rides like an endurance bike"?
• How would decide which bike to recommend if somebody was looking for an endurance bike? If I understood you correctly, you would exclude anything defined as a race bike by the manufacturer, but would you simply include anything defined as an endurance bike?

On a side note, [t]he minimum chainstay length is 408 - is this a typo?

Kontact 

All of the above sounds like you aren't really reading. You quote me as if some of the descriptions I suggested are absolutes when I used words like "primarily" or "most". But I was describing the geometry commonly found on endurance bikes, not defining endurance bikes by their geometry. You can't define the category by geometry alone. A definition is different than a description of common traits.


I'll say that again, so it sinks in: Endurance bikes are not simply their geometry. And that's why I asked you what an Emonda, Madone H2 or R5 are if you think that they aren't race bikes because of their geometry - they are still race bikes. Because, again, geometry alone is a poor guide. We can only say what is typical about the geometry of either style but any geometry based definition is going to fail, as those models did for you.


Endurance bikes are those that feel and ride like endurance bikes. Geometry does not produce "ride". Ride qualities come from the way the bike absorbs vibration and transmits shock or energy. If a company puts out a low bike with a shortish wheelbase that has a soft ride, is easy to steer, and then calls it an Endurance bike, isn't it an Endurance bike? Just as Trek, Cervelo and others call bikes you don't want to talk about Racing bikes.



As for you nit picks, I already addressed putting the Roubaix and Addict in the wrong categories. Again, I missed their manufacturer categorization - which is what matters. Steering geometry doesn't define endurance. Fit geometry doesn't define endurance. The manufacturer defines what bikes are endurance and what are race.


One more time: Endurance or Racing bikes aren't defined purely by their geometry. They often have certain geometry characteristics, but not often enough to make a rule. The rule is what the manufacturer decides the bike is, defines what the bike is. No amount of objections on your part are going to turn an R5 with its tall head tube into an endurance bike.



*(Should have said 405mm. Extremely rare to see road bikes under that number any more.)

Fiery

Funny, I got a similar vibe from you posts - that you take descriptions suggested by other people and treat them as absolutes. After all, you are the one talking about rules here. Looking back, I see that you are actually fond of giving strong, absolute-sounding statements, and then backpedaling when called out for it. See this: There is nothing about racing bike geometry that prevents any owner from sitting in the same position as an endurance bike followed by this: I wasn't suggesting a rule that works on every bike - I was pointing out that a very large number of racing bikes do not force the rider to bend low - at all. And it is inconsistent phrasing that can make it hard to understand what exactly your position is when Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride and Steering geometry doesn't define endurance, yet Endurance bikes are those that feel and ride like endurance bikes even though actually The manufacturer defines what bikes are endurance and what are race. Could it just be that it's not my reading that's the main issue here?

Now, can we try to clarify this finally? Would it be a problem for you if we say that endurance bikes are commonly designed with a different fit in mind than race bikes? Will you object if we say that endurance bikes are often characterised by a higher stack-to-reach ratio than race bikes? Not suggesting a rule that works on every bike - just pointing out that a very large number of endurance bikes fit this description.

And you keep talking about some objections on my side about Cervélo R-series bikes. Sorry, I'll have to call you out on this now: where, when, and what about exactly did I object? Is me calling them outliers an objection?

WhyFi

Hi! What's this thread about?

athrowawaynic

Originally, it was about the marketing of bikes.

Now, it's about the measuring of dicks.

Kontact 

You are the newest person continuing the objections from when I disagreed that "race bikes are all low and aero and endurance bikes all make you sit upright". And I disagreed primarily because of the many race bikes with tall head tubes makes this an impractical rule.


The practical application: If you are shopping for an endurance bike, are all the road bikes you encounter with tall head tubes endurance bikes? Emphatically; no. You will run into many H2s, Cervelos and others that would confound such a rule and put you on a bike that is not designed for long, comfortable rides. So it isn't a useful axiom. Which is why I spoke up.


I didn't object to "win" the thread. I agree that endurance bikes are, on average, taller than your average race bikes. But you can't buy an average, so we also have to deal with the discreet model bikes that are actually available, even the ones that don't fit our preconceptions. Buy an endurance RT-1100 because you are looking for an upright bike and you will be disappointed. You need to look at the geo chart.

raria

It likes abstract art with multiple interpretations as follows:

1) It's about people who are like no other on this planet.
2) It's about what's wrong with America
3) It's about the need for better mental health care facilities.

Fiery

I stated quite clearly what I disagree with in your posts, more than once. You are free to re-read if you misunderstood the first few times.

Whom did you see claiming that all the road bikes you encounter with tall head tubes are endurance bikes? Was it in this thread? I may have missed it, but that definitely sounds like a very strange way to look at things when choosing bikes; normally I see advice that all endurance bikes you encounter will have a tall head tube, which actually is correct in most cases.

Nice that you actually do agree that most endurance bikes fit more upright than most race bikes, since your previous posts gave the opposite impression. It's a shame you are still using the RT-1100 as an example of an endurance bike with an aggressive fit, even though it most likely fits just like a typical endurance bike (and considerably more upright than either a Cervélo or a Trek H2) - you just have to look at the geo chart. Actually, that's an interesting question: which, if any, endurance bikes other than the Domane Classics/Team Edition provide a lower/longer fit that Cervélo and Trek H2, discounting geometry chart errors?

Kontact 

You seem to be trying to keep an argument going by further dissecting it and acting as a thread archeologist. As I said, I'm not interested in "winning the thread".

Nor am I going to play a game with you where I provide examples and then you say "well, other than those perfectly valid examples or very common Trek bikes..." They are good examples. Done.

You can't judge a bike to be endurance or not purely by its head tube length. That's all.

rivers

I have both an endurance bike and an aero/race bike. The endurance bike is a slightly more upright riding position than the race bike with a stack to reach ratio of 1.45 vs 1.35. Both are very comfortable rides and I can happily sit on both bikes all day. My longest ride was done on the race bike. My preferred bike is the race bike, but that's because I find it more fun to ride. However, the handling is very different on each of the bikes. My race bike is twitchy. When I first rode it, it took a bit of getting used to.
That's all I've got... I don't want to get involved in the willy waving contest

Intake

If you do these changes on endurance bike, you dont "spoil"- "break" the geometry ?? Is this right?
Also : whats the diference on angles between geometries? e.g. The seat stay- chain stay angle is bigger at race geometry?
Race geometry is better for uphills?
Where we can find more information?

Thx in advance !