Endurance vs. Race Geometry
#76
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,171
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,273 Times
in
845 Posts
It is 2018 and I went to Specialized website and looked at the bikes you mentioned. But if you want to talk about past models:
73.5° and 74° are both steep seat tube angles, so any argument about "more relaxed" position is way off base when you are comparing steep and steeper. "Relaxed" for medium sized bikes is when the STA is less than 73°. These angles are just relative - there is a very concrete relationship between STA and expected set back, and those angles are NOT going to create the extra set back of a relaxed, more upright position bicycle. They are both "aggressive", steep STAs...
73.5° and 74° are both steep seat tube angles, so any argument about "more relaxed" position is way off base when you are comparing steep and steeper. "Relaxed" for medium sized bikes is when the STA is less than 73°. These angles are just relative - there is a very concrete relationship between STA and expected set back, and those angles are NOT going to create the extra set back of a relaxed, more upright position bicycle. They are both "aggressive", steep STAs...
...says he who conveniently and suddenly abondons his prior argument about the headtube length and reach.
Gee, I'm so sorry that the seattube angle is only a little slacker than on the Tarmac.
You asked for numbers, but then you backpedal and pick nits, just like your following sideshow quote:
"Trek and Lemond weren't "the same maker" any more than Giant is "the same" as the Trek's they made"
So I guess that even though Trek made the identical (including all dimensions) frame labeled as a 60cm Trek but as a 57cm LeMond means we're not talking about the same "maker" here, LOL.
Last edited by dddd; 01-17-18 at 05:34 PM.
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
Says he who conveniently and suddenly abondons his prior argument about the headtube length and reach, oh, sorry that the seattube angle is only a little slacker that on the Tarmac.
You asked for numbers, but then you backpedal and pick nits, just like your following sideshow quote:
"Trek and Lemond weren't "the same maker" any more than Giant is "the same" as the Trek's they made"
So I guess that even though Trek made the identical (including all dimensions) frame labeled as a 60cm Trek but as a 57cm LeMond means we're not talking about the same maker here, LOL.
You asked for numbers, but then you backpedal and pick nits, just like your following sideshow quote:
"Trek and Lemond weren't "the same maker" any more than Giant is "the same" as the Trek's they made"
So I guess that even though Trek made the identical (including all dimensions) frame labeled as a 60cm Trek but as a 57cm LeMond means we're not talking about the same maker here, LOL.
I'm not sure where you think there is any "backpedal" that has anything to do with the topic, but I was trying to explain to you that Greg Lemond was in charge of the geometry of Trek produced GL bikes, not Trek. Just like Trek was in charge of Giant produced Trek bikes. You can compare them if you like, but you are comparing two separate brands managed by two separate groups of people.
If you have a point to make about the comparison of those two models from two different brands, go ahead and make it. But a Trek is a Trek and GL is a GL. And neither of those bikes are "endurance" bikes.
Last edited by Kontact; 01-17-18 at 07:16 PM.
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
There is also the possibility of using a different size frame. Maybe you ride a 56cm Tarmac but get the fit you want on a 54cm Roubaix.
It really has to be taken on a case by case basis.
It really has to be taken on a case by case basis.
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
In the real world, people aren't a "size 56" because some 56s have tall headtubes and others do not, and that (along with other factors) makes a big difference in how you're going to fit on your bike.
Speaking of which, there is a general idea that seat to bar drop is indicative of comfort. From working extensively for a fitter it is very clear that this is not true. Most people would be uncomfortable sitting up too high, and there needs to be a reasonable bend at the waist for comfort on drop bar style bike - to the point that lower back issues are sometimes fixed by lowering the handlebar, not raising it.
In the Rando or touring world, bars are generally higher, but setback is much greater with the net effect of rotating the entire rider back around the axis point of the BB. They end up with a similar back bend to a racer in many cases, but the leg, hip, back and seat to bar angles are all rotated toward the rear tire. This is a very different fit than taking a racing bike (73° or greater STA) and raising the bars.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,453 Times
in
1,823 Posts
used to be you could count on me to take a dead horse which had been beaten half to jelly, grab it by the nostrils, and drag it around thrashing it for a while longer.
used to be you could count on my to get into an argument and just Argue, whether any point was being made or not, whether anything related to some earlier point of not ... I won't say "senselessly bicker" but some others might ....
But I got old, and I got tired. I lost my edge and couldn't get it back. I was afraid there wouldn't be anyone to come along and do the job of belaboring every pointless phrase, contesting everything just to be contrary, and criticizing everything everyone said whether it made no sense or perfect sense.
Now, at last, my fears are allayed .....
used to be you could count on my to get into an argument and just Argue, whether any point was being made or not, whether anything related to some earlier point of not ... I won't say "senselessly bicker" but some others might ....
But I got old, and I got tired. I lost my edge and couldn't get it back. I was afraid there wouldn't be anyone to come along and do the job of belaboring every pointless phrase, contesting everything just to be contrary, and criticizing everything everyone said whether it made no sense or perfect sense.
Now, at last, my fears are allayed .....
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
used to be you could count on me to take a dead horse which had been beaten half to jelly, grab it by the nostrils, and drag it around thrashing it for a while longer.
used to be you could count on my to get into an argument and just Argue, whether any point was being made or not, whether anything related to some earlier point of not ... I won't say "senselessly bicker" but some others might ....
But I got old, and I got tired. I lost my edge and couldn't get it back. I was afraid there wouldn't be anyone to come along and do the job of belaboring every pointless phrase, contesting everything just to be contrary, and criticizing everything everyone said whether it made no sense or perfect sense.
Now, at last, my fears are allayed .....
used to be you could count on my to get into an argument and just Argue, whether any point was being made or not, whether anything related to some earlier point of not ... I won't say "senselessly bicker" but some others might ....
But I got old, and I got tired. I lost my edge and couldn't get it back. I was afraid there wouldn't be anyone to come along and do the job of belaboring every pointless phrase, contesting everything just to be contrary, and criticizing everything everyone said whether it made no sense or perfect sense.
Now, at last, my fears are allayed .....
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,453 Times
in
1,823 Posts
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I learnt a long time ago (this is the polite version) to leave some people on some topics alone. I suggest we do this with @Kontact. It seems he really does believe that Endurance and Racing geometry bikes put the rider in the same position and the only difference is, to use his words, " Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride, not a different type of fit"
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
I learnt a long time ago (this is the polite version) to leave some people on some topics alone. I suggest we do this with @Kontact. It seems he really does believe that Endurance and Racing geometry bikes put the rider in the same position and the only difference is, to use his words, " Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride, not a different type of fit"
Does the Roubaix not have a 1.6 ratio? Is it not a race bike?
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
I learnt a long time ago (this is the polite version) to leave some people on some topics alone. I suggest we do this with @Kontact. It seems he really does believe that Endurance and Racing geometry bikes put the rider in the same position and the only difference is, to use his words, " Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride, not a different type of fit"
My Domane is set up with exactly the same fit as my TCR.
I could also just as easily have them different.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times
in
2,905 Posts
All this discussion and debate could have been avoided, if only the army had not rescinded it's bicycle standards and specifications in 1982:
MIL-STD-1274 (NOTICE 1), MILITARY STANDARD: MOTORCYCLE, MOTOR SCOOTER AND BICYCLE, STANDARD MODELS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (05 MAR 1982) [NO S/S DOCUMENT]
I have a faded mimeograph copy. Some parts that are still legible:
3.23.1 Bicycle Colors
3.23.1a All Race Geometry bicycles must be red in color.
3.23.1b Race Geometry bicycles issued to the 10th Mountain Division may, upon discretion of the commanding office, be white in color.
3.17.5 FTP Considerations
3.17.5a All military personal with an FTP less than or equal to 150 W or those personal over the age of 45 with an FTP less than or equal to 200 W will be issued Endurance Geometry bicycles.
3.23.1 Bicycle Geometry Standards and Definitions
3.23.1a Race Geometry is defined as any bicycle with a measured ... [the rest is unreadable]
MIL-STD-1274 (NOTICE 1), MILITARY STANDARD: MOTORCYCLE, MOTOR SCOOTER AND BICYCLE, STANDARD MODELS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (05 MAR 1982) [NO S/S DOCUMENT]
I have a faded mimeograph copy. Some parts that are still legible:
3.23.1 Bicycle Colors
3.23.1a All Race Geometry bicycles must be red in color.
3.23.1b Race Geometry bicycles issued to the 10th Mountain Division may, upon discretion of the commanding office, be white in color.
3.17.5 FTP Considerations
3.17.5a All military personal with an FTP less than or equal to 150 W or those personal over the age of 45 with an FTP less than or equal to 200 W will be issued Endurance Geometry bicycles.
3.23.1 Bicycle Geometry Standards and Definitions
3.23.1a Race Geometry is defined as any bicycle with a measured ... [the rest is unreadable]
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
The newer integrated bikes have tall head tubes to blend with their stems, but that doesn't explain the Cervelo R5 and similar non-aero racing bikes with tall head tubes that were used extensively by pros.
But really, you pretty much ignored my post: There is nothing about racing bike geometry that prevents any owner from sitting in the same position as an endurance bike.
Moreover, racing bike geometry is old - you'll find the same fit and angles on TdF bikes from the late '70s. It is geometry that allows you to ride comfortably on the tops or hoods all day and then move to the drops for an aero breakaway. And then do that for another 3 weeks. Don't confuse that with a time trial bike.
But really, you pretty much ignored my post: There is nothing about racing bike geometry that prevents any owner from sitting in the same position as an endurance bike.
Moreover, racing bike geometry is old - you'll find the same fit and angles on TdF bikes from the late '70s. It is geometry that allows you to ride comfortably on the tops or hoods all day and then move to the drops for an aero breakaway. And then do that for another 3 weeks. Don't confuse that with a time trial bike.
As much as possible bike manufacturers try to distinguish their models from their competitors. There are always exceptions to any generalization when comparing one manufacturer to another. As for Cervélo, they are a small bike manufacturer. Most pros ride bikes made by their bike sponsor so Cervélo is not very common. I've seen more Cervélo triathlon bikes than road bikes. So Cervélo would not be my first choice for these comparisons.
But your point about the cyclist's position is crazy. Of course most frames with a road racing layout can be adapted so a cyclist can use an endurance body orientation. The differences in frame/fork layout are not so extreme as to exclude this. Traditionally, the contact points of a bike (saddle, handlebar, pedals) have allowed great variety which is essential for a good fit. It's too bad that the move to more aggressive aero frames and forks is reducing some of the adjustability.
But let's look at Cervélo since you've cited them as your example. I've taken their three top road bike frames and listed some dimensions below for a 58 cm frame size (the large frame size that fits me best).
Cervélo R5 (classic road frame): head tube length = 178 mm, BB drop = 69.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo S5 (aero road frame): head tube length = 181 mm, BB drop = 68 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo C5 (endurance road frame): head tube length = 207 mm, BB drop = 72.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
It should be obvious to all readers that Cervélo gives its C5 endurance road frame a taller head tube plus a greater BB drop than its R5 and S5 frames. Why? The endurance layout favors a more upright and presumably, more comfortable, body orientation for the cyclist. But this results in a less aerodynamic orientation. The R5 and S5 sacrifice a bit of comfort in order to be faster. Being faster usually requires better aerodynamics (the exception being steep climbing).
Finally, when comparing one frame type to another, we should all assume that the default factory-provided stem and handlebar are used and the stem is mounted as low as possible (if headset spacers are used, just one 5 mm spacer). That way we are comparing apples to apples. As Kontact rightly points out, a variety of body orientations can be achieved by manipulating the steering tube length, stem angle and length, handlebar shape, seat post height, etc.
Kind regards, RoadLight
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
Hi Kontact,
As much as possible bike manufacturers try to distinguish their models from their competitors. There are always exceptions to any generalization when comparing one manufacturer to another. As for Cervélo, they are a small bike manufacturer. Most pros ride bikes made by their bike sponsor so Cervélo is not very common. I've seen more Cervélo triathlon bikes than road bikes. So Cervélo would not be my first choice for these comparisons.
But your point about the cyclist's position is crazy. Of course most frames with a road racing layout can be adapted so a cyclist can use an endurance body orientation. The differences in frame/fork layout are not so extreme as to exclude this. Traditionally, the contact points of a bike (saddle, handlebar, pedals) have allowed great variety which is essential for a good fit. It's too bad that the move to more aggressive aero frames and forks is reducing some of the adjustability.
But let's look at Cervélo since you've cited them as your example. I've taken their three top road bike frames and listed some dimensions below for a 58 cm frame size (the large frame size that fits me best).
Cervélo R5 (classic road frame): head tube length = 178 mm, BB drop = 69.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo S5 (aero road frame): head tube length = 181 mm, BB drop = 68 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo C5 (endurance road frame): head tube length = 207 mm, BB drop = 72.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
It should be obvious to all readers that Cervélo gives its C5 endurance road frame a taller head tube plus a greater BB drop than its R5 and S5 frames. Why? The endurance layout favors a more upright and presumably, more comfortable, body orientation for the cyclist. But this results in a less aerodynamic orientation. The R5 and S5 sacrifice a bit of comfort in order to be faster. Being faster usually requires better aerodynamics (the exception being steep climbing).
Finally, when comparing one frame type to another, we should all assume that the default factory-provided stem and handlebar are used and the stem is mounted as low as possible (if headset spacers are used, just one 5 mm spacer). That way we are comparing apples to apples. As Kontact rightly points out, a variety of body orientations can be achieved by manipulating the steering tube length, stem angle and length, handlebar shape, seat post height, etc.
Kind regards, RoadLight
As much as possible bike manufacturers try to distinguish their models from their competitors. There are always exceptions to any generalization when comparing one manufacturer to another. As for Cervélo, they are a small bike manufacturer. Most pros ride bikes made by their bike sponsor so Cervélo is not very common. I've seen more Cervélo triathlon bikes than road bikes. So Cervélo would not be my first choice for these comparisons.
But your point about the cyclist's position is crazy. Of course most frames with a road racing layout can be adapted so a cyclist can use an endurance body orientation. The differences in frame/fork layout are not so extreme as to exclude this. Traditionally, the contact points of a bike (saddle, handlebar, pedals) have allowed great variety which is essential for a good fit. It's too bad that the move to more aggressive aero frames and forks is reducing some of the adjustability.
But let's look at Cervélo since you've cited them as your example. I've taken their three top road bike frames and listed some dimensions below for a 58 cm frame size (the large frame size that fits me best).
Cervélo R5 (classic road frame): head tube length = 178 mm, BB drop = 69.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo S5 (aero road frame): head tube length = 181 mm, BB drop = 68 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
Cervélo C5 (endurance road frame): head tube length = 207 mm, BB drop = 72.5 mm, top tube length = 581 mm.
It should be obvious to all readers that Cervélo gives its C5 endurance road frame a taller head tube plus a greater BB drop than its R5 and S5 frames. Why? The endurance layout favors a more upright and presumably, more comfortable, body orientation for the cyclist. But this results in a less aerodynamic orientation. The R5 and S5 sacrifice a bit of comfort in order to be faster. Being faster usually requires better aerodynamics (the exception being steep climbing).
Finally, when comparing one frame type to another, we should all assume that the default factory-provided stem and handlebar are used and the stem is mounted as low as possible (if headset spacers are used, just one 5 mm spacer). That way we are comparing apples to apples. As Kontact rightly points out, a variety of body orientations can be achieved by manipulating the steering tube length, stem angle and length, handlebar shape, seat post height, etc.
Kind regards, RoadLight
There are full race bikes with taller front ends than endurance bikes. The Cervelo race bikes are well within the fit range of endurance bikes. The fact that the C5 is taller doesn't make a Domane disqualified as an endurance bike.
My "crazy" point is that the normal range of racing bikes include head tubes that are of equal height to most any endurance bike. If the not-crazy rule is that race bikes must provide an aerodynamic position compared to any endurance bike, then a lot of racing bikes aren't racing bikes.
Crazy, eh?
Kind regards,
Crazy
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,453 Times
in
1,823 Posts
Two plus two equals five. We are at war with Eurasia. We have Always been at war with Eurasia. Kontact is right. Kontact is Always right.--Dont make us come out there and show you our love.-------Ministry of Truth
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I refer you back to the incredibly common, popular and "racy" Roubaix. Then we can talk about how crazy I am.
There are full race bikes with taller front ends than endurance bikes. The Cervelo race bikes are well within the fit range of endurance bikes. The fact that the C5 is taller doesn't make a Domane disqualified as an endurance bike.
My "crazy" point is that the normal range of racing bikes include head tubes that are of equal height to most any endurance bike. If the not-crazy rule is that race bikes must provide an aerodynamic position compared to any endurance bike, then a lot of racing bikes aren't racing bikes.
Crazy, eh?
Kind regards,
Crazy
There are full race bikes with taller front ends than endurance bikes. The Cervelo race bikes are well within the fit range of endurance bikes. The fact that the C5 is taller doesn't make a Domane disqualified as an endurance bike.
My "crazy" point is that the normal range of racing bikes include head tubes that are of equal height to most any endurance bike. If the not-crazy rule is that race bikes must provide an aerodynamic position compared to any endurance bike, then a lot of racing bikes aren't racing bikes.
Crazy, eh?
Kind regards,
Crazy
Seriously? You want to use a bike designed with an ENDURANCE geometry for the cobbles as an example of road race geometry? This is the most "crazy" idea yet. Go read Specialized description of their Roubaix frame. They specifically state that they gave it an "endurance" geometry!!!
And why do you keep violating your own criticism to other members of this forum. You've challenged them to stop using adjectives and start using numbers. Where are you numbers? I presented you with the head tube, BB drop and top tube length dimensions for the road vs endurance geometries of Cervélo bikes---your choice of manufacturer (including the R5 which you cited)---and clearly showed that you are mistaken.
Let's return to the facts again. As before, here are the dimensions for the 58 cm frame size...
Specialized Roubaix (cobble endurance road frame): head tube length = 185 mm, BB drop = 74.5 mm, top tube length = 576.3 mm.
What was Specialized thinking when they designed their Roubaix frame? They wanted a bike that was more stable and comfortable on the ancient teeth-jarring cobblestone roads (many were made by the Romans). But they couldn't go too far because most of the cobblestone routes actually have longer sections of smooth pavement. So the bike must still be reasonably fast (that is aerodynamic) for the long smooth sections where race speeds would be higher. How did Specialized achieve this? They dropped the BB quite a bit to lower the center of gravity of the cyclist on the bike and move them into a more upright body orientation. They didn't need to lengthen the head tube because they used a longer fork (it had a full-height crown and longer arms to accommodate bigger tires). This raised the handlebar a little. They also added a nifty suspension system to better absorb the unwanted shocks along the cobble sections of the route.
As you can see, the Specialized Roubaix does not have such a tall head tube. At 185 mm (for the 58 cm frame size) it's a little taller than some road race frames---but not by much. And we need to be careful when comparing head tubes as I explained in my first post. Specialized is a good example why that care is needed. A 58 cm Tarmac has a 190 mm head tube and a 58 cm Venge has a 200 mm head tube. Yet the Tarmac has a traditional race layout and the Venge has an even stronger aero layout. So why are the head tubes longer the more aero it is? Answer: Two reasons: First, the fork is shortened in both the Tarmac and Venge. So the height of the handlebars above the front wheel axle is not necessarily higher. To achieve that shorter fork, Specialized reduced the height of the fork crown. The Venge has the greatest reduction (it's fork length from the bottom of the head tube is only 358 mm). Second, the Venge uses an integrated stem and handlebar which also reduces the handlebar height compared to the Tarmac and Roubaix. This is why it's important, when comparing one "geometry" to another, to look at the bigger dimensions. The head tube length, by itself, can be misleading.
Kind regards, RoadLight
Last edited by RoadLight; 01-20-18 at 10:29 AM.
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
Hi Kontact,
Seriously? You want to use a bike designed with an ENDURANCE geometry for the cobbles as an example of road race geometry? This is the most "crazy" idea yet. Go read Specialized description of their Roubaix frame. They specifically state that they gave it an "endurance" geometry!!!
And why do you keep violating your own criticism to other members of this forum. You've challenged them to stop using adjectives and start using numbers. Where are you numbers? I presented you with the head tube, BB drop and top tube length dimensions for the road vs endurance geometries of Cervélo bikes---your choice of manufacturer (including the R5 which you cited)---and clearly showed that you are mistaken.
Let's return to the facts again. As before, here are the dimensions for the 58 cm frame size...
Specialized Roubaix (cobble endurance road frame): head tube length = 185 mm, BB drop = 74.5 mm, top tube length = 576.3 mm.
What was Specialized thinking when they designed their Roubaix frame? They wanted a bike that was more stable and comfortable on the ancient teeth-jarring cobblestone roads (many were made by the Romans). But they couldn't go too far because most of the cobblestone routes actually have longer sections of smooth pavement. So the bike must still be reasonably fast (that is aerodynamic) for the long smooth sections where race speeds would be higher. How did Specialized achieve this? They dropped the BB quite a bit to lower the center of gravity of the cyclist on the bike and move them into a more upright body orientation. They didn't need to lengthen the head tube because they used a longer fork (it had a full-height crown and longer arms to accommodate bigger tires). This raised the handlebar a little. They also added a nifty suspension system to better absorb the unwanted shocks along the cobble sections of the route.
As you can see, the Specialized Roubaix does not have such a tall head tube. At 185 mm (for the 58 cm frame size) it's a little taller than some road race frames---but not by much. And we need to be careful when comparing head tubes as I explained in my first post. Specialized is a good example why that care is needed. A 58 cm Tarmac has a 190 mm head tube and a 58 cm Venge has a 200 mm head tube. Yet the Tarmac has a traditional race layout and the Venge has an even stronger aero layout. So why are the head tubes longer the more aero it is? Answer: Two reasons: First, the fork is shortened in both the Tarmac and Venge. So the height of the handlebars above the front wheel axle is not necessarily higher. To achieve that shorter fork, Specialized reduced the height of the fork crown. The Venge has the greatest reduction (it's fork length from the bottom of the head tube is only 358 mm). Second, the Venge uses an integrated stem and handlebar which also reduces the handlebar height compared to the Tarmac and Roubaix. This is why it's important, when comparing one "geometry" to another, to look at the bigger dimensions. The head tube length, by itself, can be misleading.
Kind regards, RoadLight
Seriously? You want to use a bike designed with an ENDURANCE geometry for the cobbles as an example of road race geometry? This is the most "crazy" idea yet. Go read Specialized description of their Roubaix frame. They specifically state that they gave it an "endurance" geometry!!!
And why do you keep violating your own criticism to other members of this forum. You've challenged them to stop using adjectives and start using numbers. Where are you numbers? I presented you with the head tube, BB drop and top tube length dimensions for the road vs endurance geometries of Cervélo bikes---your choice of manufacturer (including the R5 which you cited)---and clearly showed that you are mistaken.
Let's return to the facts again. As before, here are the dimensions for the 58 cm frame size...
Specialized Roubaix (cobble endurance road frame): head tube length = 185 mm, BB drop = 74.5 mm, top tube length = 576.3 mm.
What was Specialized thinking when they designed their Roubaix frame? They wanted a bike that was more stable and comfortable on the ancient teeth-jarring cobblestone roads (many were made by the Romans). But they couldn't go too far because most of the cobblestone routes actually have longer sections of smooth pavement. So the bike must still be reasonably fast (that is aerodynamic) for the long smooth sections where race speeds would be higher. How did Specialized achieve this? They dropped the BB quite a bit to lower the center of gravity of the cyclist on the bike and move them into a more upright body orientation. They didn't need to lengthen the head tube because they used a longer fork (it had a full-height crown and longer arms to accommodate bigger tires). This raised the handlebar a little. They also added a nifty suspension system to better absorb the unwanted shocks along the cobble sections of the route.
As you can see, the Specialized Roubaix does not have such a tall head tube. At 185 mm (for the 58 cm frame size) it's a little taller than some road race frames---but not by much. And we need to be careful when comparing head tubes as I explained in my first post. Specialized is a good example why that care is needed. A 58 cm Tarmac has a 190 mm head tube and a 58 cm Venge has a 200 mm head tube. Yet the Tarmac has a traditional race layout and the Venge has an even stronger aero layout. So why are the head tubes longer the more aero it is? Answer: Two reasons: First, the fork is shortened in both the Tarmac and Venge. So the height of the handlebars above the front wheel axle is not necessarily higher. To achieve that shorter fork, Specialized reduced the height of the fork crown. The Venge has the greatest reduction (it's fork length from the bottom of the head tube is only 358 mm). Second, the Venge uses an integrated stem and handlebar which also reduces the handlebar height compared to the Tarmac and Roubaix. This is why it's important, when comparing one "geometry" to another, to look at the bigger dimensions. The head tube length, by itself, can be misleading.
Kind regards, RoadLight
I don't know why this is so painful. What I said is that many racing bikes have head tubes of similar heights to "endurance" bikes, therefore you can't define a racing bike by having a lower than endurance bike stack.
Is that false?
I mentioned the Roubaix because Specialized calls it a Performance Road Bike. Not a performance bike? Fine.
But if you want to say that there is an obvious dividing line in stack height between ALL endurance bikes and ALL racing bikes, then what is that number? Is it 1.4 ratio for road?
Here is a mix of actual pro bikes and endurance bikes:
Madone 1.54
Domane 1.56 (endurance)
RCA 1.5
Synapse 1.56 (endurance)
Addict 1.54
Kestrel RT1100 1.43 (endurance)
Emonda 1.49
Roadmachine 01 1.46 (endurance)
Willier Cento10NDR 1.52 (endurance)
Giant Defy Advanced 1.54 (endurance)
Canyon Endurance 1.51 (endurance)
Where is the line between them? How are pro-team bikes like the Madone, RCA and Addict "low and aero" while the Synapse, Roadmachine and Domane are tall?
Are many pro race bikes low? You bet. Could you tell a racing bike from an endurance purely by its front end height? Nope - plenty of both between 1.4 to 1.6.
Last edited by Kontact; 01-20-18 at 12:46 PM.
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I did post numbers - I used the stack/reach ratio numbers of size 56 frames Raria wanted to use.
I don't know why this is so painful. What I said is that many racing bikes have head tubes of similar heights to "endurance" bikes, therefore you can't define a racing bike by having a lower than endurance bike stack.
Is that false?
I mentioned the Roubaix because Specialized calls it a Performance Road Bike. Not a performance bike? Fine.
But if you want to say that there is an obvious dividing line in stack height between ALL endurance bikes and ALL racing bikes, then what is that number? Is it 1.4 ratio for road?
Here is a mix of actual pro bikes and endurance bikes:
Madone 1.54
Domane 1.56 (endurance)
RCA 1.5
Synapse 1.56 (endurance)
Addict 1.54
Kestrel RT1100 1.43 (endurance)
Emonda 1.49
Roadmachine 01 1.46 (endurance)
Willier Cento10NDR 1.52 (endurance)
Giant Defy Advanced 1.54 (endurance)
Canyon Endurance 1.51 (endurance)
Where is the line between them? How are pro-team bikes like the Madone, RCA and Addict "low and aero" while the Synapse, Roadmachine and Domane are tall?
Are many pro race bikes low? You bet. Could you tell a racing bike from an endurance purely by its front end height? Nope - plenty of both between 1.4 to 1.6.
I don't know why this is so painful. What I said is that many racing bikes have head tubes of similar heights to "endurance" bikes, therefore you can't define a racing bike by having a lower than endurance bike stack.
Is that false?
I mentioned the Roubaix because Specialized calls it a Performance Road Bike. Not a performance bike? Fine.
But if you want to say that there is an obvious dividing line in stack height between ALL endurance bikes and ALL racing bikes, then what is that number? Is it 1.4 ratio for road?
Here is a mix of actual pro bikes and endurance bikes:
Madone 1.54
Domane 1.56 (endurance)
RCA 1.5
Synapse 1.56 (endurance)
Addict 1.54
Kestrel RT1100 1.43 (endurance)
Emonda 1.49
Roadmachine 01 1.46 (endurance)
Willier Cento10NDR 1.52 (endurance)
Giant Defy Advanced 1.54 (endurance)
Canyon Endurance 1.51 (endurance)
Where is the line between them? How are pro-team bikes like the Madone, RCA and Addict "low and aero" while the Synapse, Roadmachine and Domane are tall?
Are many pro race bikes low? You bet. Could you tell a racing bike from an endurance purely by its front end height? Nope - plenty of both between 1.4 to 1.6.
I agree fully, a race vs endurance geometry cannot be defined by the stack height. Wasn't that clear in my previous posts? And this makes the stack-to-reach ratio just as meaningless.
I consider the larger dimensions to be fundamental to describing these kinds of geometry differences. The stack height doesn't provide enough "height" information to reveal the default cyclist body position that the bike targets.
There are two important vertical dimensions. They are the handlebar height above the front wheel axle and the bottom bracket depth below the wheel axles. If you want a single height dimension that encapsulates it all, it would be the height of the center of the handlebar above the center of the bottom bracket.
I haven't commented on the horizontal dimension before now. Unfortunately, it's the most complicated because the frame's seat tube angle causes it to change with the seat post height. As soon as you change the seat post height, the horizontal dimension changes. The horizontal dimension is the distance from the center of the saddle clamp at the top of the seat post to the center of the handlebars. I suppose that manufacturers need to provide two values, one with the seat post at its lowest position and one at its highest position.
Those are the major dimensions that will reveal what kind of cyclist posture a frame and fork are designed for. It's the target cyclist posture that plays the biggest part in determining the type of "geometry" a bike is designed for. But it's not the only thing. There are many other aspects to bike fit and the quality of the ride that distinguishes one classification from another. But they are lesser aspects compared to the cyclist posture on the bike.
As for the Specialized Roubaix, you need to read the frame description farther down its product page on the Specialized website. It states that the Roubaix has what Specialized believes to be an "endurance geometry". Which makes perfect sense considering the kind of routes that it was designed for. Specialized's use of the phrase "performance road bike" is general in scope. If you look at the models they list under that heading, you'll see the Venge, Tarmac and Roubaix among others. As far as I'm aware, the only model in that group that Specialized says has an "endurance geometry" is the Roubaix.
We need to be careful that we don't jump to the wrong conclusion based on observed use. As you've rightly pointed out, a mechanic can configure a road racing bike for an endurance posture and visa versa with their choice of stem, handlebar, steering tube height, seat post height and saddle choice. I've seen pros use an aero road bike for climbing. That doesn't make the aero bike a climbing bike. All it means is that the cyclist prefers to use an aero bike even when climbing. The same is true for an endurance bike. You might see a pro cyclist using an endurance bike like a Roubaix for routes that have no cobbles. The cyclist may prefer the extra shock absorption provided by a bike, like the Roubaix, that's been designed for cobbles. These kinds of crossovers of bike application are not uncommon.
Finally, please remember that each manufacturer has their own opinion of what constitutes one class of bike vs another. Cervélo's idea of an endurance geometry is undoubtedly a little different than Specialized idea of an endurance geometry, and so forth. These classifications are a little loose at the edges. For some manufacturers, the only difference between a race geometry and an endurance geometry is the size tires the frame and fork can accommodate. Personally, I think that's way too narrow of a view but it appears to be a view that some manufacturers have.
Kind regards, RoadLight
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
Hi Kontact,
I agree fully, a race vs endurance geometry cannot be defined by the stack height. Wasn't that clear in my previous posts? And this makes the stack-to-reach ratio just as meaningless.
I consider the larger dimensions to be fundamental to describing these kinds of geometry differences. The stack height doesn't provide enough "height" information to reveal the default cyclist body position that the bike targets.
There are two important vertical dimensions. They are the handlebar height above the front wheel axle and the bottom bracket depth below the wheel axles. If you want a single height dimension that encapsulates it all, it would be the height of the center of the handlebar above the center of the bottom bracket.
I haven't commented on the horizontal dimension before now. Unfortunately, it's the most complicated because the frame's seat tube angle causes it to change with the seat post height. As soon as you change the seat post height, the horizontal dimension changes. The horizontal dimension is the distance from the center of the saddle clamp at the top of the seat post to the center of the handlebars. I suppose that manufacturers need to provide two values, one with the seat post at its lowest position and one at its highest position.
Those are the major dimensions that will reveal what kind of cyclist posture a frame and fork are designed for. It's the target cyclist posture that plays the biggest part in determining the type of "geometry" a bike is designed for. But it's not the only thing. There are many other aspects to bike fit and the quality of the ride that distinguishes one classification from another. But they are lesser aspects compared to the cyclist posture on the bike.
As for the Specialized Roubaix, you need to read the frame description farther down its product page on the Specialized website. It states that the Roubaix has what Specialized believes to be an "endurance geometry". Which makes perfect sense considering the kind of routes that it was designed for. Specialized's use of the phrase "performance road bike" is general in scope. If you look at the models they list under that heading, you'll see the Venge, Tarmac and Roubaix among others. As far as I'm aware, the only model in that group that Specialized says has an "endurance geometry" is the Roubaix.
We need to be careful that we don't jump to the wrong conclusion based on observed use. As you've rightly pointed out, a mechanic can configure a road racing bike for an endurance posture and visa versa with their choice of stem, handlebar, steering tube height, seat post height and saddle choice. I've seen pros use an aero road bike for climbing. That doesn't make the aero bike a climbing bike. All it means is that the cyclist prefers to use an aero bike even when climbing. The same is true for an endurance bike. You might see a pro cyclist using an endurance bike like a Roubaix for routes that have no cobbles. The cyclist may prefer the extra shock absorption provided by a bike, like the Roubaix, that's been designed for cobbles. These kinds of crossovers of bike application are not uncommon.
Finally, please remember that each manufacturer has their own opinion of what constitutes one class of bike vs another. Cervélo's idea of an endurance geometry is undoubtedly a little different than Specialized idea of an endurance geometry, and so forth. These classifications are a little loose at the edges. For some manufacturers, the only difference between a race geometry and an endurance geometry is the size tires the frame and fork can accommodate. Personally, I think that's way too narrow of a view but it appears to be a view that some manufacturers have.
Kind regards, RoadLight
I agree fully, a race vs endurance geometry cannot be defined by the stack height. Wasn't that clear in my previous posts? And this makes the stack-to-reach ratio just as meaningless.
I consider the larger dimensions to be fundamental to describing these kinds of geometry differences. The stack height doesn't provide enough "height" information to reveal the default cyclist body position that the bike targets.
There are two important vertical dimensions. They are the handlebar height above the front wheel axle and the bottom bracket depth below the wheel axles. If you want a single height dimension that encapsulates it all, it would be the height of the center of the handlebar above the center of the bottom bracket.
I haven't commented on the horizontal dimension before now. Unfortunately, it's the most complicated because the frame's seat tube angle causes it to change with the seat post height. As soon as you change the seat post height, the horizontal dimension changes. The horizontal dimension is the distance from the center of the saddle clamp at the top of the seat post to the center of the handlebars. I suppose that manufacturers need to provide two values, one with the seat post at its lowest position and one at its highest position.
Those are the major dimensions that will reveal what kind of cyclist posture a frame and fork are designed for. It's the target cyclist posture that plays the biggest part in determining the type of "geometry" a bike is designed for. But it's not the only thing. There are many other aspects to bike fit and the quality of the ride that distinguishes one classification from another. But they are lesser aspects compared to the cyclist posture on the bike.
As for the Specialized Roubaix, you need to read the frame description farther down its product page on the Specialized website. It states that the Roubaix has what Specialized believes to be an "endurance geometry". Which makes perfect sense considering the kind of routes that it was designed for. Specialized's use of the phrase "performance road bike" is general in scope. If you look at the models they list under that heading, you'll see the Venge, Tarmac and Roubaix among others. As far as I'm aware, the only model in that group that Specialized says has an "endurance geometry" is the Roubaix.
We need to be careful that we don't jump to the wrong conclusion based on observed use. As you've rightly pointed out, a mechanic can configure a road racing bike for an endurance posture and visa versa with their choice of stem, handlebar, steering tube height, seat post height and saddle choice. I've seen pros use an aero road bike for climbing. That doesn't make the aero bike a climbing bike. All it means is that the cyclist prefers to use an aero bike even when climbing. The same is true for an endurance bike. You might see a pro cyclist using an endurance bike like a Roubaix for routes that have no cobbles. The cyclist may prefer the extra shock absorption provided by a bike, like the Roubaix, that's been designed for cobbles. These kinds of crossovers of bike application are not uncommon.
Finally, please remember that each manufacturer has their own opinion of what constitutes one class of bike vs another. Cervélo's idea of an endurance geometry is undoubtedly a little different than Specialized idea of an endurance geometry, and so forth. These classifications are a little loose at the edges. For some manufacturers, the only difference between a race geometry and an endurance geometry is the size tires the frame and fork can accommodate. Personally, I think that's way too narrow of a view but it appears to be a view that some manufacturers have.
Kind regards, RoadLight
But your point about the cyclist's position is crazy. Of course most frames with a road racing layout can be adapted so a cyclist can use an endurance body orientation. The differences in frame/fork layout are not so extreme as to exclude this. Traditionally, the contact points of a bike (saddle, handlebar, pedals) have allowed great variety which is essential for a good fit. It's too bad that the move to more aggressive aero frames and forks is reducing some of the adjustability.
And "aggressive aero frames" are not getting any lower than they've ever been. No idea where you're getting that idea.
You also don't know what Stack is, since you complain there is no number that originates at the BB. Stack is not from the front hub.
It is a pain having arguments with people that don't bother to read and appear to know little about the subject being discussed, yet feel perfectly justified in being insulting. Crazy; I know.
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
This is the only post on that point you've previously made on the subject:
So is my point crazy or not? You appear to arguing in one post and agreeing in the next. What I have been saying is that position/head tube height is not what dictates whether a bike is endurance or not. That's what you called crazy.
And "aggressive aero frames" are not getting any lower than they've ever been. No idea where you're getting that idea.
You also don't know what Stack is, since you complain there is no number that originates at the BB. Stack is not from the front hub.
It is a pain having arguments with people that don't bother to read and appear to know little about the subject being discussed, yet feel perfectly justified in being insulting. Crazy; I know.
So is my point crazy or not? You appear to arguing in one post and agreeing in the next. What I have been saying is that position/head tube height is not what dictates whether a bike is endurance or not. That's what you called crazy.
And "aggressive aero frames" are not getting any lower than they've ever been. No idea where you're getting that idea.
You also don't know what Stack is, since you complain there is no number that originates at the BB. Stack is not from the front hub.
It is a pain having arguments with people that don't bother to read and appear to know little about the subject being discussed, yet feel perfectly justified in being insulting. Crazy; I know.
We seem to be having a colossal failure to communicate. Are you unable to understand the context of a statement? If you can, then why don't you understand why your use of an argument that being able to change your posture on a bike is not a valid proof against race vs endurance geometry? This is where your statements wander into the realm of "crazy".
Then you do it again with your comment about aggressive aero frames. I never claimed that aero frames are getting lower than they've ever been. Where do you get this stuff? Do you delight in twisting what other members write so you can invent something else to argue about? Are you unaware of the air resistance and wind tunnel testing that's been going on with pro road teams for decades?
Why do you falsely accuse me of not knowing what the stack height is? Why do you falsely accuse me of complaining there is no number that originates at the BB. Did you really not understand what I wrote? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?
I could spell this out for you again but, based on your past responses, I doubt it will help. If you can't comprehend the difference between the stack height measurement and a measurement that goes all the way to the center of the handlebar, then there's no point on continuing this discussion, is there?
Perhaps communication with other cyclists in this forum would be less painful to you if you were more friendly, carefully checked the facts before accusing others of being wrong, and had the humility to admit your mistakes.
Regards, RoadLight
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
Hi Kontact,
We seem to be having a colossal failure to communicate. Are you unable to understand the context of a statement? If you can, then why don't you understand why your use of an argument that being able to change your posture on a bike is not a valid proof against race vs endurance geometry? This is where your statements wander into the realm of "crazy".
We seem to be having a colossal failure to communicate. Are you unable to understand the context of a statement? If you can, then why don't you understand why your use of an argument that being able to change your posture on a bike is not a valid proof against race vs endurance geometry? This is where your statements wander into the realm of "crazy".
What are you confused by in my statements?
Then you do it again with your comment about aggressive aero frames. I never claimed that aero frames are getting lower than they've ever been. Where do you get this stuff?
It's too bad that the move to more aggressive aero frames and forks is reducing some of the adjustability.
Why do you falsely accuse me of not knowing what the stack height is? Why do you falsely accuse me of complaining there is no number that originates at the BB. Did you really not understand what I wrote? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?
The stack height doesn't provide enough "height" information to reveal the default cyclist body position that the bike targets.
There are two important vertical dimensions. They are the handlebar height above the front wheel axle and the bottom bracket depth below the wheel axles. If you want a single height dimension that encapsulates it all, it would be the height of the center of the handlebar above the center of the bottom bracket.
There are two important vertical dimensions. They are the handlebar height above the front wheel axle and the bottom bracket depth below the wheel axles. If you want a single height dimension that encapsulates it all, it would be the height of the center of the handlebar above the center of the bottom bracket.
Perhaps communication with other cyclists in this forum would be less painful to you if you were more friendly, carefully checked the facts before accusing others of being wrong, and had the humility to admit your mistakes.
So I'll ask you again, what is "crazy" about me saying that racing vs. endurance bicycle classes don't dictate stack height?
Last edited by Kontact; 01-20-18 at 05:49 PM.
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,825
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,457 Times
in
950 Posts
I am going to define what I'm talking about in a standalone post so it is very clear to anyone trying to get through this thread:
Endurance bikes are generally intended to be softer riding, predictably steering, more upright bikes than racing bikes. But they do not all have those features, and the tall front end is not universal.
Racing bikes can be found with wide variations is features and geometry, and many of them share many features of endurance bikes, including the ability to have more upright handlebar positions because of tall front ends.
Therefore, it is impossible to define an endurance bike by the height of the head tube. A Kestrel RT-1000 endurance bike has a fairly low head tube height, and a Madone or Addict have fairly tall head tube heights. So if one is searching for a defining feature of separating racing from endurance, head tube height is not it.
Most of the difference in geometry between endurance and race will be found in the length of the wheelbase and the angles and dimensions that control wheelbase.
The best guide to what an endurance bike is will be found in the manufacturer's marketing information about the particular models. Which is why the low Kestrel RT-1000 is an endurance bike and the tall Scott Addict is not.
Endurance bikes are generally intended to be softer riding, predictably steering, more upright bikes than racing bikes. But they do not all have those features, and the tall front end is not universal.
Racing bikes can be found with wide variations is features and geometry, and many of them share many features of endurance bikes, including the ability to have more upright handlebar positions because of tall front ends.
Therefore, it is impossible to define an endurance bike by the height of the head tube. A Kestrel RT-1000 endurance bike has a fairly low head tube height, and a Madone or Addict have fairly tall head tube heights. So if one is searching for a defining feature of separating racing from endurance, head tube height is not it.
Most of the difference in geometry between endurance and race will be found in the length of the wheelbase and the angles and dimensions that control wheelbase.
The best guide to what an endurance bike is will be found in the manufacturer's marketing information about the particular models. Which is why the low Kestrel RT-1000 is an endurance bike and the tall Scott Addict is not.
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,453 Times
in
1,823 Posts
What kind of roll is baked only on the internet .... a T roll.
#99
Senior Member
Therefore, it is impossible to define an endurance bike by the height of the head tube. A Kestrel RT-1000 endurance bike has a fairly low head tube height, and a Madone or Addict have fairly tall head tube heights. So if one is searching for a defining feature of separating racing from endurance, head tube height is not it.
Most of the difference in geometry between endurance and race will be found in the length of the wheelbase and the angles and dimensions that control wheelbase.
The best guide to what an endurance bike is will be found in the manufacturer's marketing information about the particular models. Which is why the low Kestrel RT-1000 is an endurance bike and the tall Scott Addict is not.
Most of the difference in geometry between endurance and race will be found in the length of the wheelbase and the angles and dimensions that control wheelbase.
The best guide to what an endurance bike is will be found in the manufacturer's marketing information about the particular models. Which is why the low Kestrel RT-1000 is an endurance bike and the tall Scott Addict is not.
- When speaking about the Madone, are you referencing H1 or H2 geometry?
- Why do you consider the Addict to be a race, rather than endurance model? Let me quote the manufacturer's description: The all NEW SCOTT Addict 10 was redesigned from the ground up with those longer days in mind. With new geometry that is less focused on racing and more on enduring, [...] the Addict 10 will be your go to when you're looking to put the miles in.
- Where are you getting the Kestrel RT-1000 geometry from, and which size are you checking? In size L I see 185 mm head tube and a 555 mm top tube for a 1.56 stack to reach ratio - definitely not something I would call a short or low head tube.
- Why do you consider the Roubaix, a bike that defined the endurance subtype, to be a pro race bike? True, it is used for one race a year, but you'll hardly see any pro racers on the same geometry that's actually marketed to buyers.
- Don't you think that using the Cervélo in this discussion is a little disingenuous, considering the fact that it is an outlier that was intentionally designed in opposition to what other manufacturers are doing? See here: https://gerard.cc/2011/08/08/body-po...height-part-3/
Last edited by Fiery; 01-22-18 at 08:02 AM.
#100
Senior Member
What does it matter what manufactures call their frames. Its just marketing and Im betting you can find a number of "race" frames with upright geometry and likewise a number of "endurance" frames that are more racy than the next brands race models.
IMO. Stack and reach ratio is not very use full, because it doesnt take into account, the distance behind the BB (seat tube angle). Much better is stack - "effective top tube" ratio to get a feel for how "racy" a frame will feel. On top of that comes stem lenght and angle, and bar shape. A compact bar has the levers much further in and the drops much higher than a standard drop bar.
If you look at the Domane, Madone and Emonda, You can see that for the same size they get longer and longer (effective TT) and get lower and lower (stack). Funny thing is, my "fast endurance" bike from Vitus has en even more aggressive ratio than the Emonda SLR 9 that is positioned as a proper race bike by Trek.
IMO. Stack and reach ratio is not very use full, because it doesnt take into account, the distance behind the BB (seat tube angle). Much better is stack - "effective top tube" ratio to get a feel for how "racy" a frame will feel. On top of that comes stem lenght and angle, and bar shape. A compact bar has the levers much further in and the drops much higher than a standard drop bar.
If you look at the Domane, Madone and Emonda, You can see that for the same size they get longer and longer (effective TT) and get lower and lower (stack). Funny thing is, my "fast endurance" bike from Vitus has en even more aggressive ratio than the Emonda SLR 9 that is positioned as a proper race bike by Trek.
Last edited by Racing Dan; 01-22-18 at 07:54 AM.