genejockey 

And there's where the other 9mm of reach comes from. 5mm longer TT, 1.6 degree steeper head angle. I suspect even our insensitive friend here could feel that difference.

mstateglfr 

I think they are road bikes that offer different geometry from the same brand's more aggressive road bike model.
That's all they are and that all they should be seen as.

Endurance bikes don't have a uniformed geometry across brands so some will be more aggressive than others. Some will be as aggressive as another brand's race geometry.



So yeah, they are accomplishing something since they offer geometry that is typically less aggressive.
I have never thoughtnof endurance bikes as a general category and viewed them as 'marketing fear'. That's laughable.

Also, I would not say endurance bikes have high trail in general. You called the forks high trail, but a fork isn't what creates rrai, it is 1 of 3 variables to determine trail.
Regardless, I don't know of any endurance road bikes that have high trail. They often have 2-8mm more trail than the same brand's performance road bike, but trail isn't high. It will typically be under 70mm still.
Heck, Domane trail is usually 59-60mm for all but the smallest sizes(which should be ignored when discussing general geometry for bikes). And the Domane is a wildly common and popular endurance road bike.

Kontact 

Well, I am a fitter, and I already said that we aren't really talking about setback - which is infinitely adjustable - but reach, which is only adjustable within the available stems. If this was an actual problem, stems would come in 5mm increments or maybe 2mm increments. Same thing with frames, that come in 2-3cm increments. It does not seem to be an issue.

Spacers come in many thicknesses, for reasons that aren't just about fit increments, like getting the headset adjustment to work without recutting the steerer.

How are you going to feel a fit difference from head tube angle? That affects front center, not reach. Unlike the seat tube angle that starts at the BB and runs up and back, the HTA starts at the top of the headset and runs down and forward.

PeteHski

Well whatever stack spacers someone might require on the Domane, they are going to need another 28 mm of spacers on the Madone for the same height. So unless they have their stem slammed on the Domane, the Madone isn't going to fit. Likewise someone who wants the lower stack height of the Madone is very likely to run out of stem spacers on the Domane.

With all the other differences they are not the same bike, even though you could have an overlap on fits as you can with 2 or even 3 different frame sizes of the same bike.

Kontact 

I'm not saying they have higher trail, I'm saying that higher trail is mentioned and sometimes marked as a contributor to stability - and that is somewhat misleading because it is only more stable in some ways, and less in others.

But I do find a lot of bikes are marked in contrast to road race bikes that supposedly "twitchy". Has anyone ever ridden an actual "twitchy" road bike? The closest I have was when I had too much trail from a 40mm rake fork in a 72.5 HTA.

SoSmellyAir

Amen! I wish more bike manufacturers would focus on just these two aspects in their endurance road bike offerings. I don't mind buying "just" a taller race bike (as base2 and Kontact suggested above.) I already have a gravel bike, so I don't need massive tire clearance, longer chain stays, or any other "all road" capabilities. I have been mulling over "replacing" my 2016 Cannondale Synapse (size 54) which fits me perfectly, but there seems to be few ideal options.

Kontact 

Sure. I was using that to illustrate that the most useful method of viewing reach is ETT, because we adjust stems at a 73 degree angle - not vertically.

genejockey 

And now you're contradicting yourself.
So, what happens if you angle the head tube back even farther? You bring the bars closer.

Did you give up on whatever your original point was? Because none of this seems to address any of that.

genejockey 

This is one reason I like the Canyon Endurace. The HTA is 73 degrees, which is only 0.3 degrees slacker than the Ultimate, and that puts it in the same range as the rest of my bikes. The stack is high enough that I get my preferred bar drop with 12 mm of spacers.

SoSmellyAir

I looked at the prior Endurance CF SL but (like some other BF members have mentioned) I seem to be in between S and M sizes. So, maybe workable, but not ideal.

genejockey 

Yeah, can't help you there. But I can say the L fits me to a T.

mstateglfr 

I think you are confusing terms.
Higher trail = more stable at speed and less likely to turn quickly.
Lower trail = easier to turn at speed.

You mentioned a road bike with 72.5hta and 40mm fork rake as both being too twitchy and having too much trail. Those terms don't usually apply together. If you have a 28mm tire on that bike, there would be 66mm of trail. I don't think anyone woulds ay 66mm of trail is twitchy for a road bike...and while it is on the higher side of the trail spectrum, it is also not egregiously high trail for an endurance road bike.



I also don't understand what you mean when you say higher trail is less stable in some ways. I guess it could be viewed as less stable when you are going really slowly and not moving anywhere, like at a stopsign?...but that is a reach. And the trail range we are talking about for endurance bikes, 58-68mm let's say, really has no downside in terms of stability.
In what specific ways is a road bike with 65mm of trail unstable?

mstateglfr 

rsbob 

What my 2020 Bianchi Infinto endurance bike accomplishes is; its a very comfortable long distance bike, which is not twitchy, can be ridden hands-free, absorbs minor bumps, lacks quick steering which took some getting used to, but allows me to cruise at 18 MPH with ease. Has a higher stack, which works for me. The frame is considered aero and does not feel spongy. Love this bike.

tomato coupe

One might ask the more general question, "What's the point of this thread?"

base2 

I wasn't meaning to suggest that the R5 is: "Just a taller race bike, exactly. Cervelo is a race bike company. Part & Parcel, that is their brand identity. At the time they didn't have a non-race bike as an available option in their product catalog. For them to make the move to stack & reach at the time was a big deal. They even made a web page to explain the concept to people why Top Tube, Seat Tube and Head Tube actual measurements had little to do with how a bike fit a particular person for a particular purpose. We take for granted that stack & reach is just how it's done now. But, someone has to be the leading edge; to be the "first" to make the change that changes convention.

Having said that: The "Race" bike in their line up at the time actually was the S-series. It was the bike for the flexible and strong paid professionals who make a living on daily centuries ahead of the peleton that required aero for bridging gaps and sustaining break-aways. Hence S-oloist. The leader. The winner. The guy the peleton on road bikes is following.

The R-series was their classic "road bike" line. Not strictly "Race" by definition. But very capable for long days alone by mortals and domestiques. A bike for "racers" consistant with brand identity. Every aspect about the R is higher, longer, slacker, more relaxed than their "race only," aggressively aero, S. It was a big change in the orthodoxy of the time. A pretty savvy observation of a division between niches if you ask me. Aero-road versus Endurance-road. The R is what, then would've been "Endurance" by way of comparison. But, endurance has (obviously) matured a lot since then. As it should. Eventually the C-series came Bourne into existence along this branch of the evolutionary tree.

I am uncertain on Kontacts credentials or his motivations (or even the purpose) of this thread. Confusing top tube actual measurements as if they somehow, in some way related to stack and reach. Forgetting that handlebars all come in different reach and width. Forgetting shifters all have different lengths between brands. All swept aside by saying that "stems only come in 1cm increments"...Forgetting they come in different angles, too. I dunno. I guess some bike maker had to be first and invent the category every other bike manufacturer copied for Kontact to question it's purpose and take such innovations for granted, is as good a reason as any.

Have you looked at the Caledonia?

mstateglfr 

You are the bike fitter...you really don't know how?

One obvious possibility- use bars with 5mm more reach. Why are you making stem length the only factor for effective reach when it is but one of multiple inputs?
Another possibility is to adjust the stem length, angle, and spacers to achieve 5mm shorter effective reach while still placing the bars at the same initial height.

SoSmellyAir

Nice bike! Is the proprietary seat post really as fiddly as some reviews describe?

genejockey 

The idea that 5mm is nothing. I ran 175 cranks for 25 years. Then I got some bikes from the 80s, with 170s. I set the saddle height from the BB, same height as my other bikes. Pedaling felt WEIRD, till I raised the saddle - you guessed it! - 5mm. Still feels different, but I no longer feel flatfooted.

I would not use a fitter who didn't see 5mm as a detectable difference.

Kontact 

I'm not contradicting myself. "Reach" is defined as distance from the BB. But how we actually sit on bikes doesn't work like that because bending forward increases the distance from the saddle that we can easily get to.

Stack and reach are problematic numbers because they document a vertical and horizontal intersection with an angled line. So they yield limited useful information and cause confusion.

My point, which sosmellyair alludes to, is that there is nothing special about an endurance bike considering a race bike with a tall head tubes and large tires is just as easy to ride.

Kontact 

I disagree, and so does Tom Kellogg:
https://www.spectrum-cycles.com/geometry.php

I also prefer neutral trail, but if I was grinding away at 15 miles an hour for 200 miles, I would certainly consider a bike that wants to ride straight at those speeds - low trail.

genejockey 

Congratulations! You've just reinvented the Endurance bike.

Kontact 

That's the difference between being a fitter and talking about it:

"Hey, you seem fine at this reach, but why don't we replace your $300 carbon bars or run your stem upside down for a 1/4" of 'improvement'?"

But if it is important to you, other methods of adjusting reach include switching component groups for different brifters, or raising/lowering the bar angle while keeping the brifters at a static height.

Of course, you can't do anything with stem angle if the stem is proprietary. But hey, I don't have to tell you that.

Kontact 

Or did I reinvent the 2014 Cervelo R5 with disc brakes for more tire clearance?

rsbob 

Thanks.

The post is a bit tough to raise and lower due to the in-frame retaining bolt. The bolt can be loosened but getting the wedge, which it secured, to budge is a PITA. One of the seat rail retaining bits broke and is not available, unless you buy the entire seat post assembly for $300, which happens to be not available. So I kluged a piece and it has held for 8,000 miles. Would not buy another bike with these pieces.