Sierra_rider

I do have one "endurance" bike, my '20 Canyon Endurace CF SL. I really like this bike, as the geometry is on the "racier" end of the endurance bike spectrum, while still having generous tire clearance. The local roads get beat up in the winter, so I really like the ability to run 30mm tires to smooth things out.

My other road bike is a Canyon Ultimate CF SLX, it's my weight-weenie rim brake bike. Although it is a "race" bike, the geometry on the Ultimate isn't that far off from the Endurace. I can easily switch between both bikes with no issues. I'm running a slammed stem on the Endurace and a single 10mm spacer on the Ultimate. I'm comfortable with a fairly tight hip angle/flat back, so an endurance bike may not seem like the best choice...but I also have long femurs compared to the rest of my body, so I end up in an aggressive position, even on a frame with lots of stack(or that's how I interpret it.)

mstateglfr 

Um...cool.

A higher trail bike tends to want to stay straight at higher speed. More steering input(effort) is needed to turn. At lower speeds, steering is more wandering due to increased wheel flop.
Gravel bikes tend to have higher trail than paved road bikes and the idea is that the higher trail helps to keep the bike steering straight on uneven and rough surface. Less twitchy.

A lower trail bike tends to feel twitchier, compared to a high trail bike. Less effort is required to turn.

Bikes that are described as cornering on rails would be lower trail than bikes that are described as stable and willing to roll straight over anything.


56mm of trail an be neutral, thars totally fine. A ton of race bikes(not endurance) are higher trail than that. Just keep that reality in mind when you argue 56mm is neutral.

BMC Timemachine- 64mm trail
BMC Teammachine- 64mm trail
Cannondale SuperSix EVO- 58mm trail
Pinarello Dogma F- 66mm trail
Cervelo r5- 57.3 mm trail
Colnago v4rs- 59mm trail
Giant Propel Advanced- 59.2mm trail

These are just some of the race bikes on the world tour.
If you are going to claim these are high trail just because they are above the number you and Kellogg prefer as being neutral, there is no reason to even continue the discussion.
It isn't simply 'anything over 56mm trail is high'. There clearly is a range before something is high trail or low trail.

SoSmellyAir

My Cannondale Synapse also has a hidden seat post clamp with a retaining bolt that is in front of the seat post, but I don't have an issue with the wedge. My issue was having a small enough torque wrench which could access that bolt, until I found the Topeak Nano Torq Bar.

The fore-aft adjustability of the saddle rail clamp makes it look very fragile, and you have confirmed my concern. If the frame takes a regular round seat post I would have bought this bike, because Bianchi celeste.

genejockey 

Or is the 2014 Cervelo R5 an Endurance bike by another name?

rsbob 

The piece that broke looks like half of a miniature vice with a hole through the middle and is concave. It’s probably an inch long. When I first got the bike I was constantly moving the seat fore and aft, adjusting the tilt and evidently all the tightening and retightening did a number. Maybe over tightened?

PeteHski

I don’t get this thread. Endurance road bikes are mildly tweaked race bikes to make them more comfortable for long distance riding where ultimate uncompromising performance is not strictly required. In my mid 50s I appreciate slightly wider tyres and a slightly more relaxed fit for century riding.

What’s not to like? Should we all have to make do with dedicated race bikes with a pile of stem spacers, short stems and potentially limited tyre clearance just to massage our egos? I do know guys who refuse to ride an “endurance” bike because it makes them feel less “pro”.

jadmt

i am an old fat drunk and my 2024 goal is to do a 100 mile ride in 5 hours...I have a Canyon endurace cf8 disc size small as I am short and fat. I have no idea what it's geometry is. I did put a 100mm stem on it as it came with a 90mm and it felt kind of short. I actually think I could use a 110mm stem. I wonder if it is the right bike? I have put over 3000 miles on it since the end of july even tho I had to take most of sept off due to not being patient and waiting for a new seat.

Kontact 

Nope.

mstateglfr 

I genuinely love this back and forth. It is entertaining while getting right to the takeaway of this thread, at least the takeaway that anyone without skin in the game would have. That takeaway is- wow this is all just a big word salad without any actual substance or point.
Seriously Kontact- what is your actual point in starting the thread? You ask people if endurance bikes accomplish something for owners of the bikes, and then you proceed to argue a bunch and post some comments that are either wrong or not phrased in a way that makes them clear and correct.

Anyways, since I posted the trail figure for a Cervelo R5 due to that being a bike I happened to see a UCI World Team uses for regular stage races(so its a race bike?) I figured I would go back and read all the rambling thru the thread about an R5. I looked up the geometry of an R5 from years ago and yeah that looks like a pretty cool bike to ride for roads, at least for how I ride and what I would want. I would not call the geometry overly aggressive, but I also wouldnt call the geometry 'endurance'. While I wouldnt toss it in the endurance category, it isnt exactly far off.

Funny enough, comparing it to Cervelo's current endurance bike, its pretty similar. For a 2012/16 Cervelo R5 in 61 and a 2023 Cervelo Caledonia in 61...
- Stack is the same.
- Reach is the same.
- Head angle is more relaxed and fork rake is higher on the Caledonia, but those two measurements result in the same trail number of 57(using 28mm tire).
- Chainstay is 10mm longer on the Caledonia...and thats a 415mm chainstay, so hardly long.
- BB drop is 3.5mm more on the Caledonia.

Compared to an R5- same stack, same reach, same trail, and a chainstay that is only 415mmm- thats what Cervelo calls their Endurance bike. I mean, and R5 from a decade ago isnt an endurance bike, but based on the numbers above, its not not an endurance bike!
Basically the only downside is an R5 from the mid-teens before the slight frame change was that clearance maxed out at a 25mm tire. That isnt even something thats disc specific, it was just how they designed the frames at the time. It could have easily been designed to handle a 28(and that did fit in the late teens).

As already mentioned by me and others- an endurance bike is not some 'marketing fear' created by bike companies. It is simply a bike that has slightly different geometry from the race bike in that brand's lineup. It is just 1 more option for someone to consider as it provides a slightly different fit and/or slightly different feeling ride.
Options are good- consumers should like options. This isnt a nefarious plan by bike companies- thats a goofy viewpoint.
This is all just bike companies recognizing that they can get a bigger piece of the pie if they offer a couple models of road bikes that have slightly different geometries since that will increase the number of people that fit their road bikes.

PeteHski

Component build spec also tends to be tailored more toward endurance. It’s a little more than just frame geometry. Bars, seatpost, wheels, tyres and gear ratios are all tweaked on my Canyon compared to the equivalent race bike. It all adds up.

t2p

absolutely not a good bike for you - Canyon bikes - especially Endurace - are not designed for old fat drunks

I will provide my address so this bike can be shipped to me (this old fat drunk)

seriously - that’s a great bike and should serve you well - 20 mile rides to 100 mile rides

for long road rides consider tires with low rolling resistance

what’s up with the seat ? taking off time due to a seat ? just get a seat and get going ! lol

btw - if you ride small sizes (as I do) - many if not most times the frame geometry will include a generous amount of trail (can often be higher number than the same frame in larger sizes) … this is a big plus for me

genejockey 

I think the other point is that by giving a name to the three different categories - Aero, Race, and Endurance, the consumer knows what he's looking at without having to look at a geometry chart. They didn't create anything new. They just gave a name to something that maybe they were already making - a bike more comfortable than a race bike that gives up a little in aerodynamics. After all, MOST riders don't race.

jadmt

it came with a torture device and I could not wait to go for a ride before my replacement came. I am used to C17's and had ordered one but it was delayed. the seat it came with gave me a saddle sore that was epic and put me off the bike for 20+ days. I did an 80 mile ride on this saddle and regretted it. this is the saddle it came with....

genejockey 

Yeah, the saddle that came on my Endurace back in 2020 was awful. Some Selle Italia thing that was wrong for me in just about every way. Fortunately, I still had one Avocet O2Air 40R left from when I bought almost the last of Palo Alto Bicycle's stock in 2007.

jadmt

it was probably the lowest quality selle italia that had sharp edges and was better suited for a cheese slicer...

t2p

yikes lmao

genejockey 

Yep. It cut into the backs of my thighs while making the plumbing numb. Exactly what you DON'T want in a saddle. But I'm sure there are people it works well for.

t2p

years (actually) decades ago … early 90’s .. saw a Flite saddle and had to have one

initially they were a challenge to find … pre-internet days … distributors did not have them … but found a black Flite for MTB and white Flite for road bike … later found a gray Flite (rare - still on one of my old road bikes)

won a small bet when a couple guys in the group said I could not do a century on a Flite … never had an issue

genejockey 

Different bums need different things. I can't do a saddle that's flat front-to-back, or that is too wide through the middle. That's why I love the Avocets - wave profile and narrow nose.

seypat

Compared to the usual "debate" threads about chain lube, discs vs rim, counter steering, etc, this one doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction. Not necessarily a bad thing.

genejockey 

Since the point - assuming there is one - is entirely semantic, maybe it doesn't go to the very core of people's identities, the way chain lube or brake type does.

Turnin_Wrenches

I totally agree with your comments, but it's that last statement in bold that seems to mess everything up. Ego and self-image more often than not tend to dictate too many buying decisions. However, the ego-driven consumer is only partly to blame.

The UCI definitely owns much of the blame due to the mandate that all bikes on the world tour be made available for sale to the public. That essentially means that race bikes are designed for hyper-flexi, hyper-fit professional cyclists, and then marketed to the general public as the absolute pinnacle of modern day cycling excellence (which they are). But when you look at the pool of potential buyers - those with enough disposable income to afford a bicycle that costs 5-figures - many are not hyper-flexi, hyper-fit, or in their 20s. Therein lies the rub.

The bicycle industry has to figure out how to deliver "pro" and "comfortable" to the people who are actually buying the bikes.

jadmt

only seat I used to ride back in the 80's and early 90's. Still use this one and still feels good.

PeteHski

Well one review I read of the Giant Defy summed it up something along the lines of:-

"If we were being honest with ourselves, the Defy is the kind of bike that most of us probably should be riding". This was a tongue-in-cheek reference to MAMILs often choosing to ride full blown race bikes.

Personally, I don't really care how they market "endurance" bikes. For me they are pretty good at doing what it says on the tin. A race bike would work for me too, but in slightly less comfort over a long haul ride on mixed roads.

I doubt that the manufacturers care either as long as those well-heeled MAMILs buy either a "race" or "endurance" bike. Some might even buy both!

bbbean 

Yes. They accomplish something. They ride different from aero bikes, climbing bike, gravel bikes, and other bikes made for specific applications. If you like how they ride, they're the bike for you. If not, there are plenty of other bikes out there.

There's a reason Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors.