Originally Posted by 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....

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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”.

Originally Posted by Sierra_rider

Another Endurace owner that thought the stock saddle was super-sucky. Mine didn't come with a Selle Italia, but rather a Fizik Arione...that saddle was as long a cargo ship and as wide as a number 2 pencil. I guess some people like them, but I could only set it up for either bruised sit bones or numb junk...sometimes both.

They're ugly as sin, but my go-to saddles are the modern short-nose saddles, more specifically the Fizik Argo. I've even done 10-12 hour rides on that saddle without issue(or at least saddle-related issues.)

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by jadmt

yea they are called masochist they probably get off on driving sharp objects up their nether regions.....

Originally Posted by genejockey

Oh, I dunno. My saddle needs are a result of my lack of flexibility, which means I keep my back straight and roll my pelvis forward. That's why a saddle that's straight from front to back doesn't work for me, but may work for someone more flexible. Similarly, I have fairly thick thighs, so I can only tolerate saddles with narrow noses or it rubs me raw. But someone with less bulky thighs might not have a problem

Originally Posted by jadmt

trust be there is no body shape or flexibility that would make this saddle work....those plastic edges have an edge....I was going to destroy lest it fall into the hands of evil minded people but instead I decided I would use it to shave with...it holds an edge as good as any german steel...If I ever run across a nice hickory handle I might fashion and axe out of it....

Originally Posted by Trakhak

Even simpler: bike manufacturers figured out that the prime market for their costlier models consists largely of guys who were race bike enthusiasts when they were young but, now that they can afford to buy the best, are older and heavier and slower. So some marketing guy came up with the category "Endurance," a harmless euphemism for "ex-racer's comfort bike."

Originally Posted by genejockey

Oh, I dunno. My saddle needs are a result of my lack of flexibility, which means I keep my back straight and roll my pelvis forward. That's why a saddle that's straight from front to back doesn't work for me, but may work for someone more flexible. Similarly, I have fairly thick thighs, so I can only tolerate saddles with narrow noses or it rubs me raw. But someone with less bulky thighs might not have a problem

Originally Posted by Eric F

^^^ This is really just a brag about having massive guads.

Originally Posted by bbbean

There's a reason Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors.

Originally Posted by Sierra_rider

Another Endurace owner that thought the stock saddle was super-sucky. Mine didn't come with a Selle Italia, but rather a Fizik Arione...that saddle was as long a cargo ship and as wide as a number 2 pencil. I guess some people like them, but I could only set it up for either bruised sit bones or numb junk...sometimes both.

They're ugly as sin, but my go-to saddles are the modern short-nose saddles, more specifically the Fizik Argo. I've even done 10-12 hour rides on that saddle without issue(or at least saddle-related issues.)

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Kontact

Well, the point is that "endurance road bike" is something of an illusion. Clearly manufacturers have a take-it-or-leave-it approach to endurance "features", like shock absorbers. And while everyone seems to agree they have taller headtubes, this leads people like Genejockey to presume that any bike with a tall one is therefore an endurance bike, including the super-racer R5.

The other issue is the features themselves. In the '80s Lemond (and probably others) were proselytizing "stage race geometry" - bikes that weren't specialty crit bikes but rode nicely day after day. He wasn't inventing anything new - look at his geo charts - but reinforcing the status quo that had gotten a little lost with a few of the darling brands of the time. And people largely agreed - regular old race bike geometry works pretty damn well.

Then, all of a sudden, you can't be ''comfortable" on a century ride if you have a 73 degree head tube angle. And, right in the middle of the shift to disc brakes and fat tires - you might need a vibration damper in the middle of the seat tube (also not new).

Who are these people that find the prospect of riding a standard road bike with 28c or larger tires and 73 degree steerer daunting? When did descending on them become so nerve wracking, and why is a bike with a 99cm wheelbase "unstable"?

Emperor, clothes, etc. If the word "endurance" didn't exist with all its powers of suggestion, would people actually walk into a bike shop and ask for a road bike - that doesn't have fender mounts - with an extra long wheelbase and weight adding features?

Originally Posted by genejockey

Much Ado About Nothing.

Originally Posted by Kontact

Well, the point is that "endurance road bike" is something of an illusion. Clearly manufacturers have a take-it-or-leave-it approach to endurance "features", like shock absorbers. And while everyone seems to agree they have taller headtubes, this leads people like Genejockey to presume that any bike with a tall one is therefore an endurance bike, including the super-racer R5.

The other issue is the features themselves. In the '80s Lemond (and probably others) were proselytizing "stage race geometry" - bikes that weren't specialty crit bikes but rode nicely day after day. He wasn't inventing anything new - look at his geo charts - but reinforcing the status quo that had gotten a little lost with a few of the darling brands of the time. And people largely agreed - regular old race bike geometry works pretty damn well.

Then, all of a sudden, you can't be ''comfortable" on a century ride if you have a 73 degree head tube angle. And, right in the middle of the shift to disc brakes and fat tires - you might need a vibration damper in the middle of the seat tube (also not new).

Who are these people that find the prospect of riding a standard road bike with 28c or larger tires and 73 degree steerer daunting? When did descending on them become so nerve wracking, and why is a bike with a 99cm wheelbase "unstable"?

Emperor, clothes, etc. If the word "endurance" didn't exist with all its powers of suggestion, would people actually walk into a bike shop and ask for a road bike - that doesn't have fender mounts - with an extra long wheelbase and weight adding features?

Originally Posted by Eric F

In other words...marketing.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Wow.
Moving goalposts, strawman, and more.
This thread keeps delivering.

Again, these are just another option within a lineup. Some find the geometey or comfort features beneficial. Others, like you, don't.

I personally don't care what a bike is called- I look at the geometey and design to determine if it would fit me and my intended use.
It can be called a race bike, crit bike, endurance bike, gravel bike, CX bike, etc- if the geometry and design work for what I want- cool sign me up.

Clearly you are passionate about labels and categories. Perhaps step back and recognize that we are all passionate about different things and not many share your passion when it comes to ranting about the lack of need for endurance road bikes.


I will disagree with your claim that we can't be comfortable on a century with a 73deg HTA. That hasn't been said or argued. And since HTA is only part of what a rider views as comfort on a long ride, to claim that is the one defining difference is disingenuous. Of course most of your posts have been disingenuous, so it's part for the course.
I don't think anyone has claimed it is daunting to ride a bike with a 73deg HTA and 28mm tires. Again you just make stuff up due to an emotional outburst. And again, HTA is only part of what would make riding 'daunting'.


I was half joking before with my comments about you being a fitter and getting basics on steering wrong, but oh my goodness I genuinely can't imagine riding a bike and being subjected to your outrage while I am (mis)fit for my bike. God forbid I bring an endurance bike in to be fit. Whew!

Originally Posted by genejockey

I confess I'm intrigued by the idea that the Cervelo R5 is a "super-racer", because then what do you call the S5? A "super-duper-racer"?

Originally Posted by genejockey

Yeah. Instead of multiple different terms for the same basic idea - "Stage Race" for Lemond, "C2C" (Coast To Coast) for Bianchi, etc, there's a single term which conveys the difference between a bike for racing and a bike for riding every day.