NABodie

Depends on if he's married or not.

RonH

I'm 71 and have had 3 "endurance" bikes. One lasted 9 months. Another lasted 2 years. The other lasted about a year. I like traditional frame bikes.

volosong

And, not just a test ride around the parking lot outside the bike shop. If they won't let you go on a 10-20 mile ride, of your own choosing, then they just want your money and don't really care about your riding experience and keeping you as a long-term customer. You'll probably have to give them your car keys or something, but the better shops will allow you to have a 'real', honest test ride.

When I was considering a Domane, a few months after they came out, I went onto RidewithGPS and mapped out a 16-mile route that included a variety of terrain, printed it out, and gave it to the shop and told them that is where I'll be. The owner suggested a different, and longer route, but I figure in 16 miles, I'd get a sense of the bike and how it handled. Left my car keys, but I think that was of my own choice. I purchased from that shop before, as well as consumables, so they know me.

Bottom line, if they don't let you leave the parking lot, or insist of having someone ride with you . . . find another shop.

Barrettscv 

+1

-Criterium bikes race on a small circuit with many sharp turns and a compact pack of racers requiring ultra quick steering responce. Stability and ride comfort are not reconsidered.

-Multiple-stage road-race bikes are more stable to improve handling on mountain descents. Famous builders, including Eddy Merckx and Greg Lemond did include rider comfort as a benefit that improved race results.

-Century bikes and Endurance bikes are built for long distances and race results are less significant. However, Endurance bikes are valued at specific race events where room for a larger tire can improve results. Endurance bikes, and the occasional Cyclocross bikes, are used at the Paris-Roubaix since these bikes fit 700x27 tires easily.

Mr Grinch

I'm 59 and 6'3" and am a Domane fan. My area is full of chip seal, ruts and uneven pavement. Lots of hills that require a bike that handles well. The 5.2 is a great ride for that situation.

McBTC

What were the two bikes you are comparing? There may be little difference between the bikes you tried.

Generally a comfort ("endurance") bike can more easily accommodate a less aggressive riding position because it has a relatively taller head tube, shorter top tube, longer wheelbase an slacker seat and head angles.

1989Pre 

Why not just answer his question?

1989Pre 

To me, it's all just marketing. Try out a few bikes, young and old, used and new, and select the one that "speaks to you". You'll get used to whatever you choose.

scott967

From a geometry standpoint, I think the modern "endurance" geometry is pretty close to "traditional", though wheelbase might be a bit longer. Traditional seem to have had much more fork rake than any modern bike, not sure why that is. The modern "racing" bike seems definitely to be smaller with more seat/bar drop (though the adjustable quill stem on traditional allowed much more variation than the current threadless setup).

scott s.
.

GlennR

Because i don't have the definitive answer so let the OP read the different articles and come to his own conclusions.

Mobile 155

If I might toss in one small caveat on a pro bike fit? You might want to be sure you are in your riding fit condition before forking out the bucks for that. I got a pro fit with all the bells and whistles about two years ago thinking that I was at my best weight and best condition, that I was going to get in at my age anyway. Two years later I was down 40 pounds and the fit wasn't pro anymore. I have made adjustments to the original fit over those two years and kept track of them on one of the park tool work sheets and yes I use the numbers as a starting point for all of my new bike set ups. But then I am no longer concerned with a maximum race setup and a bit more relaxed seems more my style. A quad bypass will do that to you I guess. Still the last guy I suggested a pro fit from has a deal that if you have a big change in weight or riding style he will give you a re-fit. At the prices they charge that sounds like a good deal to me.

icyclist 

Although I don't ride it much, I have one of the early model Specialized Roubaix "endurance" bikes. I like it's very tall head tube, and it's flippable stem that offers very positive and very negative angles. I can adjust my bars to lower than those on my fancy race bike or high enough to almost feel like I'm on a mountain bike. Apparently that ginormous head tube wasn't well received, though, and Specialized now only offers their endurance bike with a shorter head tube and far less choice of positions.

downtube42

Handling: My traditional road bike, a crit bike essentially, liked to turn. My endurance road bikes all liked to go straight.

Either bike can be used for either application, but you're going to work harder with the mismatch.

StanSeven

My experience is similar to Volosongs. I just got a Cervelo C3 endurance style bike. It has completely different geometry with taller head tube, slightly longer top tube, more slack sta and hta, longer chain stays, and overall longer wheelbase. It has 28 tires and disc brakes. I immediately notice a more upright sitting position, slightly slower steering, much more stable handling, and substantially more comfortable largely due to wider tires and wheels. The frame was specifically designed as an endurance style as well.

WiscGuy

Was thinking of choosing between Cannondale CAAD and the Synapse.

scott967

Haven't seen a C3 yet. Looks like it is placed to directly compete with Roubaix/Domane etc. They used to have the RS as an endurance bike, but it was about the closest to race geometry of any in the category, which I guess is why it was discontinued and they just tweaked the R3 so it was pretty much a direct replacement.

scott s.
.

qcpmsame 

I have the CAAD10, it has somewhat aggressive geometry, with steep head tub abd seat tube angles. The SAVE technology, for the stays and carbon fiber fork, as well as the hydro-formed tubes smooth the aluminum's ride. The CAAD8 is a bit less aggressive in its geometry, and it uses wheelsets that are more subtle, high spoke counts, but they will accept 25 and 28 width tires. If you aren't hung up on top line groupsets, and high end, low spoke count wheels, it is a good buy, especially the top model with Shimano 11-speed 105. I am partial to the Tiagra level build, 10-speed.

Synapse has both a carbon fiber, and an aluminum framed models, the layup of the carbon fiber and the unique seat stay design, along with SAVE technology, give it a more forgiving ride, hence the endurance moniker is attached to it. But, the Synapse geometry is race worthy, it is race tested, yet it is forgiving on rough road surfaces. The aluminum models have the same geometry as the carbon fiber framed models, just use aluminum tubing and a carbon fiber fork. Well engineered bikes in either frame material, and at several levels of components as well as disk brake offerings (actually all three have disk brake models.)

Good luck choosing, my CAAD 10 4 was the SRAM Rival components, it is upgraded to Shimano 6800 Ultegra, and has a BSC bottom bracket conversion inserted. It has given me 4 years and over 20,000 miles of happiness, no plans to sell, or trade it, whatsoever.

Bill

Road Fan

Endurance bikes that don't endure!!!

Loose Chain

Except cycle cross predates even classic road racing bikes. So, no, they are not a cross between a mtb/atb and a hybrid or anything else.

MinnMan

+1

MinnMan

When I went shopping for my last bike, I thought I would want an endurance bike, and I test rode the Specialized Roubaix, and a Felt Z series bike. The endurance bikes felt dead and boring compared to my Trek 2.1 - the lower quality bike from which I was seeking to upgrade. So I test-rode the Felt F series bike that I now own, and I totally fell in love with its responsiveness. I truly am faster on the Felt, because it has a more aggressive geometry that allows me to engage all the muscle groups better and because my profile is more aero.

I have friends who can't ride traditional racing geometry bikes because their backs won't let them spend long periods of time in the crouched aggressive position. I'm lucky (so far) in that I can get low and stay there for an entire century without problems (well, my legs and lungs might say otherwise, but....) I suppose you can make traditional racing bikes more back-friendly by keeping the stem high or adding spacers to the stem, but then you might as well go with the Roubaix/Synapse/Domane.

To the OP: If you can't tell the difference when riding the two different geometries, it likely means that your usual riding style is not particularly aggressive (and therefore the endurance bike is probably closer to your style). I don't mean that you aren't strong and fast (I don't know), but rather that you do not tend to ride with an aggressive low position. If you did, I think you could tell the difference more readily.

Garfield Cat

I see the biggest differences between the RS and the R3 are the steerer tube and the fork design. The old RS has a head tube that does not appear to be tapered. And the fork (3T) comparatively thin.

The entire R series has what's called "evolved steerer design". And the fork is now way different. I think this accounts for the better handling.

ltxi

I prefer the more relaxed geometry and taller head tube of endurance bikes. But then, I've never been a racer type and back in the day rode touring frames.