Originally Posted by
Fiery
You seem to think I'm trying to somehow redefine and re-assign bike categories, but that is not my intention at all. I simply disagree with those arguments in your posts that are factually wrong or disingenuous in my opinion.
See, you are contradicting yourself here. In one post you say
Endurance bikes are primarily about steering and ride, not a different type of fit. In another (and thanks for pulling this quote, I did indeed miss it) you say
Some race bikes have the same, or even "relaxed" steering geometry. Finally:
And it really just takes one to break the "rule" before you say "that isn't a good rule."
Then you disregard manufacturer's own classification of their bike (Addict, Roubaix), you proclaim that a bike with a bike with 195 mm head tube for a 565 mm top tube has a low head tube (RT1100) and you use bikes that are known and promoted for being unusual (R3, H2 Madone/Emonda) all in order to deny a clear trend as if it was a mathematical theorem that can be disproven by a single counterexample.
I'm starting to think that you are just trying to win an argument here, rather than share information.
So, a few new questions, if you don't mind:
- From your quotes above, you seem to feel neither fit nor steering are reliable parameters for differentiation between race and endurance bikes. What exactly are race and endurance bike categories about then, in your opinion?
- When you describe a race geometry bike that rides like an endurance bike, what exactly do you mean by "race geometry" and what exactly do you mean by "rides like an endurance bike"?
- How would decide which bike to recommend if somebody was looking for an endurance bike? If I understood you correctly, you would exclude anything defined as a race bike by the manufacturer, but would you simply include anything defined as an endurance bike?
On a side note,
[t]he minimum chainstay length is 408 - is this a typo?*
All of the above sounds like you aren't really reading. You quote me as if some of the
descriptions I suggested are absolutes when I used words like "primarily" or "most". But I was describing the geometry commonly
found on endurance bikes, not
defining endurance bikes by their geometry.
You can't define the category by geometry alone. A definition is different than a description of common traits.
I'll say that again, so it sinks in: Endurance bikes are not simply their geometry. And that's why I asked you what an Emonda, Madone H2 or R5 are if you think that they aren't race bikes because of their geometry - they are still race bikes. Because, again, geometry alone is a poor guide. We can only say what is typical about the geometry of either style but any geometry based definition is going to fail, as those models did for you.
Endurance bikes are those that
feel and
ride like endurance bikes. Geometry does not produce "ride". Ride qualities come from the way the bike absorbs vibration and transmits shock or energy. If a company puts out a low bike with a shortish wheelbase that has a soft ride, is easy to steer, and then calls it an Endurance bike, isn't it an Endurance bike? Just as Trek, Cervelo and others call bikes you don't want to talk about Racing bikes.
As for you nit picks, I already addressed putting the Roubaix and Addict in the wrong categories. Again, I missed their manufacturer categorization - which is what matters. Steering geometry doesn't define endurance. Fit geometry doesn't define endurance. The
manufacturer defines what bikes are endurance and what are race.
One more time: Endurance or Racing bikes aren't
defined purely by their geometry. They often have certain geometry characteristics, but not often enough to make a rule. The rule is what the manufacturer decides the bike is, defines what the bike is. No amount of objections on your part are going to turn an R5 with its tall head tube into an endurance bike.
*(Should have said 405mm. Extremely rare to see road bikes under that number any more.)