How much faster is race geometry over endurance geometry?
 

I did some googling, they say endurance geometry is more comfortable than race geometry. I think that implies race geometry is faster, right? Have you commuted with both? How much faster is the race geometry? How many minutes over how many miles?

There isn't really a difference that could be solely attributed to frame geometry. Endurance frames usually have a longer head tube so it may be difficult to get the bars as low as on a more aggressive geometry but any differences in head tube height can easily be compensated by just bending your arms a little more.

The reality is most people aren't going to be commuting with a flat back and hammering all the way to work.

Race or endurance geometry, which is faster? - depends upon the engine.
if you are constantly going over 30 kph, the more aerodynamic "race" geometry might be faster. Otherwise, for commuting a more relaxed geometry is probably more comfortable and safer.

My 7 mile commute on my light fast bike is less than 5 minutes quicker than on my 33 pound commuter loaded with 20 pounds of cargo. Not much faster, but a lot more fun.

It's still mostly Rider Air resistance, You.

the Aerodynamics of a velomobile will get you more speed . Become shaped like a Fish

Who is this "they" that you seem so concerned about?

I'd suggest spending less time on Google worrying about what "they" say, and more time riding and enjoying your bicyling; any bike.

Frame geometry varies according to manufacture and model. Endurance may or may not not be more comfortable but in general they are. Endurance bikes are nothing more than the old term used...sport, these geometries were in between a racing bike and a touring bike with touring being the most comfortable due to the more stretched out frame vs a racing bike with a more compact frame. And as a side benefit an Endurance bike usually, please note that word, comes with more robust components vs a road bike of similar pricing.

Bike Racers are faster than those who do not put in the long miles in structured training with their teammates and actually compete in sanctioned events.
It's not about the Hardware, and never has been.

If you want to go faster work at it, although doing so in workday commuting traffic may not be ideal conditions for interval training or speed work.

-Bandera

Bear in mind that in cycling, there are a lot of marketing claims that may occasionally apply only to professionals in controlled conditions. And then only when viewed through the Magic Magnifying Lens of Marketing. The hivemind grabs on to those claims as if they are Universal Truths.

In Real Life, other things make a much bigger difference, and even those differences are small.

Here are two of my bikes:

http://www.brucew.com/images/portrai...ommute-800.jpg
2006 Trek Portland. In the three-seasons, I use it on Mondays to haul in the clothes and food for the week (plus any library books to be returned), then again on Thursdays to haul home the laundry (and more library books). It has a combination of cyclocross geometry up front (even more relaxed than "endurance") and touring geometry in the rear. Drivetrain is a 105 triple, and it has a hub dynamo up front (about 1.5 lbs by itself) to power the lights, and it rides on 28mm Conti 4000S II tires (this year, 28mm Conti 4-Seasons as shown last year). As pictured, it tips the scales at about 31 pounds, before filling the panniers.


http://www.brucew.com/images/portrai...ommute-800.jpg
1996 Litespeed Classic. In the three-seasons I use it on Tuesdays and Thursdays when all I need to carry is a sandwich in my jersey pocket. Given that it's nearly 20 years old, and it's decked out in commuting lights and batteries, it's a bit porky for a racing bike by today's standards, about 18 pounds as shown. This, despite the titanium frame, carbon fork and Dura-Ace drivetrain. Tires are 25mm Conti 4000S.


In the three-seasons, most days I take my 16.3-mile "long loop" to work. I cut a bit off each end for a 13.3-mile route home. If mapped out, they look like a C laying on its side. It doesn't quite cancel out the effects of the wind, but it evens it up pretty well, especially if you look at the round-trip instead of each leg.

The "par" time for the 16.3 mile ride to work is one-hour even. Coming home it's 50 minutes.

Yes, there is a difference in times between these two bikes. It's about two or three minutes going to work, about two minutes coming home. Truth is, wind, traffic, and stoplights make more difference than the bike, making actual clock time vary by a much wider range than recorded ride time. And that's before we factor in whether the motor is feeling peppy or sluggish that day.

There are days when I fly on the Portland, and days when I'm a turtle on the Litespeed. Yes, my personal bests have all been done on the Litespeed, but my personal best on the Portland is better than my long-term average on the Litespeed.

In my experience, other factors make a much, much greater contribution to the differences in my times than the bike. And frankly, 57 minutes vs an hour isn't enough for me to justify a different bike.

If you want to view my supporting data, all rides from March 2006 to present are logged here. If you want to play with the numbers, I can send it all to you in CSV files, one per year.

While there's a lot of data there, I don't log the weight of the panniers, or if I'm pulling one or two through the air. You can assume two panniers going to work on Monday and coming home on Thursday, one coming home on Monday and going to work on Thursday. I also don't generally log how I'm feeling on the ride.

Following up, as for "comfort", that's a matter of personal preference more than anything else.

First, the Magic Marketing Machine ginned up the "endurance" category to solve the problem of fitting out-of-shape riders and those with limited flexibility to a bike without having to use an "unsightly" riser stem. That's all "endurance geometry" is--a slightly longer head tube so you need fewer spacers or stem rise to fit an out-of-shape rider, yet still be able to have the "slammed" appearance of the stem butting up to the headset.

It's all about appearances.

Second, what is comfort? Some people want to ride bolt-upright and any forward lean or weight on their hands is uncomfortable. I find bolt-upright to be extremely uncomfortable. Who's right?

Again, it's the Magic Marketing Machine to the rescue. "Oh, look! We made this endurance bike so you don't have to lean forward nearly as far as on your racing bikes. It's more comfortable." (Snickering behind your back that you could achieve the same thing with a few spacers or a riser stem.)

Third, "Geometry" is about the relationship between the bike and the road. "Fit" is about the relationship between the bike and the rider.

"Endurance geometry" bikes in general interact with the road the same way as their "race geometry" counterparts. The Magic Marketing Machine waves its Obfuscation Wand to confuse the issue by misusing the term to make you think "geometry" determines "fit" and in turn, whether or not a bike is "comfortable".

No, "fit" alone does that and it can be done independent of "geometry".

All three of my bikes have different geometry. They each handle differently because of it. (This is intentional. I enjoy the differences between them.)

My "contact points"--pedals, saddle, and bars--are all in the same place relative to one another on all three bikes. In other words, my "fit" is identical on each bike. Again, this is intentional since I use the same body on each one.

lol!

I don't think it's a difference of faster, you can buy super expensive "endurance" bikes that have low handlebars and the same aero position.

It's a difference of handling. "race" bikes are super responsive, some call them "twitchy". They can corner, move, steer, etc extremely quickly.

Endurance bikes aren't as responsive, but also aren't as twitchy, and don't take as much attention to keep them going straight. If you're riding over cobblestone, the handlebars going left and right quickly is a drawback not a plus.

So I don't think, comparing the "race" category to the "endurance" category, that it's a matter of speed, just quickly or more relaxed handling.

[MENTION=55787]tsl[/MENTION], Thanks for the great info. I bought the fuji sportif. I was wondering how much faster the fuji roubaix would be for my 8 mile commute. It sounds like it's going to be insignificant, like less than a minute.

Congrats on the new bike!

Have you considered joining a road racing team? If you have a love of speed maybe you should just embrace it - training with others to develop your potential might be a fun experience.

I don't thin I will ever race. My motivation for speed is to cut down my commute time. I know intervals can help, but when commuting, I can't really time it because the traffic condition changes day to day. So I think intervals during commuting translates to pedal harder when you can, because there is always a chance for you to slow down.

I just threw the idea out there since you have a racing bike now - I figure if you ride with a racing club of some sort, you'll probably pick up some valuable pointers for improving your acceleration, pedaling technique, etc.

One of the reasons I struggled to keep up with my coworker is he has a racing bike. OTOH, because his bike has the slick tires, he has to worry a lot more about sand and gravel spots on the trails and roads whereas my hybrid bike with its fatter tires can handle those more safely.

As the numbers quoted by tsl show, the hardware does not affect speed that much. I've observed a similar thing about riding hard vs pedaling along. I often ride pretty hard to get a good workout. Or maybe just sprint for a while. One example is my usual commute route which is about 1:25 on a pretty average day. Some days I'm a slow start and sometimes never really feel 100%. But then I look at my actual time and it only varies by a few minutes. I would have guessed a bigger impact based on how it felt. It's not intuitive for me.

I always was under the impression that a track bikes geometry was to minimize the size and weight of the bike while preserving its rideability, not that the geometry in of itself was "faster".

I second the congrats on a new bike.

The Fuji Roubaix won't be any faster than the Sportiff unless climbing long grades due to the estimated 4 pounds less weight; the supposedly aero wheels on the Roubiax are no more than 30 deep and probably 27 and it's been proven in wind tunnel test that even a 30 doesn't have any real effect over shallower supposedly aero rims (there may be a slight gain vs box rims) so no gain there, gains don't start being realized until the wheel becomes 40 and greater.

So all in all you made a wise and good purchase because it's more suited toward commuting due to the slightly wider tires and gearing differences vs the Rouby

My training rides are almost 2 mph faster on my racing bike compared to my touring/rando bike.

Weight difference between the 2 frames, the frame material of each, weight difference between the two wheelsets, which bike has aero frame, rims, and spokes vs box and round spokes, tire sizes for each bike, and gearing for each bike.. Give us more information to swallow.

Geometry is more a measure of comfort than speed. Though, either can affect the desired result. The longer frame will soak up the roads bumps & add a little weight. The relaxed geometry will also soften the blows & corner in a wider arc. The heavier design will take on more weight, bags/gear etc. & the matching strong wheels will be harder to push all of this up a hill. When you stomp on the pedals of a racing bike, it should snap forward, without much give. You should be tucked in a little more aero & you "should" slice through the wind at a higher rate of speed.
On a side note...there was a recent study done concerning people wearing professional clothing. The results were that a person wearing a garment of importance, pertaining to the task, performed better than those who didn't. If this is true....shouldn't we all be faster on a racing bike?? ;)

Same wheels. Tires are Vittoria CX 25mm on racing bike or similar and Compass Extra Legere 28mm or 32mm on touring bike. Carbon racing frame is aerodynamic while the magnesium framed touring bike is designed for a more upright position. Rando bike is only 1 lb heavier. IT is mostly the aerodynamic advantage of the racing bike, pure and simple. The tires are modestly faster on the racing bike on smooth pavement but I would say the reverse on rough chipped roads. Gearing is irrelevant since I have 1 tooth steps in the rear cog (11-17 and then 19, 22, 25, 28). The cranks are different but that is probably not a factor. The rest of the components are basically the same (SRAM Red). The touring bike was custom designed and fit whereas the racing bike, I built it up and did it myself. I mostly use Flo 30 wheels.

Edit....the rando bike paradoxically climbs better.

The speed difference is due to a lower and more aerodynamic position on my racing bike. Hope this helps.

Road bike versus commuter bike, there are more differences than just the frame geometry. However, I can give you my comparison. I use the Felt Z85 (black bike on the left) and the Kona Dew Drop (red bike on the right) for commuting. However, the Felt rides sunny/dry days and the Kona rides a wide variety of conditions. I have a segment set up in Strava for the core of my direct commute route (8.1 miles of the 8.5 mile commute), I've used this route 113 times. Looking at the fastest times (elapsed time):

Felt has the five fastest times: 22:16 to 24:07
The Kona has 6th place to 27th place: ranging from 24:33 to 26:18

The Felt is fun and faster, but not significantly faster if you are thinking about commuting time... A stop light can add a couple minutes to your commute time.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...00&oe=5611811A

Kona is running 28mm T-Serv tires and runs fairly heavy with the frame mounted U-lock, fenders, etc. The Felt has 25mm tires, light weight, AL frame. With both bikes, I ride with a Chrome bag with my commuter stuff.

I think it means we will all be faster in a full lycra kit...:)