Ok, I know bike geometry matters.

But I was told by someone that owns the same model as my recently purchased bike that the bike was never considered for long trips, based on the geometry. How could anyone know that, and what does it mean exactly?

I mean, isn't just whether or not you feel comfortable on the bike for an extended period of time? He said anything more than 10-12 miles is too long.

The more upright you sit, the more vulnerable you are to wind. When you are in the 'racers tuck', the wind can sail over your back to some degree, although it will still bother you. You can be comfortable with an upright position while fighting a headwind, but you will be going slower and your legs will be more strained.

Also, it takes some time to get used to a more aggressive geometry. At first, your neck and back might ache after a long ride, but the more you ride, the more you'll get used to it. I still find myself spending more time on the brake hoods and less time in the drops when I'm going on longer rides.

I considering sitting "up" more an advantage in traffic - easier to keep an eye on your fellow travelers and makes you more visible.

I think this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

You're right. It's all about comfort. There are some caveats however.

On your bike you're not just a driver. You're the engine.

What might make you more comfortable strictly as a driver, might also make you work harder, i.e. make you less comfortable as an engine.

Geometry plays a role in that. It's about compromising and to a large degree, - personal preference.

I would say a big part of what makes a given distance attainable is training. A certain type of bike and equipment will make a longer trip easier but that doesn't mean another type of bike is completely unsuitable, especially for a relatively short distance like under 20 miles.

Now 20 miles is a long commute, but not a particularly long bike ride.

https://www.fujibikes.com/LifeStyle/R...bsolute40.aspx

Thats the bike. I didnt want a road bike because its primary job will be as a commuter with some recreational riding, and 1 sprint triathalon this spring. I know its not designed for that, and I'll be slower on the bike than almost eveyone else. But Ill be slower in all other aspects of the race too, so that doesnt bother me at all ROFLMAO.

I've done a few sprint triathlons. You see everything from knobby tired mountain bikes to full fledged tri-bikes. You could do a lot worse than that Fuji. You'll be fine.

Have fun !

edit: Being that a sprint triathlon is a race you will see a ton of racing bikes. Don't let that psych you out. My brother has also done many tri's on a bike much like yours and he's relatively competitive. It wouldn't surprise me if he decided to get a road bike at some point but so far he doesn't felt that the one or two tri's he does a year is worth the expense of getting another bike.

Well, he may also be talking about handling and stiffness. A longer bike with slacker down and head tube angles will (all else being equal) be more stable and have a softer ride. So maybe that's what he's talking about when he said it could never be considered for long trips. That's really poppycock, however. Yeah, it makes a difference but people routinely ride full race bikes hundreds of miles. You're right - all that counts is how comfortable it is for YOU.

As an analogy I used to have a car, a Subaru WRX, where the reviews all said the stiff "sporty" ride would never be considered for a long trip. What BS. I've driven a lowered Honda CRX across the country perfectly comfortably. That Subaru was WAY more comfortable and plush than that little Honda. There's absolutely no reason you NEED a Cadillac to drive cross country. There's absolutely no reason you NEED a particular bike for a certain length of ride.

Utter poppycock. Some people's wrists (mine included) don't like the flat bars for long rides. But you can just put different bars on it if that's the case. Otherwise that bike'll be fine for any length of ride. Can't tell how much tire/fender clearance it has but that bike looks like an excellent all-rounder.

Bikes aren't nearly as specialized as the bike companies would like you to think.

Crudely speaking, yes.

For longer periods, some people feel more comfortable with "drop bar" handlebars and some with flat handlebars.

Really, though, it doesn't look like you're considering exchanging you current bike for a different one so it doesn't matter either way.

The only way to know if you'll be comfortable riding your bike for longer periods is to try doing so.

So what's the difference in geometry between a touring road bike and a performance (or racing) road bike?

Which is better for a 20 mile commute? For a century?

I was asking in a "just in case" way, because if god forbid everyone here said "hes right youll hate it the minute you start mile 11" i could return it, but im just feeling confirmed that its the right size bike, and so far has been very comfortable, for the little ive been on it.

I wouldn't hesitate to ride that thing long distance. I'd be happier with a smaller seat, bar-ends, and some clips and straps, however. All those are simple and cheap add-ons, of course.

Touring bikes will have a more relaxed head tube and seat tube angle, longer chainstays, and greater fork trail. The relaxed angles allow for a more upright riding position, and the longer stays and increased trail add to steering stability.
Racing bikes have a steeper seat and head tube angle, putting the rider more directly over the pedals and shifting their position forward. This increases aerodynamic positioning by flattening the back when the rider is in the drops. A shorter wheelbase combined with a steeper head angle and lower amount of trail give the bike quicker steering characteristics (referred to sometimes as "twitchy").

As for which is better for any given situation, that's personal preference.

Clifton explained the differences pretty well. As far as what is better for which, it, like Clifton says depends on a lot on personal preference but I think most would lean towards the touring bike for commuting.

It depends on whether or not you want to carry much on the bike and the condition of the roads. If you use a backpack or messenger bag and ride on good roads, the advantages of the touring bike start to matter less.

For a century again I think it depends. There's a lot of road bikes which aren't touring bikes but not all out racing bikes either. They have slacker angles for a more stable ride but maybe not as long as chain stays or the canti-brakes of a touring bike. These would be great for an unloaded Century.

Please explain. I can't picture how frame angles alone would create a more upright posture.

All else being equal - including your position relative to yourself - you will be more upright relative to the ground. A slacker seat tube will move your butt back. Your feet will stay in the same place. If you maintain a position where your butt, feet and hands are all in the same place relative to each other - that is they form the same triangle - the triangle will rotate with the feet at the center of rotation. So as your butt rotates back your hands and head come up relative to the ground. Obviously there's plenty of adjustments that could be made, but all else being equal you will be in a more upright position. Defining "upright" as head and hands higher relative to the ground (and to the bike, for that matter).

You can really see that if you look at a TT bike. They get that way-low position by moving the seat as far forward as the rules will allow. To do this, the seat tube is nearly vertical - it WOULD be if the rules allowed it. This tilts the triangle forward and your head and hand can be way lower without your legs getting bound up with your torso.

There's nothing wrong with that bike for your stated primary purpose of commuting. A road bike is going to be lighter, probably geared differently, and more "efficient" to ride, but as has been stated already, for a reasonable commute, I wouldn't hesitate.

In fact, I commute 8.5 miles each way on a mountain bike with slicks. I like the upright position it affords, and it's actually more comfortable on the rougher sections of city streets than my road bike with high pressure skinny tires.

If you've got it, ride it and don't worry about what somebody tries to tell you.

Frame angles alone don't.

However, a steeper (more straight up) seat tube angle makes it easier to pedal with your head, shoulders, and trunk positioned lower and more forward.

If you're bent low with a slack geometry, your knees are going to come up closer into your chest. It's not easy for most people to pedal with power that way.

There's no reason you couldn't get an upright posture with an aggressive seat tube angle. I don't know how that would affect the handling of the bike.