I have made a couple of boasts over the years..... well maybe more than a couple.
One was that I designed the first Endurance bike.
In 2002/03 I decided to buy a bike that would be my Forever Bike. I found nothing new that excited me, at least as far as I researched. Which wasn't too long a search really,.... because I wanted a custom steel. MY WAY. Owned a full touring bike, owned a CF race bike, owned a tandem and mtn bikes (susp+rigid), but there had to be something different. The bike to take me into the next generation of fast diamond-framed roadie comfort, even as the body aged.

Anyway, below an article (BikeRadar Dec 2017) stating Specialized Roubaix in 2004 was the first Endurance bike released.
I took delivery of this bike in March or April of 2004, but the design was finished and ordered in 2003. I was 1st, but not in his frame queue or delivery would have been in 2003.

The evolution of the endurance road bike | BikeRadar

Why endurance? Shorter top tube for a slightly less aggressive position, headtube extension to minimize those ugly spacers, 8cm of bottom bracket drop for a stable ride, short front-center for quick handling, 100.5 cm wheelbase and 41.25cm stays to avoid a touring bike feel. Still riding with the 125mm stem. . Only changes from 21 years ago are a nice set of tubular wheels wearing Veloflex, and the saddle - now a broken-in Brooks, which probably reduced the setback from the long narrow saddle in the pic..
Roll On. With a smile.
Even if you have not designed the next coming generation of traditional pedal bikes. .
.....
Or invented the marketing term that will outshine 'Gravel'.
The bike for when your hands no longer appreciate the gravel vibrations.
Let's call it "Road Sport" - maybe what is old can be new again.

Why wouldn't '80s Sport/Touring bikes count as Endurance bikes?


Why a short top tube and then a 125mm stem?

I wonder when Serotta started extending the headtubes? They have used low BBs as well.

The bike to grow with you as you age. Top tube was only 1cm below normal. The seatpost has setback. Saddle choices also influence setback variances. The current Brooks scoots me forward, while the relatively long stem seems to put me more squarely between the wheels (50/50 weight distribution), and BB drop at 8cm aids for stable feel. Evenly balanced fore/aft and low is heavenly on high-speed descents every ride.

80s Sport / Touring? Depends - whether the manufacturer leaned toward Sport or Touring.
Labels to describe a bike are easier to understand than explaining geometry - for the majority of buyers.

Not sure about Serotta on headtube extensions but Ben used 8cm drop more than most builders. There were many variations of headsets following the switch to 1 1/8th steerers. Several raised the headset stack. Or so I believe.

!1980s sport tourers?
About 18 years ago was when I started rapidly expanding my riding experiences with a large number of vintage bikes.
Austro Daimler offered what they called 'fast touring' bikes - Vent Noir + Olympian and others.
Raleigh and Holdsworth offered many models over the 70s boom years and beyond to that genre.
The Europeans as well with practicality over pure speed.

Then there has always been - the French Fit.

the main issue with most, but not all, Sport/Tourers was that they were not built with the best (read most expensive) tubesets.

Fast touring '83 VN - Merckx with 'Century' geometry

And French fit, gets marks for Endurance. Regardless of the decade.

The big problem here is that there is no current standardized description of what an Endurance bike is, just that it somehow departs from what a racing bike is in some definable (or marketable) way.

But the '80s sport tourer was also a bike with more relaxed steering geometry and longer wheelbase, and generally came with shorter stems for decreased reach and fatter tires/medium reach brakes. We think of them differently because they generally had 27" wheels and were 'entry level' rather than premium, but the effect was the same.



BTW, here's a 2000 Serotta with a likely low BB, extended head tube and shock absorbing frame device. Pretty damn endurancy.
https://bikingbicyclegarage.com/prod...-yrPwHO82nL9y5

OK - I lose. Not first. Did Merlin have HT extensions prior to 2003? Note - there were many exceptions before by smaller builders. Without pics, but I think a fancy lug Columbine had a model with tall, ornate lugs. And the guys outa Philly, who did a bike for basketball players, as did L. Zinn.

In my defense, I can only say your observations about sport or sport touring had the same vagueness when used bitd. So many models, so many geometry combinations; but back then I think there were fewer 'categories'.

I would argue that the current Canyon Endurace is at the forefront.

Pick one. Or more.

A. They had the wrong decals that said "Touring" instead of "Endurance."

B. Sport/Touring bikes hit the market before we had Influencers.

C. Designed with steel tubes that were hefty enough to avoid shimmy, and sporting tires that didn't flat when they saw a rock, Sport/Touring bikes of 30-40 years ago weighed pounds (Pounds! I tell you!!) more than a True Endurance Bike.

What's a "true endurance bike". When there is a definition, we can talk about what doesn't qualify.

Or maybe it is just self designation - and you can't travel back in time with a label.

In 2016, not knowing much about "endurance" bikes, I purchased a new Kestrel RT 1000 convinced this would be more comfortable with a more relaxed geometry. After multiple rides with my triathlete brother that rode his racing Trek Madone, I observed our positions when on the hoods. My position was at least 15-20% more aggressive than his position on the Madone. We are both 6'2" and riding stock 58mm framed bikes. After that, types of bikes lose all meaning until you are riding.

The true definition of an endurance road bike is a bike that is designed be more suited for longer distances than pure speed for the average enthusiast cyclist.

However, marketing people never put numbers to 'long distance', 'pure speed' or 'average cyclist'.

Individual specificity based on multiple ambiguities is an art of optimistic outcomes. AKA = buyer beware.

With a lot of seatpost showing, the additional headset spacers and upward stem (added to the HT extension), awkwardly rotated handlebars = that bike was purchased: 1) as the wrong size, or 2) for someone needing a step thru frame. It is so pristine a frame that undoubtedly the owner(s) found it too uncomfortable to ride much.

Call it 'endurancy' - I'd call it 'in need of a rebuild' for any new owner.


edit = Looking again, everything is wonky. 61cm seattube, 54cm top tube and the seller calling it a 58cm bike. . Clearly a 'special needs' original owner.

I wonder what bike shop fit this buyer to their new Serotta? A shop to avoid.

Did you buy a Kestrel that had Endurace Fit Geometry or Endurance Handling Geometry?

Why didn't you make the stem put the bar higher?

Why did you buy a full size small for your height if you wanted to be comfortable?

All those items were addressed later on after I injured my rotator cuffs and could no longer stretch out on the 120mm stem without pain.
At the time, I simply did not know any better and and thought I just had to condition (increase flexibility) myself to ride in an aggressive position which I did.
After raising the stack about an inch and shortening the stem to 90mm, I have a comfortable bike to ride metrics.

Was all MTB in the 90s today gravel is my thing. Looking at new gravel bikes trying to see past the marketing ploys and get a good durable bike.

A woman I knew who rode with the Baltimore Bicycling Club had a bike custom built for her, in the late '70's or early '80's, by the late Pennsylvania frame builder Rodney Moseman. To accommodate her long legs and short torso, he designed it with a sloping top tube plus an extended head tube. First time I saw that design that I can remember.

Bikes that can fit in the Endurance category do seem to be all over the lot with regard to design specifics. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I figure they're bikes built for guys who are getting to be older and heavier but who still want to be able to ride a racy-looking bike with a level top tube, like the old days.

The it's-got-to-be-a-level-top-tube thing is a bit ironic, since a sloping top tube is both the obvious solution for getting the bars up where heavier and weaker riders need them to be and the standard design for present-day pro road racing bikes.

All that said, Cannondale could make a pretty good claim for originating the endurance category with the ST400, their first bike model to hit the stores.

Quoting from the article linked to below, from a thread started by SpeedOfLite a few years ago:

"The real virtue of the ST400 is its versatility. The bike has the trappings of a full-blown tourer, with room for panniers, fenders, and three water bottles, but the frame is lighter and stiffer than most racing frames on the market. With the right equipment, this frame could be ridden around the block or across the country, raced in a triathlon or thrashed through a cyclocross course, all with surprising competence. What allows the Cannondale to succeed where other sport-touring bikes fail is the same feature that offends traditionalists: its unusual construction using large-diameter, welded and heat-treated 6061 T6 aluminum tubes."

Road Test/Bike Review (1986) CANNONDALE ST400

Just had another flashback to the '80's: Urs Freuler's Atala with an extended head tube (and seat tube).

From this article:

I have to admit that all this nomenclature business is foreign to me. Or possibly I just don't get it. IMO a good endurance bike is one which gets you from A to B quickly and comfortably, considering that A and B are quite far apart. Thus a good endurance bike would be about the same a good rando bike Randonneurs I've ridden with usually ride carbon bikes because of minimal vibration, low weight, and good power transfer.

I like a fit which has my elbows in front of my knees when I'm low and my upper arms acting as a strut, 90° to my torso. That way I'm not cramped, my back is straight, the miles go by quickly, and I'm not tired at the end of the ride. Oddly enough many race bikes make good endurance bikes as long as they go where they're pointed, are stable, and corner well.

When I'm looking for a randonneuring bike, I'm looking for desired stack and reach to fit my proportions, tire clearance, and mounts. I'm not a bike geometry wonk; I want a bike that likes to go in a straight line but still turn without any drama. Light is better than heavy, smooth is better than harsh, stiff in the right way is better than noodly.

I think there are more options today, fitting those criteria, than ever. Whether marketed as endurance, all road, gravel, or adventure does not matter.

Anyone riding vintage steel on a 1200 isn't doing so because that was some epitome of bike design, they're doing it for style. Nothing wrong with style for the sake of style, if that's your jam. At PBP 2023, a kid did a skip stop into the Loudiac control on his fixie, dressed like a ninja. Also style for style's sake, and I also respect that choice.

This was marketed as an endurance bike with more relaxed geometry and shock absorption built into the carbon fiber. I really enjoy it for short, medium and long distances.

Good posts. The thread title is "The evolution of the Endurance bike." And they have evolved. "Tire clearance and mounts" can still be an issue. Those are the only issues with my current ride.