Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Fitting endurance geometry vs standard race geometry

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Fitting endurance geometry vs standard race geometry

Old 03-05-16, 03:19 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Fitting endurance geometry vs standard race geometry

Comparing Cannondale CAAD vs Synapse for example. I'm about 5'11 and owned CAAD9 in 54 and CAAD10 in 56 (CAAD9 and CAAD10 had identical geometry). I preferred rhe fit of the 54 with a 120mm stem. Would I likely fit a 54 Synapse better than 56?

54 CAAD ett is about the same as Synapse 545mm vs 542mm. The Synapse has a slightly steeper seat tube (73.9 vs 73.5) and slacker head tube (72 vs 73) and taller head tube (166mm vs 140mm).

I assume I would fit the 54 and reach would be about the same but bars would be higher and more upright? I'm mostly thinking about theory not necessarily going to buy a Synapse or other endurance bike.
rms13 is offline  
Old 03-05-16, 10:10 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,493

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Liked 488 Times in 369 Posts
Most brands' endurance geometries have less reach and more stack for a nominal size, assuming that riders of endurance bikes just don't want to reach as forward and down for their handlebar. Specialized, who pioneered "endurance" geometry, simply increases the stack.

It's what you make of it. High and short, high and long, endurance geometry simply gives you more options if you don't want to deal with traditional geometry like this lady did.


Look at the stack and reach dimensions of what you already like to ride, and see if you can make them work with your intended.

Last edited by oldbobcat; 03-05-16 at 10:13 PM.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 03-06-16, 12:39 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
I'm not impressed with the geometries quoted.

Yes, nominally an Endurance frame would have less reach and more stack. Based on the figures quoted Cannondale have achieved the reduced reach by steepening the seat tube angle which is a fudge and the wrong way to do it. Normally you want to bring the front back towards the saddle but in this case they have simply moved the seat forwards towards the handlebars. This adversely affects the balance of the bike and places more weight on the hands and shoulders which is EXACTLY what you are trying to avoid with the "Endurance" geometry in the first place.

Anthony
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-06-16, 06:50 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Front end: I always look to frame stack and reach, and head tube angle, as a starting point on geometry. Comparing a CAAD 10 to the current aluminum Synapse, both in 54, the synapse frame stack is 30mm taller and frame reach is 7 mm shorter. If you went with the 56 synapse, you would gain another 20 mm frame stack and would have similar frame reach to the CAAD 10. The head tube angle is slacker on either synapse (so the tube points slightly more rearward/toward the rider), but the 56 is closer to the CAAD 10.

Saddle position: the seat tube angle differences for the 54s are small and should be compensated for by moving the saddle fore/aft.

I would think that you might be able to use either but that the 56 might require a shorter stem while the 54 would require one angled up more. On the other hand, what you can only determine on long rides is whether your body/fitness require some specific issue to be dealt with over long rides and that might cause one frame or the other to be preferable. As an example, if it were me, I would be looking for the tallest front end and would use a shorter stem if needed (but I have neck issues that make long rides challenging unless I raise the handlebars, so tall front end for me, plus I don't find I notice the difference in steering feel between a short and long stem enough for it to matter).
Igualmente is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 03:18 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,493

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Liked 488 Times in 369 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
I'm not impressed with the geometries quoted.

Yes, nominally an Endurance frame would have less reach and more stack. Based on the figures quoted Cannondale have achieved the reduced reach by steepening the seat tube angle which is a fudge and the wrong way to do it. Normally you want to bring the front back towards the saddle but in this case they have simply moved the seat forwards towards the handlebars. This adversely affects the balance of the bike and places more weight on the hands and shoulders which is EXACTLY what you are trying to avoid with the "Endurance" geometry in the first place.

Anthony
You said you aren't buying, so I don't know why you need to be impressed.

If you are balanced on a traditional geometry, and you raise the handlebar as on an endurance bike, the center of gravity will shift backward with the raised torso. So you would slide the saddle forward a bit to return to that balance point. Hence, the steeper seat tube angle.

Riders who can't achieve balance on a trad geometry usually have something getting in the way--tight hamstrings, a bad back, tight shoulders, tight hips, a belly, what have you. They benefit from the endurance geometry by bringing the hips and hands closer to each other.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 03:34 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,897

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Liked 56 Times in 43 Posts
Theory... the seat tube angle is mostly irrelevant especially compared to the head tube angle and height, both of which on the Synapse should better lend itself to the possibility, if desired, of more upright (i.e., less aggressive, more body-friendly) riding position.
McBTC is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 04:21 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by oldbobcat
You said you aren't buying, so I don't know why you need to be impressed.

If you are balanced on a traditional geometry, and you raise the handlebar as on an endurance bike, the center of gravity will shift backward with the raised torso. So you would slide the saddle forward a bit to return to that balance point. Hence, the steeper seat tube angle.

Riders who can't achieve balance on a trad geometry usually have something getting in the way--tight hamstrings, a bad back, tight shoulders, tight hips, a belly, what have you. They benefit from the endurance geometry by bringing the hips and hands closer to each other.
What?

The whole point of endurance geometry is to move the balance point rearwards. That's what makes them more comfortable. You need to get past the notion that "Traditional" geometry is about some well thought out "balance" point and what "Tradition" anyway. Road bike geometry has been a mess for quite a while. You have to go back a long way before it makes any sense.

And, whose "buying" here anyway? We are all offering advise to the OP.

I see no justification for placing ANY rider in front of KOPS by more than a mm or two unless its a time trial bike. For recreational or endurance riding you would start a little behind KOPS and work from there. There is no valid reason for the stupidly steep seat tube angles on modern bikes except for it being a "Fudge".

Anthony
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 05:12 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Here's a specific. My current frame is a size 54 and I find it slightly too short. Like saddle is as far back as possible with setback seatpost and I still feel like I could be a little further behind bottom bracket to be comfortable. Here is geo:

WCB-R-066-workswellbikes

I am looking at this bike and curious if M or L would be better

Haanjo Trail (Road)

M has 540 ett but not sure how the angles and stack effect that. Seems like it would make it even smaller than my current 54. For reference I'm about 5'10 with 31" inseem
rms13 is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 06:37 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,897

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Liked 56 Times in 43 Posts
Originally Posted by rms13
Here's a specific. My current frame is a size 54 and I find it slightly too short. Like saddle is as far back as possible with setback seatpost and I still feel like I could be a little further behind bottom bracket to be comfortable. Here is geo:

WCB-R-066-workswellbikes

I am looking at this bike and curious if M or L would be better

Haanjo Trail (Road)

M has 540 ett but not sure how the angles and stack effect that. Seems like it would make it even smaller than my current 54. For reference I'm about 5'10 with 31" inseem

Even with a 56 you'd probably still have ~2" to spare of standover height... and, you probably need the longer top tube of a 56 vs. 54.
McBTC is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 07:08 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,493

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Liked 488 Times in 369 Posts
Originally Posted by rms13
I'm mostly thinking about theory not necessarily going to buy a Synapse or other endurance bike.
Let's keep chasing this around as an intellectual exercise.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 03-09-16, 07:08 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by rms13
Here's a specific. My current frame is a size 54 and I find it slightly too short. Like saddle is as far back as possible with setback seatpost and I still feel like I could be a little further behind bottom bracket to be comfortable. Here is geo:

WCB-R-066-workswellbikes

I am looking at this bike and curious if M or L would be better

Haanjo Trail (Road)

M has 540 ett but not sure how the angles and stack effect that. Seems like it would make it even smaller than my current 54. For reference I'm about 5'10 with 31" inseem
Your current frame has a seat tube angle of 73 degree across the size range which is way better than most do. If you want to move back which is understandable you will need a frame with a slacker (smaller number) seat tube angle which isn't that common to be honest.

Comparing the Diamondbacks to your current frame the Medium has a steeper seat tube angle which you don't want and the large has a half degree slacker seat tube angle which is better. The large also has the same reach as your current frame. So, the large is the choice of those two but maybe keep on looking as well. You would still need to use a setback post even with the large frame so whether the small benefit is worth the cost of changing is debatable.

Anthony

Last edited by AnthonyG; 03-09-16 at 07:12 PM.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-11-16, 03:30 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by rms13
Here's a specific. My current frame is a size 54 and I find it slightly too short. Like saddle is as far back as possible with setback seatpost and I still feel like I could be a little further behind bottom bracket to be comfortable. Here is geo:

WCB-R-066-workswellbikes

I am looking at this bike and curious if M or L would be better

Haanjo Trail (Road)

M has 540 ett but not sure how the angles and stack effect that. Seems like it would make it even smaller than my current 54. For reference I'm about 5'10 with 31" inseem
I ended up picking up a Haanjo in Large. According to their sizing charts I'm right between M and L. I just did the first 10 mile break in ride and it feels good but I still need to dial it in. I barely clear the top tube by maybe an inch when straddling it. But more interestingly I still feel like I might need a longer stem then the 100mm that comes stock. On the hoods I feel ok but descending in the drops I felt like I wanted to be a little more over the front wheel. I also left all the spacers under the stem. So I think I will put a 110 or even 120mm stem on and move a couple of spacers on top
rms13 is offline  
Old 03-11-16, 11:51 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by rms13
I ended up picking up a Haanjo in Large. According to their sizing charts I'm right between M and L. I just did the first 10 mile break in ride and it feels good but I still need to dial it in. I barely clear the top tube by maybe an inch when straddling it. But more interestingly I still feel like I might need a longer stem then the 100mm that comes stock. On the hoods I feel ok but descending in the drops I felt like I wanted to be a little more over the front wheel. I also left all the spacers under the stem. So I think I will put a 110 or even 120mm stem on and move a couple of spacers on top
I still think you need a rearset seatpost on the new Haanjo Large frame. The reach on your new frame is identical to the old frame. The seat tube angle on the new frame is only half a degree slacker than the old frame which isn't even covering the effect of the rearset seatpost on the old frame so you need to fit a rearset seatpost to the new frame to make it even a little longer than your old setup.

Anthony
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 03-12-16, 09:47 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
I still think you need a rearset seatpost on the new Haanjo Large frame. The reach on your new frame is identical to the old frame. The seat tube angle on the new frame is only half a degree slacker than the old frame which isn't even covering the effect of the rearset seatpost on the old frame so you need to fit a rearset seatpost to the new frame to make it even a little longer than your old setup.

Anthony
Thanks. I'm actually using the same seat post but the saddle isn't all the way back as I had it on the other. I swapped to 110 stem that was on the other bike last night. I'll try moving saddle back and im riding it tommorow
rms13 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sfh
Fitting Your Bike
18
08-23-17 01:16 PM
Fastfwd01
Road Cycling
25
07-20-15 03:06 PM
mack_turtle
Fitting Your Bike
5
01-15-15 07:55 AM
eavonius
Road Cycling
12
08-01-10 05:23 PM
gbot
Road Cycling
2
07-08-10 12:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.