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

Is it possible to make a bike with racing geometries "endurance"?

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.

Is it possible to make a bike with racing geometries "endurance"?

Old 08-17-23, 03:06 AM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Is it possible to make a bike with racing geometries "endurance"?

Hi, I have some problems with my back (I can't stress my core muscles much due to rheumatological problems) I'm evaluating the purchase of the new Canyon Endurace CFR that has just come out, because it has a high stack and a reduced reach.

For now I have a fairly racing bike with these geometries:
Horizontal tube 54.5cm
Seat Tube Angle: 73.9°
Stacks:535mm
Reach:390mm
Head Tube Length: 134mm

I would like to ask you if by inserting a few more thicknesses and with a handlebar stem shorter than the one at present (110mm) I would be able to "simulate" an endurance set-up.

I would also like to ask you if a smaller seat tube angle like that of the canyon endurace (72°) puts less strain on the back, core muscles and lumbar area.

I'm not looking for performance but comfort also because in my opinion a more comfortable bike makes you more profitable
3dbiker is offline  
Old 08-17-23, 05:56 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern NY...Brownville
Posts: 2,526

Bikes: Specialized Aethos, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked 423 Times in 243 Posts
Proper fit on a bike makes all the difference.
A bike with less aggressive angles 'might' make for a more comfortable ride but not necessarily so.
Have your body and body to bike professionally evaluated in order to ride comfortably and efficiently.
Kai Winters is offline  
Old 08-17-23, 07:17 AM
  #3  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,544

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6001 Post(s)
Liked 4,628 Times in 3,193 Posts
Geometry makes a difference in what position a bike will give you. The bicycle manufacturers make bikes in all different geometries. You just have to find the one that is correct for you. Don't get overly excited about the advertisers use of words to describe a bike. You really just need to try them until you find the bike that fits you best.

Changing stem height and length as well as some of the other things that can be changed are just for fine tuning your fit. If you have to go to the extremes of changing things with your current bike, you really should consider another bike with a geometry that can give you the position you need.

Generally slacker seat tube angles are associated with less aggressive body position. But when we are only talking ˝° - 1˝° the other tube lengths and geometry will still determine whether the position is any more relaxed or aero than any other bike.

While you look for geometry to give you comfort, geometry is also about utilizing the power a person can put out. So sometimes the two don't quite go together and compromises must be made toward one or the other.

Last edited by Iride01; 08-17-23 at 07:29 AM.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 08-17-23, 07:11 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,610
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4142 Post(s)
Liked 1,331 Times in 869 Posts
Bike geometry has nothing to do with fit, unless you can't get the bar and seat where it needs to be due to the geo. Especially the seat tube angle.

There is no such thing as "endurance geometry". Endurance is whatever the manufacturer says it is. Sometimes it is angles, sometimes it is stack, sometimes it is an anti-vibration feature. Most of the time they don't necessarily do anything that a regular road bike won't also do.

If you want less reach or higher bars on your current bike, you can do that. If you want to move your seat back, you can do that.
Kontact is offline  
Likes For Kontact:
Old 08-17-23, 07:28 PM
  #5  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,340

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked 623 Times in 425 Posts
Originally Posted by 3dbiker
Hi, I have some problems with my back (I can't stress my core muscles much due to rheumatological problems) I'm evaluating the purchase of the new Canyon Endurace CFR that has just come out, because it has a high stack and a reduced reach.

For now I have a fairly racing bike with these geometries:
Horizontal tube 54.5cm
Seat Tube Angle: 73.9°
Stacks:535mm
Reach:390mm
Head Tube Length: 134mm

I would like to ask you if by inserting a few more thicknesses and with a handlebar stem shorter than the one at present (110mm) I would be able to "simulate" an endurance set-up.
I would also like to ask you if a smaller seat tube angle like that of the canyon endurace (72°) puts less strain on the back, core muscles and lumbar area.
I'm not looking for performance but comfort also because in my opinion a more comfortable bike makes you more profitable
The numbers you quote, by themselves don't really mean much, as to 'comfort' or not.
Endurance design is a way of saying 'comfort' because the bike dimensions work towards a more upright posture and less an aero posture as found in 'race' type road dimensions.
But the numbers that you quote seem to fall into the common range of road/ tradition 'race' designs, in the 52 towards 54 cm size.
So, a seat tube angle of 73+ is quite common in those sizes, regardless of 'Endurance' or 'Race' . 72 deg is usually found in much large frame sizes 58-60 and larger. SO if you're in the 52-54 frame sizes, a 72 for an off-the-rack bike is much less likey. Anyway, the seat post offset variation can accommodate unusual saddle setback needs.
Once you find a good saddle setback for your pedaling and riding technique and power, I don;t recommend going outside of that to any great extent.
SO, Stems are very inexpensive.
You can get a different stem, with greater angle and turned 'up'. That will raise the 'stack' and because of the greater angle, the stem will also shorten the 'reach' quite a bit.
For example a 110 length stem of +17 deg gives 10mm shorter reach and a stack of almost 20mm higher than a 110 stem of 6 deg , which is a common stock stem angle (with no other changes). A 100 mm stem of 17+ deg would be 20mm shorter reach and 15mm higher stack...
Adding spacers under a stem might be possible, if the steerer tube is long enough - but there's always the possibility of putting too much stress on the steerer, causing structural issues - that all depends.
Try it all, and see how that works for you.
Don't know much of anything about the Canyon Endurace...
Ride On
Yuri

Last edited by cyclezen; 08-17-23 at 07:31 PM.
cyclezen is offline  
Old 08-19-23, 06:33 AM
  #6  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cyclezen
The numbers you quote, by themselves don't really mean much, as to 'comfort' or not.
Endurance design is a way of saying 'comfort' because the bike dimensions work towards a more upright posture and less an aero posture as found in 'race' type road dimensions.
But the numbers that you quote seem to fall into the common range of road/ tradition 'race' designs, in the 52 towards 54 cm size.
So, a seat tube angle of 73+ is quite common in those sizes, regardless of 'Endurance' or 'Race' . 72 deg is usually found in much large frame sizes 58-60 and larger. SO if you're in the 52-54 frame sizes, a 72 for an off-the-rack bike is much less likey. Anyway, the seat post offset variation can accommodate unusual saddle setback needs.
Once you find a good saddle setback for your pedaling and riding technique and power, I don;t recommend going outside of that to any great extent.
SO, Stems are very inexpensive.
You can get a different stem, with greater angle and turned 'up'. That will raise the 'stack' and because of the greater angle, the stem will also shorten the 'reach' quite a bit.
For example a 110 length stem of +17 deg gives 10mm shorter reach and a stack of almost 20mm higher than a 110 stem of 6 deg , which is a common stock stem angle (with no other changes). A 100 mm stem of 17+ deg would be 20mm shorter reach and 15mm higher stack...
Adding spacers under a stem might be possible, if the steerer tube is long enough - but there's always the possibility of putting too much stress on the steerer, causing structural issues - that all depends.
Try it all, and see how that works for you.
Don't know much of anything about the Canyon Endurace...
Ride On
Yuri
Thanks Yuri.

What I can tell you is that I need a frame (gemotrie) that allows me not to strain and use too much the core muscles and the lumbar area for this I think that a 72° saddle angle is better than a 74° angle and also I can't afford a very high handlebar saddle height difference (max 6cm).

Basically I need a frame (in my opinion) with a stack/reach ratio >= a 1.5
3dbiker is offline  
Old 08-19-23, 08:30 AM
  #7  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,340

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked 623 Times in 425 Posts
Originally Posted by 3dbiker
Thanks Yuri.

What I can tell you is that I need a frame (gemotrie) that allows me not to strain and use too much the core muscles and the lumbar area for this I think that a 72° saddle angle is better than a 74° angle and also I can't afford a very high handlebar saddle height difference (max 6cm).
Basically I need a frame (in my opinion) with a stack/reach ratio >= a 1.5
From your comments in the initial post and above, my impression is that you're confusing terms/concepts, their intent and the interpretation of the numbers.
'Reach' and 'Stack' concepts are both Frame Dims measured from the Bottom Bracket to the top of the Head Tube (and will vary by frame size). Here:
https://road.cc/content/feature/what...portant-266968
Seattube angle does not affect any of that - but it is important (get to that later).
Often there is also noted 'Effective Reach or Stack', and those can include the measurements of the stem which is supplied with a built bike of a particular size.

Seattube angle is usually also bike frame size dependent - to allow for differences in rider body measurements (and intended use/purpose).
A Seattube angle of 72 is 'slacker' than a 74 angle. This is intended to accommodate longer leg measurements, usually of taller riders, 72 is usually used for road bikes intended riders well over 6 ft, and 74 is found on frames/bikes for 5' 2" or shorter riders. (Putting a lot of other considerations aside...)
Why? Because positioning the saddle is done (by some method) to put the seat/saddle at a certain point BEHIND the Bottom bracket.
I won't go into how that is done, since that's a contentious and argumented process, since time immemorial...
AND your saddle height/extension from the pedal also affects the saddle placement/position/setback.
Getting your seat position, however, is usually the best way to start the 'fitting' of the other elements of bike setup - which is affected by reach and stack.
Without a clear understanding of your current 'position', especially your saddle position and knowing how you'd like to change that, trying to compare frame/bike measurements is really not effective/possible. By you and certainly not anyone else.
Ride On
Yuri
cyclezen is offline  
Likes For cyclezen:
Old 08-19-23, 08:33 AM
  #8  
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,886
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 955 Post(s)
Liked 459 Times in 323 Posts
I like cyclezen's analysis. Saddle position affects the pressure and weight on your arms and shoulders. A shorter bar position by itself might not help as much as you expect.
Stack and reach measurements are great for comparing two bikes to see if either or both is in range of a good fit or would need unusual bar and stem changes.

Stem changes
There's often a limit of 40mm for the stem spacers. That's 4 rings of the standard 10mm height. Changing the stem length and angle, and perhaps getting a shorter reach bar with less drop to the bar ends could help too.
But I expect that the maximum change for your frame will be only a moderate difference.

This stem calculator is useful. It compares two different setups in the same graphic display and shows the height and reach change in mm.
Stem Comparison Tool | yojimg.net

For example:
a +5 / -5 degree stem is fairly common, and it's usually flipped upward as a +5.
90mm to 110 mm stems are common.
3 spacers, 30mm, is also quite common.

Going to extremes, from a +5, 110mm stem, to a +17, 80mm stem with the max 40mm spacers:
The shorter setup is just 13mm / 0.5 inches higher and 38mm / 1.5 inches less reach.


Last edited by rm -rf; 08-19-23 at 08:38 AM.
rm -rf is offline  
Old 08-19-23, 08:27 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,328

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

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 488 Post(s)
Liked 423 Times in 321 Posts
Shortening the stem to raise the back angle is generally a bad idea. First, reducing the reach can diminish your torso stability. Your hands need to be amply forward of your shoulders to counter braking forces and give you space to shift your weight forward for out-of-the-saddle pedaling. Also, too short in the cockpit can result in steering difficulties. Also, your knees can come in contact with the handlebar. If you must, look at riser stems.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 08-19-23, 09:34 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,610
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4142 Post(s)
Liked 1,331 Times in 869 Posts
Originally Posted by 3dbiker
Thanks Yuri.

What I can tell you is that I need a frame (gemotrie) that allows me not to strain and use too much the core muscles and the lumbar area for this I think that a 72° saddle angle is better than a 74° angle and also I can't afford a very high handlebar saddle height difference (max 6cm).

Basically I need a frame (in my opinion) with a stack/reach ratio >= a 1.5
Your seat tube angle is immaterial.

If you want to fix your posture, you start by finding a position, not a bike geometry. That position can likely be accommodated by a range of geometries. That's because seats, stems and posts have a lot of adjustability.
Kontact is offline  
Old 08-20-23, 03:31 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,092 Times in 1,310 Posts
The simple answer is yes.

The hard answer? We can't help you. We have too little information from you.

So, I give you my racing bike that I set for endurance. It is a Felt AR1. It is offered in 58 or 61. I have owned the 58 in the past and it required a very long stem and a lot of spacers, even still my torso balance was not the greatest on it. I need to have less weight on my hands than more. I only have about 5 cm saddle to handlebar drop. I have 50 mm risers on the aerobars. With a 130mm stem, I still need to push the saddle back on the rails somewhat. The bike will just fit 32 mm GP50000 S TR (they puff out to 34-35 mm). The seatpost design absorbs shock, although probably not as well as the Canyun Endurace. I have endurance gearing, 48-35 and 10-33 SRAM.

I am quite certain this bike could do any road based endurance event. It is sort of a modern rendition of the old British Sport touring bicycles like my old Dawes Super Galaxy.

It sounds to me you need a good fitter. My hunch is you have a different problem than the title of the bike
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 08-20-23, 04:40 AM
  #12  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
What do you think about the length of the cranks? according to the biomechanic I could use 170mm and 172.5 mm cranks (currently I use the 172.5 ones) choosing the shorter ones (170mm) I was told that I should have improvements in the hip / pelvis and lumbar area.
what do you think ?
3dbiker is offline  
Old 08-20-23, 08:59 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,610
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4142 Post(s)
Liked 1,331 Times in 869 Posts
Originally Posted by 3dbiker
What do you think about the length of the cranks? according to the biomechanic I could use 170mm and 172.5 mm cranks (currently I use the 172.5 ones) choosing the shorter ones (170mm) I was told that I should have improvements in the hip / pelvis and lumbar area.
what do you think ?
Shorter cranks are always easier on your body, but they produce less leverage. It is up to you.
Kontact is offline  

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 -

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