Kimmo 

...As long as you're a toe pointer.

shelbyfv

#Moisture

Kimmo 

...?

Iride01 

Most road bikes with slammed stems or low stack are still endurance road bikes. Just because you can't endure the position has nothing to do with it. Mostly it's the angle of the seat tube that makes them an endurance bike. Everything else is fit from there.

And where in your video do they explain your title? I've not the time to watch a 12 minute vid for something that doesn't seem related from the get go.

trailangel

Could somebody translate the language for me. I don't understand what they are saying.
There has to be some kind of license or test before being allowed to use a video camera.

Seattle Forrest

I ride a perseverance bike.

DaveSSS 

The author of this video claims a 3-4cm drop in saddle height is appropriate with a midfoot cleat. That sounds like too much to me. I do a lot of out of the saddle pedaling, so midfoot isn't for me.

FWIW, an endurance bike mainly has a taller head tube to produce a more upright position. The seat tube angle has no part in the difference. Fit is determined by reach and stack. The only thing that the STA affects is your choice of seatpost setback.

Iride01 

I guess all we can do is agree to disagree.

In general, it was always the seat tube angle that distinguished cruisers, road bikes and time trial bikes. Cruisers being the least vertical and TT bikes the most vertical. Head tube length itself is more about the size of the frame, not endurance. Particularly the old style bikes with horizontal top tube. However stack is what plays a big part in giving you a more aero or aggressive fit, as to a less aero and less aggressive fit. You don't have to have much head tube to have a lot of stack on bikes.

Endurance is nothing to do with how well any particular position you can endure. Just because you can't endure a race fit doesn't mean it's not an endurance bike. Or how else would some people be putting 5K, 10K or 15K a year on them?

At the marketing level for bikes, once you eliminate all the possible things that make it unique, like race, performance, fitness, then endurance is all that is left. But all the others were endurance bikes too. At least by everything I was told and read for all these years starting back with my first Schwinn.

WhyFi

I can't speak of ye olde road bikes, but when it comes to modern road bikes, I'm with Dave - endurance is generally differentiated by a more upright position (higher stack, shorter reach) along with geometry that's slower/more stable (longer wheelbase/chain stays, slower steering rake/trail, etc.)

DaveSSS 

Please back up this opinion with some links that compare the geometry of a race frame to an endurance model, in the same brand. About 95% of a longer head tube length goes directly to stack height. A relaxed fit is more upright with a taller stack and often a shorter reach. The steering trail might also be larger. Some brands add 20mm to the stack and others may add up to 40mm.

A good example is the Trek Domane compared to an Emonda. The seat tube angle has nothing to do with the fit. The stack is the main dimension that stands out as different. The 52cm size that I would ride has about a 40mm difference in stack height, while the seat tube angle difference is trivial.

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...-etap/p/33140/

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...-lt-9/p/32579/

Rides4Beer

So loss of acceleration, unsteady sprinting or climbing out of the saddle, and not mentioned, but obviously increased toe overlap. No thanks.

mgopack42 

here is a graphical comparison of an Emonda and a Domane ( all the data base had was the AL for the Domane, so I went there with the Emonda)

Dean V

I ride exactly the same fit on my Emonda and Domane.
The difference in geometry is easily compensated for in stem spacers and length.

Kabuto

Not always. This is only possible if you have no spacers under the Domane's stem and a bunch of spacers under the Emonda stem. You're outta luck if you have spacers under the Domane's stem.

Dean V

True, but the point is you need to look at each bike and required fit on a case by case basis rather than using broad generalisations.
In my case the Domane is slammed but the Emonda doesn't need many spacers as they are both H2 and the geometries aren't that different.

colnago62

I remember Joe Friel advocating this approach a few years back.

redcon1

You are talking about the touch point dimensions, not changing the frame geometry. Rake/Trail, Wheelbase, Chainstay length are all different between your Emonda/Domane. Different geometry, and different handling characteristics... incremental, to be sure, but definitely different.

DaveSSS 

While it's possible to match certain fits between a racing and endurance model, you can't buy the same size domane and get the same fit as a slammed Emonda. Slammed is no spacers and a -17 stem. That's how I set up my previous Colnago frames with a 527mm stack, to get a 10cm saddle to bar drop. Just changing to a -6 stem raises the bars by about 2cm. I now have the smallest size Cinelli superstar frames, that have an 18mm lower stack. These frames are set up with a 30mm tall conical headset top, that drops the bars about 3mm lower, using a 10mm longer stem. I left the steering tube longer, to preserve resale value.

Endurance frames are intended to have a more upright fit, with less saddle to bar drop. Trek recommends a 52cm size for the same height range in both models, but obviously, the domane can't be set up as low as an emonda.

Rides4Beer

Excellent point. I've had the same touch point fit on four different bikes, 2018 Fuji Transonic, 2019 Tarmac SL6, 2020 Giant Defy, and now a 2021 SuperSix Evo. All four bikes rode/handled differently, even tho my "fit" was the same. And none of them handle like the SuperSix, geometry definitely matters.

Iride01 

I probably can't. My thinking on the subject comes from things back in the old days before websites we know today. We just didn't do an archie search for such stuff even when the 90's brought us a popular search engine.

I do have to admit that the overwhelming degree of specializing and categorizing things today is probably against me. But still I'll don't see a road race bike any less endurance than road bike frames only categorized as endurance.

What is or isn't endurance is the fit. A person that is properly fitted on either can be comfortable for a long time to endure the miles ahead. The moniker of endurance is another misleading term to me that make newbs and uninformed automatically think that an aggressive position is uncomfortable. Just as race itself makes many think that position isn't for them. So there gets to be a stigma with the terms that sub-consciously keep people away from one or the other for the wrong reasons.

Head tube length really only plays a part in stack as you go bigger in frame size of the same model bike. Endurance bikes in their geometry typically get part of their extra stack by having more BB drop. The less reach part also gets handled by head tube angle, where not much makes a big difference to reach and wheel base. Fork design also make head tube length not so important to stack. a fork with more crown and longer blades will let you get more stack with a more normal looking head tube size.

The old vintage frame geometries, had bikes with long head tube and high stack. But they were also very large for anyone bike frame. Bike manufacturers started changing geometries up when they noticed people had started shoving longer seat posts in them and using much smaller frames than suggested sizing so they could get the low stack they wanted for their size. And they road them on long rides that were called endurance rides. That is the time when road bikes also began to take on the same meaning and also became known as endurance bikes. Maybe just for me and my thinking only, but there it is.

I'll try not to change the worlds thinking on this so much any more, just so we get past this. But please don't tell me that endurance means I'll be more comfortable on long rides than a properly fitted road bike with a race fit.

DaveSSS 

That's exactly what the manufacturers are telling their customers. An enduranance bike's geometry is NOT intended to produce the same fit as a race bike. It's intended to have less reach and drop. Not everyone wants a race fit. I rarely see people posting pictures of bike's with the 10cm saddle to bar drop that I use. For a 5'-6" rider, that a lot of drop. More often, I see a stack of spacers and a positive rise stem. At age 67, I'm fine with my race fit for up to 3.5 hours, but if I was riding centuries, or any longer casual paced rides, I'd use less saddle to bar drop.

A common mistake is thinking that BB drop affects the stack. It does not, since stack is measured from the center of the BB.

scott967

But most marketed "endurance" bikes also feature more compliance, via wider tire, rubber suspension bits, etc. even if you can get identical fit.

scott s.
.

redcon1

(I believe that I read you have ridden both your Tarmac and a comparable Roubaix). Whether or not you think one is more 'comfortable'-- a completely subjective opinion- is irrelevant. I have ridden both a new Tarmac and I purchased my new Roubaix - partly because of 'comfort' - and my definition of that, for me. But based on the frame geometries, there were real-world handling differences between the T and the R that were very noticeable-- due to the objective differences between the two, and based on the Geometry differences of the frame/fork. Did you notice any on your test rides? How many miles did you put on each?

The fact you can't see a difference is your problem - not everyone else's. The clear distinction exists--whether or not you acknowledge it, or even perceive it.

colnago62

Trek’s Project One used to allow buyers to choose a head tube height. People have different levels of flexibility and body dimensions. What one finds comfortable, another might not. I am not sure what the real argument is but a taller head tube does not automatically make a bike an endurance bike. Really, any bike you race is a race bike. I believe Thor Hushvold rode a Roubaix for awhile.

Iride01 

How does that equate to I don't see a difference? If I was to go only for comfort above everything else, I'd leave some performance things behind. I don't see how being comfortable on multiple types of bikes is a problem. Whether it's me or you. Not being able to get comfortable on a bike is a problem. Might be your problem.