# Carbon Endurance Road Bike Suggestions.



## GaRandonee (Dec 21, 2010)

Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert Compact or Bianchi Infinito Ultegra?
Or somthing else?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

If the Infinito is the one with a 2 year warranty, not that.

Calfee?


----------



## LiveToRide (Oct 17, 2010)

Scott CR1?


----------



## GaRandonee (Dec 21, 2010)

Yup. I will add the CR1 Pro to the list. Thank you.


----------



## LiveToRide (Oct 17, 2010)

No problem. The Giant Defy Advanced might be another one to consider -- with their lifetime warranty and all.


----------



## GaRandonee (Dec 21, 2010)

Right on.


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*Volagi*

Shown at Interbike. Due out in spring?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

I love my Cyfac Gothica: very comfortable, reactive with a little spring in it, and stable. Not the lightest frame, but very nice and beautiful.

You know what though, with so little information about your budget or preference you'll get a really really wide range of answers.


----------



## wedge962005 (Jan 4, 2010)

My favorite category of bike!!

Mine is a 2010 6 series Madone in the "Performance" fit, which is more endurance oriented and I love it. If someone stole it tomorrow I would get another one with the insurance money.

I've also ridden and enjoyed...
-Infinito
-CR1
-Defy Advanced
-Cannondale Synapse

I considered the Roubaix strongly but it was before the SL3 redesign and the old frame just had too much flex going. I haven't ridden the SL3 yet but hear it is much improved. My wife has a Defy and loves it. Great bike.

You really can't go wrong with your choices. I'd ride them, at least 2 hours each, and then decide. If you get down to 2 or 3 options that you like the ride the same on, go for features and parts. For example, with the Roubaix you get the Zerts stuff, Trek you get Duo-Trap Sensors...they all have something.

Good luck and enjoy.


----------



## GaRandonee (Dec 21, 2010)

Thank you for the input. I had a steel touring bike that a hit and run driver destroyed, and I replaced it with the Focus Cayo. I like it well enough, but I want to get one in this category. Your post will help.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cannondale Synapse and Look 566 are a couple others to consider.

Regarding your most resent post. Not to read something you didn't actually say but if you're thing to 'replace' what your touring bike did for you be aware that most, if not all, of these 'relaxed goe' road bikes are not set up for racks. They're generally similar to the companies non relaxed race bike with a taller head tube and slower steering.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

BMC SLR01 is worthy of consideration IMO.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> If the Infinito is the one with a 2 year warranty, not that.


Where did you get a 2-year warranty quote? Am genuinely interested.

Bianchi warranties:

2011:
All Frames, All materials = 5 years

2006 - 2010:
Titanium and non-RC steel frames = 10 years 
Aluminum, RC-steel, and carbon frames = 5 years

2000-2005:
Titanium and non-RC steel frames = 10 years 
Non-RC aluminum frames = 5 years 
RC and carbon frames = 3 years

1999 and earlier:
Steel frames = 10 years 
Aluminum frames = 5 years


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

wim said:


> Where did you get a 2-year warranty quote? Am genuinely interested.
> 
> Bianchi warranties:
> 
> ...


In the recent Bianchi Infinito thread it was discussed quite a bit without anyone saying it was wrong. I assumed that it wouldn't have been that much of a discussion item if it was obviously false.

Personally, 5 years bums me out for something that expensive.


Can we all agree that all "comfort" road bikes consist of is racing bikes with slightly taller head tubes? I keep seeing this idea thrown around and that seems to be the only consistant feature. I don't really understand why someone with a regular road bike would also want one of these - how many different positions is a person going to ride in?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> In the recent Bianchi Infinito thread it was discussed quite a bit without anyone saying it was wrong.


Got it, thanks.

Agree with you on comfort bike = taller head tube bike nowadays. But you have to keep in mind that this term referred to something totally different ("around-the-block bike") not too long ago, that the term "relaxed geometry" is often thrown into the mix, and that different companies hype different terms for their taller-head tube bikes. The potential for confusion on part of the customer is high.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> Can we all agree that all "comfort" road bikes consist of is racing bikes with slightly taller head tubes? I keep seeing this idea thrown around and that seems to be the only consistant feature. I don't really understand why someone with a regular road bike would also want one of these - how many different positions is a person going to ride in?



No we can't all agree on that. They generally have slower steering too. And I can understand why someone would want one of these AND a non relaxed bike. The guy that races or does a hammerfest on Saturday then goes for scenery ride with his wife on Sunday could benefit from having both bikes.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

GaRandonee said:


> Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert Compact or Bianchi Infinito Ultegra?
> Or somthing else?


Consider the Cervelo RS. Light and responsive. Lifetime Warranty.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The guy that races or does a hammerfest on Saturday then goes for scenery ride with his wife on Sunday could benefit from having both bikes.


You've got to be kidding me. There are no guys who race on Saturday and go on scenery rides on Sunday. 

Seriously, I don't think the comfort / relaxed / performance / endurance bike is all that different from its more racy cousin. If the longer headtube is the only significant difference, it's really more about looks than anything else. The less-flexible, more mature buyer can be comfortable on a smaller frame with fewer stem spacers, making him appear more like a racer and less like a tourist. The old alternative was 3 inches worth of spacers or an ugly upjutter stem. Or even older, the larger frame with only a fistful of seatpost showing, which, mildly put, is not very stylish at the moment.

/w


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> No we can't all agree on that. They generally have slower steering too. And I can understand why someone would want one of these AND a non relaxed bike. The guy that races or does a hammerfest on Saturday then goes for scenery ride with his wife on Sunday could benefit from having both bikes.


Do you have any examples?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> Do you have any examples?


Examples of what?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Examples of what?


Bikes of this type with "relaxed" steering.

I haven't noticed a sporty 56cm road bike with less than a 73 degree HTA since the '80s "sport touring" bikes. I'm just wondering which models you're looking at that are actually slower steering from angle and trail.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> Bikes of this type with "relaxed" steering.
> 
> I haven't noticed a sporty 56cm road bike with less than a 73 degree HTA since the '80s "sport touring" bikes. I'm just wondering which models you're looking at that are actually slower steering from angle and trail.


Here's a start but if you look at any companies relaxed bike compared to it's all out racer you'll see a difference in trail. http://www.cannondale.com/gbr/eng/Products/Bikes/Road/

What are examples of a company that make their race and relaxed bikes with the same trail?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Here's a start but if you look at any companies relaxed bike compared to it's all out racer you'll see a difference in trail. http://www.cannondale.com/gbr/eng/Products/Bikes/Road/
> 
> What are examples of a company that make their race and relaxed bikes with the same trail?


http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/6_series/fit_and_geometry/

The performance vs. pro have the same trail and angles. I had thought Specialized was similar, but I could be wrong.

I didn't know about the Cannondales. They actually play with head tube angle, though their trail numbers are kind of willy-nilly. My opinion is that trail is more important than HTA, but that's just me. I'd rather have bike that behaved the same at all speeds.

It doesn't look like any of these bikes use longer chainstays, which would be closer to what I'd guess a "comfort road" bike would need, rather than wishy-washy steering. But that's a whole different discussion.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

The Specialized Roubaix has slacker head tube angles than the Tarmac, and the Cervelo RS has 1cm longer chainstays than the R3 but the same head tube angle.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Don't forget the Felt Z frames. I'm extremely happy with mine and they are full - on racing capable and used for such.


----------



## ApplemanBicycles (Nov 25, 2010)

Endurance/Comfort based carbon fiber bikes are a growing niche.There are a handful of fine handmade carbon fiber builders that could work with you to get a comfortable riding, proper fitting bike built for you and how you intend to use it! 

If you're going to spend the bling, you might as well spend it right and without compromise. Get exactly what you want and what will work best for you, consider custom carbon fiber.

Warranties are not 100% indicative of the quality of the frame, but I would look for frames warranted 10+ years.


----------



## Aindreas (Sep 1, 2010)

+1 for the Defy Advanced. Really nice bike. Got about 500 - 1000 miles on mine, nearly all of them in speedy comfort.


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

Calfee seem to agree with you regarding HT angle

http://www.calfeedesign.com/frontendterms.htm


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

By and large, no modern road bike is designed with "old school criterium" geometry - steep angles, high bottom brackets, and stiff. Modern road bikes have more of what I like to call "stage race" geometry. Very suitable for long days in the saddle, whether it's the TDF or a Century.

The main difference is head tube length, with frames like the Specialized Roubaix and the H2 and H3 Madones having taller head tubes than the Tarmac and H1 Madones respectively.

As Craig Calfee pointed out, different head tube angles work fine as long as the fork rake is appropriate for the angle.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*almost*



ericm979 said:


> The Specialized Roubaix has slacker head tube angles than the Tarmac, and the Cervelo RS has 1cm longer chainstays than the R3 but the same head tube angle.


old R3 vs RS cs 39.9cm vs 41cm and 73 degree head angle vs 72 degree

way different, in size 54cm the difference is over 3cm in wb


new R5 is cs 40.5cm and 73.1 head angle in 54cm


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Richard said:


> By and large, no modern road bike is designed with "old school criterium" geometry - steep angles, high bottom brackets, and stiff. Modern road bikes have more of what I like to call "stage race" geometry. Very suitable for long days in the saddle, whether it's the TDF or a Century.
> 
> The main difference is head tube length, with frames like the Specialized Roubaix and the H2 and H3 Madones having taller head tubes than the Tarmac and H1 Madones respectively.
> 
> As Craig Calfee pointed out, different head tube angles work fine as long as the fork rake is appropriate for the angle.


This is a bit of what I'm coming from. Aside from sitting up higher, why would someone want slacker steering or some of these other modifications to ride on Sunday? 73 degree HTAs and 56mm of trail isn't twitchy at any speed. 

Longer wheelbases are nicer for surer feeling descents, but if you're used to a regular racing bike - why?


For my Sunday rides, I change to "upright fit" by using the tops of the bars. So I don't really get the need for a non-racing road bike - especially one that won't accomodate commuting or light touring accessories.

For some people this style of bike is great - 95% racing bike with more upright position built in.


----------



## willieboy (Nov 27, 2010)

LiveToRide said:


> No problem. The Giant Defy Advanced might be another one to consider -- with their lifetime warranty and all.


+1. I ride one and love it :thumbsup:


----------



## GaRandonee (Dec 21, 2010)

Thanks to all.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

I pointed at the 5 year Bianchi warranty in that previous thread...

Robbie Hunter used the Infinito all through the 2009 Giro. I do not think that a sprinter would like a bike with wishy-washy steering, and I haven't read any complaints about how it steers.

But I should add that my Infinito is set up more like a "compact" than a "comfort".


----------



## Paul1PA (Sep 16, 2006)

dougrocky123 said:


> Shown at Interbike. Due out in spring?


Another vote for the upcoming Volagi bikes since they sound purpose built for your needs. And check out their FAQs page which explains the design philosophy and why they chose to use disc brakes (all of which makes good sense to me! :thumbsup. 

http://www.volagi.com/










-Paul


----------



## tindrum (Mar 5, 2008)

it very well could be a beautiful-riding bike, but something about that super slack top tube and disc-brakes just make it look too much like a mountain bike for me.come on, since when was cycling about comfort


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> Bikes of this type with "relaxed" steering.
> 
> I haven't noticed a sporty 56cm road bike with less than a 73 degree HTA since the '80s "sport touring" bikes. I'm just wondering which models you're looking at that are actually slower steering from angle and trail.


Seriously?! You're joking right?! You need an example? Try a Specialized Tarmac versus a Roubaix. You might not see it but you can feel it when riding them. I was a non-believer too until I rode them. Longer wheelbase on Roubaix too. Other riders have said the same thing.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

terbennett said:


> Seriously?! You're joking right?! You need an example? Try a Specialized Tarmac versus a Roubaix. You might not see it but you can feel it when riding them. I was a non-believer too until I rode them. Longer wheelbase on Roubaix too. Other riders have said the same thing.


Yup, others have said the same thing.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Slack vs non slack, short vs long wheelbase... I dunno. A BMC SLR01 works for me. Love the ride quality and handling, particularly descending. I believe part of that has to do with the 23mm wide wheels I chose.

I also have a 2004 Specialized Roubaix. Admittedly it's an older bike, but it doesn't hold a candle to the SLR01 in terms of ride quality or handling.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

As for steep head tube angles for "racing bikes" I recently got to test ride the various offerings from La Pierre including the FDJ Team. 72.5 degree head angle in a 55cm (my size with a 57cm effective top tube.) It was anything but a "lazy" bike. Very quick handling but I called it (and the guys from La Pierre liked the appelation) "feed-zone stable."

Really nice ride and would be high on my list if I needed (and could afford) another bike.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

Paul1PA said:


> Another vote for the upcoming Volagi bikes since they sound purpose built for your needs. And check out their FAQs page which explains the design philosophy and why they chose to use disc brakes (all of which makes good sense to me! :thumbsup.


$1K more than a Cervelo RS (which has a lifetime warranty, no warranty info on the Volagi) for a solution to a non-problem (disc brakes on a road bike)?

Their FAQ on the topic is ludicrous, but I suppose there's conversation-starter material to be had from hanging around the coffee shop on one of those bikes.




rx-79g said:


> For my Sunday rides, I change to "upright fit" by using the tops of the bars. So I don't really get the need for a non-racing road bike - especially one that won't accomodate commuting or light touring accessories.


Agree completely.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*depends on what thinks*

of as an Endurance Bike
to me if it doesn't have space for larger tires and racks for panniers it probably isn't an endurance bike
to me this is a Carbon endurance bike

http://www.bgcycles.com/customgallery.html

and dayum would Iike to own it


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> of as an Endurance Bike
> to me if it doesn't have space for larger tires and racks for panniers it probably isn't an endurance bike


You're describing a touring bike.

An endurance bike is a relaxed-geometry road bike.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

Are you sure you need one? I'm not being argumentative, but perhaps I could share my experience. When my time came to get my dream bike (turning 50) , I was about to pull the trigger on a custom Ti frame. After deciding to race, I decided against custom Ti (although it could still have been a great race bike.)

My attention switched to either a Cervelo RS or a 2010 Scott CR1, which I figured would be fine for an old fart like me to race on. However, after test riding those and others, I decided on a Scott Addict. I also have a 2008 CR1, which has less of a tall heat tube and is arguably a harsher ride than the 2010 model and many other "relaxed geometry" bikes. Both the Addict and the CR1 can be made to fit me with different stem choices. When I did a 100+ mile ride, with 8,500 ft of climbing last August, the Addict was my bike of choice. Even though it's a race bike, it still feels pretty comfortable to me.

My point is that you might also find that the right bike for you is not so relaxed. It all depends on the fit and how much you like the ride.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*No I'm describing*



Gaear Grimsrud said:


> You're describing a touring bike.
> 
> An endurance bike is a relaxed-geometry road bike.


a bike built for Randonees and Brevets, which are endurance rides, those are endurance bikes

a bike that has relaxed geometry for all day comfort is called a sensible road bike

since 95% of the consumers would be best suited with these I think sensible road bike vs race bike is more apt. 

being comfortable whilst riding a supported century is not endurance. 
riding Paris Brest Paris is


----------



## kaliayev (Dec 25, 2008)

Check out the rides for the European Classics. Most riders are using "relaxed fit" bikes. Also used in some stages of the TDF.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> since 95% of the consumers would be best suited with these I think sensible road bike vs race bike is more apt.


I don't think someone willing to buy a carbon fiber frame falls into the typical bike consumer demographic to begin with. Take Cervelo or any other high-end carbon fiber manufacturer -- do their relaxed geometry models make up 95% of their sales volume? Seems unlikely (though maybe all those "race" bikes with 40mm of spacers below the stem tell a different story).

Anyway, maybe wanting a CF bike with panniers is like wanting a road bike with disc brakes. They may be out there, but it's a very peculiar niche.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*agreed*



Gaear Grimsrud said:


> I don't think someone willing to buy a carbon fiber frame falls into the typical bike consumer demographic to begin with. Take Cervelo or any other high-end carbon fiber manufacturer -- do their relaxed geometry models make up 95% of their sales volume? Seems unlikely (though maybe all those "race" bikes with 40mm of spacers below the stem tell a different story).
> 
> Anyway, maybe wanting a CF bike with panniers is like wanting a road bike with disc brakes. They may be out there, but it's a very peculiar niche.


but I've been saying for numerous years (long before comfort bikes existed) that the majority of recreational cyclists would be better served on less racy bikes. Most folks buy race bikes when they typically lack the core strength and/or flexibility to appropriately ride them so we see all this ridiculous stack heights. We see recreational riders wanting to spend $4 K on an off the shelf CF race frame where they'd be far better served (and save $) ordering custom steel or ti for their particular form of cycling. They'd get a better fit, a more comfortable ride and a unique bike. But they buy into all the hype, which is all marketing and branding.

Anyhow the industry caught on and makes comfort road bikes now. So back to marketing and branding. The accurate name is 'comfort' bike or 'recreational' road bike or as I say, just a sensible road bike. But none of those names sound cool enough and no one wants to be caught dead buying something named as such. So the industry comes up with a macho, cool guy name. ENDURANCE. See people will buy that, so my gripe with this post is the brand, the name they gave it. There are endurance bikes already, they are Randonee bikes. Stealing the name to sell relaxed Geo road bikes is nothing more than a marketing ploy to make them more desirable.
Take the SUV, what every family needs is a mini-van or station wagon. Neither of those give the necessary 'oomf' to give the aging dad a woody so the industry comes out with the SUV. See it isn't a station wagon or Van, it's a TRUCK, see MANLY. Now in spite of the lower gas mileage, increased maintenance costs, higher insurance and higher roll over rate these sell like hotcakes. All these 4WD vehicles that never see a speck of dirt their entire lives are nothing more than stupid station wagons sold under the guise of being something cool. And people buy into it. 
So rant over, all I'm saying is the Endurance Moniker is just branding and poor branding at that. And yes you are correct, in most cases they should make up the largest volume of sales for the industry. They make the most sense for the average consumer, but again, folks want to feel something move inside their shorts so instead they buy race bikes they in no way should be straddling.
As for CF Bikes with Panniers, well Bruce is a Savant. I'd rather have all steel, that bike was the winner of last years SD Bike show. It was a frigging work of art but ALL FUNCTION. Look at those lovely Ti lugs. Anyhow I only used it to illustrate the point that that bike is an endurance bike (and CF at that) in contrast to what the industry is now calling an endurance bike.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> but I've been saying for numerous years (long before comfort bikes existed) that the majority of recreational cyclists would be better served on less racy bikes. Most folks buy race bikes when they typically lack the core strength and/or flexibility to appropriately ride them so we see all this ridiculous stack heights. We see recreational riders wanting to spend $4 K on an off the shelf CF race frame where they'd be far better served (and save $) ordering custom steel or ti for their particular form of cycling. They'd get a better fit, a more comfortable ride and a unique bike. But they buy into all the hype, which is all marketing and branding.
> 
> Anyhow the industry caught on and makes comfort road bikes now. So back to marketing and branding. The accurate name is 'comfort' bike or 'recreational' road bike or as I say, just a sensible road bike. But none of those names sound cool enough and no one wants to be caught dead buying something named as such. So the industry comes up with a macho, cool guy name. ENDURANCE. See people will buy that, so my gripe with this post is the brand, the name they gave it. There are endurance bikes already, they are Randonee bikes. Stealing the name to sell relaxed Geo road bikes is nothing more than a marketing ploy to make them more desirable.
> Take the SUV, what every family needs is a mini-van or station wagon. Neither of those give the necessary 'oomf' to give the aging dad a woody so the industry comes out with the SUV. See it isn't a station wagon or Van, it's a TRUCK, see MANLY. Now in spite of the lower gas mileage, increased maintenance costs, higher insurance and higher roll over rate these sell like hotcakes. All these 4WD vehicles that never see a speck of dirt their entire lives are nothing more than stupid station wagons sold under the guise of being something cool. And people buy into it.
> ...


Funny, I've been saying something almost the opposite:

Decent quality stage race style road bikes ARE comfortable. The basic position they are built for is reasonable, the geometry is stable, they accept reasonably large tires and don't (or shouldn't) transmit much shock. By virtue of their low weight, good handling and drivetrain stiffness they climb, descend and corner well and predictably. That is why pro riders can stand to be on them 6 hours every day without their bodies falling apart.

A few years ago, if you wanted a higher bar position you would either go up one frame size or raise you stem. Now you need to buy a special bike?

You can knock a half degree off the steering angle and add 5mms to the chainstays, and you still have a racing bike. "Comfort" road bike is marketing and, to an extent, position. But these bikes are not accomplishing anything that hasn't been done for decades before their advent.

The kind of bike atpjunkie is talking about isn't a comfort bike - it is what has been called "randonneur", "sport touring", "sportive", "light touring" or "cyclocross bike with road tires". As a do-anything utility bike they are rather nice. As a bike the majority of road enthusiasts should be riding - I doubt it. Most people on this board ride for sport, not utility. A classic road bike rides great in most every condition, and is much more fun than dragging around some 28 pound Swiss army knife of a bicycle.


If your road race bike is uncomfortable because the bar is too low, frame too stiff or handling too twitchy, you just have the wrong road bike - not the wrong type of bike.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*close but no cigar*



rx-79g said:


> Funny, I've been saying something almost the opposite:
> 
> Decent quality stage race style road bikes ARE comfortable. The basic position they are built for is reasonable, the geometry is stable, they accept reasonably large tires and don't (or shouldn't) transmit much shock. By virtue of their low weight, good handling and drivetrain stiffness they climb, descend and corner well and predictably. That is why pro riders can stand to be on them 6 hours every day without their bodies falling apart.
> 
> ...


I think most everyone should be riding these new 'comfort' road bikes. Or better yet a custom built road bike.

I agree with some of your points about race bikes, but I think you are failing to address
a) the lack of flexibility many consumers (especially 'new to cycling') possess
b) the lack of bike handling skills of the same demograph
Pro riders can ride them 6 hrs because they are flexible, fit and willing to suffer the harshness of a race bike for the improved performance. (except @ Flanders and Roubaix)

race bikes are race bikes. They are stiffer, they put the rider lower and are more sensitive to rider input. To the recreational rider this equates to backache and twitchy handling. To the average joe doing centuries they don't need any of that. They need to be comfortable
and have a bike that is a little more forgiving of their lack of handling skills. It is proven by the numbers of race bikes you see with massive amounts of stack height and positive rise stems. They are trying to make a bike that doesn't fit, but is cool, to fit.

Again, I don't think most folks should be riding randos. I just think the term Endurance Bikes belongs to them NOT to this new slew of relaxed road bikes. I'm saying most recreational riders should be riding recreational road bikes. I do agree with you that these existed before or could be modified out of a standard bike

I ride a race bike BTW.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> I think most everyone should be riding these new 'comfort' road bikes. Or better yet a custom built road bike.
> 
> I agree with some of your points about race bikes, but I think you are failing to address
> a) the lack of flexibility many consumers (especially 'new to cycling') possess
> ...


I'm not failing to address them, I just don't think they exist to the extent that people like to discuss them.

Most road bikes of all type now have head tubes that are longer than what used to be typical for a traditional level TT road frame of equivalent size. That's usually 2-3cm of extra stack. Put 30mm of spacers and an upsloping stem and it becomes easy to get you bars level with the saddle. (There is a limit to how high a road bike bar should be before the whole thing becomes funky, though. If you want the bars above the seat, you probably need much longer chain stays to keep weight distribution under control.)

I also don't think most road bikes are "twitchy". The crit bikes of the '80s might have been, but CS lengths and HTAs are now pretty undercontrol. A normal geometry race bike will ride hands off without much effort, and the steering is predictable. 

When people have problems with a normal looking bike that handles weird, it is generally either their weight distribution or the funky trail. If you see a funny stem length or massively set back seat post, expect twitchyness.

A bike that does what you tell it to at any speed is easier to control than a bike that fights you in turns. While it might be comforting on a test ride to go down a sidewalk without having to make any steering inputs, the really scary thing is not being able to establish or hold a line on a descent or in a group. That really isn't a problem with these bikes, since their angles really aren't outside the road bike paradigm. But I don't think their actually any easier to ride - just easier to sit on.

Are some road bikes punishingly stiff? Definitely - that's to impress another sort of test rider.


----------



## Gaear Grimsrud (Oct 18, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> So rant over, all I'm saying is the Endurance Moniker is just branding and poor branding at that. And yes you are correct, in most cases they should make up the largest volume of sales for the industry. They make the most sense for the average consumer, but again, folks want to feel something move inside their shorts so instead they buy race bikes they in no way should be straddling.


Point taken. Here's a blog post that says similar things: http://djconnel.blogspot.com/2010/11/2011-cervelo-geometry.html

That said, I wonder whether what's comfortable at 12mph becomes uncomfortable at closer to 20mph when wind resistance becomes much greater. With a certain riding style in mind, a racing bike can accommodate different riders.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*all good points*



rx-79g said:


> I'm not failing to address them, I just don't think they exist to the extent that people like to discuss them.
> 
> Most road bikes of all type now have head tubes that are longer than what used to be typical for a traditional level TT road frame of equivalent size. That's usually 2-3cm of extra stack. Put 30mm of spacers and an upsloping stem and it becomes easy to get you bars level with the saddle. (There is a limit to how high a road bike bar should be before the whole thing becomes funky, though. If you want the bars above the seat, you probably need much longer chain stays to keep weight distribution under control.)
> 
> ...


but you are clearly speaking from a point of a guy who's been riding road bikes for years
think of the new breed of consumer who has never had a bike with drops
the quick handling (what would be considered a nimble and responsive bike to you and me) would be far too unforgiving for a large number of the new breed.

Bars level with saddle? No I'm talking bars higher than saddle. 
but your points on bike handling are spot on, they just don't apply to the new market segment I am thinking of


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> but you are clearly speaking from a point of a guy who's been riding road bikes for years
> think of the new breed of consumer who has never had a bike with drops
> the quick handling (what would be considered a nimble and responsive bike to you and me) would be far too unforgiving for a large number of the new breed.
> 
> ...


Above the handlebar? That's above what even the bicycle world's Amish, Rivendell employees, require:
http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/staff-bikes/50-998

There comes a point when it is no longer a "road" bike. Just a bike that happens to have drop bars but no drop at all. And that doesn't make any sense with the way drop bars are used.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

This CX bike belonging to one RBW employee is remarkably similar in setup to a mid-20s TdF racing machine:


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*we are in agreement*



rx-79g said:


> Above the handlebar? That's above what even the bicycle world's Amish, Rivendell employees, require:
> http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/staff-bikes/50-998
> 
> There comes a point when it is no longer a "road" bike. Just a bike that happens to have drop bars but no drop at all. And that doesn't make any sense with the way drop bars are used.


but I know you have seen them and yes having drop bars but no drop is kind of oxymoronic
The tops and hoods above saddle height and the drops just below
some people have back issues


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*that's a good looking*



kbwh said:


> This CX bike belonging to one RBW employee is remarkably similar in setup to a mid-20s TdF racing machine:


rig right there


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> rig right there


But it still has 2-3cm of drop.

I think you want most people to buy a hybrid or comfort bike. Which is what most people do get. Why would duffers spend $1500 or more on ultralight road bikes with bars designed for aerodynamics, $300 shifters and tires that need to be pumped every two days? By and large, they don't - comfort bikes are the largest and fastest growing LBS market segment.

Who is it that wants or needs a bike that is designed for fast, long distance use on roads only, but is largely unable to ride a road bike? It sounds like desiring running shoes for the handicapped or a sports car for grandma.

The tires, bars, shifters, frame geometry and gearing of road bikes have developed for over a century to allow a certain kind of riding. There are other bikes for other riding, and people can buy those instead of trying to get a road bike to be something else. Drop bars are not effective when they are mounted as high as you are suggesting.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*as does my crosser*



rx-79g said:


> But it still has 2-3cm of drop.
> 
> I think you want most people to buy a hybrid or comfort bike. Which is what most people do get. Why would duffers spend $1500 or more on ultralight road bikes with bars designed for aerodynamics, $300 shifters and tires that need to be pumped every two days? By and large, they don't - comfort bikes are the largest and fastest growing LBS market segment.
> 
> ...


actually much more than 2-3 cm

But yes, the comfort road , and yes, most consumers are better served by these over 'race' bikes

think how many people now 'do marathons' and essentially go for a 26.2 mile walk

people are going to want 'road bikes' for the same reason people want SUVs vs Mini Vans or station wagons though they never take them off road. It is marketing branding and consumer psychology.

but we are in utter agreement here


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> actually much more than 2-3 cm
> 
> But yes, the comfort road , and yes, most consumers are better served by these over 'race' bikes
> 
> ...


Can you actually use the brake levers or shifters from the drops on that bike? It looks like you'd have to bend your wrists up at a 60 degree angle to use the controls in the drops. Do you use the drops?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*oh I had a little spill*



rx-79g said:


> Can you actually use the brake levers or shifters from the drops on that bike? It looks like you'd have to bend your wrists up at a 60 degree angle to use the controls in the drops. Do you use the drops?


in the mud and had rotated the bars a tad. That photo was post ride/crash. I do run my levers a tad high but I have big hands and can reach quite easily from both positions. In cross I spend 70% of the time on the hoods, 20% in the drops and 10% on the tops. There is little need for being aero in a cx race and the higher grip is better for control.

anyhow really high lever position is quite common


----------

