"Endurance" v. "Race" Bike

Thanks. If it was a "touring" bike, then the answer would be easy. But I have noted, as of recent, that these endurance bikes are a whole different breed of rides. You're right on comfort/cornering compromise, but these rides are otherwise as stiff as a more traditional race bikes you see in the Tours.

Typing this makes me wonder about this new endurance bike "culture" that wants to go fast but comfortably so. I.e., willing to compromise on some speed to spare the backs. If this is true, I think everyone should build-up their core strength rather than ignore it.

I'm not so sure it's close to a touring bike. I think the "endurance" line is to appeal to century riders that want a slightly less aggressive position to be more comfortable on long rides versus some bikes that "seem" to appeal only to crit racers. A touring bike is a different ride all together.

My back much prefers the "endurance" bikes, though much of that difference can be made up simply by flipping the stem up rather than down.

One other difference in endurance bikes is that the rear will have some curvature or mechanism to reduce road vibration.

An endurance frame has a less aggressive geometry. Look at a specialized Roubaix vs a Tarmac for example.  The Roubaix while still a rocket and will take some of the road vibrations and absorb them into the frame . In a Tarmac for example you will feel every bump on the road.

Edited by jhouse4 2014-02-11 11:22 AM

Cool. Would you (anyone else?) agree that w/proper training, any bike can be a comfy ride? My tri bike is REALLY stiff but w/logging miles & miles, I don't feel the jarring I did when I first started riding it.

So let's look at the differences… Endurance bike tends to have taller head tube, slacker head tube angle and longer wheel base. May times, the carbon layup will be slightly different as well. What this means is that more people can ride the bike with no spacers or very few spacers under the stem, which will yield additional front end stability. The slacker head tube angle and longer wheel base will add to stability.

Flipping the stem is not the same as changing the geometry… so no, that doesn't achieve the same thing. Better than a bunch of spacers, yes, but the frame geometry doesn't change.

Going to a bigger frame size is not a good idea at all… the risk is that you through your entire fit out of whack. Position over BB will change, reach will change, stack will change… in essence, the balance of the bike will more than likely be compromised.

Shorter wheel base will result in a bike that feels snappier, and more nimble. Racing, especially crits or technical courses, this is a big benefit. Also, shorter rear triangle tend to be slightly stiffer, something that sprinters will appreciate as well as climbers.

The bike technology change that endurance frames has introduced makes a lot of sense to most casual riders. BUT, that doesn't mean that it's the perfect bike for everyone. Bike fit still rules. Higher flexibility and core strength, combined with certain body traits (measurements) will more than likely feel completely wrong on an endurance frame. A person with longer upper body (especially longer arms), less flexibility, and not interested in crits, endurance frames may be a perfect alternative.