I'm not sure that the thing that claims to provide an advantage "over long distances" is the same thing as the thing that claims to provide an advantage over "rough roads", if you get me. Endurance geometry isn't providing any "vertical compliance", and may not be providing much else other than a bit of neck relief, depending on your thoughts on the matter. I guess it just happens that these two features tend to be produced on the same bike.

Pinarello seem to think you can have your cake and eat it, and I can't see why you wouldn't. (Edit: ref, Dogma K8-S).

But surely you can put wider tyres with a bit less air on an aero frame, too!
Marketing bollocks.

I think you're overthinking it to be honest. It's not snake oil, it's just different strokes for different folks.

I appreciate that you're talking about "endurance bikes and their place at the highest levels of riding", but you then go on to talk about the message that the bike brands are trying to send us, but the fact of the matter is those two things only overlap for a tiny percentage of the market. Those messages are meant for Joe Public, who wants to believe he's on the fastest bike known to man, but in reality knows that more than 20 miles on a race geometry frame is going to make his dodgy back/hip/shoulder give him grief.

With regards to this weekend, I think the new course for De Ronde is all about the last 15km after the Paterberg and I'd suggest Kristoff's bike choice could have been influenced by that. A descent followed by a loooong flat section, often culminating in a sprint finish, seems like the Aeroad would be the best bike for seeing home the win in that situation. That's not to mention all the fast flat racing in between the final few climbs. A lot is made of the cobbles in Flanders, but they're not so bad as to warrant changing bike, saying that having ridden them myself this weekend!

Magnus Backstedt commented during the coverage (I don't know who does the commentary in the USA but it's great having him on the feed we get) that, in Geraint Thomas' position, he would not have wanted to switch from his normal race bike to the K8-S. He suspected it was a sponsor forced decision. He said that the cobbles aren't bad enough to change bikes. But they are for Roubaix.

A lot more pro riders are doing aero testing now and realising that they don't want to miss out on the advantages of aero frames.
Also, unless you're a big name rider who can get a custom frame, it's hard for a pro to fit on the high stack of most 'endurance' frames. Boonen does not ride a Roubaix you can buy. Trek make the ltd Edition Domane Koppenberg to deal with this.

Mostly "Endurance" is a euphemism for "high stack amateur bike" - oddly enough the marketing team prefer to couch that in more positive phraseology. Comfort comes from good fit - saying that a set of sizing features makes a critical difference is daft. Find a bike that fits, choose sensible tyres/wheels for the course in question and you're 99% there.

I do think the Domane is extremely clever and the K8-S looks like a great bike for rough racing. But for general purposes those features are just looking for the last fractions of a % of ride smoothness.

Well, the K8-S is supposedly nearly as aero and nearly as light (or not-light, in this case) as the regular Dogma, so I don't think there was a bit loss in Geraint's specific case.

But it's true that, for example, of Etixx-Quickstep, there was a rider on the Roubaix, but at least three on the Tarmac and three on the Venge at Flanders.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

It's an interesting question, but I think you're also overestimating how much consumers know and care about any race besides the Tour de France. We are the niche market, and maybe we will scrutinize the choices, but we're also smart enough to make our own conclusions.

As a marketing guy myself, I can tell you many times that I've seen ads for a certain bike -- but it's not the same one as in the background photo. You notice how bike ads tend to use a studio shot of the bike (plus a creepy headshot of Alberto Froome Sagan-Boonen)? It's because they aren't usually riding exactly what's being advertised.

Plus, I'd wager that 99% of people who go to a bike shop **and don't already know exactly what they're looking for** wouldn't know who Kristoff is. If it's not Alberto, Lance, Wiggins, maybe Froome and Sagan, most people haven't heard of them; therefore they don't have much "marketing" power.

I'm with you -- I think any guy in contention for a classic could win on any bike, on the right day. In my mind the dynamic really only changes if, somehow, a top guy finds himself trying to solo away from a strong group. Say Cancellara is on totally non-aero, non-compliant anything (frame, wheels, helmet) while the other 3 or 4 guys have it all. They might have the tiniest enough advantage, plus working together, to reel him in more easily.

Timing, tactics, sensations -- and a hell of a lot of luck -- still win these races. But the average consumer, even of high-end frames, is so far removed that they're most likely to rely on paint color or bike shop recommendations.

On reflection, I think you're exactly right re: the level of attention that the typical customer will pay to who rode what bike where (with the few possible exeptions that you mentioned).

I remember seeing on Cervelo's website that if two perfectly identical riders were contesting a 200m sprint but one of them was riding and R5 and the other an S5, the rider on the S5 would win by around a metre (I'm British, and so insist on spelling metre this way :) ).
Bearing that kind of data in mind, as well of I can totally understand why riders were picking the bike that would be fastest in the finish rather than the one that would feel best on the cobbles.

I also think that the majority of other comments were spot on re: fit and how an endurance frame can be faster for a beginner if it provides a more comfortable fit but the same won't necessarily be true for a more flexible rider. I also agree that there was probably a push from Pinarello for all of Team Sky to ride the new bike rather than the F8.

I don't have a dog in this fight, it was something that occured to me this morning when I was riding to work and seemed like a discussion worth having.

Personally I think that if nothing else, it makes any future road bike puchase a simpler decision for me. I believe that we are entering an era where we can indeed "have our cake and eat it", as one person above put it. The technology has progressed to a point where there are reasonably priced bikes out there that are the holy trinity of aero, lightweight, and comfortable - or at least comfortable enough to ride Milan San Remo and Flanders etc on, as we've seen.
So I see no compelling reason, in my circumstances, to purposefully buy anything that isn't all three (i.e. aero frames only).

As a Domane rider I have taken umbrage with it being called an "endurance bike". I think people that ride the comparable Cannondale probably feel the same way. The only "comfort" technology is the iso decoupler, which as a practical piece of equipment is most helpful on a trainer rather than the road. The other bit are 25 mm tires which can be put on anything. When it comes down to it, the Trek and Cannondale are bikes which are flexible enough to fit a wide swath of amateurs (myself certainly included) who can get a show-room fit and be basically 'good enough'. Put the Trek or Cannondale through their paces and you quickly forget you are on an 'endurance' bike.

Was Stybar on the Roubaix? If not, I bet he wishes he was. Might have meant one less trip to the dentist.

Let's see, by recent Flanders and P-R count I see 1 aero frame win versus 12 for endurance frames.

A lot of conjecture gets batted around about how bikes ride but to my knowledge, I don't think anyone commenting has raced 250k over cobbles, or a grand tour. Some will trot out Zipp's claim that tire pressure is all that matters but frankly, I'd like to know if those riders were quizzed after 5 miles or 125, and going hard or easy? In other words, doesn't mean a whole lot without clarification, especially from a company in the business of selling wheels and tires.

I'll take the word of guys who have actually done those races and have a choice of bike, plus what my body feels from 75k miles. You'd be surprised how dialed in many of them are.

Trentin was the only EQS rider on the Roubaix.
4 of the team rode the Tarmac and 3 rode the Venge, not sure who was on what in the team apart from that.

As others have noted, the cobbles in Flanders are vastly different than Roubaix. And, as also noted, damn few of the general cycling public follow professional cycling. IOW, it doesn't affect the "marketing" of different styles of bikes in the slightest.

As for influencing purchasing decisions, etc., you should buy the bike that best reflects your needs / desires. If you aren't racing, is there really a benefit to buying an aero road frame? There is no objective answer to this question. For some the answer will be "yes", for (many) others, the answer will be "no".

If you preferred type of riding is long rides, the occasional Gran Fondo or century, etc. yo may "enjoy" riding a 'standard" road frame of "endurance" frame better. Others may want to eke out every possible advantage they can, even if they aren't racing.

Bottom line (IMO)....if you are racing, you'd be kinda foolish to not at least strongly considering an aero frame. If you aren't racing, the *need* for an aero frame diminishes greatly and you should buy the bike that you *like* / want.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Some of the endurance bikes that these guys use (Domane and Roubaix) are different for the same model that they offer for sale.
The "pro" Roubaix has geometry and stack like a Tarmac, the "pro" Domane (Trek actually offers this) is very low stack.

I agree that this is mostly marketing.

I also feel like these companies could make these bikes even more attractive by making room for even larger tires. I know that the Roubaix does not take a very big tire- it should be able to take a 30mm or so.

This is probably the best post on the subject yet--ride that bike the suits your needs. I currently have a Boardman SRS to race and Synapse for everything else. I've put the same wheels and tires on both bikes and the ride is vastly different. The Boardman is much more responsive and lively but harsher ride. The Synapse is more tame and slower to respond, but far more stable and comfortable. Doesn't mean one is better than the other but if I didn't race and wanted one daily driver, the choice would be simple (thought I'd add road disk with thru-axles, even though ST "experts" claim they don't work any better).

One other thing to consider is that you no longer need to have an 'endurance' frame to fit larger tires. Aero bike manufactures, Cervelo amongst them, are including clearance for 25 or larger tires by default. MTN-Qhubeka was on the S5 for the race as well.

I'm so tired of the "Balkanization" of road bikes (i.e. "Aero", "Climbing", "Gravel", "Gran Fondo", etc., etc.)

The fact is, with a small bit of care, one can specify a road bike that can do ALL those things at 95-100% of the capacity of the purported "best" in each sub-category...but then, we'd be back to just a single "road bike" category, which from a marketing/sales standpoint doesn't result in as much sales "churn" :-/

It's high time for the "One bike to rule them all" IMHO...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I've done a lot of personal research on this subject because I am looking to make a new bike purchase in the next few years. The pro's do seem to be opting for the more aero frames, and, while I do not know anyone who is a pro to ask directly I can make three assumptions.

1. Aero frames, by most manufacturer statements, really don't have an effect on decreased wind resistance until around the 24mph + speed ranges. Most racers are not pro's and never come close to having a top speed of 24 mph, much less averaging 24mph. So the advantage of an endurance frame comes in to play for these people: where they simply would never go fast enough to benefit from an aero frame. But these people would benefit from a less harsh ride enabling them to ride at a higher cadence or speed for a longer time, and thus having a faster pace than they would have on the more aero, less compliant (stiffer) frame.

2. Really it boils down to time on the bike as well. Pro's will be on their bike 2 to 6 hours a day. This time on the bike builds up tolerance to a rough ride, and frankly their butt can handle the bashing, and their arms and legs are developed to handle the jarring as well.

So ask yourself can you really maintain a 24mph pace for say 30 to 60 mins? Then an aero frame is for you, and you should find yourself averaging say 26 to 27 mph (maybe more) with zero increase in training. In triathlon terms your time on the bike leg will be much shorter (or faster), and potentially your overall time could be lessened (if you can still perform on the run).

If you are not some supper awesome stud, and more normal, like the rest of us, you really may consider an endurance bike, and what you will notice may not be an increase in speed at all but instead what you will see is that if you normally ride.. say 50 miles on your current bike, and when you finish, you are a certain amount of tired, when you ride this same 50 mile distance on a new endurance bike you will feel as though you could have gone another, say 20 miles, and then been the same tired you would have been on your old bike at the 50 mile mark. In triathlon terms you have more energy reserve to go into the run with.

And then there is the trump card.

3. WHEELS. It really is all about wheels. Wheels are the single most important investment you can make. A good set of compliant aero wheels will take an average bike and make it great. With ZERO increase in training, your ability to reach a higher speed, and maintain that speed, really comes down to wheels. Why not look at the racers wheels first before judging their frames.

So, that is my three cents on the subject.

Yeah, there is still no massive sales & marketing conspiracy to sell "more stuff" and creating categories that people don't want. You can continue to yell at the wind all you want, but that is the reality of the world.

The fragmentation of a market is the hallmark of ANY product category as it matures....this is not unique to bikes. Go look at how many different variations of iPods people own....even though one iPod could do "95-100% of the purported best" in each subcategory.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

BS. The bike industry is, in the main, a fashion industry...and changing things just for the change and selling it as something "new" and "got to have" is a key part of fashion.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Like I said, you can yell at the wind all you want. I'll defer to my personal experience doing product development in the bike business if that is OK with you.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

First!

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Tom attended Interbike once and rode a bike with disk brakes around the (flat) parking lot. Spy shots are not available but he likely put aero bottles on the bike, because, well, every little bit matters. While he hasn't worked in the bike industry, he might have slept at a Holiday Inn while there. That kind of heavy duty experience clearly qualifies him as an expert.

If you are moving air resistance matters - riders of all speeds benefit. In addition the compliance side of things is mostly down to tyre width and pressure - people who have blind tested identically set up road bikes can't tell the difference between frames.

http://www.cervelo.com/...-vs-fast-riders.html

Wheels make a difference in speed maybe 60-90s /40km v good vs v bad aero. Wider wheels increase the volume of the tyre, increasing compliance as well.

Does this usage of aero frames by worldtour riders undermine the message that bike brands are trying to send to us?

Not at all. I love riding my R3! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog