Hi All,
I'm wondering what people's views are on the utility of endurance bikes and their place at the highest levels of riding.
Many manufacturers produce and market endurance frames, claiming that they provide an advantage over long distances and on rough roads.
Meanwhile, we see professional riders who have the choice to use these frames on long, cobbled classics such as Flanders at the weekend, and yet many still opt for "uncomfortable" aero frames.
Examples of this include Kristoff's win on an Aeroad (as opposed to an Endurace or even an Ultimate) and the fact that 3 Quick-step riders rode the Venge, when only one chose a Roubaix.
Does this usage of aero frames by worldtour riders undermine the message that bike brands are trying to send to us?
We are force fed the message that aero bikes are for flat, smooth riding whereas more relaxed frames with specific features are better for particularly long, hilly or rough riding. And yet we see aero frames winning out in the exact circumstances that they are supposedly unsuitable for.
Are aero frames comfortable enough now that there's no real reason to buy anything else, despite what we are led to believe? (Paris-Roubaix aside, but that's an edge case).
An obvious example of the contrary to the above is Cancellara's success on, and love for, the Trek Domane. However I can't help but feel that Spartacus at his best could win/podium on pretty much any road bike out there.
Thoughts?
Are "race endurance" frames snakeoil if you want performance on cobbles etc?
I'm wondering what people's views are on the utility of endurance bikes and their place at the highest levels of riding.
Many manufacturers produce and market endurance frames, claiming that they provide an advantage over long distances and on rough roads.
Meanwhile, we see professional riders who have the choice to use these frames on long, cobbled classics such as Flanders at the weekend, and yet many still opt for "uncomfortable" aero frames.
Examples of this include Kristoff's win on an Aeroad (as opposed to an Endurace or even an Ultimate) and the fact that 3 Quick-step riders rode the Venge, when only one chose a Roubaix.
Does this usage of aero frames by worldtour riders undermine the message that bike brands are trying to send to us?
We are force fed the message that aero bikes are for flat, smooth riding whereas more relaxed frames with specific features are better for particularly long, hilly or rough riding. And yet we see aero frames winning out in the exact circumstances that they are supposedly unsuitable for.
Are aero frames comfortable enough now that there's no real reason to buy anything else, despite what we are led to believe? (Paris-Roubaix aside, but that's an edge case).
An obvious example of the contrary to the above is Cancellara's success on, and love for, the Trek Domane. However I can't help but feel that Spartacus at his best could win/podium on pretty much any road bike out there.
Thoughts?
Are "race endurance" frames snakeoil if you want performance on cobbles etc?