Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Jawa
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:16 am

Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Jawa » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:41 am

Hi guys, curious if anyone has ever gone from endurance frame geometry straight to an aero frame bike and what was your experience?

I understand a lot will depend on your physiology (flexability etc) but would like to know these things before a I throw down the cash. Also, as I like to ride longer (4+ hrs) each ride these days the regular LBS test spin in the car park probably won’t give me a good indication

Currently I’m riding a Merida Ride with a couple spaces on the stem. However as im in the market for a new bike i'm looking a aero bikes like a Canyon Aeroad, Merida Reacto or a Scott Foil. Do I "need" an aero bike no, I just like the bad as look of them that the others don't give

Im a firm believer that your body can adapt to mostly any bike / setup so long as your fitted properly but wouldn't like to spend months being fatigued and sore as my body adapts

lone rider
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:43 pm

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby lone rider » Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:26 am

Ive never owned an aero frame but i thought they were harsher to ride, so for 4 hour rides this is a factor. Its funny that some brands like Cannondale, Focus, Pinnarello, Bianchi never went down the aero path, the bike indusrty is full of trends over function. BMC are no longer selling thier aero framed road bike and Michael Matthews rode a TCR over the Propel at the TDF.

User avatar
Derny Driver
Posts: 2020
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:18 pm
Location: Wollongong

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Derny Driver » Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:14 pm

A lump of lard wont be aero no matter what shape the frame is :oops:
You need to buy an aero shaped body :idea:
Just sayin ... :D

Jawa
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Jawa » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:08 pm

Derny Driver wrote:A lump of lard wont be aero no matter what shape the frame is :oops:
You need to buy an aero shaped body :idea:
Just sayin ... :D


Doesn't concern me, im a string bean :lol:

User avatar
Derny Driver
Posts: 2020
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:18 pm
Location: Wollongong

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Derny Driver » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:34 pm

Jawa wrote:... im a string bean :lol:

Im a string bean with a butternut pumpkin midsection :roll:

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby MichaelB » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:12 pm

I just spent 4 weeks on a Vitus Vitesse EVO disc (BNA test with review to come soon) and my normal bike is a Volagi Liscio. The Volagi is definitely and 'enduro' version with a 195mm headtube for a 56cm, whilst the Vitus was 175mm for a 58cm frame.

Both TT's were similar, but based on Stack and reach, I was 5mm 'longer' and almost 20mm lower than the setup I have on the Volagi.

Didn't have any issues. Felt weirder with the bars being 2cm wider on the Vitus than anything else. In fact, I'm now looking at getting a lower stem (-12 or -17 degree) for the Volagi.

A lot of it depends on how you set it up, and you can do the change gradually.

The bigger question is, 'what does it ride like', and that is what I found the HUGE difference to be. Geometry is something that you can gradually dial in, how a frame feels can be very different.

Anyway, I'm jealous, as I can't afford a new bike.

Mububban
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Mububban » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:53 pm

I have wondered the same thing, but going from endurance ala Defy to TCR, doubt I'd go full aero!
When you are driving your car, you are not stuck IN traffic - you ARE the traffic!!!

Jawa
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Jawa » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:55 pm

Fascinating stuff this bike fit geometry biz ... looking into things further today comparing my current Merida Ride to say the Aeroad the stack and reach will be pretty big, likewise by all accounts some of the Ride’s geometry is way off what a more “normal” bike geometry would be .. didn’t know that when I bought it! So needing to adjust im already behind the 8 ball as i’ll have just that further to go. Example being my current stack would reduce 4.5cm while my reach would increase 2.6cm. Going from say A to B in one hit does that seem too large to some?

madmacca
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby madmacca » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:16 pm

How about removing those spacers from your current bike as a starting point. Either you will find out if your body protests too much at the change in geometry, or it will start the body's adaptation process to a more aggressive position.

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 6205
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Duck! » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:32 pm

The differences in cockpit geometry are rarely beyond the scope of minor tweaking, so you can usually find the same position on both bikes. The differences will tend to become less pronounced as frame size reduces.

What you'll really find is the handling difference, as race bikes - which includes but is not limited to Aero bikes - typically have a shorter wheelbase than the equivalent-sized endurance model, which makes for a more responsive ride.

Aero bikes are uncompromised race machines. They're built for most efficient power transfer to the back wheel, so are a lot stiffer than other road bikes, even "normal" race bikes of similar point-to-point geometry. Carbon is a superior vibration damping material than aluminium by a big margin, so you'll have a less jarring ride than on a similar-profiled aluminium bike, but big, vertically-flattened aero tube shapes offer little compliance over bigger bumps, so you'll still have a lot more feedback than your endurance bike.
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 6205
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Duck! » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:36 pm

Mububban wrote:I have wondered the same thing, but going from endurance ala Defy to TCR, doubt I'd go full aero!

Depends what you mean by "full aero". If you mean the Propel aero road bike, it's basically the same geometry as the TCR, with the exception of the taller measured seat tube resulting from the horizontal rather than sloped top tube. "Full aero" would more properly imply the Trinity TT/Tri bike, which you would not ride as an every day proposition.
Last edited by Duck! on Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 4750
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby queequeg » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:15 pm

I just sold my Cervelo S5, as I am not racing anymore. It has the exact same geometry as my R5.
The S5 was not very practical for endurance riding, so it was just wasted on me in my current situation.
I just kept my race wheels for now, although 60mm rims on an R5 looks a little OTT
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

Jawa
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Jawa » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:39 am

madmacca wrote:How about removing those spacers from your current bike as a starting point. Either you will find out if your body protests too much at the change in geometry, or it will start the body's adaptation process to a more aggressive position.


Yeah, going to give this a burl this weekend.

I’ve had one of those bike fitting sessions before where they take all your measurements and it spits out a bike diagram with detailed mm for every aspect of the bike that’s optimum for you. I had this done before I got my recent bike but here’s where it gets interesting. Looking at that diagram last night and comparing to my current set up I don’t think I have the right frame size. Currently a 56 but comparing the Ride’s 59 geometry to my bike fit measurements that would be closer. Whether I was sold a pup or not I dont know, in hindsight (its a wonderful thing) I don’t think the Merida Ride in general is a good bike for me considering im lanky at 6’2 and have a 91 cm inseam. I was sold before I had even thrown a leg over simply because it looked good.

Another idea maybe would be to hire an aero bike for a week and replicate my fit from there and see how things go from there

Mububban
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Mububban » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:06 am

Keep us updated as you go, I'm the same height and similar inseam to you :)
When you are driving your car, you are not stuck IN traffic - you ARE the traffic!!!

User avatar
SheikYerbouti
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:47 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby SheikYerbouti » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:47 pm

I went from Bianchi endurance to aero (Via Nirone 7 to Oltre XR1) and can't tell the difference BUT that's possibly because I have my bike fit measurements and set up the new bike to the same specs as the old (e.g. Seat height, reach, bar drop, etc).

Jawa
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Jawa » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:36 am

Ok, progression. In order to get more “aggressive” to see how I would handle things, last night I dropped the stack to 615, the lowest possible from 640 (-35) and raised the seat from 795 overall to 823 (+28). Reach I gather remains fixed as I cant increase the distance from the BB to the steerer. This is 377 + the 110 stem = 487 that’s still way shorter than the total 534 that was recommended to me. On top of this I spirit leveled the saddle and fore and aft was cente

Did an hour on the trainer and these were my observations;
- Felt way strung out like superman
- Arms were not locked straight but the elbow bend was barely there
- A lot of push down resting when on the hoods
- Dropped the plumb line from knee to pedal spindle and the knee was long way back. Guessing I would need to adjust cleats
- Had wife take some photos and my back looks really hunched over when on the hoods
- There was positives though, no numb nuts and the longer pedal stroke felt better

Is the near locked arms and hunched back when on the hoods normal? I felt ok when I got off the trainer but yeah, looking at the photos it just looked way off. Then, going back to the geometry charts for an aero bike these points of contact are only going to get more extreme. Conclusion, confused

Velt
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Going from an endurance frame geometry to aero

Postby Velt » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:02 am

Jawa wrote:Ok, progression. In order to get more “aggressive” to see how I would handle things, last night I dropped the stack to 615, the lowest possible from 640 (-35) and raised the seat from 795 overall to 823 (+28). Reach I gather remains fixed as I cant increase the distance from the BB to the steerer. This is 377 + the 110 stem = 487 that’s still way shorter than the total 534 that was recommended to me. On top of this I spirit leveled the saddle and fore and aft was cente

Did an hour on the trainer and these were my observations;
- Felt way strung out like superman
- Arms were not locked straight but the elbow bend was barely there
- A lot of push down resting when on the hoods
- Dropped the plumb line from knee to pedal spindle and the knee was long way back. Guessing I would need to adjust cleats
- Had wife take some photos and my back looks really hunched over when on the hoods
- There was positives though, no numb nuts and the longer pedal stroke felt better

Is the near locked arms and hunched back when on the hoods normal? I felt ok when I got off the trainer but yeah, looking at the photos it just looked way off. Then, going back to the geometry charts for an aero bike these points of contact are only going to get more extreme. Conclusion, confused


Sounds like you just needed to raise your seat a bit

Return to “Buying a bike / parts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Duck!, find_bruce, Quency