Endurance vs Race/Aero geometry

[CreakyCrank]

I'm a long time cyclist but new to this forum.

I've been riding with Shimano gear for nearly 4 decades and would like to experience Campagnolo gear. I met and fell in love with a Bianchi Aria Centaur 11 last weekend. I currently ride a Cannondale with a more upright/endurance geometry. The Bianchi has quite an aggressive race/aero geometry. Due to crouching over a computer all day I'm always susceptible to neck/shoulder strain.
My main question is whether the change of geometry will be an issue to my riding comfort.
My secondary question is what differences are there in using Campag vs Shimano.

[TheWall]

Hi CreakyCrank,

I am also a desk jockey...and a tall one at that.

I rode a 2013 Specialized Roubaix for close to 20k before getting a Tarmac. I reckon it took 5000klm and 6 months before I 'adapted'. I was pretty sore after longer rides (yes, even after a couple of bike fits).

If I was to go through that again I would have done some core/flexibility excercise stop help with the transition.

Love it now...

[eeksll]

if you can get geometry specs of each bike off the internet, you can probably try put your bike in a similar stack/reach setup as the Bianchi.

shimano/campag differences, shifters,
the shifter paddle behind the brake lever does the opposite, so in stead of shifting up it shifts down and vice versa on the other side.
The other shifter control is a thumb lever similar to shimano sora placement.
The brake lever does not shift and only moved in the front/back plane.
No brake lever distance to bar adjust on campagnolo, but if your on 4 decade old shimano, I am guessing that didnt have it either.

The other differences I notice
The shifter paddle behind the brake lever moves independently of the brake lever so I can pull it inwards without pulling the brake lever in and do a sweeping shift much easier on the drops.
When in the drops i find it very hard to use the thumb shifter to shift 1 single gear with campagnolo, I always click it twice, but I don't think the multi gear shift functionality is on centeur (i could be wrong)

[2wheels_mond]

When in the drops i find it very hard to use the thumb shifter to shift 1 single gear with campagnolo, I always click it twice, but I don't think the multi gear shift functionality is on centeur (i could be wrong)

No multishift on Centaur. Centaur also has the droopy thumb lever, which I find really nice for the levers which only do a single shift, and the lever position is great either from the hoods or the drops.

[CreakyCrank]

I'm having second thoughts about the Bianchi and thinking of reverting back to my original plan of upgrading the Cannondale from 105 to Ultegra. Please see my previous post on this topic.

[madmacca]

Perhaps try removing a spacer at the stem one at a time, then giving it a couple of months for your body to adjust.

In terms of upgrading from 105 to Ultegra, check out http://blog.artscyclery.com/ask-a-mecha ... our-money/

[Mububban]

I had a bike fit and was discussing adding a Giant TCR to my current Contend "all rounder" bike. The guy looked at the geometry, told me to drop the handlebars as far as the spacers would go, move my saddle back a few mm, and it would give me a pretty decent geometry simulation for a TCR.

The lower back angle does mean you need to crank your neck back further to still see up the road, but only my neck and shoulders feel any difference. And even then it's only from 40km onwards, I just tip my head down when the road is safe to do so every now and then. So far no problems with my dodgy lower back, no leg/glute/knee problems either.

[Duck!]

As noted previously, in most cases you can play around with the setup to get the cockpit geometry pretty close, although it gets a bit harder with larger frame sizes because although they're still proportional, the geometry differences become more apparent than smaller sizes. The only difference between the two geometries that you can't do anything about is the typically longer wheelbase of an endurance-type frame due to its longer rear stays.

[SheikYerbouti]

I went from a Bianchi endurance (C2C) to fairly aero (Oltre) and found no major difference. I set up the Oltre to the same measurements as the old bike (from a fit) and off I went. The biggest difference I found was the move from alloy to carbon, not from the positioning/geometry, which was a few mm difference between the two. The only way to know is to hop on and have a ride... never go off paper specs.

[Mububban]

IThe biggest difference I found was the move from alloy to carbon....

How would you describe it? The carbons bikes I've tested have felt great for power transfer but I think the much better quality lighter wheels make up a big part of that feeling to my limited experience

[Duck!]

Carbon takes the edge off the vibration, so you get a smoother, less jarring ride.

[SheikYerbouti]

IThe biggest difference I found was the move from alloy to carbon....

How would you describe it? The carbons bikes I've tested have felt great for power transfer but I think the much better quality lighter wheels make up a big part of that feeling to my limited experience

Stiffer. Each pedal push seems to make the bike push forward more than on the old bike.
This is with the same wheelset moved from the old to the new too, so take that variable out.
Vibration? Haven't really been able to tell.

The old bike had 10sp 105 and the new has 11sp Ultegra. Again, feel about the same to me.

[Mububban]

Stiffer. Each pedal push seems to make the bike push forward more than on the old bike.
This is with the same wheelset moved from the old to the new too, so take that variable out.

That's the sensation I got too, but then I was also comparing my ~1800g wheels to ~1350g wheels so it wasn't exactly apples to apples

[Duck!]

Here's a little one I prepared a while ago for another forum; it's written from a MTB perspective, but the basics of it are relevant for any riding. For context, the subject of the thread was whether there's greater benefit from carbon frame or wheels, so it is written with those comparisons in mind.

For the benefit of this thread I undertook a little test session. Having both an aluminium and carbon example of the same series frame is quite handy, because it gives a high level of consistency to the handling characteristics.

The Equipment:

Frames:
Frame 1 is a 2011/12 Giant Anthem aluminium with Fox Float RP2 rear shock and Rock Shox Reba RL dual-air fork with quick release dropouts, aluminium seatpost and stem, carbon bar.

Frame 2 is a 2011/12 Anthem Advanced SL carbon frame, including rear swingarm & upper rockers, with Fox Float RP23 shock and Fox F100 RLC fork with 15mm through-axle, carbon/aluminium composite stem, carbon bar and seatpost.

Both frames are medium size and roll on 26" wheels

In terms of drivetrain, both run a bastardised mix of SLX & XT, both 3x10. The aluminium bike has a non-clutched derailleur, while the carbon bike has a clutched model; the clutch was switched OFF for consistency & comparison of noise transfer.

Wheels:
Wheelset 1 is an aluminium Shimano M785 XT set, quick release at both ends, fitted with Maxxis Ignitor LUST tyres, tubeless.

Wheelset 2 is an aluminium Shimano M775 XT set, quick release rear, through axle front, fitted with standard foldable Maxxis Crossmark tyres, tubed. Both XT sets have 24 spokes front & rear, the M785 is a few grams lighter, but not enough difference to impact the test. I could have got away with one set, but decided to use both to minimise fork swapping.

Wheelset 3 is a Dirty Mongrel Racing custom build, Carbonal M623 rims, Shimano M9000 XTR hubs with 32 DT Aerolite spokes per end, quick release rear, through axle front, with Maxxis Crossmark LUST tyres, tubeless.

All hubs have 10-degree ratchet profiling, so pedal pick-up is consistent across all wheels.

All tyres were run at 22psi front, 24psi rear, although the tubed tyres could probably have been run a little harder to compensate for the softer sidewalls.

The Test Course:
I used a shortened version of the Commonwealth Games course at Lysterfield; mostly gravel-topped but in places worn through to natural surface including tree roots and exposed rocks, with a wide range of corners, climbs, descents and higher-speed sections and some rock garden technical features. The course is 4.2km long, and I tried to pick the same lines as much as possible.

The Test:

A single lap was ridden in each configuration; first all-aluminium, second carbon frame/alu wheels, third all carbon, finally swapping the forks to fit the carbon wheels to the aluminium frame.

The meaty bits:
Not too surprisingly, the all-aluminium rig transmits a lot of trail chatter, and although the tight & steep geometry & small wheels produce agile handling, there is some floatiness when pointing at corners. Switching to the aluminium-shod carbon frame, it's immediately apparent the gravelly trail buzz is reduced. The lighter frame is easier to chuck around, but the slightly floaty feel in corners remains. Side note: this second lap was ridden with the through-axle version of the XT wheels. For me at least there is no significant change in handling attributable to the axle/fork configuration. More aggressive riders may notice more difference.

Lap Three & onto the full carbon package. The gravelly trail buzz is further reduced, but the bigger bumps become slightly more apparent. It's a weird paradox, you feel the size of the bumps more due to the greater stiffness of the wheels, but the vibration damping of the resin component of the composite layup takes the sting out of the initial hit. The handling is noticeably sharper; there is less delay in information getting from the handlebar & fork and through the wheel to the ground and it darts into corners, but as noted earlier in the thread, the stiffness does introduce a little bit of skittishness on mid-corner bumps, although that can be dialled out with an adjustment of tyre pressure. The other factor to the agility is the lack of weight, in this instance there's a 300g difference between the carbon wheels and the XT sets. The reduction in rotating mass cuts the inertia, so it's easier to change direction, and faster to wind up out of corners.

Finally the aluminium frame/carbon wheels. The trail buzz is about on par with the opposite alu/carbon mix - more than all-carbon, but less than all-aluminium, but the handling gains are all there. You do feel the bumps a bit more because you don't have as much carbon (well, resin really) to soak up the vibrations, but they're still softer than aluminium.

The Wrap

Clearly all-carbon is the optimal package, but that's not always possible. If it has to come down to a choice, aluminium frame on carbon wheels is a better package than carbon frame on aluminium wheels. (Footnote: This final sentence is very much MTB-specific, where the effects of suspension cover some of the material differences in the frames. For road, carbon frame and wheels is still the ultimate package, but if the choice comes to either carbon frame or wheels, go the frame: the low-frequency stiffness is much better for power transfer and handling, while although you'll still feel the size of the bumps, the high-frequency vibration damping will soften the impacts and smooth out the ride.)

[CreakyCrank]

In terms of upgrading from 105 to Ultegra, check out http://blog.artscyclery.com/ask-a-mecha ... our-money/

Excellent article, I'll be following that advice. I have the added challenge of converting BB30 to Ultegra

[Duck!]

That's comparitively easy, there are stacks of adaptors to do that. Best are the screw-together types.