Race bikes for fat, inflexible people with lower power outputs who want something shiny with the same branding as the race bikes but not as stiff and twitchy. Or that's what I thought.
I always thought the scott CR1 was a race bike, but cycling plus's review this months talks about it's tall headtube. Same comments applied to the cannondale super-six. Ribbles sportive bikes are similar, although are't named after race models?
PX say their RT57 is a sportive bike, but is lighter, steeper and has a lower headtube than the nanolight. And there are a few other similar 'sportive bikes' appearing. Is it just aimed at people finishing sportives at the front and treating them as a race, whereas the ones mentioned erlier are carbon fibre touring bikes without the racks or mudguards (exageration).
I'm no skinny wippet, and don't race, but do like my bars low (going back to traditonal drops after not getting on with compact ones for this reason), so actualy thinking of looking at sportive bikes.
I'm not really sure what your question is...
Scott CR1 was a race bike but, as carbon bikes have evolved, it's slipped down the range to the point where it's price tag puts it into a different demographic so they relax the geometry a fraction while new more race orientated models come in above it.
To my mind sportive is a word that sell bikes (because 'race' puts 90 % of people off)
therefore there are a massive number of very racy, low and stiff 'sportive bikes' along with your traditional Roubaix, synapse, 'Massive tall head tube' bikes that should be correctly described as sportive bikes.
IMO
(also comes from the fact some people want to make a full on race out of a sportive too)
i guess it will depend on getting the correct drop without a silly stem.
most 'sportive bikes' are too tall for me (i don't race) i tried a fuji altemera which was aimed more at racers and it fitted me fine with 1cm of spacers and the stem flipped the correct way (down) i have just one 5mm spacer on my pegoretti and a flipped 130mm stem.
so you may find some sportive bikes are just too tall for you. raceier bikes with proper weight distribution handle better too 🙂
nodder bikes with 5cm of spacers and skywards pointing stems look ridiculous 😕
Scott CR1 was a race bike but, as carbon bikes have evolved, it's slipped down the range to the point where it's price tag puts it into a different demographic so they relax the geometry a fraction while new more race orientated models come in above it.
Gotcha, so the CR1 is no longer a 'CR1', it's a sportive bike built to the same weight/tech as the old race bike.
Still doesn't explain the RT57 though, longer/lower/steeper than their last race bike, but the marketing is definately at non racers. Might wait and see what their next 'race' bike looks like.
http://road.cc/content/news/48133-exclusive-first-ride-planet-x-n2a
Hmmmm N2A might be a bit too racey then, and the Strato whilst looking lovely is well over budget.
Anyone know if PX do road bike demo's? Presumably there must be some 56-58cm bikes floating arround for mag tests and the like? Don't want to be put off by the cycling plus review of the RT57 but it really was damming with faint praise (amongst the lightest bikes there, with a full red groupset, and still failed to get near the top and described as unfrefined).
The CR1 still works damn well as a race bike. I got one of the latest ones to use it as an all dayer but now I prefer it to my Pinarello F4:13 to race on. Lighter, more comfortable, corners well and it just feels faster. (Head tube is shorter than the Pinarello too)
Forget all about the label and go on the sizing/geometry to get the fit you want?
Framebuilder Dave Moulton has a frame sizing guide online, based on how he would size custom frames. His advice was that for a less-racey application, you could just go up a couple of centimeters in frame size, and fit a shorter stem. That's based on horizontal top-tubes though. But a 2cm longer headtube seems a reasonable guide.
As for geometry, lots of race bikes for people who actually race for a living are in the 72 - 73* range. Not everyone wants hyper-sensitive steering in a tightly-packed bunch. Steeper geometry often seems like a "more is more" marketing strategy.
Ignore the label. I ride these bikes as I have a short torso and long legs, therefore need shorter TT and longer HT.
Also the roads I ride on are not the best so a stiff race bike would be terrible.
So I chose a bike that fits me and fits my purpose.
Forget all about the label and go on the sizing/geometry to get the fit you want?
Problem is that rarely tells you everything, a lot of the handling is down to the forks rake and stiffness IME, which arent listed usualy.
[i]Forget all about the label and go on the sizing/geometry to get the fit you want?[/i]
This.
The increasingly popular nature of road biking among, shall we say, the less snake hipped, allied to the advent of ahead-set style stems meant that many folk were buying bikes meant for road racing, but struggling to get comfortable on them. This was most noticeable on the American roadie forums; the weeks after the Tour would be full of people complaining about back pain or hand/wrist/shoulder pain as they couldn't get comfy.
The bike manufacturers caught on quick and made bikes with taller headtubes to accomodate les biffers while allowing the use of fewer spacers.
'Sportive' as a description usually implies a slightly less 'racy' position; bit higher at the front, but there is no standard, so one companies 'sportive' geometry might well be as racy as anothers 'race' bike.
If you can dig out Gerard Vroomens blog, the man who runs Cervelo, he has interesting things to say about fitting and geometry.
A little while ago over on (I think) bikeradar, there was a review of a Boardman road bike which said something about how it's long wheelbase for stability and slack angles made it unsuited to crit racing.
The first comment on the replies section was from a certain Mr C Boardman who pointed out, not unreasonably that a) he knew what he was talking about and b) he'd designed the bike to be stable in a bunch and at high speeds.
I believe the bike journo was well and truly pwned... 🙂
It's all just marketing - manufacturers have worked out how to sell road bikes to fat giffers by removing the word "race" and putting on a compact chainset and a 12-30 cassette.
Choose a bike that is comfy over long distances [b]for you[/b]. For some people that may be a slammed stem and an arse-high-nose-low position, for some it may be a stack of spacers and a flipped stem.
I fit into the category of bit older, less flexible, wanting slightly higher front end so looked at a bundle of 'sportive' bikes. I very nearly bougth the Trek Madone 3.5 that came 2nd in that Cycling Plus review, however ended up with this, which I suspect is better suited to my shape :
[img] 
[/img]
Are there such a thing as road bike demo's or even better demo days?? PX say they've some in Bristol which I guess means they've some at their main shop in Sheffield too.
http://gerard.cc/category/bike-equipment/
Don't link to stuff that talks sense on STW, I'm now going to go home and video myself riding on the turbo with varying bar heights! I'd always gone for the slammed stem as I can put my palms flat on the foor whilst 'touching my toes', but the point about not using the drops enough and riding with straight arms definately rings true.
[i]Race bikes for fat,[/i]
check
[i]inflexible [/i]
fail
[i] people with lower power outputs [/i]
than who? Hoy? Cancellara? It's a fair cop.
It's just a way to market a bikes. They need to try and convey the differences in a way they think people will understand. I for one cannot look at a geometry table and tell how the bike will ride. The marketeers are just trying to suggest a suitable target.
It's similar to the way you get xc, aggressive xc, all mountain, marathon, freeride, freeride light, mini downhill, downhill etc. in mountain bikes.
Unfortunately there is no standard. One man's sportive bike is another man's race bike is another woman's audax bike is another man's bike for commuting to work.
If you can dig out Gerard Vroomens blog, the man who runs Cervelo, he has interesting things to say about fitting and geometry.
Dam him and his well thought out and well reasoned arguments. After a few hours on the turbo withan allen key I'd determined that I'm actualy about 10mm too low, which actualy means there's now a 20mm stack of spacers under the stem, ohhhhh the shame 🙁 and because of the angle of my forearms now the bars actualy work out quite comfortable (the first bend is an almost 90deg bend right at the full width of the bars so leaves absolutley no room for wrists, but a combination of the anatomical hump on the drops and bent elbos means they clear each other nicecly, at least when sat down.
than who? Hoy? Cancellara? It's a fair cop.
They'd trouble any bike, I meant someone who achieves maybe 200W at FT isn't going to toruble any frame, whereas even an amature racer is going to want something stiffer? Obviously Hoy and Cav with 1600W outputs are going to want the stiffest frames they can lay their hands on.
Who was the big guy who rode Ti bikes filled with structual foam?
[edit] mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Ti
Who was the big guy who rode Ti bikes filled with structual foam?
Magnus Backstedt?
On Sportive versus race bikes... I used to have a Cervelo S1, very much a race bike - mega stiff with low front end, but moved it on before doing a 24hr london to paris ride as it would have killed me. I replaced it with a Cervelo RS which is their fat biffer/Roubaix bike with a 20mm taller headtube (165mm), super skinny stays etc - it is so good, love it. It is the frame I should have bought in the first place, expensive mistake that was.
Yes, I work in IT, am slightly overwieght and I am a Cervelo fanboi. I don't drive an Audi though (yet) 😀
Ignore the label
Exactly. My bike (Wilier Mortirolo) is supposedly a pretty aggressive geometry, yet I find it incredibly comfortable on long, easy-paced day rides. There's no substitute for a test ride...
Cervelo fanboi
Isn't everyone?
I measured my bike last night and the stem (-6deg) is 19cm above the top of the fork (i.e. headsets + headtube + spacers) Makes me sad 🙁
[i]They'd trouble any bike, I meant someone who achieves maybe 200W at FT isn't going to toruble any frame, whereas even an amature racer is going to want something stiffer? Obviously Hoy and Cav with 1600W outputs are going to want the stiffest frames they can lay their hands on.[/i]
I'm at 340W FTP at the moment, which should get up to around 380 in peak time. Sportive bike is fine. Where's the cut-off? Most decent 'sportive' bikes are pretty damn stiff..
Where's the cut-off?
No idea, but I've 3 steel (fixie, tourer and racer) bikes for winter/comfort/commuting. I'm not even anywhere near raceing, I just want whatever I end up with to be more of the things I like about my CAAD frame and less of the things I've not liked about other frames I own/owned. And astheticaly some frames just look 'right' and to me that generaly means tall headtubes are out.
I don't have a great deal of drop between saddle and bars, because I'm short legged/long bodied and inflexible.
Bike is a Giant SCR - effectively a sportive bike before they were called that. In spite of this, I have managed to race my bike (though I am s--t, so with no success).
Obviously Hoy and Cav with 1600W outputs are going to want the stiffest frames they can lay their hands on.
I dare say Sean Kelly had a fair amount of power - rather more than anybody on here. He managed to win one or two races riding one of the most flexible bikes ever made.
I don't really like the insinuation that sportive riders have low power outputs and are fat biffers? 😕
So those guys doing the Bealach Mor Sportive in less than 4hr30, averaging over 20mph over some seriously hilly, windy terrain, have low power outputs and are fat biffers?
Sportive Bikes should just be classified as road bikes for people who accept they're not road racers, but still want to ride fast, over long distances, on a road bike 🙄
I don't really like the insinuation that sportive riders have low power outputs and are fat biffers?
Ok, the 10% att he front are fast, but having bimbled round 100miles in the ~17-18mph groups I'd say the average makes a STW pootle average look quick up hills and skinny. I'd never seen roadies pushing up hills before I did a sportive!
as the OP says, looks are very important. i think you must be a fool if you ride a bike and don't like how it looks but also, a fool you must be to ride a bike on looks alone.
looks and feel plus price are what i would say are important, most shops will let you take a bike out for an hour and that would be enough for me.
i rode for years on a set up that felt good but a couple of friends kept telling me i looked "wrong" on my bikes so i went and got sized and fited correctly (James the Manager @ Evans Leeds, sound fella)
He moved my saddle down and forward sligtly and rotated my bars so my hoods are pointing slightly upwards and the differance is great.
in short, get sized up, even if you think you know it yourself, and test ride.
Sportive bikes are a type of road bikes, but in order to use them you have a pay a fee to ride a route that you could do for free on any other bike. 😆
Sensible answer is that they are road bikes that have a less racey riding position, something like a Cannondale Synapse
Yep agree slightly more upright riding position and easier gearing for longer days in the saddle.... ok what bike for this event? The Hell of North Wales sportive
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/events/details/78253/Hell-of-North-Wales
find it on facebook for route and pictures
