Racing vrs Sportive bike

[tjw_78]

I am sure this has been debated before, but I wonder if I might raise the question from an ambitious, but clueless, newbie point-of-view

I’m looking to get a road bike, and from my initial research I am starting to wonder if a Sportive might be a better option than a racing bike. I want the bike to keep fit, and although I do have a tendency to push myself when training (I mountain bike, run, adventure race, rock-climb, use to row, etc), and although might enter a the odd sprint triathalon for fun, I've got no aspirations to go and win anything, and might the sportive be a better investment long term - e.g. charity bike rides, mutli-day rides with the lads etc...?

 

[Smokin Joe]

There's sod all difference in reality.

So called sportive bikes are normal race machines with a couple of mm added to the head tube to convince cycling journalists they give a "comfy" ride. As 90% of modern cycling journalists are clueless self-gratification artists who swallow any old shoot fed to them by marketing men they write exactly what the manufacturers intend them to write, ie crap that is designed to make the readers think they must have a different bike for evey day of the week.

All else being equal go for the one whose colour appeals the most and don't pay any heed to the sportive/race lable.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I think a more important question is whether you want to be able to add Mudguards or not at any time and what gearing you require.

 

[brockers]

So called sportive bikes are normal race machines with a couple of mm added to the head tube to convince cycling journalists they give a "comfy" ride. As 90% of modern cycling journalists are clueless self-gratification artists who swallow any old shoot fed to them by marketing men they write exactly what the manufacturers intend them to write, ie crap that is designed to make the readers think they must have a different bike for evey day of the week.

...and relax!!!

Must say I agree with you though.

 

[tjw_78]

There's sod all difference in reality.

So called sportive bikes are normal race machines with a couple of mm added to the head tube to convince cycling journalists they give a "comfy" ride. As 90% of modern cycling journalists are clueless self-gratification artists who swallow any old shoot fed to them by marketing men they write exactly what the manufacturers intend them to write, ie crap that is designed to make the readers think they must have a different bike for evey day of the week.

All else being equal go for the one whose colour appeals the most and don't pay any heed to the sportive/race lable.

Woo, strong opinion. But interesting none the less. Journo standards are slipping across the board!

Anyone actually own a sportive, and think differently?

 

[tjw_78]

I think a more important question is whether you want to be able to add Mudguards or not at any time and what gearing you require.

Not bothered by mud-guards, but being able to fit panniers once or twice a year might be useful. As for gearing - like I said, I'm a newbie! I don't really know what I want!! I like the idea of being able to climb hills, and I can see myself going up north or to the continent on the odd occasion, but the simple truth is I live in the south-east.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm coming more and more to recognise that many purchases are compromises. You can try to buy an all rounder, or you can try to have separate bikes for everything, either way you'll be compromising along the way.

I had a 4 or 5 year old MTB for family rides, mainly towpaths and old railway lines. I bought an Allez, which is seen as a 'racing' bike, though people say it is one of the less aggressive ones.

It largely works for me.

Good bits: fast, eats up miles, makes me want to get out, well-constructed, reasonably well specced parts. Did an 81 mile sportive without stops. I think its surprisingly comfortable, but then I have very little to compare it with. And did I say it's red?

Bad bits: no mudguards, still use my MTB to commute, panniers not very straightforward - I did a two day tour carrying about 8 kg in a backpack which was a mistake.

So is there a point to that? Buy what you want. Get a test run - preferably a long one. Don't spend too much, consider secondhand. If you enjoy it and keep cycling, in 6 months you'll want another one, though by then you'll have a much better idea of what works for you than now.

 

[zexel]

There's sod all difference in reality.

So called sportive bikes are normal race machines with a couple of mm added to the head tube to convince cycling journalists they give a "comfy" ride. As 90% of modern cycling journalists are clueless self-gratification artists who swallow any old shoot fed to them by marketing men they write exactly what the manufacturers intend them to write, ie crap that is designed to make the readers think they must have a different bike for evey day of the week.

All else being equal go for the one whose colour appeals the most and don't pay any heed to the sportive/race lable.

for some sound/common advice. I would have typed the exact thing

The trouble with today is that the marketers have given us so much 'choice', but in essence it come down to whether it's comfortable and you like the colour of it of course.....I sound like I am 72 years old

 

[tjw_78]

for some sound/common advice. I would have typed the exact thing

The trouble with today is that the marketers have given us so much 'choice', but in essence it come down to whether it's comfortable and you like the colour of it of course.....I sound like I am 72 years old

Personal choice, and compromise!

I'm not sure what I will really want, and probably won't until I start testing bikes (which I can now do as I've got the go ahead from works c2w scheme).

I guess I'll get on a Secteur and get on an Allez, and see how they feel (I use the Specializeds as a ref. point as my MTB is a Specilized).

 

[Globalti]

I ride a Specialized Roubaix, which is sold as a sportiff bike and it's extremely comfortable over long distances. It doesn't feel low at the front and it looks slightly higher than a race bike. As I'm 55 and a latercomer to road riding after 22 years mountain biking, I feel it's the perfect bike for someone like me. It is thrillingly fast and smooth to ride but doesn't beat me up even on the terrible worn out top dressing of our local roads.

 

[tjw_78]

I ride a Specialized Roubaix, which is sold as a sportiff bike and it's extremely comfortable over long distances. It doesn't feel low at the front and it looks slightly higher than a race bike. As I'm 55 and a latercomer to road riding after 22 years mountain biking, I feel it's the perfect bike for someone like me. It is thrillingly fast and smooth to ride but doesn't beat me up even on the terrible worn out top dressing of our local roads.

Bit out of my price range I think...

 

[User482]

My Wilier is supposedly an old school road bike geometry, but I find it extremely comfortable over long distances. So I wouldn't take too much notice of road or sportive designations - just try some out and buy what feels comfortable. Much as it pains me to agree with Smokin Joe, I think he's bang-on in his assessment.If you're after pannier mounting points, you'll find that your choices are significantly reduced, as most "proper" road bikes don't have them. You might wish to consider an Audax type bike, which is designed to be suitable for light touring (as well as audaxes, obviously). You can also fit mudguards, which is handy for riding in the winter.

 

[nmcgann]

There's sod all difference in reality.

.....

Good reply.

The only difference I can see is the geometry is often a bit different, with a longer head tube and shorter top tube to give a more upright riding position with less spacers under the stem.

 

[Smokin Joe]

My Wilier is supposedly an old school road bike geometry, but I find it extremely comfortable over long distances. So I wouldn't take too much notice of road or sportive designations - just try some out and buy what feels comfortable. Much as it pains me to agree with Smokin Joe, I think he's bang-on in his assessment.If you're after pannier mounting points, you'll find that your choices are significantly reduced, as most "proper" road bikes don't have them. You might wish to consider an Audax type bike, which is designed to be suitable for light touring (as well as audaxes, obviously). You can also fit mudguards, which is handy for riding in the winter.

Have a lie down User482, you'll get over it

There is a load of rubbish trotted out about "comfort" on bikes. It's nothing to do with frame materials or curved tubes or any of the other rubbish trotted out by manufactures and lapped up by magazine reviewers. If you find a race bike is to bouncy or twitchy for you (all else being equal, ie tyres and fit) get one with a longer wheelbase and it will iron out the bumps more effectively. That's why a Mondeo is more comfortable to sit in than a Ka.

 

[StuAff]

Have a lie down User482, you'll get over it

There is a load of rubbish trotted out about "comfort" on bikes. It's nothing to do with frame materials or curved tubes or any of the other rubbish trotted out by manufactures and lapped up by magazine reviewers. If you find a race bike is to bouncy or twitchy for you (all else being equal, ie tyres and fit) get one with a longer wheelbase and it will iron out the bumps more effectively. That's why a Mondeo is more comfortable to sit in than a Ka.

Yes and no. There's an awful lot of variables to consider, including the ones you've just dismissed out of hand. It's possible to build an extremely stiff carbon bike, or an extremely comfortable one. Ditto with all the frame materials. I have two road bikes, both on the same tyres. The Squadra's an alu/carbon mix and a race geometry, the Viner's full carbon and sportive geometry. The Squadra's a damn good bike, including for comfort, but the Viner's noticeably better. Ianrauk has both a Spesh Secteur and a Roubaix- same frame design, but according to him, the Roubaix, again, is noticeably better. Wheelbase is indeed a factor, but only one.....