Tarmac frame superior to Ultimate?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
So you can't tell the bike fit/reach by sitting on the bike? Even if the seat is adjusted to your height and you are putting your feet on the plastic flat pedals they use at the store? I'm sorry, I guess I'm endowed with a superpower...because yes I can. You think motorcycle shops let everyone test drive motorcycles? There is such a thing as telling if a bike fits you by sitting on it. Sorry this has escaped your experience, but it is a thing.
You asserted that you felt a frame was different simply by sitting on it.
I replied that you most certainly did not, all you felt was the seat and a difference in stack/reach.
Now you're saying that I said you can't tell a difference in stack/reach when sitting on the bike.
But that's what I said initially to counter your utterly ridiculous assertion that you could tell the difference in frames.
Slow down your reading a bit before you get even more confused.
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Stock bikes come with a big stack of spacers under the stem to allow vertical adjustment of bar height, a stem length and angle that may place the bars too high or low and a bar reach that my be too long or short. Trek for example may use an 80mm stem and combines it with 100mm reach bars, which is just the opposite of what I'd do.
If you sat on the bike with a full stack of spacers and the bars felt too low, then you're not a candidate for any modern race bike. You need a tall stack endurance bike.
The main point is that there's room for siginificant fit changes on any bike. If you can't grasp that, your chances of spending a lot of money on an ill fitting bike are high. Hopefully your local shop can explain that.
If you sat on the bike with a full stack of spacers and the bars felt too low, then you're not a candidate for any modern race bike. You need a tall stack endurance bike.
The main point is that there's room for siginificant fit changes on any bike. If you can't grasp that, your chances of spending a lot of money on an ill fitting bike are high. Hopefully your local shop can explain that.
Let's dial back the snark.
#28
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 Posts
Everyone likes to say there wil be zero difference between the frames... but I personally would want to ride a bike for a "typical" ride, or at least for10-20 miles at a minimum, to observe and confirm that expectation with my own butt before dropping $10k.
Personally, I have a 2008 sworks tarmac SL2 team (bought frameset new and built w RED 10 and dv46 wheels, in 2017 repaired paint cracks, repainted, rebuilt wiith clx40 wheels and etap 11 wifli.
I rode (for a very short period) a sworks SL3.
Whlle the SL2 was "broken" I built a sworks SL4 frameset up with the RED10 parts.
I have a modern masi evoluzione MSR team frame (currently built up with the same parts as the SL2 and boyd 24 wheels).
IN MY EXPERIENCE:
Moving wheel sets between the bikes does not change the ride of the bikes, but the deeper wheels have an interesting acoustic effect directing sound to the sides and echoing it off hard surfaces to either side. Interesting, but the wheels ride pretty similar in terms of not changing the feel of the framesets.
But the framesets themselves definitely feel different in meaningful ways.
When i've been riding the masi for a while and finally jump back on the SL2, I still, even after owning it for 12 years, get the initial feeling that the rear tire is low. This is because the rear of the bike is softer and more giving over road irregularities. This is a good thing, as it's the carbon design doing exactly what it was designed to do.
However, the SL3 was a bone crusher. I heard (anecdotally) that it was because Tom Boonen was a beast and demanded an extremely stiff frame and got his wish. But for me, the SL2 was clearly a better frame for me on long rides (60-100 miles).
The SL4 was interesting because I got the soft feeling at both the front and the rear. Specialized had figured out the carbon design to let the front and back both flex vertically. The SL4 was the best riding bike I have ever ridden.
The masi is.... carbon. It's a good bike. But the SL2 and SL4 are both clearly products of extremely focused, expensive engineering.
I have not ridden an SL5, SL6 or SL7. I paid $2000 for the SL2 brand new ordered for me , and honestly I'm not in the mood to pay $5500 for a frameset that for all I know could ride like the SL3 bone crusher or the masi (whcih I can buy for $400 on ebay).
I would suggest you DEFINITELY want to test ride a frameset (ideally adjusted and with a stem somewhat close to your fit) on a decent ride that will mirror your typical use. Look for handling characteristics. hands off? Crosstwinds? Handling? Compliance? Stiffness sprinting or chasing on a break? Comfort? These are the things you want to evaluate.
Personally, I have a 2008 sworks tarmac SL2 team (bought frameset new and built w RED 10 and dv46 wheels, in 2017 repaired paint cracks, repainted, rebuilt wiith clx40 wheels and etap 11 wifli.
I rode (for a very short period) a sworks SL3.
Whlle the SL2 was "broken" I built a sworks SL4 frameset up with the RED10 parts.
I have a modern masi evoluzione MSR team frame (currently built up with the same parts as the SL2 and boyd 24 wheels).
IN MY EXPERIENCE:
Moving wheel sets between the bikes does not change the ride of the bikes, but the deeper wheels have an interesting acoustic effect directing sound to the sides and echoing it off hard surfaces to either side. Interesting, but the wheels ride pretty similar in terms of not changing the feel of the framesets.
But the framesets themselves definitely feel different in meaningful ways.
When i've been riding the masi for a while and finally jump back on the SL2, I still, even after owning it for 12 years, get the initial feeling that the rear tire is low. This is because the rear of the bike is softer and more giving over road irregularities. This is a good thing, as it's the carbon design doing exactly what it was designed to do.
However, the SL3 was a bone crusher. I heard (anecdotally) that it was because Tom Boonen was a beast and demanded an extremely stiff frame and got his wish. But for me, the SL2 was clearly a better frame for me on long rides (60-100 miles).
The SL4 was interesting because I got the soft feeling at both the front and the rear. Specialized had figured out the carbon design to let the front and back both flex vertically. The SL4 was the best riding bike I have ever ridden.
The masi is.... carbon. It's a good bike. But the SL2 and SL4 are both clearly products of extremely focused, expensive engineering.
I have not ridden an SL5, SL6 or SL7. I paid $2000 for the SL2 brand new ordered for me , and honestly I'm not in the mood to pay $5500 for a frameset that for all I know could ride like the SL3 bone crusher or the masi (whcih I can buy for $400 on ebay).
I would suggest you DEFINITELY want to test ride a frameset (ideally adjusted and with a stem somewhat close to your fit) on a decent ride that will mirror your typical use. Look for handling characteristics. hands off? Crosstwinds? Handling? Compliance? Stiffness sprinting or chasing on a break? Comfort? These are the things you want to evaluate.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,505
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 353 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20791 Post(s)
Liked 9,436 Times
in
4,663 Posts
Lol. You haven't been the recipient of snark for no reason. You're the one asking questions about things you don't understand, yet you've been snippy. Dial it back, indeed - we'll follow your lead.
Likes For WhyFi:
#30
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 Posts
If you live in flatland, grams, even almost a full pounds worth of them, are 100% irrelevant, and you should (probably) be looking at a Venge and not a Tarmac. Weight only matters going uphill or maybe racing and even then only going uphill. Aero matters everywhere else, including going downhill. Of course aero also kinda depends on riding position, and bolt upright is more of a casual riding position than a performance minded one.
Last edited by nycphotography; 08-25-20 at 08:14 AM.
#31
Asleep at the bars
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA and Treasure Island, FL
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times
in
135 Posts
It's not about flexibility, but core endurance. When you lean forward you hold yourself up with your core muscles, predominantly your lower back. How long can you hold a superman position? 5 min? 30 min? 2 hours? 7 hours? Yeah. It sounds easy, until you actually have to do it. Until you've developed core endurance lowering the bars will only put more weight on them when your core is incapable of holding you up. This is why endurance bikes have a higher stack height, not because endurance riders somehow lack flexibility!
__________________
"This 7:48 cycling session burned 5933 calories. Speed up recovery by replacing them with a healthy snack." - Whoop
"This 7:48 cycling session burned 5933 calories. Speed up recovery by replacing them with a healthy snack." - Whoop
#32
Senior Member
Having too much weight on the hands is caused by the saddle being too far foward. With enough setback, there will not be much weight on your hands, so you're not using core strength to hold yourself up.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,505
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 353 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20791 Post(s)
Liked 9,436 Times
in
4,663 Posts
With the saddle back, you're still using core strength, you just have a balance point to cantilever against. Saddle too far forward puts your balance point too far forward and you're left with no choice but to support with your arms.