# difference between 2010 tarmacs?



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

Wanted to know the difference between the Tarmac Comp Double and the Tarmac Comp Compact.
I see that the Double has Chainrings 53 x 39T and the Compact has chainrings 50 x 34T.
My question is what does this mean?? Does one have more top speed than the other? Is one better than the other? Or is it just different gear ratios? 

thanks guys!
Adam


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adamssss said:


> Wanted to know the difference between the Tarmac Comp Double and the Tarmac Comp Compact.
> I see that the Double has Chainrings 53 x 39T and the Compact has chainrings 50 x 34T.
> My question is what does this mean?? Does one have more top speed than the other? Is one better than the other? Or is it just different gear ratios?
> 
> ...


It's not that one is inherently 'better' than the other, rather, which is better suited for your fitness level and the terrrain you ride. Compacts (50/34) are compromises between standard doubles (53/39) and triples (50,40,30). Specific configurations vary some, but you get the idea.

The advantage to compacts (over triples) is that they save a little weight and are mechanically less complex (two rings to shift to/ from rather than adjusting for three), but IME those advantages are minimal if triples are set up properly. 

IMO the determining factors should be your present fitness (with maybe a dose of long term goals thrown in) and your terrain. 

BTW, I have an '08 Tarmac Comp and love it!!

Hope this helps.

EDIT: To answer yout 'top speed' question, all else being equal (as in, the same cassette gearing) a 53T will have a higher top end than a 50T, but that can always be compensated by the rider choosing a smaller cog (say swapping out a 12T for an 11T). And unless you find yourself running out of gear (spinning out) at well above 30 MPH, that's not a big concern for most riders.


----------



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

Ok thanks dude. yeah, before your edit i was like ???


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

Top speed is also dependant upon the engine you install on the bike. In other words, you. Obviously, the better shape you are in the faster you will be able to ride. Bike performance almost always is dependant upon the engine.


----------



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

I consider myself in pretty good to really good shape. I'm in NY (queens) and i'm looking for some mountains to ride on. I just like climbing. i kinda get it from the Marine Corps "attack the hill!" haha. 
anyway i'm gonna be picking up my '10 tarmac comp double satuday.


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

Adam,

You're going to love your Tarmac!

Hoo Rah!

Rob


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adamssss said:


> I consider myself in pretty good to really good shape. I'm in NY (queens) and i'm looking for some mountains to ride on. I just like climbing. i kinda get it from the Marine Corps "attack the hill!" haha.
> anyway* i'm gonna be picking up my '10 tarmac comp double satuday*.


Great choice, congrats!! :thumbsup: 

Don't forget. We need pics.


----------



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

Hey all i picked up my bike, went on a few rides and i find my stem is really long for my reach. what is the stock size (length) and could i go shorter?? What would happen to the ride quality if i got a shorter one? BTW, i moved the seat max forward already. 

I'll get pics asap. kinda busy (riding every other day!!)


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adamssss said:


> Hey all i picked up my bike, went on a few rides and* i find my stem is really long for my reach. * *what is the stock size (length) *and could i go shorter?? What would happen to the ride quality if i got a shorter one? BTW, * i moved the seat max forward already. *
> I'll get pics asap. kinda busy (riding every other day!!)


To answer your question re: stock stem lengths, we'd need to know your frame size, but a couple of thoughts here...

You shouldn't change you seat fore/ aft position to adjust for reach. That setting is for KOPS +/- (knee over pedal spindle). But what concerns me more is that the fitter may have sized you up one frame size. I say this because even with the saddle positioned all the way forward, you're still finding reach excessive.

I suggest you go back to the LBS and discuss this situation with them. Generally speaking, a correctly sized bike will require very minor tweaks to get fit right. Maybe small adjustments to stem angle/ length, but little more, once KOPS is set.


----------



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

Thanks PJ for all your help. 

I'm 5'7 and the bike is a 54. Yeah, i'm gonna go back to the shop and see waht they could do. thanks again.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adamssss said:


> Thanks PJ for all your help.
> 
> I'm 5'7 and the bike is a 54. Yeah, i'm gonna go back to the shop and see waht they could do. thanks again.


You're welcome.

In determining frame sizes, proportions (among other factors) mean more than height, but FWIW I'm 5'6" and ride a 52cm. I've been road riding for 25+ years now, and I actually have a decent reach for my height, so (again) I think the 54 may be a little big for you.

To answer your earlier question, I wouldn't go less than a 90mm stem on the 54cm, not because of some guideline or 'rule' against it, but because_ having _to go less indicates that effective top tube length (reach) on the bike is excessive for you. Another indication that the 52 would be the better option, because you want to maintain about a 35/65 f/r weight distribution.

At any rate, good luck and let us know how you make out.


----------

