# 2010 Tarmac Pro SL vs Giant TCR Advanced 1



## adperler (May 27, 2009)

I am currently riding a Speicalized roubiax pro (07) which I love. I got it after having back surgery for its infamous cushy ride. While I love it, I got into racing last season and found out that when I get out of the saddle, I really feel the bike flex and when I dive into the corners it feels a bit sloppy. 

I am looking to get a more race oriented bike and have been looking at the Specialized Tarmac Pro SL (sram) and the Giant TCR Advanced 1 (sram set up). They spec out fairly close and I have heard really good things about both. I was looking for something that is relatively stiff and responsive, but will not beat me up. I am on a team that gets a really nice discount so they price out pretty much the same. Unfortunately, they do not have my size in either so I cannot test ride them, which is why I am aking here on the forum.

Any opinions on one versus the other would be greatly appreciated in regards to ride quality, responsiveness to sprinting, and turning. I am pretty much a pure sprinter. I do not climb that well... working on that one though. Most of the races I do will be technical crits. I will also keep my Roubiax for longer rides and yucky day stuff.

Thanks for any opinions.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

How much do you weigh, and what size frame are you looking at? I have the '09 SL Pro (61cm), and I reckon that it'd be a better crit bike than the TCR, but I haven't ridden the Giant. The SL Pro front end is extremely stout. The ride is a lot better once I switched to a Stan's/Hutchinson tubeless setup.


----------



## adperler (May 27, 2009)

fallzboater said:


> How much do you weigh, and what size frame are you looking at? I have the '09 SL Pro (61cm), and I reckon that it'd be a better crit bike than the TCR, but I haven't ridden the Giant. The SL Pro front end is extremely stout. The ride is a lot better once I switched to a Stan's/Hutchinson tubeless setup.



I weight 172... I plan (if diet and training continue at the current rate) to get to about 165 or so for the season and hopefully hold it there. I am 5'8 and was looking at the small in the Giant and the 52 in the Tarmac. I believe the TCR has a about a 4mm shorter top tube. I am a little stretched out on my 54 Roubaix. 

The Giant comes with the Kysirium SL wheels while the Tarmac comes with the Ksyrium Elites. They would end up roughly the same price, which makes me feel there is a little more bang for the buck with the Giant. But, ultimately want to go with what ever one makes more since based on ride quality, sprint characteristics, and overall handling. Any advice would be helpful.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adperler said:


> I weight 172... I plan (if diet and training continue at the current rate) to get to about 165 or so for the season and hopefully hold it there. I am 5'8 and was looking at the small in the Giant and the 52 in the Tarmac.* I believe the TCR has a about a 4mm shorter top tube. I am a little stretched out on my 54 Roubaix. *
> 
> The Giant comes with the Kysirium SL wheels while the Tarmac comes with the Ksyrium Elites. They would end up roughly the same price, which makes me feel there is a little more bang for the buck with the Giant. But, ultimately want to go with what ever one makes more since based on ride quality, sprint characteristics, and overall handling. Any advice would be helpful.


If I'm looking at the correct geo chart, the TCR has a STA of 73.5 degrees and ETT of 535mm's. The Tarmac has a STA of 74 degrees and ETT of 537mm's, so the TCR's reach is actually (slightly) longer. Nothing that can't be compensated for with a longer stem, but something to be aware of.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

I'm so much bigger than you that my experiences wouldn't be real applicable, anyway. You're a pretty typical size, so it seems like it shouldn't be too hard to find a demo, or friend with bike around the right size. 

The SL Pro has a larger oversized steerer and steeper HA, definitely more of a crit geometry. I can only guess that the TCR will be a smoother, more stable ride, with handling probably more similar to your Roubaix. You really should ride them both, unless the price or fit is much better on one or the other. I'm sure they're both good bikes.


----------



## rileymeister (Feb 1, 2008)

Go for the Specialized. People buy Giants when they cannot afford what they really wanted. Sure the Giant has better wheels but the Specialized has a better frame that is stiffer and lighter. Also note worthy to mention the customer service Specialized has to offer. I have yet to see any company come close to what they do for people.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*think it is the other way around..*

reach is longer on the Specialized and the effective tt length is considerably longer too..

Felts and Specialized are notoriously long.

i have posted the links to the math before...

ride both, and focus on your balance and handling.

figure out if you like a sharp handling ride or more nuetral..


good luck


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

a_avery007 said:


> *reach is longer on the Specialized and the effective tt length is considerably longer too..*
> 
> Felts and Specialized are notoriously long.
> 
> ...


Not by my calculations, so feel free to substantiate that. As far as ETT, just because the number is larger doesn't necessarily translate into more reach. STA enters into the equation as well.


----------



## j-man (Sep 3, 2009)

never ridden a giant but all the tarmac i have ridden were great, and the pro sl should be pretty sitff


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*here you go..*



PJ352 said:


> Not by my calculations, so feel free to substantiate that. As far as ETT, just because the number is larger doesn't necessarily translate into more reach. STA enters into the equation as well.



this is one of the one's i have referenced before:
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...&t=62108&p=565661&hilit=cervelo+reach#p565661




hope this helps


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

a_avery007 said:


> this is one of the one's i have referenced before:
> http://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...&t=62108&p=565661&hilit=cervelo+reach#p565661
> hope this helps


I get the chart, problem is you can't apply the formula to the Giant because a size 'S' isn't a useable value, so there's no way to verify your claim (at least that I'm aware of), but feel free to share your calculations.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

come on, 73.5 seat angle 72 head angle and 135ht or 150 w/spacer, plug in any number between 48 and 53 for size, and do the math bro..

reach is around 38cm
yes you can.
and again the Specy is way longer in the 54cm....


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

a_avery007 said:


> come on, 73.5 seat angle 72 head angle and 135ht or 150 w/spacer, plug in any number between 48 and 54 for size, and do the math bro..
> 
> reach is around 38cm
> yes you can.
> and again the Specy is way longer in the 54cm....


I did the math initially and you countered with a different result, so I asked you to clarify. The formula provided in the chart obviously works, but only if you can plug in a value for frame size. Point taken re: plugging in estimated values, but those are guesses, not hard numbers. But FWIW using your method, yes the Giant 'S' has 2mm's less reach than the 52 Tarmac. 

No argument on the 54 Tarmac. For certain, the reach would be longer that both the 52 Tarmac and 'S' Giant.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

PJ- are we getting paid for this guy???lol


he could always just go to the shop and measure...

thanks for your input, hopefully it will help the OP


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

a_avery007 said:


> PJ- are we getting paid for this guy???lol
> 
> 
> he could always just go to the shop and measure...
> ...


To varying degrees shops are helpful, but IME there are members here than know more than some of the LBS folks. 

One question about the formula you linked to. I calculated out the differences ok, but noticed that you and the OP on the WW site referred to a reach of 38. How'd you translate you finding to that value?


----------



## adperler (May 27, 2009)

*Thanks for all of your responses so far...*



PJ352 said:


> To varying degrees shops are helpful, but IME there are members here than know more than some of the LBS folks.
> 
> One question about the formula you linked to. I calculated out the differences ok, but noticed that you and the OP on the WW site referred to a reach of 38. How'd you translate you finding to that value?



I do really appreciate everyone's input on this forum. You are right by saying that there are those on this forum that know more than those in some of the local bike shops. The bike shops usually have opinions based on what they carry and are trying to sell. Also, the Giant's are very hard to come by for some reason. It seems as though they really cut back on production this year and the LBS are having trouble keeping up with demand. At least in the forum I can get good feedback from people who currently ride the bikes that I am interested in and who are not trying to sell me something.

I am hoping to track down a 52 Tarmac Pro SL to try out this weekend. I will be in Chicago, so hopefully I will have better luck finding a store there that has my size available. 

As far as top tube goes, which is more stable... a bike with a slightly longer TT and shorter stem versus a shorter TT with a longer stem? Lately, I have developed a sharp pain between my shoulder blades/lower neck region on longer rides... could that come from being too stretched out on my 54 Roubaix? I have had a couple of different fittings locally and each time they suggested a smaller frame with a longer stem... one shop suggesed a Cannondale 52 and the other suggested a small Giant TCR Advanced. The shop that carries Specialized is the one that put me on a 54 Roubaix, which the other shops feel is way to big for me. I can say that it is pretty comfortable to ride (other than my recent shoulder/neck issues) but feels very flexy when I stand up to sprint or dive into the corners during a crit. 

As you all have stated above, I really need to just get out and locate shops that have each bike in stock to test ride. I will keep you posted on my progress. I do need to make a decision by next week in order to get a very beneficial team discount, but it is quite hard to choose between two bikes that I have not ridden or even seen in person.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

adperler said:


> I do really appreciate everyone's input on this forum. You are right by saying that there are those on this forum that know more than those in some of the local bike shops. The bike shops usually have opinions based on what they carry and are trying to sell. Also, the Giant's are very hard to come by for some reason. It seems as though they really cut back on production this year and the LBS are having trouble keeping up with demand. At least in the forum I can get good feedback from people who currently ride the bikes that I am interested in and who are not trying to sell me something.
> 
> I am hoping to track down a 52 Tarmac Pro SL to try out this weekend. I will be in Chicago, so hopefully I will have better luck finding a store there that has my size available.
> 
> ...


Soreness across the shoulders and neck is usually attributed to excessive bar reach, so you may benefit from a shorter (and possibly slightly upward) stem. See item # 6 in the link below:
http://www.jimlangley.net/crank/bikefit.html

To answer your question regarding stability, the bike that fits right is the most stable. Seriously. Forget TT and HT lengths in that vain and concentrate on pinning down your reach requirements, because once that's attained, your f/r weight distribution should be optimal and that will positively affect handling.

As far as the flex you're feeling, I ride a Tarmac and have only occasionally ridden Roubaix's, so I can't say what the cause is, but I doubt it's the TT/ HT lengths. I think it's worth your while to try out the 52cm Tarmac, just for comparison in fit as well as handling.


----------

