# A bit of a quandry here...



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

I currently have an 09 Roubaix comp in a 54. I'm 5'8" 30" inseam...typical physique of having shorter legs and longer torso. It feels comfortable i but i end up sometimes feel a little stretched out. 

I've been looking at the Tarmacs and today I went to my LBS to check out the tarmacs as well as the Cervelo R3's. 

Long story short, i test rode 54 and 52...on the 54 it feels similar as my roubaix but it had a lot of head spacers and the 100mm stem is flipped up (my roubaix is flipped down right now). 

Then i switched to 52 reach felt really good it had a 90mm stem but i almost felt a little cramped in the cockpit.

so i'm a total loss right now, cant figure out if i should go w/ a smaller frame and adjust w/ the stem or go w/ bigger frame and go shorter :mad2: :mad2: 

Anyone share my predicament?

Oh btw, the R3 is SICK snappy son of gun


----------



## 180 (Jan 10, 2009)

Yeah I went with the bigger frame smaller stem. I was new to cycling and just kind of wung it. I bought a 54 Madone 4.7. I'm 5' 7" longer legs shorter torso. I was over reaching a tad so I shortened the stem but then had to shoot my seat way back. I seem to think a smaller frame is the better bet here but let's see what the others say. Congrats on your new ride :thumbsup:


----------



## DNM (Feb 27, 2008)

*Start with Stem*

I prefer not to use a lot of spacers.... vanity?

I also like the feel of steering with short stems and bar reach. I have two bikes fitted to exactly the same dimensions, but prefer the long top tube with short (75mm) stem to the more normal layout with a 100mm stem. On most riding it does not make much difference, but on slow turns the swing feels funny to me. 

The smaller frame is new, so I may adjust over time.

The first step would be to change the stem and / or bars on your present frame to shorten the reach. Note that your have multiple positions to adjust... standing, climbing with hands on top of bars (stem), and on the hoods (stem plus bar plus lever reach). 

Another thing to watch is where do your hand naturally go? If you are constantly resting on the back of the hoods or even behind them on the bars, then indeed, shorten the reach to put the hoods where your hands naturally want to go.

The reach can also be adjusted some by moving the seat.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> I currently have an 09 Roubaix comp in a 54. I'm 5'8" 30" inseam...typical physique of having shorter legs and longer torso. It feels comfortable i but i end up sometimes feel a little stretched out.
> 
> I've been looking at the Tarmacs and today I went to my LBS to check out the tarmacs as well as the Cervelo R3's.
> 
> ...


Unless you want a new frameset/ bike for some reason, I'd focus on tweaking fit on your existing one, because I think you're on the right sized frame. Near ideal weight distribution is 60/40, rear/ front, so going to a 52 may move more of your weight forward because of the shorter TT( reach). And depending on model, you'll lose some HT length, requiring more spacers/ higher stem angle to maintain your saddle to bar drop.

You make no mention of problems at the three contact points, so IMO adjustments to stem angle/ height may be all that's required. You mentioned the stem is now 'flipped down'; doing so not only dropped the bars, but also extended your reach some, so if your saddle to bar drop is to your liking, consider getting a 1 CM shorter stem with the same (or similar) angle. Specs are (somewhat) angle adjustable, so they may be a good option for you. 

I agree with DNM that you should taylor your reach adjustments based on where you place your hands the majority of time, but I don't agree that saddle adjustments should be made to accomodate for reach. Doing so has the potential to shift weight forward (to your hands) possibly causing another fit issue and/ or changing KOPS +/-.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

funny you mention that most of the time my hands are right at the transiition from the flat bar to where it take a 90* turn to the hoods and sometimes i'm holding the bar just short of the hood...so i would agree that going from the stock stem length that came on the bike (i think it's a 100mm) going down 1cm might help.

I like my roubaix i think it's because i'm itching for something new and different is why i'm looking at the tarmacs.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> funny you mention that most of the time my hands are right at the transiition from the flat bar to where it take a 90* turn to the hoods and sometimes i'm holding the bar just short of the hood...so i would agree that going from the stock stem length that came on the bike (i think it's a 100mm) going down 1cm might help.
> 
> I like my roubaix i think it's because i'm itching for something new and different is why i'm looking at the tarmacs.


I can relate, I opted for a Tarmac myself. If the Spec dealer you're working with has an experienced fitter, they should work with you. The geo of the two bikes is similar, but not the same, and considering your fit issue the most noteworthy difference IMO would be HT lengths. You'll lose a couple of CM's on a comparably sized Tarmac. 

BTW, I suggest you go for a few long rides on an R3 before deciding. IME they can be overly stiff.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

that's what i heard as well regarding the R3...I also was told the SL3 SL is UBER stiff and doing rides more than 50 will just work you.

they do have a good fitter, he was busy that day doing a fit for a customer so he wasnt able to give me a run down.

also, i'm 40 pushing 41 and probably not as flexible as i was 15-20 years ago, but i'm trying . The reason i liked the roubaix initially was that i was/am a mountain biker and most of the guys recommened the roubaix as it was more of a relaxed geo. Since i've had it for over a year now and some mileage under my belt, i think i'm ready/want something a bit more spirited so that's why i'm looking. 

I rode the roubaix for a while stock, w/ the stock stem flipped up and then one day in experimenting, i flipped the stem and moved one of the 5mm spacer up to the top w/ the other 2 or so left under, i really liked the position i was in (more aero) it did change my reach a tad and i was living w/ it. I notice though that i got tingly feeling in my hands after a while in one position and reading some articles one of them suggested that it might have been that i might have been a bit stretched out. which made sense since i flipped the stem etc.

anyway sorry for the rambling.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> that's what i heard as well regarding the R3...I also was told the SL3 SL is UBER stiff and doing rides more than 50 will just work you.
> 
> they do have a good fitter, he was busy that day doing a fit for a customer so he wasnt able to give me a run down.
> 
> ...


The tingling in your hands could simply be that you're not changing hand positions often enough. I would try that before changing fit, but if it becomes apparent that it's more a fit issue, two things that will correct for that are 1) more the saddle back _slightly_ (2-3 mm's) and 2) tip the front of the saddle up slightly - if it's low, level it, if it's level, tip it up, but keep the adjustments small and give your body time to adjust. Both adjustments tend to move your weight towards the rear of the saddle, and off your hands/ wrists.

Being too stretched out usually results in neck, shoulder, back and hand pain, so considering your earlier post I wouldn't rule that out, but you haven't really complained of any of the other symptoms.

BTW, I've got a few years on you (like 16) and I ride a Tarmac with a moderate (5.5cm) saddle to bar drop, so you've got some good years ahead of you.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

LOL thanks PJ, it's guys like you that keeps me going. Used to ride w/ a 65 yo guy that will whoop my ass w his SS on a mtn bike all day long...made me look pitiful.

I did have lower back pain early on but i attributed that to just not enough saddle time and not conditioned for it. I do from time to time have the weird sore elbow probably due to not switching it up or just not being slightly bent when riding.

cant i just have my tarmac magically sized up for me when i go and buy it


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> LOL thanks PJ, it's guys like you that keeps me going. Used to ride w/ a 65 yo guy that will whoop my ass w his SS on a mtn bike all day long...made me look pitiful.
> 
> *I did have lower back pain early on but i attributed that to just not enough saddle time and not conditioned for it. * I do from time to time have the weird sore elbow probably due to not switching it up or just not being slightly bent when riding.
> 
> *cant i just have my tarmac magically sized up for me when i go and buy it *


Yes, you can. It's called a fitting. 

IME _lower_ back pain is more a saddle to bar drop issue than a reach issue. And yes, it could have been that saddle time and conditioning was required. If it has since passed, that was the answer.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> The tingling in your hands could simply be that you're not changing hand positions often enough. I would try that before changing fit, but if it becomes apparent that it's more a fit issue, two things that will correct for that are *1) more the saddle back slightly (2-3 mm's) and 2) tip the front of the saddle up slightly - if it's low, level it, if it's level, tip it up, but keep the adjustments small and give your body time to adjust. Both adjustments tend to move your weight towards the rear of the saddle, and off your hands/ wrists.
> 
> Being too stretched out usually results in neck, shoulder, back and hand pain, so considering your earlier post I wouldn't rule that out, but you haven't really complained of any of the other symptoms.
> 
> BTW, I've got a few years on you (like 16) and I ride a Tarmac with a moderate (5.5cm) saddle to bar drop, so you've got some good years ahead of you. *


*

wouldnt pushing the saddle back 2-3mm stretch me out more (all other things staying constant) I can understand the tilting of the saddle up a bit but scooting it back seems counter intuitive but then again most things are the opposite of what you think*


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> wouldnt pushing the saddle back 2-3mm stretch me out more (all other things staying constant) I can understand the tilting of the saddle up a bit but scooting it back seems counter intuitive but then again most things are the opposite of what you think


You are correct that increasing saddle setback (albeit, slightly) will increase your reach. Most adjustments to fit (whether initial or evolved over time) are nothing more than a series of compromises, the compromises being minimal on a correctly sized bike with geo that suites a given rider.

Tingling/ numbing are a result of excessive pressure, so the saddle adjustments mentioned are meant to relieve that pressure by shifting your weight rearward. It may seem counter intuitive, but it works and many riders (me included) actually make more power with a slight rearward bias to KOPS. This isn't an exact science, so there's a possibility that leaving the saddle as is and getting a shorter stem (1 CM should suffice) may be all that's required, but if not, you have a couple of other options, including getting a full fitting. 

If you want to try yourself, and are otherwise comfortable on the bike having little or no pain in the back, neck or shoulders, IMO the saddle adjustments would be the first to try.


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

foofighter said:


> I currently have an 09 Roubaix comp in a 54. I'm 5'8" 30" inseam...typical physique of having shorter legs and longer torso. It feels comfortable i but i end up sometimes feel a little stretched out.
> 
> I've been looking at the Tarmacs and today I went to my LBS to check out the tarmacs as well as the Cervelo R3's.
> 
> ...




I will give you some advice from an expirienced bike fitter. Find a reputable shop that that can perform an accurate fit (not the free kind) and go through the process. I don't want to diminish the advice that is given here, but it is impossible to do a fit over the internet. Until you have a full physical assessment, there is too much information that is left in question.

PM me if you have any further questions


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

Thanks PJ...might be worth a try pushing the saddle back a bit....that's free LOL

jrob: thank you, i guess when you're spending thousands on a bike it's probably best to spend the small amount of money to get yourself fitted properly. Are you a fitter? Live in a socal by any chance


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

foofighter said:


> Thanks PJ...might be worth a try pushing the saddle back a bit....that's free LOL
> 
> jrob: thank you, i guess when you're spending thousands on a bike it's probably best to spend the small amount of money to get yourself fitted properly. Are you a fitter? Live in a socal by any chance


Yes, I am a fitter but I live on the east coast. I always tell my clients that a quality fit is more benefical to them than a quality bike. You can go to a your local shop and spend $10,000 on an icredible bike, but you are short changing yourself if that bike is not perfectly fit to you. Any Specialized dealer can sell you a top of the line S-Works bike, but very few can perform a top of the line fit.:wink5:


----------



## pvflyer (Oct 15, 2009)

foofighter said:


> I currently have an 09 Roubaix comp in a 54. I'm 5'8" 30" inseam...typical physique of having shorter legs and longer torso. It feels comfortable i but i end up sometimes feel a little stretched out.
> 
> I've been looking at the Tarmacs and today I went to my LBS to check out the tarmacs as well as the Cervelo R3's.
> 
> ...


 I did. I'm 5'11 - 32" inseam had a 58cm TARMAC and felt exactly the same way you describing your self when riding. I'd change stem( -20mm),seatpost (non-setback ) and still I felt over extending. I got a new TARMAC frame 54cm (54.8mm) now I'm going to get a longer stem and a setback seatpost to compensate for the smaller size frame.
I think the new frame will be spot on. 

Regards


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

pvflyer said:


> I did. I'm 5'11 - 32" inseam had a 58cm TARMAC and felt exactly the same way you describing your self when riding. I'd change stem( -20mm),seatpost (non-setback ) and still I felt over extending. I got a new TARMAC frame 54cm (54.8mm) now I'm going to get a longer stem and a setback seatpost to compensate for the smaller size frame.
> I think the new frame will be spot on.
> 
> Regards


Is it too late for you to switch to a 56?


----------



## pvflyer (Oct 15, 2009)

jrob1775 said:


> Is it too late for you to switch to a 56?


 I'm no expert however, I think I've made the right choice for me.

I'd think the 54cm(frame) which really is a 55cm - with 110mm stem and a 25mm setback seat post will fit me just the way I like. And if I've too I can get a 32mm setback seat post.

Specialized runs one long top tube and a pretty tall head tube.


----------



## DNM (Feb 27, 2008)

jrob1775 said:


> I will give you some advice from an expirienced bike fitter. Find a reputable shop that that can perform an accurate fit (not the free kind) and go through the process. I don't want to diminish the advice that is given here, but it is impossible to do a fit over the internet. Until you have a full physical assessment, there is too much information that is left in question.
> 
> PM me if you have any further questions


Best overall advice.

DNM


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jrob1775 said:


> I will give you some advice from an expirienced bike fitter. Find a reputable shop that that can perform an accurate fit (not the free kind) and go through the process. I don't want to diminish the advice that is given here, but it is impossible to do a fit over the internet. Until you have a full physical assessment, there is too much information that is left in question.
> 
> PM me if you have any further questions


I don't disagree with you and share your opinions on the importance of fit (and the shot in the dark assessments over the internet). But one of the key points to a good fit is comfort (as in, pain free riding). That given and the fact that (as far as I can tell) the OP seems to ride relatively pain free and may simply need a tweak to fit, I think second best is to try the saddle adjustments.

Fact is, no matter how experienced or reputable the fitter, fit being an inexact science, there's always the possibility that the OP's final fit won't be perfect either.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jrob1775 said:


> Is it too late for you to switch to a 56?


Now who's doing a sizing/ fitting over the internet?


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

pvflyer said:


> I'm no expert however, I think I've made the right choice for me.
> 
> I'd think the 54cm(frame) which really is a 55cm - with 110mm stem and a 25mm setback seat post will fit me just the way I like. And if I've too I can get a 32mm setback seat post.
> 
> Specialized runs one long top tube and a pretty tall head tube.


Like you said, there's no doubt, Spec frames are long, with tall head-tubes.

I am just over 6' 1" and have a 32" inseam. I had to study pretty hard to determine which frame was going to fit. I tried floor models of both the 56 and 58. A team mate with similar 'human dimensions' rides the 58. I ended up getting the 56 and have no regrets. Changed out the stem to 120mm. Have ordered new, wider bars. Saddle is right in the middle of its range of adjustment. 

Still can't believe I'm on a 56cm frame at my height. Just shows you how misleading seat-tube measurements are. My 57cm Bianchi from last year had a shorter top tube than the 56cm Spec.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

went to my LBS today and spoke to them awesome guys took the time out to talk to me let me try the bikes flipped the stem talked to the fitter he had me stand on a board with this pogo spring loaded device under my crotch had me bend my knees to the point where i dont see my toes anymore. based on my measurements (which i didnt see as it was facing him) i SHOULD be riding a 52.

That being said, the sales guy took out a tarmac pro in a 52 to let me ride. my spindle to saddle rail was supposed to be set at 85cm i think and the stem was a 90mm stem flipped up. initially i rode it still felt over grown on it, hands on the hood very comfy though no toe overlap, however this might have been a preception but when i got out of the saddle to pedal FELT like i was right over and past the bar...maybe it was just me not used to the bike. 

Anyway, he took it back in flipped the stem played w/ the shims so it's more level that pointing (-) downwards, and then i rode it again...WOW what a difference it made i felt really comfy on it.

I'm sure if we had more time we could have played around w/ a 54 the same way to see but I'm really appreciative of the time they took to help me zero things out. 

For anyone that lives in Huntington Beach it's Surf City Cycle. Now just have to decide on what Tarmac  and sell my roubaix


----------



## 180 (Jan 10, 2009)

"...he had me stand on a board with this pogo spring loaded device under my crotch had me bend my knees to the point where i dont see my toes anymore"

I'm not sure this was part of the fitting. You may want to seek out some counseling.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

lmao it looked interesting


----------



## 180 (Jan 10, 2009)

foofighter said:


> lmao it looked interesting



kinda like this?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Seems like a fairly productive day at your LBS. I'm a little surprised that someone 5'8" and longer in the torso would size to a 52 Tarmac with a 90 degree stem, but if you were comfortable on the bike that matters. Just make sure you spend enough time on the bike to determine that. 

I think it's a good plan to revisit the LBS and try out a 54, but again, with a 90 degree stem on the 52, all else being equal the 54 will need a shorter stem and that (IMO) would be an indication that the 54 is sized too large for you.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

PJ: i agree with you i have a feeling though that if i go w/ a more aggressive saddle to bar setup on a 54 the bike's sizing will become very apparent. Plus with the 52 i can possibly even run a setback post should i feel the need to get my weight a little back.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> PJ: i agree with you i have a feeling though that if i go w/ a more aggressive saddle to bar setup on a 54 the bike's sizing will become very apparent. Plus with the 52 i can possibly even run a setback post should i feel the need to get my weight a little back.


I agree with what you've offered, but I think you may have misunderstood my previous post regarding the 54. I didn't mean you'd need to set it up more aggressively, I meant you may have to go with an 80mm stem as opposed to the 90mm (on the 52) to compensate for the longer effective TT on the 54. I was talking reach, not drop. If anything the 54 will have a taller HT, so drop will be less (again, all else being equal). I hope that clarifies my point.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

all clear PJ i think i had a run-on thought when i was replying to you and went on a tangent about running a more more aggressive saddle:bar setup LOL. So much information to digest! I do appreciate your input PJ


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

I did the fit calculator on the competitivecyclist.com site and what do you know it coincides w/ the LBS's fitter's quick assessment of me...52cm


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> I did the fit calculator on the competitivecyclist.com site and what do you know it coincides w/ the LBS's fitter's quick assessment of me...52cm


I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction here. I'm guessing that in reality the CC calculator's recommended _ranges_ (a keyword) falls within the LBS fitters recommendation. The difference being the fitter nailed sizing (and probably to some extent, fit) down, while the online calculator got in the ballpark.

Now, how'd I do??


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

here you be the judge  i dont want to go w/ the french fit i think i'd be happy between competitve and the eddy fit


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Considering my past experiences with other posters using online fit calculators, you didn't do bad. I'd guess you were more diligent in plugging in the correct values, thus the more reliable results. 

Looks like the Competitive fit most closely mirrors the geo of the 52 cm Tarmac, so you've got an affirmation of what your fitter is recommending (if that's what you were looking to do). Considering the investment in time and money, I'd still try out the 54, just to satisfy any curiosity about the differences in fit, but all indications seem to point to the 52.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

I agree PJ I'll try it the one I tried last week didn't have any tweaking I'd be curious to try a 54 with a 90mm stem etc


----------



## pvflyer (Oct 15, 2009)

foofighter said:


> I agree PJ I'll try it the one I tried last week didn't have any tweaking I'd be curious to try a 54 with a 90mm stem etc


 I'm 5'11 ft tall, 32" inseam (asymmetric body). Went from a size 58cm to a 54cm frame... everything about the 54 feels just right, stand over height is spot on the reach looks and feels fine but I've not ridden the bike yet. I'm running a 110mm stem and no set-back seat-post. I might keep the seat-post or may go with a 25mm setback seat-post. Will decide after riding the bike this week. 

Good luck choosing your new bike. 

PS: Your, Epic is Bad SS :thumbsup:. Happy Trails 

Regards


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

thanks! I've been check your post to see how your build was coming along! got any completed pics put up?


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

You've been given some good advice. The best piece of advice is see a good FITTER who will be willing to spend some time with you. That will probably not be free and if it is, it's probably not a good fit. 

Now, I'll throw in my two cents, namely because I ride a Tarmac, am exactly 5'8" with a 30.5" inseam and spent weeks agonizing over the 52 vs 54 with my first bike purchase 2 years ago. I have just recently ordered a Tarmac SL3 and before I paid for it I agonized and went nights on end with no sleep. It was a lot of money to put down on a bike without being absolutely sure about my sizing. I spent time with a really good fitter and paid close attention to how I felt on the bikes, tried a 54 and was already well acquainted with my 52. In the end, I bought another 52 Tarmac and am happy as can be.

I've only been riding two years, but here is what I've gathered. Others may come along and correct me.

Tarmac does run a long top tube. Also keep in mind that because of the geometry, Specialized Tarmac in 52 is the equivalent of a Trek or Cannondale 54 in terms of top tube. Trek and Cannondale have a little longer head tube though. So basically your reach on a 52 Tarmac will be the same as the 54 Trek and CDale but on the Specialized you will have a greater saddle to bar drop because the 52 Spec has a headtube of only 120mm versus the longer headtubes of the Trek and Cdale. I think the Trek also has a little steeper seat tube angle (which I personally don't like b/c it cramps the cockpit a little more).

The cool thing is if the Tarmac has to much bar drop for you, the Tarmac can take up to 40mm of spacers which practically makes the saddle and bar level. If you went a step further and put a stem on with just a LITTLE rise, like an 84 (+/- 6) flipped upside down it would actually put the bars a hair above the saddle. Seems to me there is just room for MUCH MORE adjustment on the 52.

With the 52 you also have plenty of leadway to open up the cockpit with a little longer stem. It's awfully hard to shorten the 54 though, and IMO a stem less than 100mm makes the bike really twitchy. You've already basically said you would have to use a really short stem on the 54 for it to work, and IMO you do not want to do that. I think the optimum stem lengths are 100-130mm. My 52 is perfect with a 110mm stem, 84 flipped upside down, with 20mm of spacers. Puts me in a good aero position but still plenty comfortable for 3+ hour rides. I'm 34 years old with a history of 1 lumbar disc fusion and 1 discectomy at a different lumbar level.

As has already been said, a good fitter is your best bet. With that said, based on the information you've given us, if you get a Tarmac, I would advise a 52.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Not trying to be critical because your advice to the OP (IMO) is on track, but your understanding of geo and the conclusions you draw are off the mark.

_Frame reach _is dictated by STA and effective TT length. You disregard the effect of STA in your post, thus draw the wrong conclusions. For example, if you have a bike with a STA of 74.7 and ETT of 529, and a bike with a STA of 73.7 and ETT of 539, they have the same reach. So your seeing the Trek's ETT of 529 and the Tarmac's of 537 without considering STA gets you the wrong answer. Both bikes have essentially the same reach, all else being equal (such as stem lengths). 

Same for the example you give using the C'dale. The C'dales geo is_ very _close to the Tarmacs (closer in fact, than the Trek), so no way is a 54 C'dale the equivalent of a 52 Tarmac. They're sized essentially the same. Check the geo charts:

http://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaen...d/Six/Details/1240-0RSX5D_0RSX5C-Six-Carbon-5

Yes, taller HT's shorten reach, but only marginally. Primarily they change_ frame stack_, so going to a larger frame lengthens a riders reach and raises the bars (all else being equal). Thus, the compromises people face when deciding between two frame sizes. Smaller size, less reach, larger drop to bars. Larger size, longer reach, smaller drop to bars.

I'm also not following how the 52 has room for much more adjustment because you can (theoretically) run 40mm's of spacers. It's actually easier to _lower_ bar height on today's road bikes than it is to raise it (without resorting to flipping stems up). And steerer tube length may preclude someone from adding that many spacers.

Again, not trying to be critical and you're entitled to your opinions, but it's important to clarify some misleading statements.

To the OP: Don't let this side conversation dissuade you from your plans. I think they're good ones and agree that working with your LBS and a knowledgeable fitter is the best course of action.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

i love a healthy discussion and it's great learning 

i do tend to think that w/ a 52 i can tweak with the fit a little bit more than a 54 since the 54 is a little out the outside of my fit range (based on what i've tried so far). 

Tonight whilst i was on my roubaix spinning away on my trainer i really have a lot of time to think about it and how comfortable i am on the bike versus how i felt when i was sitting on the 52 tarmac...A LOT more comfortable on the 52 LOL Maybe it was psychological


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

foofighter said:


> i love a healthy discussion and it's great learning
> 
> *i do tend to think that w/ a 52 i can tweak with the fit a little bit more than a 54 since the 54 is a little out the outside of my fit range *(based on what i've tried so far).
> 
> Tonight whilst i was on my roubaix spinning away on my trainer i really have a lot of time to think about it and how comfortable i am on the bike versus how i felt when i was sitting on the 52 tarmac...A LOT more comfortable on the 52 LOL Maybe it was psychological


Ut oh, thinking while spinning on the trainer. God only knows where that could lead!  

I don't disagree that _for you _(for a variety of reasons) the 52cm frame size might get you closer to an optimal fit, then you tweak to attain it. That's the goal for any good fitter - get as close as possible with size, then tweak fit. 

What I offered in regards to the question of the 52 having more flexibility in adjustment at the bars (than the 54) was meant generally speaking, thus my comment to you to not let the discussion dissuade you from your plans.


----------



## bikeosprey (Sep 20, 2008)

I like smaller frames with a bit longer stem..
Don't most pros go to smaller frames, lighter, sometimes stiffer, and with long stems?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bikeosprey said:


> I like smaller frames with a bit longer stem..
> Don't most pros go to smaller frames, lighter, sometimes stiffer, and with long stems?


If it works well for you and you prefer a smaller frame/ longer stem there's nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't go too long or front/ rear weight distribution will be adversely affected. And _needing_ one (as opposed to _wanting_ one) is an indicator of the need for a larger size/ different geo.

With the state of the art (especially in regards to CF technology) it's somewhat irrelevant to say that a smaller frame is lighter or stiffer. Almost all pro bikes are at the International Cycling Union (UCI) weight limit of (IIRC) 15.3 lbs. - and they usually have to ADD weight to the bike to get there - so downsizing frame size for weights sake isn't necessary. And because some (not all) pro bikes aren't what you and I buy, stiffness vs frame size is irrelevant as well. Many pro frames have special layups to boost stiffness in key areas.

Beyond all that, I wouldn't follow how pro's set their bikes up because I'm not one, but if you share their flexibility/ fitness level, feel free.


----------



## bikeosprey (Sep 20, 2008)

I personally like smaller frames over larger ones, I find them more responsive, slightly stiffer , and I like the longer reach with my torso. These are short answers and comments to long discussions. I really do not see reasons to go to a larger fame over a smaller one if you can fit on both, unless you want a longer wheelbase for comfort. If you compare a 60 to a 52, to exaggerate the point, the 60 is sure to be less responsive, heavier, more flex and whippier. Would it be a lot, depends are how sensitive you are to these things.
Notice that frames have gotten smaller over the past 30 years I have been ridding, I used to ride 56 and 57, and once in a while a 58, now 54 and 55 is the size. Another long discussion.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bikeosprey said:


> I personally like smaller frames over larger ones, I find them more responsive, slightly stiffer , and I like the longer reach with my torso. These are short answers and comments to long discussions. I really do not see reasons to go to a larger fame over a smaller one if you can fit on both, unless you want a longer wheelbase for comfort. If you compare a 60 to a 52, to exaggerate the point,* the 60 is sure to be less responsive, heavier, more flex and whippier.* Would it be a lot, depends are how sensitive you are to these things.
> Notice that frames have gotten smaller over the past 30 years I have been ridding, I used to ride 56 and 57, and once in a while a 58, now 54 and 55 is the size. Another long discussion.


Nothing wrong with discussion, and sometimes there's no clearcut right or wrong to either 'argument', more, food for thought.

Generally speaking, I agree that someone between sizes might benefit from going with the smaller frame, but_ all _the changes (from the larger size) may not be positive. For example, sizing down normally means the rider just lost about 2 cm's of HT length, possibly necessitating an adjustment to saddle to bar drop (flipped up stem/ more spacers - not always possible). Conversely, someone that can ride the next frame size up (thus is ok with the extended reach) has somewhat better options for adjusting saddle to bar drop (more aggressive stem angle/ less spacers - both easily accomplished). 

I don't agree with your bolded statement. It may have been true 'back in the day', but with steel tubing thicknesses varying based on sizing and CF technology accomplishing the same with changes to CF layups, your 'argument' IMO is no longer true - at least in no discernable way.

I'm not sure I agree that frame sizes have gotten smaller over the years, either. Maybe if you look at compact geo in specific ways, it may, but in reality the compacts are not any different from traditional geo, except that they'll better suite someone with shorter legs/ longer torso because of the somewhat lower standover (sloping TT).

Also, the number attached to frame sizes is near meaningless, because there are no standards for measurement between brands and sometimes models. Example: I take an XS in a Ridley, a 54 in a Trek Madone and my '85 Bianchi was a 52. While all geo numbers are important, with todays arbitrary sizing, it really comes down to STA, effective TT (determining frame reach) along with HT length, rather than ST length.


----------



## bikeosprey (Sep 20, 2008)

You buy your big frames, I will buy my small.
Enjoy.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bikeosprey said:


> You buy your big frames, I will buy my small.
> Enjoy.


I do neither. I buy a frame size closest to my requirements, then tweak fit from there. I suggest others do the same, because it increases the odds of obtaining optimal fit, IME.

If OTOH a cyclist isn't wll versed in bike fit/ geo, then I suggest they work through a reputable LBS.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

I've had an SL3 on order for a few weeks now. i've been riding a 52cm Tarmac Comp for the past 2 and a half years. Naturally I ordered a 52cm SL3. But this thread has had me really paying attention to my bike size. I've remeasured my height and am 5'8" and 5/8". Inseam 30.5-31 inches. My current setup has 7cm saddle to bar drop, 110mm stem with my saddle 3/4 rearward on a 21mm setback post. I have been convinced i was on the right size frame.

This post prompted me to spend the past week trying 54cm tarmac frames. initially I just knew it was too big for me. I felt stretched out. While in the saddle I would look down and see this LONG top tube (which was really only 1cm longer than my current bike). Cranks are 172.5 vs the 170s I'm on right now. I just knew the 54 was just too big for me. 

Then I started getting relaxed on the bike. Stood up and sprinted. Got in the drops. All of a sudden I realized this bike actually felt better. My brain was telling me it shouldn't, telling me it just had to be too big, telling me i was now driving a tank when I was used to driving a nimble ferrari. But I got all that out of my brain and paid attention to how it really felt underneath me. 

I realized that over the past 3 years of riding i have become more flexible and now require a different fit than when i bought my first bike. I have been making the 52cm frame work by stretching everything on it, but no doubt I should be on a 54cm bike now. At the end of the day, it really does feel better. My SL3 order has officially been changed to a 54cm frame. 

Thanks for this thread or I'd be out several thousand dollars for a bike too small for me. Two guys at the shop who did my fitting agreed I "COULD" make the 52 work, but both agreed they really thought I should be on a 54cm Tarmac and would end up being happier once I get accustomed to it. I think they are right.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

that's awesome! glad this post indirectly helped you out! you're right though your mind does play tricks on you. when i tried the 52 it felt weird to me too but then again i've been riding a 54 that had me stretched out for a couple years so i didnt know any better. But after riding a 52 for a bit set up a little to my liking it starting feel a lot better.

Good luck with your new ride!


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

foofighter said:


> that's awesome! glad this post indirectly helped you out! you're right though your mind does play tricks on you. when i tried the 52 it felt weird to me too but then again i've been riding a 54 that had me stretched out for a couple years so i didnt know any better. But after riding a 52 for a bit set up a little to my liking it starting feel a lot better.
> 
> Good luck with your new ride!



Seems my issue was the reverse. I've been riding a 52cm and have now realized that I needed to be stretched out more. Even though technically I can "make a 52 work," it's just not optimal for me. 

It seems everyone wants to tell you to go with the smallest size you can get on and then setback the seatpost and lengthen the stem until you make the bike fit you. I've realized this is really not a sensible way to do things. It might give you a bike that mimics the pros (you'll get 3 feet of seatpost, saddle to bar drop of 15cm and a super long 90 degree stem), but it's not practical for most of us...and now I think I've finally realized that.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

i'd be curious what your measurements come out to if you did the competitivecyclist fit thing like i did. You probably have a longer torso or arms than me who physiology is weird


----------



## tomato (May 16, 2002)

I have the exact same problem: long torso/short limbs and I ride a size between 52 and 54. I recently purchased a 54 (non-TEAM sizing) SL2 frame after having discussed the matter with Specialized at their concept store in Tokyo. My reasoning for my choice may differ from your purposes but basically it came down to the following:

1.) The cockpit felt cramped on the 52 in a normal riding position. This means that it would be even more cramped in a lower/aero position. The smaller frame cancels out the possibility of lower positioning on the bike.

2.) Buy the 54 and run a shorter stem or buy the 52 and run a longer stem. Factory setups in Japan come with a 110 mm stem on both bike sizes. I was told by Specialized that any stem longer 120 mm would probably result in some loss of handling. To them it was better to run a shorter stem on the 54.

3.) They claimed that a longer wheelbase would provide better power transfer--and the 54 has a longer wheelbase. Whether that is true or not I have no idea, but that factor was mentioned to me.

If you are serious about the bike, a good shop should be willing to work with you on the issue and swap out stems as necessary.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

I wonder if the team sizing 54 feels smaller or larger than the non-team sizing 54?


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

The only real difference between the regular and Team geo is the headtube length being 15mm different


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

wetpaint said:


> The only real difference between the regular and Team geo is the headtube length being 15mm different


 yeah, but that could make a big difference in fit. i am currently trying to figure out how much impact it is going to make for me.


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

the 52 cm frame has a headtube length of 120mm, going to the standard 54 would increase the headtube length by 25mm, going to a team geo frame would increase the headtube length by 10mm. It probably comes down to how many spacers you are running now


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

IAmSpecialized said:


> yeah, but that could make a big difference in fit. i am currently trying to figure out how much impact it is going to make for me.


It's pretty straightforward. No matter the frame size, saddle height is a constant, so to maintain saddle to bar drop on your new bike, delete the number of spacers that equal the difference in the new bikes added HT length (or change stem angle if there are less than the needed spacers) or a combination of both.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tomato said:


> I have the exact same problem: long torso/short limbs and I ride a size between 52 and 54. I recently purchased a 54 (non-TEAM sizing) SL2 frame after having discussed the matter with Specialized at their concept store in Tokyo. My reasoning for my choice may differ from your purposes but basically it came down to the following:
> 
> 1.) The cockpit felt cramped on the 52 in a normal riding position. This means that it would be even more cramped in a lower/aero position. The smaller frame cancels out the possibility of lower positioning on the bike.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I have to question some of this reasoning. For example:

#1. If anything, a smaller frame can put the rider in a more aggressive position simply because the HT length is shorter (than the larger frame size), thus allowing for a larger saddle to bar drop. I'm not arguing that the 52 would be a better choice for you, simply your (or maybe the concept stores) reasoning.

#2. Questionable. I'm skeptical that a longer than 120mm stem is going to have a negative effect on handling, but do agree that (generally speaking) staying in the 100 - 120mm range is desireable. And going beyond that range (either direction) IMO raises a flag that the rider isn't sized optimally.

#3. This statement is too general to have any real value. It disregards a riders KOPS +/- and f/r weight distribution. Optimal fit for a given rider sets the stage for better power transfer, not wheelbase.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> It's pretty straightforward. No matter the frame size, saddle height is a constant, so to maintain saddle to bar drop on your new bike, delete the number of spacers that equal the difference in the new bikes added HT length (or change stem angle if there are less than the needed spacers) or a combination of both.



Great. This might cause another problem for me then. I'm CURRENTLY on a 52cm frame with 120mm headtub with 20mm of spacers b/c my saddle to bar drop is 7.5mm because my seat tube is 120mm. WIthout spacers it would essentially be 10mm. My back would be almost flat even on the hoods.

The team geometry has a head tube of 130mm. So, even with the supplied 20mm spacers for this bike, my saddle to bar drop will only change 10mm? Great <sarcasm>

Also, for comparison, if you take a 54cm Tarmac frame in "standard" geometry which has a 145mm HT, and compare it to a "team" geometry with a 130mm HT, how is the rest of the geometry effected. I don't understand how one can simply change HT length without it affecting the rest of the geometry. Wouldn't the angles at the Headtube/downtube/toptube junction change, effectively lengthening or shortening the TT or DT? 

Forgive me for sounding stupid. My question comes from a practical standpoint b/c I have ordered a 54cm SL3 module which has team geometry with 130mm HT (I've been riding a 52 for 3 years). However, I'm only able to demo a STANDARD 54 which has a 145mm HT. I'm not able to ride a team geometry 54 b/c of the lack of availability. My fear is that whichever way I feel on the demo bike, it will not feel the same on the team geometry 54. So am I really doing myself any good to ride the demo bike. See my problem?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

IAmSpecialized said:


> Great. This might cause another problem for me then. I'm CURRENTLY on a 52cm frame with 120mm headtub with 20mm of spacers b/c my saddle to bar drop is 7.5mm because my seat tube is 120mm. WIthout spacers it would essentially be 10mm. My back would be almost flat even on the hoods.
> 
> The team geometry has a head tube of 130mm. So, even with the supplied 20mm spacers for this bike, my saddle to bar drop will only change 10mm? Great <sarcasm>
> 
> ...


You're not 'sounding stupid', but seriously, if I were in your position I would not order a bike until I was confident I had fit issues sorted out. Unless the 54 with standard geo was set up to emulate the 54 with team geo, you are wasting time demoing that bike. 

From your post, I think you're misleading yourself by miscalculating saddle height _and _carrying some measurements over to the 'new' 54. Bottom line is that if your 7.5cm bar drop needs to be maintained, that needs to determined because (I think) you and your LBS are confident that saddle height is easily maintained.

Also from your post, I suspect you aren't measuring saddle height correctly (which will affect calculations for bar drop). I say this because you mentioned 120mm's of seat post (showing?), but that's irrelevant. Measure from center of BB to top of saddle, parallel with the seat *tube*.

To answer your question re: changes in other areas being affected by the shorter HT, yes, a couple of other areas are very minimally affected. If you look at the geo chart, you'll see that wheelbase and standover change, because the junction points for the HT change. But considering the magnitude of those changes, don't fret over them, because your fit won't be affected. 

I think if the 52cm Tarmac fit you well but it has been determined that you'll benefit from a slightly longer TT, you should focus your attentions on saddle to bar drop and determine whether the standard 54 or team geo will get you to 7.5 cm's. 

If you think you'll be using the same angle stem on the 54, on your 52 measure from the bottom of the HT (just above the fork crown) to the top cap - parallel with the HT, then calculate out what the team geo_ total _HT length would be. From there, you can determine if the same (or less) spacers will be required to maintain drop. This should answer whether or not the team geo is a good choice for you.


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> You're not 'sounding stupid', but seriously, if I were in your position I would not order a bike until I was confident I had fit issues sorted out. Unless the 54 with standard geo was set up to emulate the 54 with team geo, you are wasting time demoing that bike.
> 
> From your post, I think you're misleading yourself by miscalculating saddle height _and _carrying some measurements over to the 'new' 54. Bottom line is that if your 7.5cm bar drop needs to be maintained, that needs to determined because (I think) you and your LBS are confident that saddle height is easily maintained.
> 
> Also from your post, I suspect you aren't measuring saddle height correctly (which will affect calculations for bar drop). I say this because you mentioned 120mm's of seat post (showing?), but that's irrelevant. Measure from center of BB to top of saddle, parallel with the seat *tube*



The 120mm seattube was a TYPO. I was trying to point out that my saddle to bar drop was because of my 120mm HEADTUBE combine with a good deal of seatpost which comes from a frame that is too small accomodating my 31 -31.5 inch inseam. Sorry about that typo.

I was fitted today to a standard geo 54cm demo bike. I pointed out the difference in team geo and standard geo to my fitter and he then spent almost 2 hours between setting up the bike to emulate the team geo and then fit me to the bike. He understood my concern with demoing a standard geo bike in light of purchasing a module that is team geo. He did an excellent job getting it setup.

I now have the bike for 3 days to demo.

*INITIAL IMPRESSION:* I put 2 hours on the bike when I got home. How the hell have I been riding a 52cm frame??????? In the shop, on a trainer, the 54 felt like I was stretched a bit. It looked big under me, felt big. Once I put it on the road and just decided to ride...it became like a little piece of heaven. Not only have I needed a 54cm frame...I'm pretty sure after my 2 hours today that I'll need to put a 110mm stem on it. It's amazing how much better you feel when you let yourself start to stretch out. The weirdest thing is that I have decided to add a couple centimeters of saddle to bar drop by flipping the stem so it's now -16. It has MORE drop than I was riding on my 52cm frame and I am actually MORE comfortable. I also think going up to 172.5mm cranks was beneficial. I was not sure I would like it, or that my knees would like it, but whether the "charts" say I should be on 172.5 or not, I think I like them a little better than the 170s. I've only lost a few (4-6 I believe) rpms in my cadence.

I'm going to ride for 3-4 hours tomorrow and really start paying attention to the details.

*TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER: *I've read a lot on the board. I know there are a lot of folks with our measurements who swear the 52 is the best choice for them, and maybe it is. But after my experience this week and now today, I would suggest (as I think has already been mentioned here) that you try to spend a little time on a 54cm frame before ruling it out. See if you can get a demo for a day. You might be very surprised. I'm sure as hell glad I've learned I needed a 54 before paying for an SL3 that is actually too small for me.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

thanks. I know the Tarmac's geo is different from the Roubaix (that's what i'm currently riding) it's 54 and I agree that i could go either way if i went w/ a 90mm stem because right now just my hands on the flat part of the bar as it transitions to the section where the hood is my arms are at full straight almost locked, as you can imagine after 50 miles my elbows are pretty sore...I can definitely benefit from a shorter stem.

Lots to consider


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

foofighter said:


> ...where the hood is my arms are at full straight almost locked, as you can imagine after 50 miles my elbows are pretty sore...I can definitely benefit from a shorter stem.
> 
> Lots to consider



You might have a shorter torso than me, or your arms might just be shorter than mine. This time around, I'm learning A LOT about bike fitment...so many things I never knew or really considered.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

im very jacked up


----------



## IAmSpecialized (Jul 16, 2008)

I just got back from 4 hours on the test/demo bike, a 54cm Tarmac Expert outfitted with Ultegra 6700.

No doubt in my mind now that not only do I definitely need a 54, I need to lengthen the stem to 110mm. There is no doubt about it. The 54 feels sooooooooo much better. I would not have thought so from just a few minutes on a trainer in the store because I actually felt like it was big for me in the store...but once I've put some time on the 54 I now have no idea how I've made the 52 work for me for over 2 years.

This thread is what prompted me to really start questioning my bike size. Specifically, PJ352's posts got me really thinking. All I can say is I'm so glad this thread was started b/c otherwise I would be shelling out $3000 for a SL3 module that I now know is too small for me.

Thanks to everyone for this thread.


----------

