# A Tough Decision



## SeaRay (Oct 26, 2011)

Well, I once again put myself in a position where I cannot make a simple decision. My LBS is currently trying to clear out all of their 2011's and I have narrowed five bikes down to two but am at a stand still.

Got a great deal on a 2011 Tarmac Comp Ultegra (SL2) but then ran across an even better deal on a 2011 Tarmac Pro (SL3). For only $1000 more I can have the Pro and get carbon cranks, bars, Roval wheels, etc. but it is a double.....never rode a double (aside from a quick test ride on this bike) and not sure how I will adjust to the change from a compact.

The Comp is a great deal as well, but is only SL2 - not that I am any great racer nor will I ever be, just not sure if I want to invest in a SL2 if a SL3 is so close.

Any advise?


----------



## JaPPster (Jun 3, 2011)

go with sl3


----------



## williamguy (Jan 20, 2012)

Are you comfortable with paying the extra $1000? Because for that extra you seem to be getting a lot of bang for your buck. Do you use the low gears currently on your bike? If you do use the 'granny gears' go for the SL2, IMO if you have to use your lowest gears on a triple then you do not require the made for performance features in the SL3. If you still can't choose, just go for the one with the coolest colours


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

These kind of decisions have clear answers based upon your priority. Since you are considering the Pro, you have the money. Of course many of us think long and hard before we spend another 1 large.
An average cyclist like most of us would be happy with either bike. But...most of us...me included, would prefer the SL3 over SL2. Where the distinction becomes more blurred is when deciding between SL3 and SL4. Many don't feel any stiffness difference between these bikes...nor fractional weight save..and even the touted more compliant ride of the SL4 is probably hard to feel. But the design difference of the SL2 and SL3 is more pronounced. All said...and this comes up in other threads where somebody is allegiant to a particular crankset....bottom line is the frameset>>groupset>>crankset.
That is the pecking order. The frame determines the complexion of the bike. All top groupsets are fine with a slight ergo difference...and then it comes down to a crankset which 'can be easily changed.'
So my advice is..if you can afford it...by all means get the Pro. I just bought the Roubaix Pro in fact because I believe the Pro is the sweet spot for a decent amateur cyclist whether you choose the Tarmac or Roubaix. The S-works which is another grand, if for the uber serious cyclist and honestly if that good, hopefully somebody will sponsor you to pay the $3K+ for the frameset. So it comes down to diminishing return.

OK...what are your crank options?...many actually. I haven't changed rings on a Specialized crank which may have a proprietary BCD...but if the case, you will get very good money for selling that crank on ebay and then simply get a compact equivalent...cost will be about a wash or a small investment to make the switch. Learn to sell on ebay would be my suggestion if you are into cycling. One can recycle parts through there which dramatically lowers the cost of the hobby if you learn to spin a wrench.
As to the crank...if you don't need a lot of climbing gear inches...you can paste on a smaller big ring onto a full size crank...say a 50t ring which makes a full size double a whole more usable for an average watt guy. I run 50/38 on a Campy compact which I love. Perfect for flat land riding with rollers. You can do the same with a full size crank...by going 50/39...change big ring and keep the small ring...and maybe run a 12-28 or 11-28 rear cassette.
Bottom line is...the frame always trumps the cranks on the bike as gearing is easy to change and I always change gearing to meet my individual needs.
Hope that helps.


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

roadworthy said:


> OK...what are your crank options?...many actually. I haven't changed rings on a Specialized crank which may have a proprietary BCD...but if the case, you will get very good money for selling that crank on ebay and then simply get a compact equivalent...cost will be about a wash or a small investment to make the switch.


Specialized cranks have 130, 110 bcd. 

Check with the shop about switching the crank to a compact if you don't think you'd like the standard crank.


----------



## SeaRay (Oct 26, 2011)

Thank you everybody for your feedback. 

Yes, I am getting a ton more for only $1k, so I am leaning toward the Pro, but I currently use the low gears on my Allez compact. I am heading back to the LBS today to discuss my options; getting the SL3 and putting some extra cash into a compact crank may be the best idea......


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SeaRay said:


> Well, I once again put myself in a position where I cannot make a simple decision. My LBS is currently trying to clear out all of their 2011's and I have narrowed five bikes down to two but am at a stand still.
> 
> Got a great deal on a 2011 Tarmac Comp Ultegra (SL2) but then ran across an even better deal on a 2011 Tarmac Pro (SL3). For only $1000 more I can have the Pro and get carbon cranks, bars, Roval wheels, etc. but it is a double.....never rode a double (aside from a quick test ride on this bike) and not sure how I will adjust to the change from a compact.
> 
> ...


 I would save the $1000 and get the Tarmac Comp with Ultegra. Ultegra performance is so high your not going to notice the difference between it and Dura Ace, but you will notice a huge part replacement cost difference when things begin to fail. And Ultegra is only 300 grams heavier...weight you're never going to notice. Save the $1000 and use it for debt payoff or go on a vacation with your new bike.

As far as going to compact you're not going to be noticing any huge difference. The double will allow you to have a better top speed gearing. A double compact is a best for racing or training with a lot of uphill riding and or a lot of turns, the kind of riding where you would never go fast but need rapid acceleration. BUT, the newer expanded cassette ranges will make up for some of the top speed loss. So what does all that mean? Nothing! you're not going to notice much if anything.


----------



## Devastazione (Dec 8, 2011)

get the Pro,you'll love the double !!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SeaRay said:


> Thank you everybody for your feedback.
> 
> Yes, I am getting a ton more for only $1k, so I am leaning toward the Pro, but I currently use the low gears on my Allez compact. I am heading back to the LBS today to discuss my options; getting the SL3 and putting some extra cash into a compact crank may be the best idea......


The LBS will try to talk you into the more expensive bike, I've never known any LBS where a person was on the fence between a bike with a 500 or 1000 dollar difference convince the person to get the cheapest bike! But good luck. If you have the money and the $1000 is like pocket change to most people then get the more expensive bike because you won't miss the $1000 anyways!!


----------



## Cyclin Dan (Sep 24, 2011)

On my Shimano bikes I run a standard double (53/39) and 11/28 cassette. I do a ton of climbing, it works out great. 

Trying to run a standard double with an 11/23 is a different story. 

I agree with everyone else...get the SL3.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

froze said:


> I would save the $1000 and get the Tarmac Comp with Ultegra. Ultegra performance is so high your not going to notice the difference between it and Dura Ace, but you will notice a huge part replacement cost difference when things begin to fail. And Ultegra is only 300 grams heavier...weight you're never going to notice. Save the $1000 and use it for debt payoff or go on a vacation with your new bike.
> 
> As far as going to compact you're not going to be noticing any huge difference. The double will allow you to have a better top speed gearing. A double compact is a best for racing or training with a lot of uphill riding and or a lot of turns, the kind of riding where you would never go fast but need rapid acceleration. BUT, the newer expanded cassette ranges will make up for some of the top speed loss. So what does all that mean? Nothing! you're not going to notice much if anything.


Completely disagree with you last paragraph. Gearing transforms a bike. That said gearing is simple to change...either swapping cranks, chainrings or cassette.
OP...I suggested the Pro earlier and still do and further what I suggest is as mentioned,
if you get the Pro, don't swap the crank initially. Change the rear cassette to 11 or 12-28.
If you do the quick arithmetic, a full size double with this cassette gives you pretty generous climbing gear inches. The pitfall of a compact is the huge gear inch gulf between rings...why I run 50/38 as I prefer a tighter spaced cassette in back.
PS: If you go to more cog teeth in back you likely will need to add a link to your chain depending on how its sized.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

roadworthy said:


> Completely disagree with you last paragraph. Gearing transforms a bike. T.


Transforms it? See: COMPACT CRANKS vs STANDARD CRANKS: gearing implications » Miscellaneous » Steve Hogg's Bike Fitting Website In fact overall the standard gearing is actually better then compact! Read the site.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

froze said:


> Transforms it? See: COMPACT CRANKS vs STANDARD CRANKS: gearing implications » Miscellaneous » Steve Hogg's Bike Fitting Website In fact overall the standard gearing is actually better then compact! Read the site.


The article is largely BS. I could write a better article but won't take the time.
A couple of things to keep it simple:
- Bicycle gearing is based upon the strength of the rider and the terrain. The average rider can't push a 53t past the middle cog in a 10s rear cassette. That is a lot of wasted gear inches.

- Most amateurs push too much gear. This is why there are so many knee injuries...that and poor pedaling mechanics. The average cyclist should try to spin a higher cadence in a shorter gear which is promoted by a compact which puts less pressure on the knees with a less than perfect pedal stroke.

- There is a benefit to a std crankset that should be commented on and will say this is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of gearing. The gear spacing of a std double is excellent. There are many redundant gear inches between a 39t and 53t rings because of closeness of spacing. Most don't know why redundant gears matter. Its because you end up shifting the front derailleur less if there is gear inch overlap in each ring which makes riding a bike a whole lot easier. So when is gear redundancy bad? When you need more shorter gear inches for climbing. This is when you need to space gearing out. Enter a compact with 50t/34t. Very wide gearing for climbing and yet enough legs for 35mph descending. Why is a compact then a pain to ride at times on flat land or rollers? If you don't need the short gear inches for climbing...change the inner ring as there is insufficient redundant gear inches with a 50/34t compact. This is why I ride a 50/38 compact. Almost the same gear inches...just shy of a std. double inner ring...and yet a whole lot more usable big ring...a ring I need for descending and or when laying down the watts on the flats where I use the small side of the cassette in back. Plenty of redundant gear inches with a 12-25 in back with relatively close spacing...something you lose with a 53/39 and 11-28. 
With a 50/38 and 12-25, I can ride the small ring to 22mph or so...generally where I shift if racing, or a fair amount of the time. When racing, a 38t inner ring is more usable than a std compact 34t ring and yet a bit better for climbing than a 39t. Once onto the big ring of 50t, I use the whole ring in a variety of conditions.

So gearing comes down to redundant gears so each ring is more usable for less wasted shifting between rings i.e. in the 17-22mph zone the average cyclst rides at and yet both rings are used in their entirety. With a 53t, most never see the outboard side of the rear cassette unless descending...a waste.

Lastly, as I stated earlier...a good approach if a bike comes with a std double is...don't change out the crank...change the big ring to something smaller. With 26t cog in back a 39t front ring of a std double lets the average guy climb most stuff.

Only in the mountains is a 50/34 a better combo where you have to live with less redundant gears. A good crank for the mountains for the average guy? A triple.
Why does a triple still have a following for mountain and hilly riding? Redundant gear inches and less shifting and close gear spacing. The gears are there when you need them...3 rings sees to that and the 42t middle ring is hugely versatile for both speed and climbing.
I have ridden all of them and that is my experience.


----------



## hd tech (Aug 15, 2010)

Go for the SL3 if you can swing it. You are getting a better bike. I think the frame is a better grade of carbon the SL2 is 8r and the SL3 is 10r.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

I'm not saying compacts are a bad idea, but to make a blanket statement that their the only right idea is wrong. And the site I gave says that! I use to live in So Calif and rode, trained and raced the mountains of the area and none of us EVER had a compact because they weren't popular yet!! Nor did we use triples. Funny, I don't recall knee problems except for a few of those that ran too and had questionable knees to begin with. I don't understand information that says only standard gearing is for the very fittest...it makes no sense based on my experience and a slew of others that raced in the late 70's through to the mid 80's...and I'm not talking pro racing, I only did Cat 3, but we all started lower then that obviously, and as such we were not the fittest. And of course you can go before the 70's when they raced heavier bikes with non compact gears and less gears and the race, especially the TDF was more difficult then todays TDF!!! I guess they were men back then.

Maybe there's some sort of gearing science that I don't know about that if we had back in the 70's and 80's we could have been faster? I kind of doubt it, since the science of gears was well known back then and yet they didn't think about compacts? Before you go off telling me about TA and Sugino had compact's in the 80's yes I know that, but I knew no one who used them, their popularity was almost non-existent, and in fact they were considered touring gears and the Sugino was actually called the Mighty Tour 110 something or another. It wasn't until 2003 that Tyler Hamilton used a compact in the Tour.

And speaking of the science, though I lack some modern science and just thinking gears in generar, wouldn't it be better to have a compact by blending a 11/25 cassette with 50/34 chain rings for the intermediate rider? It would still be easier, if that's what you're looking for, then a 12/27 cassette with a standard 53/39 chain ring yet still give you a very good top end. Or am I off base here?


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Froze,
I see you aren't a newb now that you have explained yourself a bit. Racers are a bit different than the average recreational rider. Racers are generally stronger and can push a bigger gear. Compacts are just proportionally sized down for a weaker rider. One of reasons they struggled in popularity btw is more about stigma than advantage. The same dynamic applies to average 40 year olds riding 5" of saddle to bar drop...they do it because they believe it is more 'racer' like.

Per your last paragraph...the problem with a compact isn't the net gearing which again will work better for the average cyclist...its the lack of gear redundancy that a std double has. This is what makes a std double easier to ride for many if they don't need the climbing inches. The problem is the average guy will rarely use the big ring unless descending. I will say back to your racer point, if you can sprint at 1200 watts, you don't need a compact for flat riding...you can ride anything and a std double will be fine. Bottom line is gearing should be proportional to rider strength and terrain ridden. If riding flat lands a 50/34 can be downright annoying because of lack of gear redundancy...each ring has more limited range. This is why 50/36 compacts are popular for flatter riding...and I prefer 50/38 which is my gearing of choice. As to combining a more stretched out cassette in back which is common in mtbing for example...the issue there is you now lose tuning just the right gear...the reason that 10 and now 11 cog rear cassettes came into be. Some will argue that even riding 11/28 with 10 cogs in back is tight enough spacing. I know when I ride my 1 X 9 29er with 11-34 in back and only 9 speed, the jump in gearing from cog to cog is more pronounced which comes full circle back to your point of racing a decade or two ago. You don't miss generally what you don't have.
Cheers.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Roadworthy:

Thanks for the explanation, I'm beginning to understand more as I read your posts and internet sites. 

What do you think of the gearing I was proposing with a 11/25 cassette and a 50/34 chain ring? Perhaps vs your gearing set up with the 50/38?

By the way, there's snow on the ground here, it's 37 degrees outside, and it lightening and thundering out as I write this at 2:10am...I find that a bit odd to have thunder and lightening going on while it's so cold and snow around.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

between the sl2 and sl3, i'd say go for the sl3 because it's better and if you're looking to sell it, you'll get a lot better value. sl2 is just so yesteryear that you'll get peanuts when you sell.

but if i were in your shoes, i'd stick with what you have, work up your leg muscles, then upgrade bike. Once you have some leg muscles and stamina, you may not like neither bike! Get some leg muscles and go standard crank if you don't live in a too hilly areas.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

froze said:


> Roadworthy:
> 
> Thanks for the explanation, I'm beginning to understand more as I read your posts and internet sites.
> 
> ...


Weird weather throughout the country to be sure. Can't wait for spring.
The whole issue with a 50/34 is the big gap between the rings. A good way to think of gearing is...chainrings are like the vertical we ride. Flatter the land, closer to the same size the chainrings can be and yet still have enough gearing. Big peaks and valleys?...you need the diversity of 50/34. 50/11 will get you going pretty fast down hill...can still power the cranks at 40mph. So the question then becomes, what size small chainring do you need for climbing? For flat land rollers...a 38t is fine...even with a 25t biggest rear cog. A 50/38 is like a scaled down std double only with even closer spacing between the chainrings which makes each ring more usable.
Give it a try. If you have a std. 53/39, pick up a new outer ring...they aren't expensive and run a 50/39...unless you feel you need the gear inches for descending. I generally don't descend faster than 40 mph where I live. Many amateurs choose to not power their cranks above 40 mph downhill anyway because of excessive speed.
A strong racer can can sustain 500 watts for a handful of minutes...maybe not Armstrong strong for 30 minutes ...can ride a full size double no problem but most of us aren't that strong and just wasting gears with a 53t big ring.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

That's the gear I ran was a 53 when I raced, but I raced a lot of mountain races and would use the final gear pedaling down hill over 40 mph; I was young and excessive speed didn't bother me the least bit. I still use those gears on that same rig I raced on, it doesn't really bother me, but then again I not as strong due to age and lack of riding time and I live in Northern Indiana where it's mostly flat, so I never use the last 2 gears on the 7 speed freewheel I have on that bike.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

I usually use a 53-39 with a 21-11 cassette. I guess it's the highest gearing you can get (without going into TT stuff). We have lots of short sharp hills round here (200m @10%, or 4km @5%), and that gearing works for me.

BUT, in the Pyrenees last September I put on a 28-12, and it was only JUST easy enough for the Tourmalet, etc. (16km @ 8% ish), especially when riding all day long.

In July I will do the Etape in the Pyrenees. 200km and 5 cols, Aspin, Tourm, Peyresourde, Aubisque, etc. It's gonna be super tough, and I hope I can finish it well.

I'm hesitating to put on my compact chainrings. I think I might need them on this one, although I never used them before. If I did, I may then be able to go with a 25-11 cassette. Opinions?

In any case, I think it's essential to retain an 11 tooth cassette gear, as nothing beats flying down mountains at 70km/h + !!!


----------



## SeaRay (Oct 26, 2011)

Thank you everybody for all your feedback - it is appreciated!

Just to let everybody know, I decided to get the SL3 Pro - just seemed like the better choice as far as "bang for the buck".

Turns out, the LBS ended up taking another $100 off the price - quite happy with the deal! Pictures to follow once I finish paying for it!

Thanks again.


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

this outcome was never really in doubt...congrats!


----------



## jeje91 (Sep 20, 2011)

Great, sl3 is a very very good (may be the best ;-) quality/price ratio


----------

