# new tarmac sl4 for 2012?



## JaPPster (Jun 3, 2011)

is it true? new s-works?


----------



## fritzbox (Mar 11, 2008)

JaPPster said:


> is it true? new s-works?


No :aureola:


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Why would they? The SL3 is a superb design in HUGE demand. I could see a mid cycle refresh, like what car manufacturers do..maybe adding internal routing or something. But a whole new design? Doesnt make sense at the moment.


----------



## diegogarcia (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes, its coming. Will be here for TDF. Revised layup, internal cabling. The 2011 Roubaix was the test bike for internal cabling and the SL4 will have it.


----------



## -dustin (Jan 11, 2009)

Seeing the new Amira, I can only hope that the Tarmac favors that of housing stop, as opposed to what the Roubaix and Venge use.


----------



## stantheman (Feb 18, 2011)

Official release is mid July, available in stores mid August


----------



## KiloRH (Jun 16, 2011)

Anyone known any specifics about the 12 Tarmac lineup? I'm hoping they continue the matte paint schemes but there are more SRAM options available. Crossing my fingers for a good looking SL2 w/ Force!


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

diegogarcia said:


> Yes, its coming. Will be here for TDF. Revised layup, internal cabling. The 2011 Roubaix was the test bike for internal cabling and the SL4 will have it.


And it will come down to the Pro level, but not the Expert. Just got a dealer advisory about a technical issue regarding a shim for the dropout on the "Tarmac Pro SL4,Expert SL3".


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

pdainsworth said:


> And it will come down to the Pro level, but not the Expert. *Just got a dealer advisory about a technical issue regarding a shim for the dropout *on the "Tarmac Pro SL4,Expert SL3".


Hmm... are you at liberty to offer just why there would be a need for a shim at a dropout??


----------



## -dustin (Jan 11, 2009)

Probably because it's too thin for a SRAM RD, such that the high limit screw doesn't actually haven any affect when the RD is in the smallest cog. Common enough that I have a stash of .5mm chainring bolt spacers, but apparently not common enough for Specialized to consider it when designing a der hanger.



> Affected 2012 bikes are:
> &#132; Roubaix SL3 Pro/Expert/Comp &#132;
> Tarmac SL4 Pro/Tarmac SL3 Expert &#132;
> Amira SL4 Pro size 51, 54, and 56 (other sizes have carbon dropout)


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

PJ352 said:


> Hmm... are you at liberty to offer just why there would be a need for a shim at a dropout??


Yup. There is need for a slim (.5mm) shim washer between the derailleur and the hanger to facilitate the derailleurs ability to hit the small cog. Also goes for the Roubaix, which apparently will be SL3 down to the Comp this year, and the Amria Pro.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

stantheman said:


> Official release is mid July, available in stores mid August


Order now so you can have yours by February. 

Ba bum pum


----------



## Wildcard (Apr 29, 2011)

Ultegra Di2 on the Pro?


----------



## lwrncc (Oct 7, 2010)

Tarmac SL4 Preview on Bikeradar - bikeradar.com/news/article/first-look-specialized-tarmac-sl4--30736


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/first-look-specialized-tarmac-sl4--30736


----------



## Wildcard (Apr 29, 2011)

That is one sweet looking bike, I know what my new bike is going to be as long as they flow it down to pro level.


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

Love the matte and gloss two-tone.


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

Wildcard said:


> That is one sweet looking bike, I know what my new bike is going to be as long as they flow it down to pro level.


It'll be a Pro this year.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Hollow carbon drop-outs?  Careful with those quick releases.


----------



## nismo73 (Jul 29, 2009)

So will the '12 Tarmac Expert be a SL3 or SL4? Hmmmmmm.....


----------



## KiloRH (Jun 16, 2011)

So sick! Hope this means I'm getting an sl3 instead of an sl2...


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

nismo73 said:


> So will the '12 Tarmac Expert be a SL3 or SL4? Hmmmmmm.....


If Spec stays consistent with their model lineup, I'm guessing the Pro and Expert will be SL4's. Below that, probably SL3's which (IMO) would mean that as long as they hold the line on price increases the Elite and Comps are going to be a lot of bike for the $$.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

ukbloke said:


> Hollow carbon drop-outs?  Careful with those quick releases.


Yeah, didnt like that either. One hamhanded wrench in an lbs and your frame is cooked. 

Overall, looks like a refinement of the SL3.


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

From thew information I have seen from Spec, the Expert will remain an SL3, and the Pro will be an SL4. It kind of makes sense... it always seemed like the Expert was a little too good a value. It made it tougher for people to justify the jump to the Pro.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

The question now is whether the Pro SL4 is going to be too good a value, and detract from the SWorks!

I think the reason for this is really Ultegra Di2 - this makes most sense at the Pro price-point and you've got to have the internal cable routing for a nice install.

That Bike Radar link has some very nice pictures (or bike p0rn as my wife puts it).


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

I've been toying with the idea of getting a Tarmac SL4 or a Roubaix Pro this year with Ultegra Di2. I keep thinking I'm gonna give it a year before I make the leap back to Shimano, though. I think I'll stick with the Red offering for one more year.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

Here is another link and story for the SL4. Interesting looking bike.

http://www.roadbikeaction.com/TDF-2011/content/272/4221/First-Look-Contadors-New-Specialized-Tarmac-SL4.html


----------



## Wildcard (Apr 29, 2011)

The internal cable routing looks so clean, not to keen on the Red though!!


----------



## Wildcard (Apr 29, 2011)

more great pics

http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/06/29...unveiled-contadors-ride-gets-lighter-stiffer/


----------



## vboy19 (Mar 24, 2008)

Sick pic!


----------



## terrain (Apr 19, 2009)

In my experience folks who want Sworks dont even consider pro. Sworks will contine to sell at their limited numbers when compared to models below.



ukbloke said:


> The question now is whether the Pro SL4 is going to be too good a value, and detract from the SWorks!
> 
> I think the reason for this is really Ultegra Di2 - this makes most sense at the Pro price-point and you've got to have the internal cable routing for a nice install.
> 
> That Bike Radar link has some very nice pictures (or bike p0rn as my wife puts it).


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

terrain said:


> In my experience folks who want Sworks dont even consider pro. Sworks will contine to sell at their limited numbers when compared to models below.


Statistically you may be right, but speaking for myself, although I _want_ an S-Works Tarmac frameset, my 'frugality'/ practicality have (thus far) prevented me from spending about $1k more to get ~5% 'more' (compared to the Pro). 

Agree that S-Works sales won't suffer, despite the sagging economies.


----------



## terrain (Apr 19, 2009)

Wildcard said:


> The internal cable routing looks so clean, not to keen on the Red though!!


agreed on not liking the red. The black di2 in that article looks nice.


----------



## JPFlores (Aug 6, 2011)

I just ordered a Pro SL4 Red. expected delivery is next week.

I test rode an 2011 S-Works Tarmac SL3 to verify the sizing. Honestly, the bike was amazing. But the money I saved in stepping "down" to a 2012 Pro allowed me to get a power meter. And I get the new SL4 frame. 

For the curious, here is the spec sheet:


Technical Specifications


FRAME	Specialized FACT 10r carbon, FACT IS construction, compact race design, Super Cobra 1-1/8" to 1-3/8" head tube, OSBB

REAR SHOCK 

FORK	Specialized FACT carbon, full monocoque, OS race for 1-3/8" bearing

HEADSET	1-1/8" upper and 1-3/8" lower Cr-Mo cartridge bearings, w/ 8mm carbon cone spacer and 20mm of carbon spacers

STEM	New Specialized ProSet 7075, cone head bolt and plastic clip, 12-degree, 4-degree shim, 31.8mm

HANDLEBARS	New Specialized Tarmac Expert, alloy

TAPE	Specialized Pro D2

FRONT BRAKE	SRAM Force

REAR BRAKE	SRAM Force

BRAKE LEVERS	SRAM Red

FRONT DERAILLEUR	SRAM Red

REAR DERAILLEUR	SRAM Red

SHIFT LEVERS	SRAM Red DoubleTap, 10-speed

CASSETTE	SRAM Red, 10-speed, 11-28t

CHAIN	KMC X10 SL nickel plate

CRANKSET	Specialized Pro FACT carbon

CHAINRINGS	52/36

BOTTOM BRACKET	OS integrated, sealed bearings

PEDALS	Nylon flat test ride, loose ball, w/ reflectors

FRONT WHEEL	Roval Fusee SL

REAR WHEEL	Roval Fusee SL

RIMS 

FRONT HUB 

REAR HUB 

SPOKES 

FRONT TIRE	Specialized Turbo Pro w/ BlackBelt, aramid bead, 127 TPI, 700x23c

REAR TIRE	Specialized Turbo Pro w/ BlackBelt, aramid bead, 127 TPI, 700x23c

INNER TUBES	Super Light Turbo, 60mm, presta

SADDLE	Body Geometry Romin Expert, hollow ti rails

SEATPOST	Specialized Pro, FACT carbon, 27.2mm

SEAT BINDER	Forged alloy,Ti bolt and nut, 32.6mm

NOTES	Carbon chainstay protector, derailleur hanger, clear coat, owners manual
Specifications subject to change without notice.

Tarmac SL4 Pro SRAM RED Mid-Compact Bike Geometry


----------



## -dustin (Jan 11, 2009)

Hm, so I just looked at MSRP on the dealer site...holy ****. Certainly those numbers can't be correct.


----------



## wsmc42 (Jul 21, 2011)

Looks like they switched to SRAM brakes and cassette this year so it will be all SRAM except for the cranks. Congrats on your order. I'm waiting for one to come in also.


----------



## wm07 (Aug 7, 2011)

My friend who had a SL3 Expert just received his SL4 last week. He said it's a lot stiffer compared to SL3... I am not so sure about that and will test ride it some day!:devil:


----------



## Wildcard (Apr 29, 2011)

I have mine on order, have to wait until Mid October for the first shipment into Australia!!

According to the link below, the SL4 PRO is lighter and stiffer than the SL3 SWORKS!!

Specialized 2012 SL4 Tarmac with Outside Sports - YouTube


----------



## HL23 (Oct 6, 2008)

I like the new SL4 in Carbon neon Red


----------



## JPFlores (Aug 6, 2011)

finally picked up my new SL4. The highlights are much more red than in the stock pics posted earlier (where they looks slightly orange, imho). I will take some more detailed shots soon and post. Some quick thoughts....

downtube, headtube and toptube junction is massive. I'd swear the down tube is bigger in circumference than a beer can where it meets the head tube. 
the bike is crazy light. This is a 58, with a completely stock set up. And with a power tap (pro+) rear hub, stock wheels and pedals, alloy bars and stem, it weighs 15.75 lbs. If I put on my Aeolus 5.0's, it would be in the low 14's easily and it wouldn't take much work to get this to about 13 lbs if I was so inclined.

Going to post some thoughts on ride quality after the weekend when I get some miles on it.

For those that are curious on price. I got a bit of a shop deal, but complete out the door with power meter, rear wheel relace, tax and everything was right at 6K USD. The power tap added about 1200 with the cost of the hub, labor to rebuild the wheel and for new spokes.


----------



## zsir (Nov 14, 2008)

JPFlores said:


> finally picked up my new SL4. The highlights are much more red than in the stock pics posted earlier (where they looks slightly orange, imho). I will take some more detailed shots soon and post. Some quick thoughts....
> 
> downtube, headtube and toptube junction is massive. I'd swear the down tube is bigger in circumference than a beer can where it meets the head tube.
> the bike is crazy light. This is a 58, with a completely stock set up. And with a power tap (pro+) rear hub, stock wheels and pedals, alloy bars and stem, it weighs 15.75 lbs. If I put on my Aeolus 5.0's, it would be in the low 14's easily and it wouldn't take much work to get this to about 13 lbs if I was so inclined.
> ...


Looking forward to pics and your ride thoughts. very curious about the frameset weight and how much heavier it is than the Cannondale evo


----------



## JPFlores (Aug 6, 2011)

I'm new to the forum and need to post 10 times to be able to post pics....so this is number 3.

I'll knock out a few more over the weekend and get some pics up soon.


----------



## Pharmerbob (Jun 27, 2011)

Stopes in my LBS today for a tune up and they just finished assembly on a 2012 S-Works Tarmac in my size. That bike has my name all over it! 61cm Bike only weighed 14lbs as set up, no pedals or cages. Holy crap is that light for a 61. Retail ia 7700 they offered it to me for q huge discount. Man I am so tempted....


----------



## JPFlores (Aug 6, 2011)

you won't be disappointed...got some miles on mine now, it's fantastic.

it climbs like a dream, but the most impressive thing about this bike for me is how it handles on twisty, fast descents. The front end is so stiff, you can dive into a sharp turn with absolute confidence. 

It's a ton of fun to ride.


----------



## Pharmerbob (Jun 27, 2011)

Not sure how I can convince my wife that I need another bike already. I've only been riding since Memorial Day. She probably would not be able to tell the difference between my Roubaix and the Tarmac, but I'm not planning on getting ride of the Roubaix. How would I explain another bike?


----------



## GTR2ebike (Jun 30, 2011)

Pharmerbob said:


> Not sure how I can convince my wife that I need another bike already. I've only been riding since Memorial Day. She probably would not be able to tell the difference between my Roubaix and the Tarmac, but I'm not planning on getting ride of the Roubaix. How would I explain another bike?


Diamond(s) always work for me


----------



## Pharmerbob (Jun 27, 2011)

GTR2ebike said:


> Diamond(s) always work for me


Funny you should say that.....Two years ago at Christmas she got to upgrade her engagement diamond and wedding band and there was another diamond surprise for valentines day. I was supposed to get an expensive watch the following year, but that never materialized.........now might be a good time to wander down that memory lane. :idea: The only problem with this whole scenario is that a 5K bike might end up costing twice that if additional diamonds are necessary:yikes:


----------



## GTR2ebike (Jun 30, 2011)

Pharmerbob said:


> Funny you should say that.....Two years ago at Christmas she got to upgrade her engagement diamond and wedding band and there was another diamond surprise for valentines day. I was supposed to get an expensive watch the following year, but that never materialized.........now might be a good time to wander down that memory lane. :idea: The only problem with this whole scenario is that a 5K bike might end up costing twice that if additional diamonds are necessary:yikes:


That is true and I know how you feel, shoes are your next best bet. Your in the clear if they have red soles.


----------



## Pharmerbob (Jun 27, 2011)

*deposit down*

Took a test ride today on the SL4. What an awesome machine. Night and day difference from my Roubaix. I have been riding the Roubaix with SRAM Apex so I was unsure if I could ride the standard double with an 11-25 cassette with all the hills around here. I live in the endless mountains of PA and have only been riding for about 4 months but have been a runner for a while. My LBS is near the bottom of a 1200' climb. it covers about 3-4 miles from bottom to top and the gradient varies between 4-8% so i stopped at the LBS after riding 50 miles to see if I could still climb the hill and I did. 

I had thought that since the bike is so stiff that the ride would be harsh and it was anything but harsh, it was very smooth. On the downhill ride back to the shop I was thoroughly impressed at how well the bike descends. Solid, held a nice line, very stable in the corners. The Red cassette is noisy as everyone says. 

My first thought after getting off the bike was...... I need this bike...

So I came home, showered and went back with cash in hand and put down a deposit. I'm gonna have to work on my wife for a while before I actually bring it home. I can't wait.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

My 1st post here, so hi - thought I would chip in here as I have had an SL4 S-Works for a week now.

I bought the frame, a 54cm, and transferred all the parts from my old bike a 2003 Trek 5900 Superlight, also 54cm.

However, when I saw the huge spacers I would need to fit my SRAM Red crankset, I delved deeper into my wallet and bought the S-Works carbon crankset too, which is beautiful, very light, and has a very low Q-factor.

Fully built up the bike weighs 5.95kg, which is just over 13lbs. I dropped the S-Works seatpost, as although it's a looker and matches the bike, its way heavy at 210g. My old Use Alien gets the job.

Wheels are Planet X tubular which I don't think you get in the US, but they match the bike perfectly, are very similar to Zipp 404's but half the price. (same weight).

The ride is very stiff but not uncomfortable, excellent steering. The weird thing is how the geometry is so different to the Trek. Headtube is up from 115 to 140mm. Seat Tube is DOWN from 540 to 510.

So basically, you are put into a much more 'sit up and beg' position, but I think all modern (post 2007 ish) frames are like this. As I do a few triathlons, this was a concern at first, but the solution is simply to raise the seatpost up and drop the stem as low as possible - I have no spacers, and a negative (about-10') Syntace stem. However, I still feel that I would like to go lower at the front.

Can anyone explain this move away from small headtubes to tall ones? I see some frames in 54, even go up to 160mm or more. Given that aero is the big thing these days, this doesn't make much sense to me....

Anyway, photos soon, when I'm allowed....


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

My guess (and this is literally a gigantic guess) is that by increasing the headtube the engineers have more control over how the front end feels and looks.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> *The weird thing is how the geometry is so different to the Trek. Headtube is up from 115 to 140mm. Seat Tube is DOWN from 540 to 510.
> 
> So basically, you are put into a much more 'sit up and beg' position*, but I think all modern (post 2007 ish) frames are like this. As I do a few triathlons, this was a concern at first, but* the solution is simply to raise the seatpost up* and drop the stem as low as possible - I have no spacers, and a negative (about-10') Syntace stem. However, I still feel that I would like to go lower at the front.
> 
> ...


Your logic is somewhat flawed in your geo comparisons between your Trek and the Tarmac. Seat tube length varies simply because the Trek has a so called traditional (horizontal) top tube, where the Tarmac uses compact geo (sloping TT). This design dictates that a compacts seat tube will be shorter, but since a riders saddle height requirements are fairly static, the end result is that more post is showing on a compact bike. Mainly aesthetics, but compacts do offer comparably lower stand over for a given frame size.

Re: the difference in head tube lengths, I actually think it's taken manufacturers far too long to make changes to those lengths since going to integrated headsets. Non-integrated added about 1.5 cm's to HT height, but many manufacturers didn't compensate, with the result being the need for fitters to resort to max spacers and flipped up stems. IMO/E it's easier to_ lower _bars (remove stems/ swap to more aggressively angled stems), than it is to raise bars. 

Also, realistically speaking, there's little reason for anyone except_ maybe_ pro's to set up road bikes with a 'large' saddle to bar drop. In situations where a more aggressive/ aero position is warranted, it's pretty easy to bend at the elbows, which essentially does the same as more drop would. 

IMO/E the proper way to set up saddle to bar drop/ hood placement/ bar angle would be to base all on realistic rider requirements. Namely, fitness/ flexibility, where they place their hands the majority of the time and what feels comfortable (preferences). 

Slightly taller HT's allow fitters more latitude than do shorter HT's and riders wanting more aggressive (aero) positioning can always opt to 'size down' one frame size (shorter HT) and run a longer stem to compensate for shorter reach. Generally speaking, I wouldn't recommend the average cyclist do so because of the compromises (to fit) that would require.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess I am just quite flexible and am happy with a low position. When doing tri's I stick on a pair of Syntace aero bars, which I actually tilt down slightly (maybe 5'), and the stem remember is already -10'. 

I do feel that the 54 frame is just the right size for me (I am 5' 7 , 5'8 and weigh 139lbs) so I wouldn't want to get a 52 just for the smaller headtube.

I tend to think that jsedlak is right in that the larger headtube gives the designers more scope to increase rigidity without increasing weight, but are they sacrificing aero in doing so?

Interestingly, the 'aero' Venge has exactly the same geo, same headtube, so clearly Spesh don't think a big headtube has a negative effect, and yet if you look at a full on tri bike, like say an Argon 18, it has a VERY small headtube.

Bearing in mind that on the Trek, I also had no spacers and the same stem, it means that my handlebar is 20-25mm higher on the Spesh than it was before. 

I will therefore be looking for a stem with more negative drop, but not sure I will get those 25mm back completely.....


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> I guess I am just quite flexible and am happy with a low position. When doing tri's I stick on a pair of Syntace aero bars, which I actually tilt down slightly (maybe 5'), and the stem remember is already -10'.
> 
> ...


I think for specialized uses (like tri's /TT's) or as I mentioned previously, pros, a 'more' aero position has its advantages, but for the recreational rider (even serious/ avid riders) a few tenths of a second in average speed makes no real difference. Also, a riders body mass has far more effect on aerodynamics than the frame alone, despite what the guy trying to sell us a Venge (or similar) says. 

With the current state of (CF) art, I don't think adding or deleting a couple of cm's in HT length would be the determining factor in resultant stiffness. CF construction/ layup would, and (as you say) Spec's Venge seems to reflect that philosophy. As an example, some earlier Roubaix's were known to flex some in the HT area, and that model always had taller HT's. 

You don't mention stem length, but given that your Trek had no spacers and your riding preferences, it might have been worth your while to test ride a 52cm Tarmac. As you say, it's going to be difficult for you to match saddle to bar drop without resorting to an aggressively angled stem. Stem length matters because if you're running a 100mm it might suggest that you're proportioned between a 52 and 54, and would run a pretty moderate 110mm on a 52.

Just a FYI; this being a general discussion and my not knowing your proportions/ full bike set up, I'm not suggesting that you're on the wrong size frame. I'm simply offering how a 52cm Tarmac _might_ offer some advantage given the info you've provided. A reputable fitter would need to work with you one on one (and you test ride various set ups) before anything concrete could be determined.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> I think for specialized uses (like tri's /TT's) or as I mentioned previously, pros, a 'more' aero position has its advantages, but for the recreational rider (even serious/ avid riders) a few tenths of a second in average speed makes no real difference. Also, a riders body mass has far more effect on aerodynamics than the frame alone, despite what the guy trying to sell us a Venge (or similar) says.
> 
> With the current state of (CF) art, I don't think adding or deleting a couple of cm's in HT length would be the determining factor in resultant stiffness. CF construction/ layup would, and (as you say) Spec's Venge seems to reflect that philosophy. As an example, some earlier Roubaix's were known to flex some in the HT area, and that model always had taller HT's.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this - it's all useful stuff.

Stem length is 120mm, but I do also have the exact same Syntace F99 in 135mm which I experimented with on the Trek.

Although the 135 gives me more length it doesn't actually drop me down very much more if at all, as the headtube is angled back.

If I was to switch to a 52, the top tube would be shorter, so although I would be a bit lower, I risk being 'scrunched up', needing a yet longer stem.

Getting an aero position means getting low and long, so if I can't get lower, I shall go longer, by putting on the 135 stem.

I totally agree that body position is far more important than an aero frame. Someone on a Venge or a Foil that is sitting up will be far less aero than a guy on a Roubaix nice and low.

Anyway, I love the bike, it just needs a little tweaking and just yesterday I did my best ever cycle leg in a tri, and finished 2nd out of 213.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> Thanks for this - it's all useful stuff.
> 
> Stem length is 120mm, but I do also have the exact same Syntace F99 in 135mm which I experimented with on the Trek.
> 
> ...


Great performance in that tri! :thumbsup:

I agree, if you're running a 120mm stem on a 54cm Tarmac you don't want to go to a 52. At your height, I'm guessing you're proportioned longer torso.

Re: the 135mm stem and your lower/ longer comment, I'd advise caution on making a change that would affect reach when you really want to increase drop. As you go lower you_ will_ go longer, and overextending (reach) might trigger some fit issues. For that reason, I'd focus on increasing stem_ angle_ and not increase stem_ length_ Of course, this assumes you're now at or near your optimal reach requirements.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Great performance in that tri! :thumbsup:
> 
> I agree, if you're running a 120mm stem on a 54cm Tarmac you don't want to go to a 52. At your height, I'm guessing you're proportioned longer torso.
> 
> Re: the 135mm stem and your lower/ longer comment, I'd advise caution on making a change that would affect reach when you really want to increase drop. As you go lower you_ will_ go longer, and overextending (reach) might trigger some fit issues. For that reason, I'd focus on increasing stem_ angle_ and not increase stem_ length_ Of course, this assumes you're now at or near your optimal reach requirements.


That makes sense. Although I don't really feel like I'm overreaching with a 120, the 135 might be pushing the limits.

I think I am longish torso. My legs certainly aren't long anyway!

So does anyone know of a stem that is light, cheap(ish), 120mm (ish) and with at least a 20' drop??!! Needs to be old size clamp too, not the 31.8.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bernithebiker said:


> That makes sense. Although I don't really feel like I'm overreaching with a 120, the 135 might be pushing the limits.
> 
> I think I am longish torso. My legs certainly aren't long anyway!
> 
> So does anyone know of a stem that is light, cheap(ish), 120mm (ish) and with at least a 20' drop??!! *Needs to be old size clamp too, not the 31.8*.


JMO, but if you're going to go with a new stem, I suggest springing for new bars as well. IME a 31.8mm clamping area offers increased rigidity over the 26mm variety. 

If you do, this Easton comes in a 110mm length which (considering it's a -20* angle, might provide adequate reach (lower = longer).
Easton EA50 Stem (+/- 20-degree) - Bicycle Garage Indy - Indianapolis and Greenwood, IN

If you decide to keep your bars, this Dimension might work:
Dimension Road Stem at JensonUSA.com

Options (among others): 
BLK, 11/8" THRDLS, 120MM,26.0, 107 Deg
BLK, 11/8" THRDLS, 120MM,26.0, 125 Deg


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> JMO, but if you're going to go with a new stem, I suggest springing for new bars as well. IME a 31.8mm clamping area offers increased rigidity over the 26mm variety.
> 
> If you do, this Easton comes in a 110mm length which (considering it's a -20* angle, might provide adequate reach (lower = longer).
> Easton EA50 Stem (+/- 20-degree) - Bicycle Garage Indy - Indianapolis and Greenwood, IN
> ...


Hey thanks PJ, I really appreciate that you've gone to the effort to point those stems out to me. I hope I can be of help to another future poster in a similar way. 

I've been looking in the UK/France, and there's not much around at all. 

I have been thinking about going for 31.8 bars, but a) my wallet is hurting after the SL4 + cranks thing, ! and b) my tri bars (Syntace SLS, very nice) are designed for 26mm, although you can get a conversion kit.

So for now I may go for one of the BLK's you mention even though they are a bit heavy and not very bling! I can try the position and see how good it is.

Thanks again!


----------

