# Tarmac SL2 & SL3 Sizing Question



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I might buy a used SL2 before Christmas. Size 52. I'm a little worried about the size though. I'm 5'8+ with proportional...proportions. I usually ride a 54 or 55. 

Sorry to create another "what size is right for me?" thread. But in reading up I see that pros seem to be riding smaller sized bikes. 

Contador is 5'10 on a 52 SL3. 

Bettini is 5'7 on a 49 SL2. 


Do these bikes run large or is this a case of pros riding small frames? (And running mega stems?) Or are these dudes lying about their height?


Thanks for the input.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> I might buy a used SL2 before Christmas. Size 52. I'm a little worried about the size though. I'm 5'8+ with proportional...proportions. I usually ride a 54 or 55.
> ... Do these bikes run large or is this a case of pros riding small frames? (And running mega stems?) Or are these dudes lying about their height?


Yes, I would say that Specialized generally runs a little large, compared to say Trek, but not by as much as a full size. And yes, the pros are often riding under-sized frames. You are probably right to be cautious - a 52 does sound too small, I would think that a 54 would be a more normal for your size and proportions. I would not be surprised that some of the (smaller) pros do exaggerate their height too.

You need to balance the deal that you are getting on that bike versus the risk of it not fitting, and the lack of warranty on a second hand bike. Buying a small bike just to get a pro look isn't the wisest of choices.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks for your input!


You're right, I'm enticed by the deal. 


But I'm not trying to look like a pro. I'm asking how they can get away with riding bikes which would seem really small for equivalently sized non-pros. How can 5'10 Contador fit on a size 52? 

size 52 has a 53.7cm top tube 
size 54 has a 54.8cm top tube

That's less than a half inch. Hmmm. 

(I'm not worried about the warranty.)


----------



## Cado (Dec 7, 2010)

Dude, I am exactly your size at 5'8" with an 81.7cm inseam and I ride a 54 with a 100mm stem at -6. I am on my 2nd Tarmac and 54 fits like a glove.

Some pro's do lie about their height, no way Contador is 5'10" and no way Bettini is 5'7". my friend who is 5'2" at most stood next to Bettini and they were about the same size. Looks like the same guy writing the articles, not sure where he's getting is facts so be careful. Those guys ride custom frames anyway, so it might be a 52 but with a 54 top tube length. 

An example of proper sizing and facts, Ivan Basso at 6'0" rides a 56 Supersix and trust me that bike look huge, but normal for a guy that's 6'0". I actually had his bike in my hands holding it (fondling is more the word) and it had a 140mm stem.

They ride freakish long stems (i.e. 120mm - 140mm) to get into the most optimal position for power and aero dynamics. They are well trained athletes being flexible and without a gut for their legs to hit on the up-stroke. They may think we ride freakish short stems


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

IMO if you want to make an educated decision regarding the 52cm SL2, you should take some measurements of your current bike and see how they differ from that bike.

Almost any bike in this size range will meet your saddle height/ standover requirements, so the two main measurements are effective top tube and head tube length. You'll also need seat tube angle to get the ETT of both bikes. Comparing these numbers and taking into consideration the spacers and stem length/ angle you're now running, you should be able to get a good idea of how you'll need to set up the SL2.

BTW, one reason pros downsize is because the smaller size has a shorter HT, allowing for greater saddle to bar drop. While that may work for someone as flexible/ fit as a pro, you might find that you'll need to compensate for that shorter HT with a less aggressive stem angle.

If you want assistance, post some specs about your current bike (make/ model/ year/ geo charts) and we can help you compare the two. This, of course, assumes your bike fits you well.


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

Unless you have some very strange body proportions, a 52 should fit you just fine. I'm 5'10" and ride a 54 with a 110mm stem. 

The Pros generally run smaller frames to get bigger handlebar drop, which makes them more aerodynamic.


----------



## bonz50 (Jun 10, 2010)

fwiw - i'm 6-1 and the lbs fitted me to a 56 tarmac, it was very comfy to me...


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> Dude, I am exactly your size at 5'8" with an 81.7cm inseam and I ride a 54 with a 100mm stem at -6. I am on my 2nd Tarmac and 54 fits like a glove.


Similar here, but 5' 8.5". Originally with a 100 mm stem. My fitter shifted me back quite a bit, so I'm now using a 90 mm stem and a lot of set back. No spacers.


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

Dr_John said:


> Similar here, but 5' 8.5". Originally with a 100 mm stem. My fitter shifted me back quite a bit, so I'm now using a 90 mm stem and a lot of set back. No spacers.


Same here...

5'-8.5", riding a 54 with a 100 stem....Been that way for a few seasons now...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks everyone for the input. 

All you 5'8 guys on the 54s...do you think you would fit on a 52 with a longer stem?


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

I wouldn't because of the saddle to bar drop...I'm just not that flexible...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Of all the bikes I've owned, my specialized s-works M-4 fit the best. Even though I profited financially, I regret selling it. I believe it was size 54. 










Does anyone have a sizing chart?


----------



## Cado (Dec 7, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Thanks everyone for the input.
> 
> All you 5'8 guys on the 54s...do you think you would fit on a 52 with a longer stem?


Probably would work, but the seat would be farther back and I would still feel a little too much over the front wheel because of the longer stem making the handling more twitchy than it needs to be (it's already a quick handling bike).

But, that's just a guess having had a bike that was too short of a top tube years ago. 

54 or 52... it's going to be in your head and you will get accustomed to either (unless your really 6 feet tall). Just don't convince yourself to by the 52 because of the deal. There's always going to be a deal out there...


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Thanks everyone for the input.
> 
> All you 5'8 guys on the 54s...*do you think you would fit on a 52 *with a longer stem?


IMO fit is too important to ask a fit related question this way, because you're getting into a 'making it fit' scenario rather than getting sizing right, then dialing in fit - which is more likely to result in better f/r weight distribution.

Most _can_ ride a bike sized up or down one size, but that doesn't mean fit will be optimal. As Cado stated, don't convince yourself to by the 52 because of the deal. There's always going to be a deal out there...


----------



## Tagez (Jun 14, 2010)

http://www.ebicycles.com/article/bicycle-frame-size-charts.html


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Tagez said:


> http://www.ebicycles.com/article/bicycle-frame-size-charts.html


Considering that manufacturers follow no standards for measuring to determine frame sizes, this calculator is (at best) potentially misleading but more realistically, useless.

Depending on make/ model, my 'frame size' ranges from 47cm to 54. This calculator says I take a 53cm, but (for example) in a Rocky Mountain Prestige 30 CR, a 48cm has similar geo to my 52cm Tarmac, so a 53cm would be _way_ too large for me. Some Fuji models have similar sizing, so all in all I'd avoid that calculator and leave sizing to a knowledgeable fitter.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks for helping me work this out. 



The difference in TT between the 52 and 54 is 1.1cm. I'm not worried about center of gravity here because that can be offset by pushing the seat back .5cm and using a slightly longer stem. 

I'll see if I can get to a bike store with a built up tarmac this weekend. 

I'll let everyone know early next week.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for helping me work this out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to be snarky, but your remedies for fit issues aren't quite right. For example, it's not correct to compensate for reach deficiencies by adjusting the saddle fore/ aft. That's used to set saddle setback/ KOPS (+/-), using different stem lengths to get reach dialed in. 

Also, saying that the difference in ETT between the 52 and 54 is 1.1cm doesn't tell the whole story, because differences (if any) in seat tube angle have to be factored in. Further, (as an example) once KOPS was set, if you ran a 120mm stem on the 54, the 52 would need an excessively long stem to compensate for the negative reach, lending credence that the frame was too small for you.

OTOH, if you ran a shorter (90mm=/-) stem on the 54, the 52 might require a 100-110mm and work ok, _but_ keep in mind that you'll lose 2.5cm's of HT height with the 52cm affecting saddle to bar drop. So, the bottom line is... which frame size works better depends on how your fit requirements translate into the final bike set up.

If your current bike isn't an ideal fit, then don't use it as a baseline for a new bike. But if it fits pretty well, you may want to take some key measurements and do some comparisons.



HTH, and good luck!!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Not to be snarky, but your remedies for fit issues aren't quite right. For example, it's not correct to compensate for reach deficiencies by adjusting the saddle fore/ aft. That's used to set saddle setback/ KOPS (+/-), using different stem lengths to get reach dialed in.
> 
> Also, saying that the difference in ETT between the 52 and 54 is 1.1cm doesn't tell the whole story, because differences (if any) in seat tube angle have to be factored in. Further, (as an example) if you'd use a 120mm stem on the 54, the 52's reach is going to be excessive (for you). OTOH, if you're running a 90mm on a 54, the 52 could accommodate you. So, it depends...
> 
> ...


Thanks, I wasn't considering KOPS. I completely understand what you're saying about fore/aft seat adjustment being the incorrect way to make up for a top tube. I blew right over that, thinking that 5mm difference wasn't enough of a difference. I'm pretty sure the bike comes with a zero setback ec90 post anyway. 

The seat tube angles are the same.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Thanks, I wasn't considering KOPS. I completely understand what you're saying about fore/aft seat adjustment being the incorrect way to make up for a top tube. I blew right over that, thinking that 5mm difference wasn't enough of a difference. I'm pretty sure the bike comes with a zero setback ec90 post anyway.
> 
> The seat tube angles are the same.


Understood. That seat post may or may not work for you, depending on your preferred KOPS position. But that may be a moot point if the frameset ends up not working for you, and a post can always be swapped out if it does.

All things considered, IMO it's a good idea to be sure of your sizing requirements before commiting to this.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Consider the headtube lengths also. IIRC, the 52 has a 120mm and the 54 a ~140mm. 

If your flexibility is limited...your going to have a spacer tower on the 52cm.


----------

