Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am considering a move to a Tarmac from Sequoia geometry and am not too keen on the change in bar height. I know Specialized has a 40 mm head tube extension, but does this still allow some number of spacers on top of the +40 mm as well?

My guess is the 40 will get me pretty close and then I can do some tweaks with the stem angle and not have too drastic a change. The Roubaix is still in the mix, but I like the Tarmac's quickness.

Any thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
the tarmac's quickness is largely due to its short head-tube. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you are looking for the golden bike that does not exist (super mega racey tour bike that still lets me sit up)

this is why the roubaix was designed

this is why trek URGES its customers to take performance fit madones over pro fit madones with their 35mm shorter head tubes. trek actually told us that they hope to sell 80% performance-fit madones and 20% pro-fit madones.

the difference between tarmac and sequoia geometry IS BAR HEIGHT

i'm about to start repeating myself again, apologies
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Actually, the difference in head tube angle and wheel base will have a bigger effect on handling than the head tube height. I will say, that increasing the bar height will also effect center of gravity, and therefore handling.

Are you between sizes allowing you to go up to the larger size? This will get you a little more head tube height
 

·
Cycling induced anoesis
Joined
·
13,019 Posts
Shrike said:
I am considering a move to a Tarmac from Sequoia geometry and am not too keen on the change in bar height. I know Specialized has a 40 mm head tube extension, but does this still allow some number of spacers on top of the +40 mm as well?

My guess is the 40 will get me pretty close and then I can do some tweaks with the stem angle and not have too drastic a change. The Roubaix is still in the mix, but I like the Tarmac's quickness.

Any thoughts?
Not to be funny, but if you posted this and left out the part about the Sequoia, that (and the Roubaix) would be my recommendations.

IMO, if you find yourself liking a bike for a single attribute, but then find that you're (mentally) making changes to suite you, maybe that bike isn't the best choice. BTW, what you're experiencing as far as 'quickness' is concerned is, to a large extent, the result of trail and chain stay length. On my size (52) the Tarmac's trail is 57 (as opposed to your 60) and chainstays are 405 (as opposed to 412). Both of Sequoia's numbers are very close or spot on with Roubaix's, so even if you were to go that route, all you'd be gaining (and you don't see it as a gain) is a more aerodynamic (read aggressive) riding position.

All things considered, I think you should hang on to the Sequoia for awhile until you ride a bike that is what you want, without a number of changes required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for the insights.

I really like my Sequoia fit, but it is an AL/Carbon frame with a triple in a 105 gruppo. I upgraded the brakes, wheels, seat post, etc. I can hang with my group on all but tough climbs and still manage 15-17mph ave depending on the ride. If I catch a wheel, I can hang on flats in the low to mid 20s, but suck when I pull. Our rides are usually in the 30-40 mile range, though sometimes shorter.

I am on a 54, but sometimes feel I am creeping forward on the seat. I plan to to look at a 52 to see if that helps.

My desire is to move up to full carbon with an Ultegra compact double, but I am not sure I am going to like the more aggressive riding position of the Tarmac. Yes, the golden bike syndrome. I know you can't buy speed, but you can buy comfort, gearing, and shed some weight (both bike and personal) that often translates to speed.

Best I can hope for is to get a decent test ride. We have a new Specialized Concept store in town and I hope we can work something out.

We shall see.
 

·
Cycling induced anoesis
Joined
·
13,019 Posts
Shrike said:
Thanks for the insights.

I really like my Sequoia fit, but it is an AL/Carbon frame with a triple in a 105 gruppo. I upgraded the brakes, wheels, seat post, etc. I can hang with my group on all but tough climbs and still manage 15-17mph ave depending on the ride. If I catch a wheel, I can hang on flats in the low to mid 20s, but suck when I pull. Our rides are usually in the 30-40 mile range, though sometimes shorter.

I am on a 54, but sometimes feel I am creeping forward on the seat. I plan to to look at a 52 to see if that helps.

My desire is to move up to full carbon with an Ultegra compact double, but I am not sure I am going to like the more aggressive riding position of the Tarmac. Yes, the golden bike syndrome. I know you can't buy speed, but you can buy comfort, gearing, and shed some weight (both bike and personal) that often translates to speed.

Best I can hope for is to get a decent test ride. We have a new Specialized Concept store in town and I hope we can work something out.

We shall see.
Sounds like you're pretty in tune with your current ride. The creeping forward thing can sometimes be remedied by tipping the front of the saddle up a bit and/ or using a slightly shorter stem. May not be that the 54 is too large for you, but I'm curious. Do you know your saddle height or cycling inseam?

Also, I noticed that no one answered your question on the head tube extender. Seeing as I'm not an expert on the topic, here's a link to a thread on it:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=122970&highlight=headtube+extenders
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks for the link to the head tube info. I clears things up better. I have tweaked the saddle to tip slightly up and may try another adjustment.

To answer your question: Using the snug book in the crotch and averaging 3 shots, my inseam is 31.5 " +/-. I am 5' 7" on a good day, but due to a motorcylce wreck in my youth, have a slightly shorter right leg. So we fitted to that leg and added a couple of thin shims to my right cleat. My current bike was fitted, but not before I was already on the 54. The fitter felt it was fine, and I am comfortable on the bike. I am running a 90 mm stem parallel to the ground.

The top tube on my Sequoia is 54.5 cm and I note the Tarmac and Roubaix 54s show 54.8cm. This is why I was originally looking at maybe a 52 to give me some fit options using various stems. I don't want lots of seatpost showing, and I know the smaller frame will decrease head tube length, which I also do not want.

I think I am talking myself into a Robaix 54 as a start.
 

·
Cycling induced anoesis
Joined
·
13,019 Posts
Shrike said:
Thanks for the link to the head tube info. I clears things up better. I have tweaked the saddle to tip slightly up and may try another adjustment.

To answer your question: Using the snug book in the crotch and averaging 3 shots, my inseam is 31.5 " +/-. I am 5' 7" on a good day, but due to a motorcylce wreck in my youth, have a slightly shorter right leg. So we fitted to that leg and added a couple of thin shims to my right cleat. My current bike was fitted, but not before I was already on the 54. The fitter felt it was fine, and I am comfortable on the bike. I am running a 90 mm stem parallel to the ground.

The top tube on my Sequoia is 54.5 cm and I note the Tarmac and Roubaix 54s show 54.8cm. This is why I was originally looking at maybe a 52 to give me some fit options using various stems. I don't want lots of seatpost showing, and I know the smaller frame will decrease head tube length, which I also do not want.

I think I am talking myself into a Robaix 54 as a start.
Ok, I know you're not me, but for sake of comparison, my cycling inseam is just over 30" and I'm 5'6", so you've got 1.5" inseam on me and are 1 inch taller. This leads me to believe you're pretty average in proportions (legs vs. torso). I ride a 52 cm Tarmac with a 100 mm stem (effective TT = 537 mm) and it's a perfect fit. Seeing as your current set up is very close to that (when you add your TT length and stem = 63.5, mine = 63.7) I'd say you could go with a 52. However, you do complicate things somewhat saying you don't want a lot of seat post showing, because going to a 52 will have that effect. For comparison, you can check out my bike set up by going to my user gallery.

Also, you don't like saddle to bar drop, so a flipped up stem will be necessary. I don't know if you're opposed to that or not, but considering the Sequoia 54 has a HTL of 205 and the Roubaix 54 is 165, there's 4 cm's that has to be made up somewhere. I believe that jumps to 6 cm's with the 52. This can all be accomplished with the 4 position adjustable stems provided by Spec, and many others are available for various manufacturers, as I'm sure you know.

You're in a predicament here, because going with the 52 looses HT length but minimizes reach, going with the 54 gains a couple of cm's, but moves you forward a cm. If you don't mind your current reach, the 54 might be a better choice, but maybe with an 80 mm stem if the 90 mm is contributing to your moving forward. My 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I was deciding between a Sequoia and a Roubaix. I tried a Sequoia in a 54 and it fit well, then a Roubaix in a 54 and it wasn't as comfortable since the head tube is lower. I really wanted the carbon frame of the Roubaix so I tried a 56. Much better fit. The LBS was recommending a 54 and were a bit concerned that the seat post shouldn't go much lower when I was on the 56, but said if the 56 felt better that would be a better starting point to make any necessary adjustments in fit. The LBS was surprised that the shorter reach did not make up for the longer head tube, but I looked at the geometry between a 54 and 56 Roubaix, the head tube increases 35mm from 165 to 190, but the top tube only increases 17mm from 548 to 565. So the height increased 18mm more than the length. By comparison, the 54 Sequoia head tube is 205, 10mm more than the 56 Roubaix and 40mm more than the 54 Roubaix. I'm 5' 9.5" with a pants inseam of 30" (I think my real inseam is 32" or 32.5"), so I have shorter legs and longer torso for my height.

It sounds like you like the fit of your Sequoia now, maybe you should just consider additional upgrades to your components. Also, I don't know what level Sequoia you have, but if you have the base Sequoia with AL seat stays, the Sequoia Elite has carbon seat stays and the Sequoia Comp uses better AL tubing with carbon seat stays.

PS - I really don't think that you will like the Tarmac.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for the insights and suggestions. I am pretty sure the 56 will be too much reach for me, but I am going to start the testing process soon.

I am on a Sequoia Elite now and have upgraded about all the easy stuff. Brakes, seatpost, saddle, wheels (Ksyrium Elites). Just got that carbon fever. I love Specialized bikes, but a friend wants me to consider a move to the dark side and look at a top of the line Cannondale Synapse. :eek:

Not until I exhaust all my Specialized options first! :D
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top