Originally Posted by
Hermes
With respect to one bike being okay for long rides and the other not, I suspect it is about stiffness. I think a stiff carbon frame (assume that is what a Tarmac is) is great for a strong powerful rider with great core and back strength. For longer rides and weaker riders (me), I think a more forgiving frame is better. If I were going to do longer rides (greater than 60 miles), I would ride Ti or steel and not worry about a pound of frame weight.
If I could only be as strong a rider as you, I don't have the time or the body type (remember that discussion last season). The Tarmac Expert is a stiff(er) performance frame, it's not the S-Works tarmac but it's close. The Simoncini is a sweet lugged steel Columbus XLS bike.
However with that said when I test rode the Tarmac before purcahse I took it over a route I frequent regularly, a section of MUP with tree roots pushing the pavement up just to see how it sucked up the shock - it was quite nice. I have thought for some time that stiffness was the issue here but am not convinced yet - I want to try a few more things before I give up and just relegate the Tarmac to climbs and training rides. Last falls assault on Greylock which involved two other lesser climbs over 85 miles was shear hell on the Tarmac, not because of the climbing effort but because of the ride. I would need to gear down the Simoncini to do that ride - not out of the question but not quite where I am ready to go yet.
When I get back from travels this week I'll wonder over to the Specialized bike shop and see if they can suggest anything.