I have never been extremely happy with the ride on my Tarmac. After the first season I switched the saddle and that helped a little. The next season I switch the saddle again - this time to a Sella Anatomica, still not right. I ride this bike a lot and I have come to the conclusion I might be a little too stretched out on it. I finally measured the seat post center (at the saddle) to the center of the bars at the stem and compared this to my Simoncini - which is very comfortable. The Simoncini reach is about 66cm, the Tarmac total reach is 2cm longer (68cm) and the stem is 1cm longer. The bar height below the saddle is about the same - within my ability to measure it. Note - the Tarmac is really only uncomfortable after about 40 miles of riding.

Now here are the questions:
1) What would be the symptoms of a little too long a reach?
2) Any suggestions on new stems?
3) Any other thoughts on the subject?

Right now I am leaning towards replacing my 100mm stem with an 80mm stem but stems are not cheap and I want to make sure I get this right. I think an 80mm 10 degree down stem will put the bars at about the same height as they are now. I sure would like to be able to ride this bike comfortably on a metric.

An inch of difference in handlebar position is a lot.

Indeed - and that's why I am asking before I rush out and make a change.

I had to buy new handlebars to shorten my reach up about 2 cm and now the bike feels great. I had the Nitto Noodle bar on my Jamis and I replaced them with a short reach bar. It was comfortable for 40 or so miles and then my shoulder and neck would hurt. The shorted reach fixed it.

If you are too stretched out there are a variety of symptoms. Perhaps the most common is neck and/or back pain. You might also experience shoulder pain. If the difference is only 3cm total between the Tarmac and Simoncini, why go for 20cm difference in the stem? I'd probably try a 90mm instead of the 80.

Thanks George - as I recall I think you flipped the stem as well.

Thanks - the difference I am considering is 20mm (not cm) or 2 cm which will but the Tarmac bars the same distance from the center of the seat post to the center of the bars. 90mm is certainly more available than 80mm.

I will report more on the symptoms I am feeling later - I don't want to bias the responses I get. Both you and George concur on shoulder pain.

See if your Specialized dealer has the sizing stem that lets you try any of the popular lengths and see which size makes your bike feel best.

And since it is a Tarmac I assume you would get specialized stems. Their stems are adjustable. If you go to their web site and select their high end stems, they have charts. As you vary the angle, you are changing the length (seat to bars). I have 90mm, 110mm and 120mm at 12 degree and one at 24 degree. I am currently running a 120mm at -28 degrees. I also move my seat forward a quarter inch and that a big affect on the bump. If only I could solve my hot foot problem after 40 miles.

Have you thought about going through a professional fitting? I did that with a road bike I bought about 15 years ago and it worked out great. I actually ended up going with a longer stem, which surprised me. I also found out that I was humping my back instead of keeping it flat........not a good thing for long term riding. Now I'm back riding after a long layoff and recently purchased a Specialized Roubaix Elite that I really like. Once I get a few hundred miles on it I'm going to go in for a fitting with it. I hope it works out as well as last time.

Jim

BD - that's a good idea. The manager of the shop I bought the bike from is a friend of mine - they may just have that trial stem - she may let me borrow it. She hasalso volunteered to go over the bike fit with me again, one of her techs did it the first time but they were really more interested in seat height and I did that myself.

Oops...............looks like you've already covered what I mentioned in my previous post.

Jim

I'm predicting the 90 stem and a nudge forward on the saddle fixes you up. Shorter reach bars with the same characteristics of your current ones can also help make the adjustment you need. I would not go to an 80 stem if that could be avoided. Let us know what happens.

I do not know the answer to your questions but here is how my Retul fit was done.

1. First, ball of the foot over the pedal axle.
2. Seat height with slight bend in knee at bottom of pedal stroke and do not have less than 90 degrees bend at the knee at the top of the power stroke.
3. Move seat for and aft until the knee is over the pedal with the crank arm perpendicular to the floor.
4. Arms 90 degrees to the body with slight bend in elbows reaching for the hoods. Adjust stem accordingly.

Since you are an advanced cyclist, consider this. You want to have a light touch on the handle bars especially when climbing. You should feel like you could let go of the handlebars, steer the bike from your core and power up the hill. Having a longer stem is better for climbing while standing.

You might want to try getting professionally fit on your bike. Also one brand of bike will fit better than another. I think we have all experienced that. The bike geometry brand to brand is different. I had a Specialized Roubaix for years that was uncomfortable, I finally sold it and bought a Bianchi and have never been more confortable on a bike.

Hermes,
Early last year I spent about a month dialing in the seat precisely - plumb bob & protractor getting all the knee angles right. These things actually helped and got my ride time up as well as help eek a little more power out of my pedal stroke. I had not run across the arm measure rule of thumb, I'll look at that. I also had not thought of how the shorter stem would effect climbing, another good point. I know that on steep climbs > 10% keeping the front wheel on the ground requires maintaining the torso in a low position, arms open and elbows bent. On longer moderate climbs in the saddle I tend to sit further back in the saddle and grab for the hoods and pull with the glutes.

Here are some of the symptoms I feel after a long ride (>50 miles) on this bike:
Low back pain in the area of the kidneys
Stiffness in the sides of the torso
Upper shoulder sourness
Excessive fatigue

After about an 85 mile ride it feels like I have been in a fight and didn't do well.
This does not happen on my other bike - I can easily ride a century, come home and cut the grass.
I am going to work with a trainer later in the year - when I talked to her about this her first reaction was that the responsiveness of the Tarmac may be getting me to go to hard too early in the ride. I am not so sure about that, I've ridden long enough to not fall into that trap.

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/441463-hot-foot-numbness-morton-s-neuroma.html

Below is a link to Carlos Sastre following Andy Schlek and a pic of Lance. They are GC guys. GCs are into power and comfort. Their job is to win a grand tour by conserving energy and using their power at the right moments in time. They are not breakaway artists and if they win a stage it is in the mountains usually with a mountain top finish.

My point is not to compare you (or I) to these guys but to note the set up that is used by the best in the business for max power and IMO comfort and not necessarily aero. Note the longer stems, shorter head tubes and arm positions with respect to the body. IMO, one would increase the hip angle, away from the bar, (forward bend) to match ones hamstring and back flexibility and core strength. In my retul fitting my coach suggested I go from an 9cm stem to an 11cm stem. He put them on the bike so that I could feel the difference. He said the 9 cm was okay but the 11 cm was better. The 11 cm felt great but I am conservative and concerned about changing my hip angle and subjecting my back to more stress. I have thought about an ergo stem where I could change it 1mm a month. I know I could adapt to that.

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 were ever so lucky to make it to a Cat 2, I would be able to ride on a 2X4 mounted on a solid plastic frame for 100 miles.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...KZuetgOeyOmrAw

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.

If the ride of the Tarmac is a bit harsh on a long ride, do what NealH does and use 25c tires instead of the standard 23c. It was a noticeable difference when I rode his SL3 bike over the weekend. When I test rode the SL2 bike I commented that I would have to use 25c tires with it because it was a bit harsh. As far as I could tell there was no discernible performance penalty going to the 25c tires. I suppose if you where on a solo breakaway there might be some aero loss but for most of us it won't make a difference. Even a few pros use a 25c rear tire for comfort. (Or get a Parlee Z4/5 lol)

Great point on the tires. Larger tires have greater aero drag, a couple of watts, which is not insignificant over a long distance. However, if the ride is better and fatigue is less then the power production will be better trumping any loss. Also, the Tarmac may have stiff wheels contributing to the harshness of the ride. Manufacturers match framesets, wheels and components to the expectation of the rider. In many cases, riders buying carbon fiber bikes want a stiff ride or they think they do. The bikes are tuned to this market.

The deciding factor for buying the Cervelo R3 was the design of the chain stays and seat stays to absorb shock. It does a very good job plus it will accommodate larger tires.

C'Fool, unfortunately, the best advice I can offer is HTFU.

I bought the Tarmac because it was rated as a comfortable performance bike - the Zerk inserts in the stays and fork are supposed to take the harshness out of the ride.
they seem to do the job. The wheels that came with the bike were Mavic's - I swapped them out for Easton orion IIs - much lighter weight. Now with all that said, I would think I would notice a big difference even on shorted rides, this really isn't the case. As with all things on distance riding its a cumulative thing - hard to notice over shorter rides unless the change is significant.

I appreciate all the ideas, I am going to try going down the fit path for awhile.

Now as fat as HTFU - I sure need to do that on a lot of fronts, I need to get back on the training schedule and get off my arse.

Are you sure that a wider tire has more aerodynamic drag. Bicycle tires have a rounded profile, a larger tire might offer a more aerodynamic (rounded) profile to wind, because the tire is more rounded, rather then being a flatter profile on a 23mm. There is rolling resistance, but IIRC that's not affected by tire width as much as once thought, but is more a combination of tire pressure, sidewall stiffness and load. Ride harshness also has a lot to do with tire pressure, if you run a 23mm tire at 130PSI, it will ride much more harshly then the same tire at 110PSI.

I am sure that the tire width should match the rim. Here is an article from the Zipp website that discusses aero and mentions tires. https://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/tech...nary_speed.pdf I use 21 mm tubies on my Easton aero wheels and 20 mm tubies on the HED trispoke front wheel for time trials.

Before spending a lot of money on switching components, you should get a proper fitting done. What is a proper fit depends on the type of riding you do, fit for a racing bike, is different from the fit for touring / commuting.

Get some cheap stems and experiment. Years ago it was apparent that bike fit was an art, So I collected a set of cheap stems. When I build a new bike, I can try different stems before spending big $'s. The performance of cheap stems is just as good as the big $ ones, they just look cheap.

It's a small expense and they are available to loan to family and friends.

No sooner than you get an expensive stem that you discover you need to move the seat back/forward. Ride the cheap stem for a long time to make sure.

I just put a new frame on my mountain bike. Frame angles are different enough to go through the experimenting once again, though I'm getting more proficient at fitting both the wife and me as the years go by.

But, I'm never sure what works best until I experiment over a range of adjustments over a long enough period of time to adapt to them.

I'm not a believer in paying for bike fitting for that reason.

Al