New and in a spot!

Rsnow07

To start I am pretty new to the sport and do not know what I do not know. However, I know I love riding! With that said I have narrowed my new bike selection down to two bikes...the Specialized Tarmac Comp 2017 and the Cervelo S2 2017. One obviously is and aero and the other is a lightweight. I can get either for basically the same price. I have ridden them both and and riding them again this week. I like them both...alot. I just need some opinions of those that may have or have had either and can give me some help on the direction i may need to go or maybe some things to think about.

Thank you!

shirley_basso

Can't go wrong with either.

Which one does your heart prefer? That's the one you'll rode more, and that's most important.

Matthewfalle

somebody will come along with soke pointless advice but MF said that you should buy them both.

#n+1
#can'ttakeitwithyou

phil485

Buy the Cervelo. I like Cervelos....


As has been said both good which looks better to you. Thats the one you will ride more

sloppyschleckonds

Cervelos are pretty dull tbf, but then so are Specialized.

Is there a 3rd choice?

BikerGroveish

If you spend most of your time riding flat ish shortish faster routes go for a more aero focused bike. If you do long distances or spend a lot of time climbing go for one which targets weight over aero.

pblakeney

The red one.

cougie

Same spec ?

Rsnow07

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Cervelos are pretty dull tbf, but then so are Specialized.

Is there a 3rd choice?

Not currently, any recommendations?

Rsnow07

cougie wrote:

Same spec ?

The tarmac has ultegra group set. The S2 is 105 with rotor crank.

First.Aspect

Rsnow07 wrote:

cougie wrote:

Same spec ?

The tarmac has ultegra group set. The S2 is 105 with rotor crank.

105 and ultegra are functionally pretty much identical and with the exception of the crank and shifters cheap to upgrade. But you will not need to upgrade a Rotor crank - its one of the best available.

The Tarmac is like a fast Ford. The Cervelo is, I don't know, an Alfa.

Get the Cervelo. It'll claim to be "semi-aero" anyway so you can pretend to feel a significant proportion of the aero benefits that you couldn't really feel from the Tarmac.

svetty

Tarmac is slightly more versatile of the two and comes with a higher spec groupset. Unless you have an obvious preference having ridden them again I'd get the Tarmac.

craigus89

Cervelo downtube is fugly. Get the Tarmac.

keef66

Christ, if you've looked at them, compared the specs and prices, ridden them both and you're going to do it again, you're in a better position to decide than we are. I'd be looking at:

Which fits the best
Which feels best to ride (same tyres and pressures?)
Which you like the look of best

Don't underestimate that last one

mfin

BikerGroveish wrote:

If you spend most of your time riding flat ish shortish faster routes go for a more aero focused bike. If you do long distances or spend a lot of time climbing go for one which targets weight over aero.

If you do long distances you should concentrate on making sure it is comfortable enough for the distances you want to do. Weight over aero is pretty much crap too, a bike that's lighter does not mean it climbs better, there are simply too many other factors at play.

I have two quite high end bikes, one is over 400 grams lighter than the other and it is clearly worse at climbing than the other one. Power transfer can be far more important than weight.

OP. On another note, aside from comfort, think about which one you prefer the handing of. It's difficult when you're new to things but there are stacks of bikes out there that are boring in the handling department (many riders don't perceive or care about it though).

Rsnow07

keef66 wrote:

Christ, if you've looked at them, compared the specs and prices, ridden them both and you're going to do it again, you're in a better position to decide than we are. I'd be looking at:

Which fits the best
Which feels best to ride (same tyres and pressures?)
Which you like the look of best

Don't underestimate that last one

I agree i should be in a better position to decided. but like i said, i dont know what i dont know. I am so new I was looking for more experienced riders' input. Thank you for your input

Rsnow07

mfin wrote:

BikerGroveish wrote:

If you spend most of your time riding flat ish shortish faster routes go for a more aero focused bike. If you do long distances or spend a lot of time climbing go for one which targets weight over aero.

If you do long distances you should concentrate on making sure it is comfortable enough for the distances you want to do. Weight over aero is pretty much crap too, a bike that's lighter does not mean it climbs better, there are simply too many other factors at play.

I have two quite high end bikes, one is over 400 grams lighter than the other and it is clearly worse at climbing than the other one. Power transfer can be far more important than weight.

OP. On another note, aside from comfort, think about which one you prefer the handing of. It's difficult when you're new to things but there are stacks of bikes out there that are boring in the handling department (many riders don't perceive or care about it though).

Thanks for the input! What is considered "long distance"? Over 50?, 100? I dont see me riding many over 50 for a while.

mfin

Rsnow07 wrote:

mfin wrote:

BikerGroveish wrote:

If you spend most of your time riding flat ish shortish faster routes go for a more aero focused bike. If you do long distances or spend a lot of time climbing go for one which targets weight over aero.

If you do long distances you should concentrate on making sure it is comfortable enough for the distances you want to do. Weight over aero is pretty much crap too, a bike that's lighter does not mean it climbs better, there are simply too many other factors at play.

I have two quite high end bikes, one is over 400 grams lighter than the other and it is clearly worse at climbing than the other one. Power transfer can be far more important than weight.

OP. On another note, aside from comfort, think about which one you prefer the handing of. It's difficult when you're new to things but there are stacks of bikes out there that are boring in the handling department (many riders don't perceive or care about it though).

Thanks for the input! What is considered "long distance"? Over 50?, 100? I dont see me riding many over 50 for a while.

Well, there's no number, the point is, if you can establish if you think a bike will or won't be comfortable over the distances YOU cover on it then that's worth doing. For example, I have two main bikes, one is more harsh to ride than the other, so if the distance goes above about 40 miles I like to take the other bike instead. If I had one bike, it wouldn't be the first bike because of that. (These are two bikes that fit identically, have the exact same saddles, wheels etc.

neeb

Geometry of the two bikes is a bit different:

https://www.specializedconceptstore.co. ... rmac-comp/
https://www.cervelo.com/en/road/s-serie ... 20geometry

(I'm assuming, possibly incorrectly, that the above for the S2 is correct for the 2017 model).

The cervelo frame has a more upright and less stretched-out position all else being equal, although you could doubtless still set them up exactly the same with different stems and different spacer stacks.

Assuming you get the nearest-to-perfect size in each, one of them will fit you a little better. Unfortunately when you are new it's quite difficult to know your ideal measurements and they are likely to change as you ride more. In the end it probably doesn't matter much, but the biles will look and possibly ride differently when set up with exactly the same contact points the same distances apart.

What sizes of each have you been test riding? Try to make sure they are comparable and set up with exactly the same saddle height, saddle setback and reach, otherwise any differences you feel berween them are as likely to be due to that as anything else.

Although aero is often said to trump weight, he S2 is really quite heavy - although not exactly a lightweight either I think the Tarmac is a kilo lighter which is just about enough to be noticeable. You are unlikely to notice any aero benefits of the S2 frame with the stock wheels, especially as a beginner.

Personally I'd get the tarmac, that frame is basically a hand-me-down from the top-end tarmac of a few years ago and has a great reputation for ride feel / handling, plus it's lighter and better specced.

But as others have said above, after thinking about all of those things get the one you want most in the end even if you can't rationalise it..

Rsnow07

neeb wrote:

Geometry of the two bikes is a bit different:

https://www.specializedconceptstore.co. ... rmac-comp/
https://www.cervelo.com/en/road/s-serie ... 20geometry

(I'm assuming, possibly incorrectly, that the above for the S2 is correct for the 2017 model).

The cervelo frame has a more upright and less stretched-out position all else being equal, although you could doubtless still set them up exactly the same with different stems and different spacer stacks.

Assuming you get the nearest-to-perfect size in each, one of them will fit you a little better. Unfortunately when you are new it's quite difficult to know your ideal measurements and they are likely to change as you ride more. In the end it probably doesn't matter much, but the biles will look and possibly ride differently when set up with exactly the same contact points the same distances apart.

What sizes of each have you been test riding? Try to make sure they are comparable and set up with exactly the same saddle height, saddle setback and reach, otherwise any differences you feel berween them are as likely to be due to that as anything else.

Although aero is often said to trump weight, he S2 is really quite heavy - although not exactly a lightweight either I think the Tarmac is a kilo lighter which is just about enough to be noticeable. You are unlikely to notice any aero benefits of the S2 frame with the stock wheels, especially as a beginner.

Personally I'd get the tarmac, that frame is basically a hand-me-down from the top-end tarmac of a few years ago and has a great reputation for ride feel / handling, plus it's lighter and better specced.

But as others have said above, after thinking about all of those things get the one you want most in the end even if you can't rationalise it..

Thank you for your input! Very much appreciated. I have been testing a 58cm in both. The owner of the LBS definitely set up both as close as he could on both bikes. All that said I am riding the Cervélo on a short ride Thursday and the tarmac Friday. Hope after that along with the advice here that I can make a selection. I think you’re absolutely right tho about me not being able to tell all the nuances as a new rider. I think I’ll have fun with either bike! Just a big decision for me so I’m gathering as much info as I can.

neeb

Rsnow07 wrote:

Thank you for your input! Very much appreciated. I have been testing a 58cm in both. The owner of the LBS definitely set up both as close as he could on both bikes

In sizes 58 both bikes have the same seat tube angles, head tube angles and fork offsets, which simplifies things.

In that size the reach of the tarmac is only 6mm longer, so again not a huge difference. Although check what size stems are fitted to the bikes - if they are the same (say 110mm), then the tarmac should feel just a tiny bit more stretched out. If the cervelo has a 1cm longer stem then it will be that one that will be slightly more stretched. You can change stems but you want to try to keep within the 100 - 120 range ideally. If you had your position really dialled in then that 6mm reach difference could be significant as stems usually only come in 10mm increments.

The above assumes that the effective stack has been set up the same on both bikes.. :-) The biggest difference between the bikes in that frame size is the frame stack - the cervelo has nearly 1.5cm more stack, so if the tarmac is set up the same it will have an extra 1.5cm of spacers under the stem. Excessive spacers don’t look great. But if your ideal position on the tarmac is lower and you require less than 1.5cm spacers in total, then you won’t be able to get that low on the cervelo.

So think about how much drop from saddle to bars you will need/be comfortable with. Difficult when you are starting out because a low position will feel unfamiliar. Lower is faster, but only if you are flexible enough to maintain the same power output in that position. The aerodynamics of your body position will make MUCH more difference than the aerodynamic properties of the frame..

Rsnow07

Well I rode both a fair amount and ultimately have decided one the Cervélo S2! Really hard decision! But ultimately I enjoyed the Cervélo more. I appreciate the advice and opinions offered up!

neeb

Congratulations and enjoy the ride! :-) :-)