2015 Specialized 'New Tarmac' (not SL5 it seems?)

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
ophiravina
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:44 pm

by ophiravina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDZbOQBu1wg

specialized introduced the SL5, they say that main diffrence between it and the SL4 is that they designed every frame size differently.
the bigger sizes are stiffer and the smaller sizes have more flex....
plus, it's lighter thanks to internal seatpost clamp and a new carbon layup.

Image
Image

bikerumor:
http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/05/10/spe ... ke-models/
2016 scott adictt 10:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135903
2015 sworks tarmac :
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=128782

by Weenie


User avatar
CBJ
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Brooklyn

by CBJ

Strange they do not do different layup depending on size before now they have done that on the Roubaix for a long time. I'm not sure about all the proprietary solutions on the dics version.

Pharmstrong
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:17 pm

by Pharmstrong

They did, according to THIS. Before they took a 56 as average and scaled it, but now they're developing unique bikes for every size. I've always liked Tarmacs, but no thru-axels and that proprietary rear hub puts me off.

spartan
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

by spartan

good info on weight....


honest frame weight's :)

The new bike will be available in three versions, setup for either hydraulic discs or rim brakes: The Pro and Expert options use the same frame, but come with different components; the S-Works uses higher-grade carbon that weighs 100 to 120 grams less. Specialized has not yet released prices or production weights, but the company claims that a painted S-Works frame weighs 966 grams and the fork comes in at 360 grams.


no thru-axle. major defect. spec should know better looking at the history of qr in the mtb world.


http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/new ... c?page=0,1
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150

martinko
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:08 am
Location: Slovakia

by martinko


mnmasotto
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:16 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

by mnmasotto

Does anyone have a ETA?

User avatar
ave
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Hungary

by ave

What do you think, spartan, why did Spec omit thru axle?
I'm pretty sure they have heard of it. I'd think they probably tested the new frame a bit before bringing it to market.

dynaserve
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: UK

by dynaserve

Very disappointing: Heavy, expensive and no aero-enhancements.

I was expecting so much more, something like a super-light Tarmac/Venge hybrid.

bombertodd
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:23 am
Contact:

by bombertodd

I'm surprised there isn't a thru-axle either. I would think more companies besides Trek would have thru-axles.

mile2424
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:22 am

by mile2424

dynaserve wrote:Very disappointing: Heavy, expensive and no aero-enhancements.

I was expecting so much more, something like a super-light Tarmac/Venge hybrid.


This could be coming when Spesh releases the McLaren Tarmac in July. I am sure it will be $$$$$$$$$ and hopefully lighter than the normal S-Works. Rumor is integrated seat post as well.

User avatar
ophiravina
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:44 pm

by ophiravina

looks like specialized never called the new bike "tarmac sl5", they just said "2015 s-works tarmac", I dont think that there is any diffrence exept the seat collar for the middle sizes (54,56)... maybe even the 58 stayed the same... furtheremore, I think that the sl4 will be better for some pepole. :?
specialized made the bike stiffer and heavier for the bigger sizes becouse they assumed that taller riders are heavier, but what about all those skiny climbers that are 1.84 and 67 kilo, do they really a bike that is so stiff? I would prefer the lighter SL4 and to feel comfortable on the rough sections....
maybe its just me, but I think they should have made the bike less stiff then the SL4, not in the BB area, but in the head tube, the sl4 is not the most comfortable bike on rough roads, compered to the SL2. and from my experience when you feel comfortable you are faster... that's the reason for the sucsess of the allez race, CAAD10 and all those ti and steel bikes. I personaly wouldn't buy one of those becouse of the weight, but I would be intrested in a lighter, more comfortable tarmac.

maybe specialized plans to do an sl5 in 2016? a bike that will be lighter and maybe even more aero, because of the specialized wind tunnel :D

this one looks like an SL 4s :wink:
2016 scott adictt 10:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135903
2015 sworks tarmac :
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=128782

TurboKoo
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:55 pm

by TurboKoo

I'm more disappointed that geometry remains the same. That means 49, 52 and 54 are within 1mm in reach.
Scott Foil
Shimano 9150
Shimano FCR-9100-P
Shimano C60 tubulars

weekapaugin
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Location: phoenix, az

by weekapaugin

^this. They may have paid attention to the smaller sizes by improving the ride quality, but their geo in the small sizes is wonky

virenque
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:08 am

by virenque

The 49 geo works for me . . . need a really low stack and reach is just right with a 120

mattr
Posts: 3414
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

ave wrote:What do you think, spartan, why did Spec omit thru axle?
I'm pretty sure they have heard of it. I'd think they probably tested the new frame a bit before bringing it to market.
Few things spring to mind.
Specialized engineers are likely to know how to do QRs up properly, but then, as regularly demonstrated, a huge number of people have no idea.
They are also unlikely to use cheap arris lightweight chinese skewers with stretchy shafts and plastic bushes, as its not likely to actually make any noticeable difference to their result in the sprint for the cafe.
Or use kit thats far far far beyond its best before date. And knackered.
Or lash together some half arrised attempt at "performance gain" or "weight reduction" without knowing what the hell they are playing at (as often seen in the MTB world.)

Just my thoughts.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post