S-Works Tarmac Stack & Reach

[highdraw]

A tip Barters is...ride with your palms over the hood nubs and stretch out to determine if a longer stem will work for you.
We are about the same size. I ride with a 58cm top tube + 130mm stem and about 100mm of saddle setback or pretty close to what a pro our size would ride only with less drop which also increases reach.
I would say most who can't get comfortable go the opposite direction of the way they should...the push their saddle forward and ride with a shorter stem which is exactly wrong. Its ok for a weaker rider than a pro aka us to ride with less drop but our body size needs to stretch out to create power. Most 6'2" pros...not all will ride with a lot of saddle setback as well...Cancellera rides 95mm and Tom Boonen a whopping 110mm and he is a bit bigger. So move your saddle back to get your weight off your hands and stretch out and try only a couple of inches of drop and see how you like it.
The best fit cannot be achieved by a fitter. It can only be gleaned by exhaustive trial and error. Once you have tried every permutation of setback, reach and drop, then you will be closer to your destination which in my experience is worth the effort.

[fa63]

56 is way too low for you.

I agree. Get the 58 cm so you can get the stack you need without a large spacer tower and/or an upturned stem.

[goodboyr]

Its a shame you don't have access to a good fitter. I disagree with highdraw and in particular if you are experiencing back pain. I'm sure these suggestion will give you things to try, but unless someone objective can stand beside, measure and talk to you, it will be difficult to get this right. A good fitter combines the knowledge of the physiology plus the practical experience of what works. An internet fitting can lead you down the wrong path.

[Darceking]

I am 191cm and ride a 58 sworks tarmac. 120mm stem. It's pretty aggressive for me which is what I was after

[tinozee]

The thing about "a fitting" is that position is constantly morphing. I think fit is something you have to do with a lot of trial and error and it can change quite a bit across a season, due to injury, etc. I have dealt with bulging and herniating discs, those came around when I had a more upright position. In a lower position (14cm drop) with proper stretching and fitness, I get zero back issues. I would agree about Steve Hogg, his subscription site is good resource when questions arise in the sense that there are lots of topics and he provides answers. And he is not one of those fitters using "the fitting" as a lure to sell a bike. I just think fit is something you have to determine on your own and as you adapt. I use an ipad to film myself on the trainer before and after changes, etc. I made a little template in Adobe Flash so I can position the camera and check knee tracking and all of that. I also use a power meter to compare power at different positions and changes are in tiny increments. You get to know your body, parts that work for you, etc.

I just wouldn't rule out a smaller frame and long stem unless you're sure you won't be needing a lower position. Aside from that it's really up to you to fine tune the fit. If you need a starting point and just want to pick a frame and then extend/raise/shorten to fit you... personally I'd go with the smaller frame. In the initial post you say you could comfortably go to a 580 stack without spacers. If that is the case, 15mm spacer on the 56 is fine. I'd much rather have that then a giant head tube, slammed short stem and a long frame to haul around. I've made the mistake of going to a large frame before on bad advice because of my height. Only learning my fit and power/position and real results racing every week can be the real confirmation. Finally, Tommy D's book is fantastic for core work to help with injury prevention, position, stability, etc.

Good luck!

[highdraw]

Tin,
Some good points but no way the OP at almost 6'2" and long legs should be on a 56 Tarmac. No way. A 58 Tarmac has a head tube of 190mm which he needs for his long legs or he will get a lot of drop without a riser stem. Also a 110mm stem for this rider size on a 58mm is short...I would argue 20mm short if going for a nominal fit. I know because I am the same size and perform fittings.

As you correctly write however focusing on some of your good points, many address back issues in the wrong direction. Many will seek a more upright or shorter reach position on the bike as the OP has. This places the spine more in compression which for many is more painful than a more horizontal back. The analogy I often use is the back as more of a hammock versus a pillar holding up a building. This is true of motorcycles also btw. Cruiser riders (a recumbent with motor but no back rest) can have more back pain than sport bike guys.

Also agree trial and error is the best teacher. Thinking about it mathematically, lets say the 3 biggest parameters of fit once saddle height is dialed which also takes thousands of miles to hone...are saddle setback, horizontal reach and vertical drop. If a rider adjusts each of these in 5mm increments over a range of 30mm that leaves with 6 adjustments for each. So the permutations of fit are 6 x 6 x 6 = 216 combinations.
Obviously this is a lot of trial and error. I have done it however over many decades of cycling but say most haven't. There is a best fit for each of us and you really have to dig it out of the dirt by trial and error as we agree.

[CBJ]

I am the same height too and with long legs. I sold my Tarmac and got a Roubaix both 56cm to avoid a crazy rise on the stem. 160mm vs 190mm HT. Really look at your fit and don't just buy a bike because that is what the PROs are riding. A Roubaix is not slow bike

[highdraw]

CBJ, your 8th grade geometry teacher just called and said you need to repeat that class. A 56cm Roubaix has the identical head tube length of a 58cm Tarmac at 190mm..unless you had a real old Tarmac which used to run a longer head tube length.
Do agree the Roubaix is a great bike. Most riders can derive the same 3 pt fit on two different frame sizes.

[tinozee]

Hi, yeah the only thing about this is that he said he can easily go "1-2cm lower" than his current stack in the original post. That takes him to only needing 16mm of spacers on a 56 Tarmac. If the OP's statement is true, it's not too small. I dunno guys, like I said I am 6'4" on a 58 with a slammed 17 degree stem. It took time to adapt to this, but once I found myself in the drops for 3 hours at a time and wanting more downward room, it made sense. It has nothing to with emulating a pro. I have enough to worry about with keeping with cat2 crit front packs, not going to do anything for looks that negates performance.

[CBJ]

CBJ, your 8th grade geometry teacher just called and said you need to repeat that class. A 56cm Roubaix has the identical head tube length of a 58cm Tarmac at 190mm..unless you had a real old Tarmac which used to run a longer head tube length.
Do agree the Roubaix is a great bike. Most riders can derive the same 3 pt fit on two different frame sizes.

Or you need to read my post. I talked about my bikes which both were/are 56cm. I did not talk 58cm as I think it will have too long at TT and the main reason for my post was to make him aware of the HT length on size 56 on both frames

[highdraw]

or CBJ you missed the memo...below. Btw, the vast majority of riders that are 6'2" will be on a 58 or bigger not smaller.

[Barters]

I agree & I am even going to borrow a friend's 120mm stem & see if I prefer that on my current bike.

[CBJ]

or CBJ you missed the memo...below. Btw, the vast majority of riders that are 6'2" will be on a 58 or bigger not smaller.

I am not sure if you are just trying to be a smart ass or really want to help but as I have realized this year that chart well its not more than a suggestion. As I already wrote I am exactly the same height, I have a long femur but short upper body and no long monkey arms and the TT length would be too long for me on the 58cm I am already running a 90cm stem on the 56cm. Again I am just trying to open his eyes for another frame options.

[highdraw]

Barters...a tip aside from riding your bike with palms covering the hoods with your 110mm stem to determine if you like the stretched out position which I believe you will. Reach is comprised of two principle components. They are legs of an acute right triangle in fact. Two perpendicular legs of the triangle are horizontal reach and drop. So the resultant reach is comprised of both component. In summary, the more drop you run the more stretched out you will feel for the same stem length. Pros for example and as pointed out we aren't pros...ride surprisingly similar in set up in terms of resultant reach. If you put a tape on your current bike, measure your saddle tip to handlebar center dimension. A typical 6'2" pro will have a saddle tip to handlebar center of about 620-640mm which btw is quite a bit. I would say most amateurs are comfortable with about 15-25mm less reach than a similarly sized pro. This is mostly in drop btw and not the horizontal component of reach. Another way of looking at it is, the higher the handlebar the closer it is to your shoulder joints which reduces reach. So drop is a big element of the equation and tolerance for drop is a function of not only flexibility but average watt generation as higher pedal forces unweigh the upper body while riding.
HTH.

[highdraw]

CB, and you are riding with arms almost straight up and down on a short cockpit and catching a lot of air. Its ok if you like your position and even sharing it here. But since most fits I see on the road are wrong, you likely fall into this group. You can ride a 52 if you want and then you won't be stretched out at all.

Want proof in the opposite direction? LA who I tower over has ridden a 58cm his whole career. I like how he thinks about fit. In spite of riding a large bike for his size...he probably isn't even 5'10", he achieves an aero fit based upon stretching out. He in fact is the exact opposite of how you ride with your arms straight up and down.

A great position for a recreational rider as well: