If from the 50s, shouldn't that Bianchi have Universal center pull brakes instead of those big, giant side pulls? Good eye for catching the threaded boss on the front fork. I noticed there were any on the photo and it looks they rode single speed or those two speed cogs from the early 50s?

Top tube cable clamps are way too cool for me. No thanks. I like brazed ons or like my early 80s Casati, internal cables.

SL what? 5,6, or 7? I had an SL5. Fast little bike. It was a bit too small for me when I had it for a year or two. The rim brakes, SL5 is uber light. Mind weighted 14.5 lbs without pedals with elect. shifting SRAM Red and Enve wheels. I think another 1/4 lbs can be had if I really tried. Its a great bike.

:cool:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689062639.jpg

I would kill myself if I did that at the track.

Not if you did some training with me.

... Signed "The Old Basterd" ;)

Those top tube clamps were always good for creating frame rust, especially the front one. Sweat would drip down and seep in where it couldn't be wiped away.

I think you might be right about the fender. It really doesn't make sense if it were for keeping gravel spray off the rider. The bike does have a handlebar water bottle cage and going over the cobbles I'm sure there would be spillage.

I didn't even think about the cobblestones. I was going to joke and say it was an emergency brake to push on when that sucky front brake didn't work, but, now I 'm betting it was to keep the wheels dry so they wouldn't get slippery on the cobblestones.

Those bottles had cork? stoppers. I bet they leaked bigtime.

I also remember the cotter style cranks. My dad had a 60's raleigh with them. I remember trying to remove them as a kid and just beating the hell out of the cotter pin and it never came loose. When I had the opportunity to restore my dad's bike, I reluctantly passed. He had left it in the elements for too long, and even restored, the frame flex at the bb was immense. It was too much work for something that wasn't going to ever work as well as some of the more modern retro bike builds.

>>> SL what? 5,6, or 7? I had an SL5. Fast little bike. <<<


Here's the Specialized Tarmac. This is pretty much outside of my wheelhouse. It just says 'Tarmac Pro' on it as far as I can see. I'm thinking this is a very early Tarmac (maybe '05-'08???). It's all Dura-Ace except the Ultegra crank which seems odd (maybe it was replaced). Wheels are Roval. I'm thinking the rim brakes absolutely zero-out the market value for this type bike?? I need to get it cleaned and tuned before even attempting a ride.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689087520.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689087520.jpg

You may change your tune about carbon bikes after a few miles on the Tarmac. And Dura-Ace brakes are fine; I ride with people who have no interest in discs, and have had to to go to brands like Wilier to find a rim brake carbon bike that suits their needs. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Wilier makes beautiful bikes.

The only prob with the Tarmac shown on the stand is it was built pre-fat tires, so most likely 25 is as plump as you can go.

Tarmacs are cool bikes.
Here's mine- (I cracked a white Fondriest frame so I swapped my yellow parts to the black/red frame and it looks like Mcdonalds ketchup and mustard) hence the colors-



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689091674.jpg

^^^ There's no question that carbon bikes like this are head and shoulders above any classic steel bike in performance. For me, I like riding and owning classic steel bikes just like a classic car. I'm not racing so going faster means nothing.

As far as the rim brakes, I don't have a problem with them at all - it just seems like the market is going to have a problem with them and I'm trying to come up with a value. I'm seeing various rim-brake Tarmacs not selling at $750 asking! If the value is low enough, it may wind up in my garage.

ALSO: are there sizes on these things?? I think the newer ones are sized, but I see no markings whatsoever on this one. And the seat post has a huge range. The guy who rode this was probably 6'1". I'm 5'9" and easily adjusted the seat post within the hash marks and can easily standover it.

Good luck. It's a bad time to sell bikes. I'm seeing a lot of used stuff across the board just sitting. Some of my used stuff would go so cheap, it's not even worth posting.

^^^ that's what it's starting to look like. Lots of really nice bikes sitting on eBay for cheap and not selling :rolleyes:

Also, I wonder if Specialized took down their archive completely? They still refer to it and it sounds like it was comprehensive but I can't find a way to access it. They say to measure the head tube and then look at the geometry chart to determine frame size, but you need to know the year of the bike to find the chart ... the serial number does not contain year or size info.

Yeah, that's weird. All mine have a size posted. My BIL has a roubaix very similar to yours and his is marked 58, but his has a longer headtube. Mine is a 54. I'd guess you have a 56, but hard to tell from the pic angle.

It's a 2007 according to a couple of pics I've been able to find. Dura-Ace RD-7800 was 2004-2008 so that makes sense. Top tube is slightly too long for me but a shorter stem would pretty much solve that if I were to keep it. It probably is a 56 or so (I ride 52cm). I'd never come close to standing over a 56cm classic frame and the saddle would need to be slammed all the way down, but this one I can because of the sloping top tube.

Better pic with saddle adjusted for me:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689101202.jpg

Tarmacs are cool. This is a "4" , probably MY2014. (Yeah, this pic is an ego stroke. This is a fun bike, even though it's now obsolete.)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689101573.jpg

^^^ Very nice :cool:

Found a 2007 catalog with specs and geometry chart - it's a 56cm. WAY too big for me in terms of classic steel frames. But. I don't fully understand modern geometry on these carbon frames. Just taking some basic measurements and comparing to my steel LeMond they are quite similar except the top tube is 1.25" longer on the Tarmac. I can at least make for a comfortable reach with a shorter stem. I didn't compare anything with seat and head angles but I can easily ride it. So what is the logic behind the modern race bike with the visually small frame and the extremely long seat post exposed??

Hmmm, the Ultegra crank is a newer vintage and replaced something else. The front derailleur is a Dura-Ace Triple (weird, but should still work with a double). Problem is there is not enough travel in the derailleur to get on the big ring. So I'm thinking the offset on the BB is wrong (crank out too far, looks OK visually) or the crank is not compatible with the drivetrain. Maybe it originally had a triple and the BB was spec'd for that? Sooo many drivetrain component variations these days :rolleyes:

That's a 10 speed Ultegra crank. I am not sure if there's that much adjustment on the BB on those type of one piece cranks.

Modern bikes with slopping top tubes is a much easier fit then traditional or old fashion frames. Still I think the slop top frames are ugly as heck.

A general rule of thumb is if top tube fits, then everything else will fall into place. Play with the seat post height but not too much with a stem, 30 mm max, IMO.