jojoma said:
I moved the seat all the way forward, so the reach to the bars is easier.
I'm ok with the 54, but the 52 might feel even better. And the Roubaix has a slightly longer wheel base than a standard race frame, so it feels "boat" like at times. Plus, I heard that a smaller frame is stiffer, and I'm assuming it's a touch lighter due to less material.
Whoa, sailor: you're going about things all wrong. Do
NOT use saddle position to alter your reach. You use saddle position to find the correct position over the BB, i.e. the position that works for your legs and knees. Changing saddle position to improve reach is a great way to bung up your knees or, if nothing else, use a lot more energy than necessary. You'll find that sliding the saddle past the optimal position for your legs will increase the load on your arms causing increased fatique, and it will potentially cause problems for your neck and back. If you have to slide the saddle forward to have acceptable reach, then you either have the wrong stem length, handlebars with too much reach, a frame that is too large, or all of the above.
Let me repeat the important nugget: do not try to fix reach problems by moving your saddle forward.
As for the "boat" feeling on the Roubaix. What you feel has very little to do with wheelbase but is instead a function of trail, head angle, and fork offset. Note that the Roubaix was never claimed to be a crit bike. With that said though, that doesn't mean that it can't be a crit bike. Given it's geometry, I wouldn't expect it to border on twitchy or dive into a corner with the slightest steering input. I would expect it to hold a line very well, though, especially over the bumpy nasties mid corner. Whether those traits work for someone or not is completely a matter of personal preference. It's steering characteristics won't cost you a race, though.
Less weight with a smaller frame? Technically moving to a smaller frame in a given model range will result in a lower bike weight, but frankly, having a good fart before a race will have a bigger effect on performance. That very small change of weight going from a 54 to a 52 won't make a bit of difference, unless the race clock has a precision to hundreths or millionths of a second.
Stiffer? Again, technically, maybe, but will it make a difference? Given that there have been absolutely zero studies that have shown that a stiffer bike has a performance advantage, I'd, again, worry more about de-gassing than bike stiffness. The stiffness difference between a 54 and a 52 in the same model range is likely very, very small. The difference in energy loss is vanishingly small.
What you
should be looking for is a frame that with the saddle positioned so that your knees are in the optimal position, for you, over the pedals, the reach is correct for you. Don't worry about the frame weight. Don't spend an attosecond worrying or pondering frame stiffness. Most importantly, once the fit constraints are met, the next most important thing is that your groinal regions flush with pleasurable blood flow when you ride the bike. Outside of those two things, and your own aesthetic values, there's sod all left to worry about.
