roubaix vs tarmac?

mrfizzed said:

OK so I know the tarmac is more "aggressive" and the roubaix is better fork "longer" rides or for people with "bad backs". Can anyone else chime in after riding both on their opinions of the two, assuming comparable sizes and component groups / wheels etc? I may be in the market for a new bike and want to do as much research as possible before spending a lot of money.

You know, you're just continuing the same thread, so why did you start another one? Ok, here's what you want to hear: oh my gosh, you'll be way faster on the Tarmac.....like 5-10mph faster. Honest. Way faster. Really. Pity those pros that have won on Roubaix bikes. Why don't you just go test ride a Tarmac? No one can tell you what you think the bike is going be like. A test ride is simple and definitive. Best of all, you get to draw your own conclusions instead of relying on those of others that may have no relationship whatsoever with your own. Besides, you apparently really want a Tarmac, so you may as well feed the rat and go ride one. You're not going to be that much faster, but don't let that stop you.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by mrfizzed [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

OK so I know the tarmac is more "aggressive" and the roubaix is better fork "longer" rides or for people with "bad backs". Can anyone else chime in after riding both on their opinions of the two, assuming comparable sizes and component groups / wheels etc? I may be in the market for a new bike and want to do as much research as possible before spending a lot of money.

If the Cervelo Pro Tour team could ride the Tour of Spain on their "specialized roubaix" equivalent, the Cervelo RS, then I'm sure that you can go pretty damn fast on your Roubaix.

The only real reason for getting a tarmac would be if the roubaix's taller headtube prevented you from putting the bars and stem where you wanted them...

... and remember that you should put the bars where you can reach the drops.

I think the research you need to do, which will prove most beneficial with regard to your questions, is lots of test riding. Both frames are capable of great speed; you need to figure out which feels the best for you.

Case in point: I ride a "comfort" frame bike from another manufacturer. I chose it because I have a short torso and short arms, so a tall headtube bike fits me really well. I use it for short and long rides. I don't have a bad back. I can ride that bike in the 18-22 mph range comfortably for all my local riding (20 - 60 miles, typically). And if I sprint, my fitness is the limit ... not the bike. It will go as fast as I can push it.

Conversely, I have a buddy with a Tarmac (I can't remember the model ... it's a 105 level bike from ~3 years ago). He rides at 13-15 mph all day. He's a guy who didn't like the Roubaix because "it looks like an old man bike" ... yet, he has to use a 45 degree short stem to get the handlebars high enough to ride comfortably (in essence, he'd probably be more comfortable on a Roubaix). I don't think his frame has anything to due with our speed discrepancy.

Scott

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by CyclinYooper [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

He's a guy who didn't like the Roubaix because "it looks like an old man bike" ... yet, he has to use a 45 degree short stem to get the handlebars high enough to ride comfortably (in essence, he'd probably be more comfortable on a Roubaix). I don't think his frame has anything to due with our speed discrepancy.

Priceless! Nothing will make any bike look like an old man bike quicker than flipping the stem. My secret to staying (looking) young... buy a tall headtube bike and slam the stem as low as it will go.

Seriously, test ride the bikes. Or don't. If you are like me skip the test ride and buy the one you like the looks of, like I've done with my last 10 bikes and my last 12 girlfriends. But maybe that's why I'm still single. Too much looking and not enough test riding [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]

If you're really looking for something "faster", then you should also be considering the Venge. At least for a given ride position it's got less aero drag than the other two. Of course that means nada without actually riding the thing.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by mrfizzed [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

OK so I know the tarmac is more "aggressive" and the roubaix is better fork "longer" rides or for people with "bad backs". Can anyone else chime in after riding both on their opinions of the two, assuming comparable sizes and component groups / wheels etc? I may be in the market for a new bike and want to do as much research as possible before spending a lot of money.

If Tom Boonen can smash skulls on a Roubaix then it's hardly a "slow" bike... Tom's Roubaix:

[IMG]cyclingforums.com263Open ↗[/IMG]

... and given that he won Paris Roubaix in 2008 and 2009 on one, I'd say the bike was at least worthy of chucking your leg over for a ride around town. The bike will most definitely NOT be the factor in you not being able to cruise at 30mph.

But if you want to bench race with your buddies down at the local cafe after a strenuous 5 mile loop around various parking lots the you'll at least need a Specialized Venge with Campagnolo Super Record, with Zipp 808 wheels, tubular tires (with a following "team car" with at least 4 sets of spare wheels - including Zipp 202's just incase you need to climb a speed bump). The new Cervelo S5 would also be a contender too. Remember to slam the stem all the way down so it looks super fast and disregard the fact that you can only just reach the handlebar tops and have to get out of the saddle to apply the brakes...

... you can employ my services for "super domestique" - I'll pace you around those 5 miles at speeds your buddies would likely not be able to hold. You don't need an aero bike when you have a fat Englishman pacing you around at 25mph. Then again, you might not be able to hold my backwheel either. Buy some fancy race radios so we can at least look the part - or I can just ride off into the distance and make sure that the coffee shop has the coffees already made and the big pile of scones is served and waiting for you... Then again, I might have scarfed them all by the time you roll up.

swampy 1970 said:

... and given that he won Paris Roubaix in 2008 and 2009 on one, I'd say the bike was at least worthy of chucking your leg over for a ride around town. The bike will most definitely NOT be the factor in you not being able to cruise at 30mph.

I think it may have been a Venge that Mr. Boonen just pedaled to victory in the E3 Prijs. It's good to see him with his legs back.

Quoted post said:

Your point is very interesting to me.....I actually have a longer torso and shorter legs (i was a swimmer and had a great proportioned body for that when I did it). Does that factor into my decision of a roubaix vs a tarmac at all?

Originally Posted by CyclinYooper [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I think the research you need to do, which will prove most beneficial with regard to your questions, is lots of test riding. Both frames are capable of great speed; you need to figure out which feels the best for you.

Case in point: I ride a "comfort" frame bike from another manufacturer. I chose it because I have a short torso and short arms, so a tall headtube bike fits me really well. I use it for short and long rides. I don't have a bad back. I can ride that bike in the 18-22 mph range comfortably for all my local riding (20 - 60 miles, typically). And if I sprint, my fitness is the limit ... not the bike. It will go as fast as I can push it.

Conversely, I have a buddy with a Tarmac (I can't remember the model ... it's a 105 level bike from ~3 years ago). He rides at 13-15 mph all day. He's a guy who didn't like the Roubaix because "it looks like an old man bike" ... yet, he has to use a 45 degree short stem to get the handlebars high enough to ride comfortably (in essence, he'd probably be more comfortable on a Roubaix). I don't think his frame has anything to due with our speed discrepancy.

Scott

very thankful for your sarcasm thank you very much!!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

If Tom Boonen can smash skulls on a Roubaix then it's hardly a "slow" bike... Tom's Roubaix:

[IMG]cyclingforums.com263Open ↗[/IMG]

... and given that he won Paris Roubaix in 2008 and 2009 on one, I'd say the bike was at least worthy of chucking your leg over for a ride around town. The bike will most definitely NOT be the factor in you not being able to cruise at 30mph.

But if you want to bench race with your buddies down at the local cafe after a strenuous 5 mile loop around various parking lots the you'll at least need a Specialized Venge with Campagnolo Super Record, with Zipp 808 wheels, tubular tires (with a following "team car" with at least 4 sets of spare wheels - including Zipp 202's just incase you need to climb a speed bump). The new Cervelo S5 would also be a contender too. Remember to slam the stem all the way down so it looks super fast and disregard the fact that you can only just reach the handlebar tops and have to get out of the saddle to apply the brakes...

... you can employ my services for "super domestique" - I'll pace you around those 5 miles at speeds your buddies would likely not be able to hold. You don't need an aero bike when you have a fat Englishman pacing you around at 25mph. Then again, you might not be able to hold my backwheel either. Buy some fancy race radios so we can at least look the part - or I can just ride off into the distance and make sure that the coffee shop has the coffees already made and the big pile of scones is served and waiting for you... Then again, I might have scarfed them all by the time you roll up.

That's a good question, and I don't have enough geometry knowledge to answer it! (I really only have learned what's best for my body shape).

With that said, maybe one of the geometry gurus will chime in here. If you have a long torso and shorter legs, I'm not sure of the pros/cons of taller vs. shorter HT bikes, versus frame size, top tube length, and stem length selection, etc.

In a previous post, you mentioned a 2011 Roubaix? It might help to know what size frame you currently ride, how many spacers you use under your current stem, and the angle/length of your stem? Just brainstorming...

Scott

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I think it may have been a Venge that Mr. Boonen just pedaled to victory in the E3 Prijs. It's good to see him with his legs back.

Didn't look like he started on a Venge...

[IMG]cyclingforums.com233Open ↗[/IMG]

But it is good to see Tomeke back with some good form. I like the guy, he's a fighter... and has a love of the booze and candy. [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif[/IMG]

swampy1970 said:

Didn't look like he started on a Venge...
 
[IMG]cyclingforums.com233Open ↗[/IMG]
 
But it is good to see Tomeke back with some good form. I like the guy, he's a fighter... and has a love of the booze and candy. [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif[/IMG]
 
 
 

It was just a guess. I couldn't tell from the [censored] video feed I had what he was on, except that he was on the rivet there at the end.

I ride a 56cm Roubaix....6' 0.5". inseam is about 30.5". 110mm stem i believe, not sure of spacers.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by CyclinYooper [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's a good question, and I don't have enough geometry knowledge to answer it! (I really only have learned what's best for my body shape).

With that said, maybe one of the geometry gurus will chime in here. If you have a long torso and shorter legs, I'm not sure of the pros/cons of taller vs. shorter HT bikes, versus frame size, top tube length, and stem length selection, etc.

In a previous post, you mentioned a 2011 Roubaix? It might help to know what size frame you currently ride, how many spacers you use under your current stem, and the angle/length of your stem? Just brainstorming...

Scott

For the record Boonan just won the Paris Roubaix one day classic on a high end Roubaix - probably an SL4. Not sure about the tour of Flanders but I'm sure it was the same bike

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by swampy1970 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]cyclingforums.com263Open ↗[/IMG]

I hope it's quite obvious to everybody here that this is not the same kind of Roubaix SL you can buy at the local Specialized concept store.

That's right. It's going to be few months yet before John Q. Public can buy a Roubaix SL4.

Here's a detailed description of Tommeke's previous Roubaix (shown in the picture above):
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-tom-boonens-specialized-s-works-roubaix-sl2-custom-21190/

-- and here's his current Tarmac:
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/pro-bike-tom-boonens-specialized-s-works-tarmac-sl4-33549/

Poking around on this site you'll find loads more of racing-bike [censored].

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's right. It's going to be few months yet before John Q. Public can buy a Roubaix SL4.

Even longer before they offer one with a fairly straight top tube and short head tube. The Tarmac SL4 has this profile, but curves and tall head tubes are an essential ingredient of the Roubaix pitch to consumers, even at the SL4 level.

Can you imagine Tornado Tom sitting up like a meerkat while he pounds the pave?

Meerkat - LOL If he'd used a consumer issue SL2 in a previous Tour of Flanders the he could have been known as Tommeke, the Meerkat of Merebeke. Specialized equipped riders really have racked up and impressive number of wins at Flanders and Roubaix the past few years...