# Roubaix versus Tarmac...



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

When choosing a new Specialized road bike, this is perhaps the toughest decision that many of us anguish over. The differences between the two bikes has been discussed and debated on many bike forums for some time now. Perhaps if a dedicated crit racer, the decision would be clear cut but for many that use their bikes for different kinds of riding, like group rides, centuries etc, the decision is a bit more difficult. It wasn't a hard decision for me really, as I wanted the tall head tube for my long legs relative to my average torso length, and was willing to give up a fraction of speed in favor of a bit better ride quality over less than pristine roads. But the question is...is there really any give up in speed when choosing the Roubaix versus the Tarmac....especially well into a long ride when a rider is less affected by fatigue induced by poor road conditions. I believe this isn't clear as the Roubaix has been sucessfully raced by the great Cancellara who claims the SL3 Roubaix is as stiff as his Tarmac race bike. So it is a blurred line between the bikes comparing relative speed as well. What isn't blurred IMO however is, the bikes handle differently. To me, other than riding position and bit more forgiving ride of the Roubaix, the difference in handling is perhaps the biggest difference between the two bikes.

Below is an article penned in 2009 which is perhaps the best comparison between the two bikes I have read and I have read about every review on both bikes out there. The author lived with both bikes and rode and compared each extensively in a demanding environment including a lot of climbing and descending. This article further reinforces just how close the two bikes are in performance even though the geometries are distinctively different. He had his riding position set up close between the two...Roubaix only a bit more upright. I found it interesting that even after all the testing he did and he really rung out both bikes extensively, he still struggled with choosing between the two. What this article does for me however is...as an average cyclist, it galvanizes the decision I made to choose the Roubaix...and conversely, will no doubt will affirm the decision by many who have choosen the Tarmac.
Enjoy:
The Crucible: Tarmac vs. Roubaix : Red Kite Prayer


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> What isn't blurred IMO however is, the bikes handle differently. To me, other than riding position and bit more forgiving ride of the Roubaix,* the difference in handling is perhaps the biggest difference between the two bikes.*


In essence, this pretty much sums up the real differences to me. Some like Porsches, some like Lexus... both are high performance.

The motor being the power maker and together with total rider weight dictating STW, IMO/E neither bike will outperform the other.

I'm not dissing the author in general because the article was a worthwhile read, but somewhat ironically, his summation of who'd prefer Tarmac doesn't fit my style of riding - primarily doing solo/ fitness rides. Just one person's opinion, in this case being his.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

One more thing to consider .... the new Tarmac SL4 headtube and stack geometry is lower than the SL3 by up to 20mm .... on size 58 the headtube is now 190mm versus 205mm on legacy SL3 (and 225mm on Roubaix). So this leaves a pretty big gap between the two bikes for the athletic flexible rider who cant or doesn't want to go pro low.

Unless Spesh is planning on a new model in between the two....


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> In essence, this pretty much sums up the real differences to me. Some like Porsches, some like Lexus... both are high performance.
> 
> The motor being the power maker and together with total rider weight dictating STW, IMO/E neither bike will outperform the other.
> 
> I'm not dissing the author in general because the article was a worthwhile read, but somewhat ironically, his summation of who'd prefer Tarmac doesn't fit my style of riding - primarily doing solo/ fitness rides. Just one person's opinion, in this case being his.


The Roubaix is a long distance fitness bike or I believe what it is made for and yet you choose the Tarmac. If you believe as you state which I agree that handling is the defining difference between the two bikes, then I have to ask why did you chose the harder riding and more aggressively positioned Tarmac for straight line riding if you concede there is little between the bikes in terms of speed. Long distance solo riding places little premium on handling prowess. The Roubaix is an easier bike to ride in a straight line. Your purpose and bike choice seem to counterdict one another. Explain if you would since you stated that the author's comments which I agree with are at cross purposes to you choosing the Tarmac.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Scott in MD said:


> One more thing to consider .... the new Tarmac SL4 headtube and stack geometry is lower than the SL3 by up to 20mm .... on size 58 the headtube is now 190mm versus 205mm on legacy SL3 (and 225mm on Roubaix). So this leaves a pretty big gap between the two bikes for the athletic flexible rider who cant or doesn't want to go pro low.
> 
> Unless Spesh is planning on a new model in between the two....


I believe this is an important point and it was to me...even before Spesh reduced the head tube length on the SL4. They did this in backlash in deference to racers out there. There are many different preferences in riding position as you know. Spesh on the Tarmac reduced their head tube or stack height as you say based upon owner feedback. Many who buy a Tarmac race and ride in an aggressive position and don't want a tallish head tube. I ride a 58 as a 6'er albeit with 35 inch cycling inseam and so I always appreciated a tall head tube. I liked the 205mm head tube height of the Tarmac SL3 and previous models. But a younger and aggressive riding 6'er with shorter legs may prefer the 190mm head tube to get the handlebar lower. For guys who want a higher handlebar which many times coincides with a less aggressive rider, the Roubaix offers this position and really what sealed my choice between the two bikes. Even though handling may be the biggest difference between the two bikes, it was the difference in riding position between the two that decided by preference in favor of the Roubaix. If I bought a Tarmac it would have to have a riser stem. Ironically the embattled bike company Cervelo for 2011 moved their R series bike in the opposite direction. They created a bigger divide in riding position between their areo S bikes and their R series and made the geometry of the R closer to old Tarmac. Apparently each company uses different focus groups...lol.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> The Roubaix is a long distance fitness bike or I believe what it is made for and yet you choose the Tarmac. If you believe as you state which I agree that handling is the defining difference between the two bikes, then I have to ask why did you chose the harder riding and more aggressively positioned Tarmac for straight line riding if you concede there is little between the bikes in terms of speed. Long distance solo riding places little premium on handling prowess. The Roubaix is an easier bike to ride in a straight line. Your purpose and bike choice seem to counterdict one another. Explain if you would since you stated that the author's comments which I agree with are at cross purposes to you choosing the Tarmac.


Let's back up a little. I never mentioned being a long distance rider traversing only straight roads. There are plenty of climbs/ descents, twists and turns in my locale. And I disagree that solo rides place little premium on handling prowess, since through the years I've had to employ evasive maneuvers to avoid wild turkeys, chickens, pigs, dogs, deer, horses, coyotes and fox, cars and the occasional squirrel or human.  

That aside, I think someone can choose a Tarmac simply because they prefer the quicker (some say livelier) handling that it offers, no matter the distance traveled, but FWIW I ride just under 6k annually. In a way, you're doing similar to the author. That being, pigeon-holing riders into finite categories, and (for a variety of reasons) that doesn't always work. 

The consumer opting for a Porsche Cayman doesn't have to drive a minimum number of miles, through a certain number of switchbacks or to a track to justify his/ her purchase. They (presumably) made the purchase because they enjoy the cars attributes. That's essentially why I went for a Tarmac, then another. And my initial point was simply that I don't fit the stereotype that the author described, yet I ride (and enjoy) Tarmacs.

As far as choosing the 'harder riding and more aggressively positioned Tarmac', I think that's highly subjective and influenced by a number of factors. Being one that's spent a fair amount of saddle time (as in, about two decades) on mid-80 Italian race bikes with the requisite plastic bar tape (sans gloves) and leather saddles, I think the Tarmac is damned plush!! Experimenting with tire sizes/ varying constructions/ pressures further sweetens the ride, so for me the ride and quicker handling is a win-win, but (as previously mentioned), I don't think for a minute that I'm faster on the Tarmac than a Roubaix (or similar). It's just a slightly more challenging/ engaging ride.

Lastly, FWIW my saddle to bar drop is set at ~5 cm's, which I'm sure could be duplicated on a Roubaix. Coincidentally, I test rode one a couple of days ago, and can easily see it being _added_ to my collection, but not _replacing_.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

pj352 said:


> let's back up a little. I never mentioned being a long distance rider traversing only straight roads. There are plenty of climbs/ descents, twists and turns in my locale. And i disagree that solo rides place little premium on handling prowess, since through the years i've had to employ evasive maneuvers to avoid wild turkeys, chickens, pigs, dogs, deer, horses, coyotes and fox, cars and the occasional squirrel or human.
> 
> That aside, i think someone can choose a tarmac simply because they prefer the quicker (some say livelier) handling that it offers, no matter the distance traveled, but fwiw i ride just under 6k annually. In a way, you're doing similar to the author. That being, pigeon-holing riders into finite categories, and (for a variety of reasons) that doesn't always work.
> 
> ...


*w o r d*


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Let's back up a little. I never mentioned being a long distance rider traversing only straight roads. There are plenty of climbs/ descents, twists and turns in my locale. And I disagree that solo rides place little premium on handling prowess, since through the years I've had to employ evasive maneuvers to avoid wild turkeys, chickens, pigs, dogs, deer, horses, coyotes and fox, cars and the occasional squirrel or human.
> 
> That aside, I think someone can choose a Tarmac simply because they prefer the quicker (some say livelier) handling that it offers, no matter the distance traveled, but FWIW I ride just under 6k annually. In a way, you're doing similar to the author. That being, pigeon-holing riders into finite categories, and (for a variety of reasons) that doesn't always work.
> 
> ...


II am not pigeon holing anybody and neither is the author. Nobody has pure dominion on the truth and that includes you and me or the author. He lived with both bikes and I agree with his assessment. You may dismiss what he said but each of us are entitled to our opinion. I asked you to explain why you made your choice and you just did which is fine. Of course your Tarmac rides better than a mid 80's Italian bike...so do 90% of stiff carbon racing bikes sold today.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Let's back up a little. I never mentioned being a long distance rider traversing only straight roads. There are plenty of climbs/ descents, twists and turns in my locale. And I disagree that solo rides place little premium on handling prowess, since through the years I've had to employ evasive maneuvers to avoid wild turkeys, chickens, pigs, dogs, deer, horses, coyotes and fox, cars and the occasional squirrel or human.
> 
> That aside, I think someone can choose a Tarmac simply because they prefer the quicker (some say livelier) handling that it offers, no matter the distance traveled, but FWIW I ride just under 6k annually. In a way, you're doing similar to the author. That being, pigeon-holing riders into finite categories, and (for a variety of reasons) that doesn't always work.
> 
> ...


Well said.

If i was at the computer that would get a rep. 

I am in the same boat as you but maybe not as much time to ride or experience. Started with the secteur and was sure the next bike would be a Roubaix or something similar (Defy/Synapse/RS) but when it came time to test, the Tarmac and Super 6 were just more responsive and felt better on the hills. 

Frankly the Tarmac rides beautifully.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> Well said.
> 
> If i was at the computer that would get a rep.
> 
> ...


Can you define responsive and what felt better between the two bikes in the hills as you put it?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Can you define responsive and what felt better between the two bikes in the hills as you put it?


Responsiveness. For me was if I want to avoid something on the road, I can do it with the Tarmac in a heartbeat. All the others I tried seemed somewhat slower to respond quickly. Feeling. Nothing scientific.

Hills. I tested the RS, Synapse and Super 6 on a good hill near the bike shop. The Super Six was the easiest to get up that hill. Least effort on my part. Less shifting needed perhaps.

I tested the Tarmac, Roubaix and Madone through town and on the hill going up to my house, where I normally ride (different LBS - closest to home). The Madone felt the best riding through town. Stable but still responsive. Very comfortable. But once I crossed the highway and started the big climb, the difference felt substantial. I was shifting down to get in the little gear on the Madone and the Roubaix. I was shifting up on the Tarmac to go faster. I also tested the Roubaix fresh, followed by the Madone. I had tested the Tarmac after riding 60 miles and testing the other bikes. My legs should have been done. 

Bottom line for me was that I had done the one hill countless times and the other a feew before on my Secteur. The RS, Synapse and Roubaix did not feel significantly better than the Secteur. The Madone and Super 6 were better. The Tarmac was in another league. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm a four year, 10,000 mile (total) Tarmac rider ... and I like nope love the ride on the Roubaix. Certainly the new Pro frame is an upgrade from my 2008 entry level Tarmac carbon .... still it suits me great. 

These are both superb bikes.... as is the Madone, the Synapse, and others. Four or five grand will sure buy a lot of bike these days...

See you out there.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> Responsiveness. For me was if I want to avoid something on the road, I can do it with the Tarmac in a heartbeat. All the others I tried seemed somewhat slower to respond quickly. Feeling. Nothing scientific.
> 
> Hills. I tested the RS, Synapse and Super 6 on a good hill near the bike shop. The Super Six was the easiest to get up that hill. Least effort on my part. Less shifting needed perhaps.
> 
> ...


Is it OK if I submit what you 'feel' in terms of climbing prowess between the bikes you tested has nothing to do with how fast they are or how well they climb? Sorry, I have ridden all of them on a lot of hills, and just don't agree with you.


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

The article was "ok", but a litte outdated and focused on technical descents. I would like to hear of a 2011 or 2012 comparison between the Roubaix SL3 Pro or SWorks and the Tarmac SL4. They are marketing the Roubaix SL3 as stiffer with more power transfer while the Tarmac SL4 is not as harsh on the road as the SL3. With this information, it seems that both bikes are trying to meet in the middle. I haven't tried a Tarmac since I first bought my Roubaix. The Roubaix made sense and felt good. Can I go faster on a Tarmac and will it handle the hills better? Perhaps, but given that 90% of my riding is somewhat flat at a "normal pace" or while riding in a group, would I rather be comfortabe 90% of the time or faster 10% of the time? 
Something else to consider is that every year, the hype makes it sound like there's not much more that can be improved. So, with that said, how would a "slow and comfortable" Roubaix SL3 handle a sprint against a 2-3 yr old bike (any make or model)?


----------

