# Cervelo RS vs. Tarmac or Roubaix?



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

Can anyone give me a good comparison of the RS vs. a Tarmac (or Roubaix)? The fit is about the same (size 61), geometry is similar to the Roubaix. I'm mostly interested in how it descends, since that's where I've have problems with a lot of other big frames (I'm 6'-3", 195 lb). I do wish the RS had an oversize lower head bearing. I'm a little concerned about the steep (74 deg) HA of the Tarmac, since I don't want a crit bike.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

I have limited seat time on a Tarmac but I can tell you it is surprisingly comfortable. I road an '10 SL3 and it was comfortable and great to ride. I currently have a Roubaix Comp and it is great ride. Some have hinted that the Roubaix isn't very nimble but I haven't had any problems.

There's a few guys out here who have ridden or own both who can give you more info. NealH has both and is very knowledgeable. Hopefully he will see this thread.

Also, go check out the Bikes, Frames and Forks forum in the classic forum section I believe there is some discussion about the Tarmac vs Roubaix.

Good luck....


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

The closest I've come to riding all three is an R3, lower end Tarmacs and Roubaixs, but from a geo standpoint, you're looking at two different types of bikes. The Tarmac is a race bike, so the slightly shorter HT, steeper HTA's, shorter wheelbase, etc. are all consistent with that. I wouldn't call it a crit bike, but it'll handle quicker than the other two. 

The RS and Roubaix are a little more comfort oriented; both having slightly taller HT's, slacker HTA's and longer wheelbase, which provides a more upright riding position and slows handling, to a small degree. Narrowing it further, the RS seems to split the difference (between race and comfort) by retaining some of the R3's geo, yet with a taller HT - similar to the Trek Madones Pro/ Performance fits. 

If at all possible, the best way to decide is to ride all three, ideally back to back, but if that's not possible then as close in time as possible, because impressions fade. Also, IMO fit should trump all else, but these bikes are close enough in geo that I think it'll come down to ride/ handling more than differences in fit.


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

fallzboater,

Great question and one I struggled with prior to purchasing the Roubaix I bought this past summer. Here's the thing, Cervelo makes a GREAT bike but, at least in my geographic region, their dealers do not have an inventory of bikes that you can test ride to compare the RS with a Tarmac or a Roubaix. I came to see the RS as the best of both worlds but couldn't prove it by getting on one and taking it for a spin. Some people say that test rides aren't necessary but I say that if I'm dropping $3,500+ on a bike I better know exactly what I'm getting. So, here in Michigan, the expectation is that you will purchase the bike first and then Cervelo will send it to the bike shop for you to pick up. Specialized? I had at least a half a dozen shops that I could visit and test ride all the bikes I wanted to.

I am curious about the size of the bike you cited. I am 6' 3" too and I ride a 58 cm. Speaking from experience, my 58 cm Roubaix descends well. I feel very much in control of this bike and am confident during all of my descents. Now, my descents may not be your descents. I used to own a 2005 Tarmac. I felt less confident on that bike. It was twitchy and the more agressive geometry feaked me out at times. I love my Roubaix and it has literally made me fall in love with cycling again.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

Thanks for the replies. An LBS (actually 1hr away) has an Ultegra Cervelo RS, but I don't really need those parts, and it's still a bit pricey, even at 20% off. Not sure when I'd get a chance to go try it. I've got a line on a couple of 2009 Tarmac SL Pro frames, one used and one new, and I have a 7800 group from my other bike to install. 

I've briefly ridden a buddy's Tarmac SL2, so I don't think I'll hate it, but it is a lot stiffer vertically than what I'm riding now (custom S3 steel frame). I also don't like that practically everybody in my town (more than half the guys I ride with) are on them, already. 

I'm not sure what I've got against the Roubaix (maybe the goofy looking Zertz); I really should try one. I'm guessing I'll end up with the Tarmac for next season (at least), since the prices are so good.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

fallzboater said:


> Thanks for the replies. An LBS (actually 1hr away) has an Ultegra Cervelo RS, but I don't really need those parts, and it's still a bit pricey, even at 20% off. Not sure when I'd get a chance to go try it. I've got a line on a couple of 2009 Tarmac SL Pro frames, one used and one new, and I have a 7800 group from my other bike to install.
> 
> I've briefly ridden a buddy's Tarmac SL2, so I don't think I'll hate it, but it is a lot stiffer vertically than what I'm riding now (custom S3 steel frame). I also don't like that practically everybody in my town (more than half the guys I ride with) are on them, already.
> 
> I'm not sure what I've got against the Roubaix (maybe the goofy looking Zertz); I really should try one. I'm guessing I'll end up with the Tarmac for next season (at least), since the prices are so good.


Before I got my Tarmac all my bikes were steel, so I understand your comparing the current crop of bikes to it. But beyond materials, many factors contribute to ride qualities: Wheelsets, tires, PSI, frame design/ geo (to name a few). 

IMO you shouldn't settle for a bike you 'won't hate' or one that leaves you cold. Rather, branch out to other options - different brands/ models, custom steel - with a focus on the design/ geo of the frames, comparing the numbers to your current bike. It may just be that this bike suites you, for whatever reason.

If the Roubaix's ride and handling are a shade too 'plain vanilla' for your tastes, yet the Tarmac is a little too 'twitchy', take a look at the Trek Madones and the Jamis Endura. Both have geo that splits the difference between the two Specialized models. There are others, but these two examples might interest you, at least in concept.


----------



## SeattleRider (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm 6'3 and three-quarters the guy at the shop said it was that three-quarters that would put me into the 61. I've test ridden a 61cm and 58 RS and I liked the 61. Also test rode a new Scott CR1 with Ultegra. Very nice bike with a racy feel and much nicer wheels than the Cervelo. Though the RS feels so very stable and predictable. I went and previewed the 2010 Roubaix Expert today. The head tube on the 58 is a monster. I didn't notice the Scott and Cervelo where that blatantly tall. Why is that? I noticed another Specialized bike with an enourmous headtube. Can't wait to ride it and if it feels good I might be able to overlook the Zertz things. And what about the Roval wheelset? Is it decent for the bike?


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

SeattleRider said:


> I'm 6'3 and three-quarters the guy at the shop said it was that three-quarters that would put me into the 61. I've test ridden a 61cm and 58 RS and I liked the 61. Also test rode a new Scott CR1 with Ultegra. Very nice bike with a racy feel and much nicer wheels than the Cervelo. Though the RS feels so very stable and predictable. I went and previewed the 2010 Roubaix Expert today. The head tube on the 58 is a monster. I didn't notice the Scott and Cervelo where that blatantly tall. Why is that? I noticed another Specialized bike with an enourmous headtube. Can't wait to ride it and if it feels good I might be able to overlook the Zertz things. And what about the Roval wheelset? Is it decent for the bike?


The head tube length on the 61 cm Roubaix Expert is 245mm. The head tube length on the 61cm RS is 220mm. The head tube length on the Scott CR1 Pro is 220mm. I picked these three models because you mentioned these manufacturers and models (similar pricing). There's only 25mm, or 0.98 in, difference between the Roubaix and the RS and CR1. As for why . . . . there isn't a monster difference - must be an optical illusion. <smile> By the way, the zertz are cool and they really do work! I have read positive reviews on the Roval wheelset . . . . as long as you don't weigh too much. Of course, that's true for just about every wheel out there.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I have a Roubaix SL2 and, a Tarmac SL2 (both in 58cm). I have ridden the Cervelo RS but, don't own one. 

They are all good bikes, and it pretty much boils down to personal preferences. Me, I like the Roubaix the best and ride it probably 10X more than my Tarmac. The main reason is not so much that its more comfortable - which it is but only a smidgen - but that the Roubaix is just an easier bike to handle. I am more at ease on it than on the Tarmac. And the Roubaix gives up little in overall performance. Its a little slower in steering, and doesn't balance as agile in out of the saddle efforts. Not quite as confident in steering as the Tarmac either. The front end stiffness of the Tarmac puts it nearly in a class by itself. Total control is the thought that immediately comes to mind. Yet I prefer the Roubaix after all is said and done. Just a matter of preference (bear in mind that I'm 59).


----------



## SeattleRider (Jun 17, 2009)

question: am i being too detailed when asking the bike shop guy about trail? is it even something i should be concerned about? since i'm fairly new to road biking and i'm about ready to spend $3K+, i'm very sensitive to everything. 

why does the fork rake on bikes remain the same across the entire size range? some manufacturers do vary the rake in one model and but not another. for example on the tarmac, as the bike frame gets larger, the rake decreases otherwise you would end up with an unstable bike. the rake on a cervelo rs varies from a 49 on smaller bikes to a 43 on the larger. however, the roubaix fork rake remains the same 49 on all sizes and unless you are "average" size you are going to end up with a too much or too little trail. i've read that ideal trail is 5.8 - 6.0.

should trail be a deciding factor? for size 61, cervelo rs is 5.9 which is ideal, the scott i've deduced is 5.6 which seems fine but the size 61 roubaix is 5.3 which i've read can make a bike unstable at high speed. are there enough other compensating factors in the frame for this small trail such as longer chainstays? will this bike be unstable and twitchy in turns or at higher speeds? should i now be considering a new fork with less rake for the roubaix? can i even do that? i really like the roubaix but i can't get over this number of 5.3 and i'm going to end up on a twitchy bike.

thank you for your advice.


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

Not a technical answer by any stretch of the imagination but . . . . if you really are concerned about the Roubaix being "twitchy" you're barking up the wrong tree. The dimension you've referred to encompass the wheel base. Trail and rake, in the end, add up to make the wheel base of the bike. The wheel base on the Roubaix is longer than the wheel base of the Tarmac. The longer wheel base of the Roubaix make it a more stable, less "twitchy", bike. One of the comments you'll read, if you peruse the forums enough, is the "twitchiness" of the Tarmac. That "twitchiness" lends itself to more responsive handling, especially when talking about being able to handle aggressive curves at higher speeds. At the same time, you will also read comments about how the Roubaix is slower responding when attempting to "dive" into aggressive curves. Both comments are referring to the responsiveness of the two bikes. The Roubaix is made to be stable.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

SeattleRider said:


> question: am i being too detailed when asking the bike shop guy about trail? is it even something i should be concerned about? since i'm fairly new to road biking and i'm about ready to spend $3K+, i'm very sensitive to everything.
> 
> why does the fork rake on bikes remain the same across the entire size range? some manufacturers do vary the rake in one model and but not another. for example on the tarmac, as the bike frame gets larger, the rake decreases otherwise you would end up with an unstable bike. the rake on a cervelo rs varies from a 49 on smaller bikes to a 43 on the larger. however, the roubaix fork rake remains the same 49 on all sizes and unless you are "average" size you are going to end up with a too much or too little trail. i've read that ideal trail is 5.8 - 6.0.
> 
> ...


Interesting thoughts, but where I see the problem with your logic is that you're segregating out the remainder of a bikes geo and focusing only on one aspect. That's not how bikes are designed. Rather, the sum of the geo works together to provide the ride/ handling characteristics the manufacturer is attempting to attain.

I find it amusing that you're taking issue with the fact that the Roubaix's fork rake doesn't vary with size, but see no problem with the Cervelo's HT and ST angles not changing from mid size to large. I'm not saying that's a problem, simply pointing out how you're focused only on one aspect of a bikes geo.

Remember too, that along with rake, HT angles plays a roll in determining trail, along with rim and tire width, but that aside, if you notice the RS's geo is very close to their R3, so IMO they wanted that bike to have slightly slower steering and slightly more upright riding position than the R3. Roubaix, OTOH has longer chainstays (and 6mm's more rake) to stretch the wheelbase and smooth the ride, so trail can be shorter while still retaining a stable feel. Additionally, BB drop can contribute to the stable feel of a bike, and the Roubaix's is slightly lower than the Cervelo's.

My point here isn't that one bike is better than the other. Rather, ALL the parts of a bikes geo play a part in how it feels to a rider. Much of that is subjective, influenced by rider preference, experience, fitness/ flexibility and intended use(s), among other factors. And BTW, saying that trail of 5.8 - 6.0 is ideal is too general to be meaningful and (again) disregards the remainder of the bikes geo. 

Bottom line is to go ride the bikes - out on roads that emulate the type of terrain you'll be riding. That way you'll get first hand experience with how the bikes feel _to you_. You may just find that the Roubaix handles surprisingly well, even though trail is in the 'forbidden zone'. 

EDIT: One point alluded too but not specifically mentioned is rider weight distribution. F/r weight can influence both ride and handling, and when comparing the 61cm RS to the 61 cm Roubaix, the front center on the Roubaix is 8mm's longer than the RS and rear center is 10mm's longer. Both will serve to smooth the ride and keep handling on the predictable side. Again, no better or worse, rather an explanation of the differing philosoplhies/ goals of the companies designers.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

RS and R3 completely different animals!

1cm longer rear center and way longer front center, wheelbase on size 54cm is almost 3cm's longer. that makes a completely different bike in my lousy opinion.

R3 will feel way snappy, but feel almost too short in very critical descents.
RS will feel less responsive, but handle very nuetrally in very critical descents..


----------



## SeattleRider (Jun 17, 2009)

thank you all so much for all your input. rosborn, your no nonsense straight shooting tone woke me up and PJ352, your well thought out analysis and response has brought me back in from from the ledge. a_avery, i know you've been there from my very first post on this forum on another thread and i've appreciated your quick quips along the way. i've never used a forum in my life for anything and for this purpose, it has really helped in my pursuit of my finding the right bike for me. 

i'm now ready to buy the roubaix expert without a doubt. i think i knew that all along but i had to go through this process which is actually fun.

i also found this roubaix test ride review that i've read before but only realized today he was riding a 61 albeit an S-works with a slight lower headtube from 2008 but otherwise same geo. for a novice roadie, i cannot wait to get this bike. btw, i'm also going to get my wife the roubaix comp.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/road/product/s-works-roubaix-sl-08-27751

thanks again


----------



## SeattleRider (Jun 17, 2009)

so, after all that, i ended up with a 2010 roubaix expert in a size 58. i really thought there was no doubt i'd be a 61. but after the sales guy put the 58 size bike on the trainer and analyzed my riding position and form with his bg computer software and a digital image of me on the bike (and test riding both), it was very clear i needed the 58. i feel so much more confident, in control and on top of the bike in the 58. the 61 felt like a big caddy and the 58 was a sporty compact convertible.

on climbs, the 61 tended to wander to and fro and required a lot of steering input. i'm really pleased with the smaller size and and feels like more a part of me whereas the 61 is like a boat i'm riding on top of and way off the ground. the 58 was a much different handling bike. more like the cervelo cs or scott. both those bikes have an ht height like the 58 expert. the 61 with 245mm ht is for a taller man than i.

it has a 100mm bar stem and apparently i have very long femurs and have my seat almost all the way back. the lbs is all about the fit and and spent nearly an hour on fit and setting up the bike for me before i even test rode it. 

also test rode a comp level roubaix and, imho, there is a big difference in ride b/w these two bike. the construction of the expert is similar to s-works with a step up in carbon from the comp as well. the expert could take some harsh bumps and still stay glued to the road. i think this is the vertical compliance everyone talks about. then the comp bounced all around under me while under power whereas the expert could take all my legs could dish out. this must be the stiffness of the bike. 

i really believe that specialized has nailed an excellent combination of both comfort and stiffness. for this novice roadie, i am very pleased with this bike. i didn't get to take it home b/c they only had the white in a 58 and i want the blue. on order and will be here soon. btw, the trail on the 58 was excellent. lol.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Nothing like test rides to sort it all out for you! :thumbsup:

Seems like a first rate LBS you're working with. From what you've offered, you're weight distribution was probably biased towards the rear enough to affect handling (steering) on the 61cm, and going to the 58 brought you back up front to get you more centered on the bike.

Let us know when you get your new Roubaix, and pics ar always welcome.


----------



## SeattleRider (Jun 17, 2009)

i've had a great season so far on my 2010 roubaix expert and have put 1700 miles on the bike. i also accomplished my goal in july of riding back to back centuries in a 204 mile ride from seattle to portland. on this new bike, i improved my avg speed by 1.5 mph and finished 3 hours sooner than the year before. i love my roubaix and all the fun i've had on it this year. now i'm wanting a new wheelset for next season. more fun researching new bike stuff! also, trying not to look at 2011 bikes.


----------



## Student Driver (Jan 10, 2008)

SeattleRider said:


> i've had a great season so far on my 2010 roubaix expert and have put 1700 miles on the bike. i also accomplished my goal in july of riding back to back centuries in a 204 mile ride from seattle to portland. on this new bike, i improved my avg speed by 1.5 mph and finished 3 hours sooner than the year before. i love my roubaix and all the fun i've had on it this year. now i'm wanting a new wheelset for next season. more fun researching new bike stuff! also, trying not to look at 2011 bikes.


Awesome. I've been out of cycling for a while, and wasn't sure I'd have the desire to ride again until I got on the 2010 Roubaix Expert rental. I now own it, and I love it and riding again. I'm just working up to mountain biking again (my knees were problematic but getting a lot better) and should be able to by the end of October. The Roubaix is a great bike.


----------

