# Specialized Tarmac elite or Felt F5



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

Looking at getting my first road bike and my LBS has these to models. I am 6'4' and 185lb. 

Any opinions?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dbgsig said:


> Looking at getting my first road bike and my LBS has these to models. I am 6'4' and 185lb.
> 
> Any opinions?


Well, I'm going back a couple of model years, but FWIW the F4, Trek Madone 5.2 Pro and Tarmac Comp (similar frameset) were all top contenders. 

The Felt rode and handled very well (IMO), but in comparable sizes the HT length on the 'F' series is a fair amount shorter than the Tarmac's or Madone's. While that's obviously adjusted with changes in stem angles, all else being equal, it was still the more aggressive position. The ST angles are also slightly steeper, so depending on your KOPS +/- preference, that may or may not be a positive.

If those points aren't important to you, I'd say test ride both bikes (back to back, if possible) out on the road and for some duration, focusing on subtle differences in fit/ feel, ride and handling. 

HTH...


----------



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

The new F5 has the same HT length now as the Tarmac. Not a lot of info on the Felt F5 is out their.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dbgsig said:


> *The new F5 has the same HT length now as the Tarmac*. Not a lot of info on the Felt F5 is out their.


If you're talking about the 2010's it's not the same HTL in a 52cm as my 52cm Tarmac. 110mm for the Felt versus 120mm for the Tarmac. And a quick check across frame sizes shows the Felts HTL to be shorter. 

But as I mentioned, if that and the slightly steeper STA aren't an issue for you, they're nice bikes. It all comes down to what best fits (and suites) a given rider.


----------



## h2o-x (Aug 8, 2008)

I know this is cliche, but it comes down to what rides the best for you. We might not be looking for the same thing in a bike. I rode probably 25 different bikes in 7 different shops when I was looking for a new bike a few weeks back. Not to be negative, but I wasn't impressed with the Felt Z4. The frame was kind of dead. I didn't feel a lot of feedback from it. I ended up buying the Tarmac Pro SL. I rode the SL3, Pro SL, and Elite. The Tarmacs are powerful and muscular. They like to go forward. 

I also liked the Trek Madone 5.9 and the BMC Racemaster. The 5.9 was light and smooth, and very damp, but not dead. The Racemaster was a tad heavy, but fantastically stiff. If I were still racing crits, I'd own one.

FWIW, I have an '08 Cervelo R3 as well as this '10 Tarmac Pro SL. The latter is by far my favorite of all the road bikes I have owned. Well, there was that DeRosa SLX back in '89... and I can't forget the Bianchi Specialisma in '84... and the 3Rensho SRL in '85... and the Bridgestone RB-1 in '91... and... and...


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

good luck with picking either...both are awesome bikes I'm sure.

I'm just jealous you are 185 6'4...I'm at 215 currently 

Chad


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

Ride both of them and then make your decision.


----------



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

riding both is a problem. It has been hard to find the larger bikes in stock locally. Will probably have to order.


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

dbgsig said:


> riding both is a problem. It has been hard to find the larger bikes in stock locally. Will probably have to order.


Well, here's the problem - the meaurements between the bikes are different enough that you won't be able to ride one and get a feel for both. So, you're going to have to your LBS, the one that sells both, to either get both in for you to test ride or take your chances.

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth, the Tarmac has a less agressive frame. The head tube on the Tarmac is 205mm and the head tube on the F5 is 160mm. The top tubes are similar enough. So, that means that the Tarmac has a more upright riding position (i.e. less agressive). That may make a hell of a big difference if you haven't ridden in a while or if you've never ridden before. The more agressive frame may mean that it's less comfortable for your back. Of course, you won't know that until you get on the bike. If you have to order it and buy it that mean you're taking a crap shoot with the F5.

Any chance you can check out the inventory at other shops?  Have you been fitted? What size frame have you been recommended? I'm 6' 3" and I ride a 58cm frame.


----------



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

I have been sized for a 60-61cm, depending on the bike. It sounds like my best bet, if I am going to gamble, is with the Tarmac. I think I found a shop that has both. I will see about riding them, before I order from my LBS.


----------



## h2o-x (Aug 8, 2008)

That's a short headtube for a large frame. My R3 is a 56 and the headtube is 160. My Tarmac is a 56 and the headtube is 170. If you aren't a very flexible or aero rider, I dunno how comfortable you'll be on the Felt. Of course you could end up with a huge stack of headset spacers (4cm or more) or your stem flipped up. Either of which is aesthetically displeasing, or just plain dorky, to my eye. On the other hand, (pardon the pun) short drop bars can make big difference in comfort.

If you end up ordering a bike, be certain that you are not stuck with it or have to pay a restocking fee in the event that you don't like the ride.

Let us know what you buy.


----------



## rosborn (May 10, 2009)

I would "gamble" with the Tarmac too, especially since it's your first road bike. The beautiful thing about it is that; yeah, it may have a less agressive geometry, bit it's still a fast as hell bike. It is built for speed.

Get the Tarmac. You won't be sorry.


----------



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

How does the Roubaix Elite Compact compare to the Tarmac? The HT is slightly longer.
245 vs 230


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

dbgsig said:


> How does the Roubaix Elite Compact compare to the Tarmac? The HT is slightly longer.
> 245 vs 230


the roubaix is a more "comfort" bike with slightly less twitchy ride (responsive) more upright geo. its still an amazing bike you can ride all day and it won't "slow you down" at all if your thinking that.

the Tarmac is a race bike the felt just has a shorter HT...MUCH shorter.

Chad


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I agree with the others that if you're on the fence between the Felt and Tarmac, the Tarmac is the safer bet. Remember that it's generally easier to get more saddle to bar drop (if required) than it is to raise the bars, so a slightly taller HT has some advantage, IMO. 

Regarding the Roubaix, if that's a consideration you're now taking another (larger) step away from 'race' and into relaxed geometry. All else being equal, slightly more upright riding position along with slightly slower (more predictable?) handling. 

It comes down to fit, flexibility and rider preference, so I'd strongly recommend riding any bikes under consideration (back to back, if possible) before deciding.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Sounds to me like the Felt's geometry is more like the Tarmac Team Geo, which is pretty aggressive. I'd say those that need it know it, and since you're now considering a Roubaix, you might not feel comfortable on the Felt or a Tarmac Team Geo.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Dr_John said:


> *Sounds to me like the Felt's geometry is more like the Tarmac Team Geo*, which is pretty aggressive. I'd say those that need it know it, and since you're now considering a Roubaix, you might not feel comfortable on the Felt or a Tarmac Team Geo.


Funny you should mention that, because I took a quick look comparing the team geo to the Felt and IIRC the Felt still had the shorter HT's in all but one size. 

Good point re: if you need it you know it. I know I don't, and was confused back in '09 when Speciailzed decided to OEM a shorter conical spacer on their Tarmacs.


----------



## dbgsig (Jun 12, 2010)

I am getting older(44) and have not riden in a while, so the less aggressive frame maybe what I need. I will consult my LBS and see what I can test ride.


----------

