# Tarmac SL4 Comp vs. Roubaix SL4 Comp



## ToffieBoi

Hello everyone. I am about to buy one of these bikes soon.
I am riding on 2009 Tarmac Expert bike with Ultegra 6700 parts now. I have 23mm wide Token C28A wheels and 24C Continental tires.
I'm 180cm tall and 65kg.

Roads I am riding are mostly hilly. Full of 3rd and 4th category climbs, strava says like that. Many short and stiff climbs too. Also 50% of it have bad quality tarmac with many potholes, damages. Rest is quite good.

These are the components I can afford. I wish I could have both 
Specialized Bicycle Components
Specialized Bicycle Components

Bad roads and some pain on my shoulders and arms says that I need roubaix. Also red frame is tempting  
But since I have many climbs and I like climbing, I don't want to sacrifice any performance at all. Buying $3000 bike and regretting because of performance will destroy all my motivation.

So if there are anyone out there who could compare those bikes, or have both, can you please tell me if I will regret buying roubaix because of performance issues or not.


----------



## s-one

During my recent journey for a bike I did test ride both. In my opinion they are both great bikes. I ended choosing the Roubaix because I was coming from a hybrid and the larger headtube plus more upright position made more sense for me for longer rides. While testing the Tarmac it was a great bike.. was lighter and a slightly more aggressive geometry. Not much but noticeable for me. You can't really go wrong with either its just what you prefer.


----------



## Dunbar

Don't assume that the Tarmac will force you to ride a more aggressive position. Depending on your height and inseam you may be able to setup both bikes identical fit-wise. Obviously, if you want the bars level or higher than the seat that will be much easier to achieve with the Roubaix's endurance geometry. The SL4 Roubaix is a very stiff bike so it really comes to the ride-smoothing Zertz inserts vs. the snappier handling of the Tarmac.


----------



## spdntrxi

I test rode Amira (tarmac) and the Ruby ( Roubaix) while getting a bike for my wife. The roubaix is so easy to ride.. the tarmac is like my look 695.. stiff and light and you feel all the roughness. Going by what you listed I'd be leaning Roubaix. A good set of lightweight wheels and it will climb just fine and still soak up the road.


----------



## ToffieBoi

s-one said:


> During my recent journey for a bike I did test ride both. In my opinion they are both great bikes. I ended choosing the Roubaix because I was coming from a hybrid and the larger headtube plus more upright position made more sense for me for longer rides. While testing the Tarmac it was a great bike.. was lighter and a slightly more aggressive geometry. Not much but noticeable for me. You can't really go wrong with either its just what you prefer.


Thank you for comment. Wish I could try the bikes but I don't have a chance like that here :/



Dunbar said:


> Don't assume that the Tarmac will force you to ride a more aggressive position. Depending on your height and inseam you may be able to setup both bikes identical fit-wise. Obviously, if you want the bars level or higher than the seat that will be much easier to achieve with the Roubaix's endurance geometry. The SL4 Roubaix is a very stiff bike so it really comes to the ride-smoothing Zertz inserts vs. the snappier handling of the Tarmac.


Actually what I think is not the geometry or the ride position, but the stiffness. 
On my Tarmac, I am riding with -17 degree stem and I am happy with my position. I was riding more than 10 hours like that without any pain, on smooth roads. I have pain when road quality drops.









You say that Roubaix is stiff enough for climbs,but just zertz inserts make it smoother.



spdntrxi said:


> I test rode Amira (tarmac) and the Ruby ( Roubaix) while getting a bike for my wife. The roubaix is so easy to ride.. the tarmac is like my look 695.. stiff and light and you feel all the roughness. Going by what you listed I'd be leaning Roubaix. A good set of lightweight wheels and it will climb just fine and still soak up the road.


Weight is not a problem. I am not obsessed on 200gr on the frame. Bike I am riding now is around 8kg and I am happy with it. I don't want anything lighter. I don't need anything lighter. 
That was the reason I sold my 1400gr wheelsets and bought 1500gr Token C28A. Wider, more comfortable, more aero and stiffer.

What you also say is, Roubaix is stiff enough if we compare it with Tarmac. Am I right?


----------



## Dunbar

ToffieBoi said:


> What you also say is, Roubaix is stiff enough if we compare it with Tarmac. Am I right?


I haven't ridden the Roubaix SL4 8r frame you are considering but the 10r frame I rode for ~500 miles was very stiff. Most of the reviews I've read say it's basically equivalent to the Tarmac SL4 in stiffness.


----------



## spdntrxi

my wife's ruby is a 10r frame... plenty stiff. The Amira and Tarmacs I rode where both S-works so 11r... I changed the wheels on my wife's bike to 22mm on 25c GP4000s tires.... rides like a dream. (old DT Axis 3.0---> Roval SLX23's)


----------



## Mark 63

I'm working on the same choice, though I'm 20 kilos heavier. My current bike is a Secteur Comp, and I'm leaning toward the Tarmac SL4 Comp to change things up a bit and get a more lively ride. Maybe it's a mid-life crisis issue, but the Roubaix feels a bit like accepting that I'm getting old.


----------



## roadworthy

Mark 63 said:


> I'm working on the same choice, though I'm 20 kilos heavier. My current bike is a Secteur Comp, and I'm leaning toward the Tarmac SL4 Comp to change things up a bit and get a more lively ride. Maybe it's a mid-life crisis issue, but the *Roubaix feels a bit like accepting that I'm getting old*.


That is funny. Choice of either bike has nothing to do with age. I have two CAT 2 buddies who race Roubaixs. I pass guys on Tarmacs all the time on mine. Ask anybody at Specialized what bike is the most popular for lunch time rides....it isn't the Tarmac or the Venge. Age has nothing to do with speed. You can be young and slow.


----------



## Mark 63

I'm sure you're right. The guy at the shop encourages the Roubaix.
It's not always easy to remain rational on the verge of 50.


----------



## Dunbar

Mark 63 said:


> I'm sure you're right. The guy at the shop encourages the Roubaix. It's not always easy to remain rational on the verge of 50.


It's your money, seriously buy what you really want. I'm 36 years old and have no anxieties about being seen on a Roubaix. We all know it's not the bike, it's the motor. I see plenty of old men on S-Works and Cervelos but I guess that's because they're the only ones who can afford them 

BTW, I'm back on my 2013 SL2 Roubaix (post warranty repair) and it just reaffirms how stiff the SL4 Expert loaner bike I had was. My SL2 Roubaix is quite a bit more compliant over rough roads compared to the SL4 albeit not quite as stiff.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> It's your money, seriously buy what you really want. I'm 36 years old and have no anxieties about being seen on a Roubaix. We all know it's not the bike, it's the motor. I see plenty of old men on S-Works and Cervelos but I guess that's because they're the only ones who can afford them
> 
> BTW, I'm back on my 2013 SL2 Roubaix (post warranty repair) and it just reaffirms how stiff the SL4 Expert loaner bike I had was. My SL2 Roubaix is quite a bit more compliant over rough roads compared to the SL4 albeit not quite as stiff.


I enjoy your posts Dunbar. Really begs the question in terms of the direction that Specialized has taken the Roubaix. My SL3 Pro Roubaix is stiff. Certainly not as stiff as a Tarmac but still quite stiff over poor roads in particular. Of course Specialized has taken the Roubaix this direction to give it more a race bike feel which perhaps manifests some speed on acceleration and climbing albeit small. But you mention that your SL2 Sworks Roubaix is more compliant than the 10r carbon Expert SL4. Word is Specialized has made the SL4 Roubaix even stiffer than my SL3 Roubaix because it has more of a Tarmac rear triangle on it...even more responsive...but at what cost? Many that opt for a Roubaix want a bike that will take the rough stuff better. So there is clearly a sweet spot. This is one of the reasons I am in no hurry to upgrade to a SL4 Roubaix. Yes, the SL4 Roubaix is likely the most responsive Roubaix ever but no doubt this has a cost in ride over less than pristine road surfaces. Some of this of course can be tuned with judicious choice of wheels and rubber. New wider wheels change the tire footprint and allow lower tire pressures without fear of pinch flats and a good hedge against stiff frames on poor roads.


----------



## roadworthy

Mark 63 said:


> I'm sure you're right. The guy at the shop encourages the Roubaix.
> It's not always easy to remain rational on the verge of 50.


The Roubaix far and away is the better choice among the average rider. So you have to ask yourself what kind of rider are you?...or what kind of rider do you aspire to? If you like to ride around at 22-25 mph all the time in the drops hammering, you may be a candidate for a Tarmac. 

But there is a bit more to it. A nuance is, it depends on your flexibility and also your body proportion. There is a parallel universe in fit. Take two 6' tall riders...one with short legs and one with long legs like me. I have such a friend...ex bike racer, great guy. We are the same height. His bike looks completely different. He rides one size smaller with conventional head tube length and has a much lower seat than my Roubaix. A short legged rider will fit the same on a Tarmac as a long legged rider will fit on a Roubaix. If you compare geometry charts, top tubes and sta's size to size are the same. So pick the bike that fits you the best. If I had short legs for my height, I may be on a Tarmac.

As to keeping one's objectivity....I believe it is harder than ever now at any age. If the world doesn't make you crazy than you likely aren't paying attention because the world has basically gone mad. Or...its always been that way but the internet has exposed people for who they really are and it ain't a pretty picture.  I cope by riding a lot and listening to my extensive music collection. Btw, I am 59. Also, stay away from motorcycles. I love motorcycles and they are addictive. 
Good riding.


----------



## Mark 63

roadworthy said:


> A nuance is, it depends on your flexibility and also your body proportion. There is a parallel universe in fit. Take two 6' tall riders...one with short legs and one with long legs like me. I have such a friend...ex bike racer, great guy. We are the same height. His bike looks completely different. He rides one size smaller with conventional head tube length and has a much lower seat than my Roubaix. A short legged rider will fit the same on a Tarmac as a long legged rider will fit on a Roubaix. If you compare geometry charts, top tubes and sta's size to size are the same. So pick the bike that fits you the best. If I had short legs for my height, I may be on a Tarmac.
> Also, stay away from motorcycles. I love motorcycles and they are addictive.
> Good riding.


Interesting points, thank you. I fit into the former category--5'11 with legs shorter than average. 

I promised my wife--no motorcycles. Bicycle and saxophone for me.


----------



## roadworthy

Mark 63 said:


> Interesting points, thank you. I fit into the former category--5'11 with legs shorter than average.
> 
> I promised my wife--no motorcycles. Bicycle and saxophone for me.


If your inseam is shorter than average for your height, then you may want to consider a Tarmac. This will allow you a longer top tube relative to head tube length to serve your torso length. Top tube is analogous to torso length and head tube is an analog of leg length.
The bikes handle differently. Some find the Tarmac twitchier than a Roubaix. One man's twitchy however is another's perfect. I prefer the more steady handling and tracking of the Roubaix but others will want more a race bike feel of a Tarmac. 
Best to ride both bikes to determine what you like. 56 in either bike will likely be your best size with a slightly longer stem than stock.
Have fun.


----------



## Typetwelve

This exact topic came up here a few weeks ago...so I thought I'd repost my thoughts:

I spent last year on a 2009 SL2 Roubaix...and this year on a 2012 SL2 Tarmac.

When it comes to pure "bump for bump" ride quality, the Roubaix wins hands down...then again the Tarmac feels more connected and lively.

I feel the larger issue between the two bikes is the geometry of the frame. Do this, go to Specialized and open up a window of the Tarmac, then in another tab, the Roubaix. Click back and forth between the two and look at the difference. The differences are small but in the world of cycling, small differences go a long way. The wheel base is longer on the Roubaix, the head tube is longer on the Roubaix and the seating position more upright. These subtle differences make a big difference in how they ride.

Now...some will say you can change the "fit" to make the seating position more aggressive on a Roubaix but a fact is, you cannot change the frame and that's where the differences are.



Now...with that aside...my opinions.

I went with a Tarmac because I wanted a more aggressive ride. I have more time to pound out fast 20-25 miles rides than I do a century. I'm not saying the Roubaix isn't fast or the Tarmac cannot be taken to distance...I'm saying they aren't in their element in those roles. Truth be told, winter of 2014-15 I'm saving $$ to get a Roubaix as I really want both. I'm not regretting the decision to get a Tarmac as I adore riding the thing, if I could only own one, I feel I made the right choice. On the other hand, the Roubaix is a great bike and super smooth, I loved riding the thing and my ass/body really does miss it on the longer rides, that's for sure. That's why I'm going to get one. Either way, they are different bikes and you're going to have to decide what you want I guess...just don't let anyone tell you there is little difference between the two...


----------



## Typetwelve

roadworthy said:


> I enjoy your posts Dunbar. Really begs the question in terms of the direction that Specialized has taken the Roubaix. My SL3 Pro Roubaix is stiff. Certainly not as stiff as a Tarmac but still quite stiff over poor roads in particular. Of course Specialized has taken the Roubaix this direction to give it more a race bike feel which perhaps manifests some speed on acceleration and climbing albeit small. But you mention that your SL2 Sworks Roubaix is more compliant than the 10r carbon Expert SL4. Word is Specialized has made the SL4 Roubaix even stiffer than my SL3 Roubaix because it has more of a Tarmac rear triangle on it...even more responsive...but at what cost? Many that opt for a Roubaix want a bike that will take the rough stuff better. So there is clearly a sweet spot. This is one of the reasons I am in no hurry to upgrade to a SL4 Roubaix. Yes, the SL4 Roubaix is likely the most responsive Roubaix ever but no doubt this has a cost in ride over less than pristine road surfaces. Some of this of course can be tuned with judicious choice of wheels and rubber. New wider wheels change the tire footprint and allow lower tire pressures without fear of pinch flats and a good hedge against stiff frames on poor roads.


This concerns me...

Like I said earlier, I spent last season on. 2009 7r SL2 Roubaix and loved it. Like I also said, when the time came to buy my own I went with the Tarmac but knew what I was getting into with the plan of adding a Roubaix later.

I keep hearing that they are making the Roubaix stiffer and stiffer which really sucks. Why do this? The thing that made the SL2 so smooth was the flex...it made for a very plush ride. If they continue to make it more and more unforgiving...it will just become the Tarmac with vibration dampers.

Either way...ill be in the market for a long distance road bike come this time next year...which will put me smack dab in the SL4 arena. If I find that plush ride is gone...I guess I'll have to look elsewhere...


----------



## Typetwelve

Dunbar said:


> Don't assume that the Tarmac will force you to ride a more aggressive position. Depending on your height and inseam you may be able to setup both bikes identical fit-wise. Obviously, if you want the bars level or higher than the seat that will be much easier to achieve with the Roubaix's endurance geometry. The SL4 Roubaix is a very stiff bike so it really comes to the ride-smoothing Zertz inserts vs. the snappier handling of the Tarmac.


I'm not trying to be argumentative...but this keeps coming up and I disagree.

Time and time again I keep seeing comments like yours and its simply not true...if the bike is fit correctly. Think of it this way:

You buy a bike based on fit. Once you have the correct size frame you must adjust the components on it correctly. Bar height, seat position, stem position...all are based on body geometry, not how you "want" to sit. Once your seat is adjusted properly for your legs, it is what it is. Then you must adjust the bars correctly. The frame of the Tarmac and the Roubaix cannot be altered...and they are different. Artificially moving the bars or seat up/down on a Tarmac or Roubaix to mimic the geometry of the other will throw your body out of whack. The Tarmac has a more aggressive seating position...raising the handlebars to match the larger head tube of a Roubaix will throw everything else out of whack...

Sorry...I'm being long winded...

Long story short...a Tarmac is a Tarmac and a Roubaix is a Roubaix. Buying one and then fighting the frame geometry to make it closer to the other is silly...


----------



## Dunbar

Typetwelve said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative...but this keeps coming up and I disagree.


No problem, I think Roadworthy also gave the example that inseam really matters when it comes to fit. With the taller head tube of the Roubaix you can always do what the pros do and size down a frame size (or two in the case of pros) and run a longer stem and/or setback seat post. Here's a photo of a guy _jmX_ on bikeforums.net that did exactly that. Obviously you can't change the handling of the Roubaix vs. the Tarmac so that's something to consider.

BTW, Roadworthy I wish I could afford an S-Works but I ride a standard Roubaix Elite SL2.

jmX's bike:


----------



## roadworthy

Typetwelve said:


> This concerns me...
> 
> Like I said earlier, I spent last season on. 2009 7r SL2 Roubaix and loved it. Like I also said, when the time came to buy my own I went with the Tarmac but knew what I was getting into with the plan of adding a Roubaix later.
> 
> I keep hearing that they are making the Roubaix stiffer and stiffer which really sucks. Why do this? The thing that made the SL2 so smooth was the flex...it made for a very plush ride. If they continue to make it more and more unforgiving...it will just become the Tarmac with vibration dampers.
> 
> Either way...ill be in the market for a long distance road bike come this time next year...which will put me smack dab in the SL4 arena. If I find that plush ride is gone...I guess I'll have to look elsewhere...


They do it because an endurance bike doesn't have to be soft to not create a large dividend 50 miles into a demanding ride with 50 more miles to ride. The efficiency of a stiff frame is undeniable and why stiff frames are popular in racing circles. But there is much more. A basic tenant of design is when higher modulus carbon is used to create a stiffer frame, less of it is required which reduces weight. On a century where a Roubaix shines, a light bike is appreciated...especially if there is a lot of climbing.
As to geometry and riding position....the laid out angles of the Roubaix is what gives it a more supple ride. The laid out softer rear triangle and increase fork rake and trail is what softens the impact of undulating road surfaces. A more vertical bike like the Tarmac which gives the bike it short wheel base and quick handling will have a stiffer ride. Physics. So designers want to give the Roubaix the same good carbon as the Tarmac and lay out its angles to make it more compliant which it is.
As to your earlier point about riding position, you are correct...but only in degree. Latitude can be applied to any race bike to make it more upright. Before the advent of endurance bikes like the Roubaix I rode slammed race bikes with shorter head tube and saddle to bar drop was what it was with my long legs. So part of the calculus I believe when choosing the right bike is what you state...the bike should fit the proportion of the rider within a given tolerance. Dunbar made a good point about sizing. Sizing down is typically more racey...how you ride for example. You could easily ride one size up Tarmac and you would naturally have 20 more mm's of bar height and adjust stem length accordingly. It is up to the rider to decide where the sweet spot is. If you put a riser stem on a Tarmac for example to replicate the riding position of a Roubaix, it will foul the handling of the bike fractionally. This is because more weight is transferred to the rear of a shorter wheelbase bike and the reason that a Roubaix has longer chainstays and wheelbase, because a taller head tube does the same thing and the longer rear triangle and wheelbase lessens rear weight transfer to maintain respectable handling when riding more upright..

Cheers.


----------



## ToffieBoi

Thanks for all answers. I am still in the middle and trying to decide. I still have a month to decide, and then my friend will buy the bike in US and bring it to me. That is way to cheaper than buying the bike here in Turkey, unfortunately. 

Main problem is actually deciding what I really want. A part of me says that I need the aggressive frame, but aching muscles says that I need roubaix.



Dunbar said:


> No problem, I think Roadworthy also gave the example that inseam really matters when it comes to fit. With the taller head tube of the Roubaix you can always do what the pros do and size down a frame size (or two in the case of pros) and run a longer stem and/or setback seat post. Here's a photo of a guy _jmX_ on bikeforums.net that did exactly that. Obviously you can't change the handling of the Roubaix vs. the Tarmac so that's something to consider.
> 
> BTW, Roadworthy I wish I could afford an S-Works but I ride a standard Roubaix Elite SL2.
> 
> jmX's bike:


This was second thing I wonder. I am now riding Tarmac with -17 degreed 120mm stem and it is almost perfect for me. 
If I but the Roubaix, I will go higher on handlebars and I will not be able to lower the bar more. So in that case, I was thinking of buying 54cm frame instead of 56 and riding on 140mm stem with -7 degree. It will give me similar position with Tarmac.

But still, that position will not change how the frame rides and I still afraid of "not still enough ride" even I am not too strong.


----------



## roadworthy

ToffieBoi said:


> Thanks for all answers. I am still in the middle and trying to decide. I still have a month to decide, and then my friend will buy the bike in US and bring it to me. That is way to cheaper than buying the bike here in Turkey, unfortunately.
> 
> Main problem is actually deciding what I really want. A part of me says that I need the aggressive frame, but aching muscles says that I need roubaix.
> 
> 
> 
> This was second thing I wonder. I am now riding Tarmac with -17 degreed 120mm stem and it is almost perfect for me.
> If I but the Roubaix, I will go higher on handlebars and I will not be able to lower the bar more. So in that case, I was thinking of buying 54cm frame instead of 56 and riding on 140mm stem with -7 degree. It will give me similar position with Tarmac.
> 
> But still, that position will not change how the frame rides and I still afraid of "not still enough ride" even I am not too strong.


You have made a lot of different comments that are worth considering if you have another month to decide. For one thing, you have a pro riding position on your Tarmac. Big drop. That puts a lot of weight on the hands unless you are have a high FTP aka average wattage to offset the weight of your torso falling forward. You also mention you have aching muscles and yet you say you can ride your Tarmac without pain for 10 hours. Which is it? Most amateur cyclists even CAT 2 or 3 would not set their bike up as aggressively as you have your Tarmac. My personal belief is your issue is as much about pick of frame size and riding position as it is about choosing a different bike. A Roubaix is basically a a stretched Tarmac with taller head tube...same carbon and tube sections. You can accomplish much of your goal by morphing your riding position on your Tarmac by going with a 6 degree stem flipped up however longer to preserve your net reach but rotate your body rearward to place more weight on the saddle and less on the hands. This is the underlying basis for the Roubaix. You can start by changing the bike you have.
Good luck.


----------



## ToffieBoi

roadworthy said:


> You have made a lot of different comments that are worth considering if you have another month to decide. For one thing, you have a pro riding position on your Tarmac. Big drop. That puts a lot of weight on the hands unless you are have a high FTP aka average wattage to offset the weight of your torso falling forward. You also mention you have aching muscles and yet you say you can ride your Tarmac without pain for 10 hours. Which is it? Most amateur cyclists even CAT 2 or 3 would not set their bike up as aggressively as you have your Tarmac. My personal belief is your issue is as much about pick of frame size and riding position as it is about choosing a different bike. A Roubaix is basically a a stretched Tarmac with taller head tube...same carbon and tube sections. You can accomplish much of your goal by morphing your riding position on your Tarmac by going with a 6 degree stem flipped up however longer to preserve your net reach but rotate your body rearward to place more weight on the saddle and less on the hands. This is the underlying basis for the Roubaix. You can start by changing the bike you have.
> Good luck.


Pain I mentioned was only related to road quality. When the asphalt is good, or lets say OK, I was able to ride it really long times.

I can make it more clear like that. If I buy Tarmac, I need to change my training routes a bit so I will not have bad roads. On Roubaix I will have more option. 
And I know that just depends on what I like...

Also, a month is a bit unrealistic. Since they don't have all the sizes, colors and equipment in the LBS near to him, maybe I need to wait some time for the bike. Thats why I need to make the decision asap, but still I have a bit time.

I am closer to Roubaix now, because everyone said that it is stiff enough. But still, having a few more opinions about it will make my choice easier.


----------



## roadworthy

ToffieBoi said:


> Pain I mentioned was only related to road quality. When the asphalt is good, or lets say OK, I was able to ride it really long times.
> 
> I can make it more clear like that. If I buy Tarmac, I need to change my training routes a bit so I will not have bad roads. On Roubaix I will have more option.
> And I know that just depends on what I like...
> 
> Also, a month is a bit unrealistic. Since they don't have all the sizes, colors and equipment in the LBS near to him, maybe I need to wait some time for the bike. Thats why I need to make the decision asap, but still I have a bit time.
> 
> I am closer to Roubaix now, because everyone said that it is stiff enough. But still, having a few more opinions about it will make my choice easier.


Just to be clear on my end, the riding position you have chosen for your Tarmac is a 'choice'. Your riding position affects the assault on your body over rough roads. So you are choosing to subject your body to this road assault when taking your Tarmac over rough roads. So there is a parallel universe. If you change your position on your existing Tarmac to put more weight on your saddle by raising the handlebar, you will be less beaten up on poor road surfaces. Same applies to the Roubaix. If you buy a Roubaix and ride a small size for an aggressive position and ride poor roads, it will still beat you up...only slightly less than the Tarmac because of its extended wheelbase...the latter being diminished if you down size. The Roubaix's ride is a function of rider position and frame geometry..but if you downsize to ride aggressive as you discussed, you will abandon a ride improvement.


----------



## s-one

ToffieBoi said:


> This was second thing I wonder. I am now riding Tarmac with -17 degreed 120mm stem and it is almost perfect for me.
> If I but the Roubaix, I will go higher on handlebars and I will not be able to lower the bar more. So in that case, I was thinking of buying 54cm frame instead of 56 and riding on 140mm stem with -7 degree. It will give me similar position with Tarmac.
> 
> But still, that position will not change how the frame rides and I still afraid of "not still enough ride" even I am not too strong.


And just to add the Roubaix, at least the 2013 models have "20mm carbon cone spacer and 20mm of carbon spacers".


----------



## roadworthy

s-one said:


> And just to add the Roubaix, at least the 2013 models have "20mm carbon cone spacer and 20mm of carbon spacers".


Likely Specialized sensitivity to steerer failures they had which resulted in their fork campaign. Cone spacer adds some strength to exposed steerer above head tube and below stem. That said, the cone spacer can easily be exchanged for previous flat top dust cover which allows slamming the stem if desired by the owner.


----------



## darwinosx

Typetwelve said:


> This concerns me...
> 
> Like I said earlier, I spent last season on. 2009 7r SL2 Roubaix and loved it. Like I also said, when the time came to buy my own I went with the Tarmac but knew what I was getting into with the plan of adding a Roubaix later.
> 
> I keep hearing that they are making the Roubaix stiffer and stiffer which really sucks. Why do this? The thing that made the SL2 so smooth was the flex...it made for a very plush ride. If they continue to make it more and more unforgiving...it will just become the Tarmac with vibration dampers.
> 
> Either way...ill be in the market for a long distance road bike come this time next year...which will put me smack dab in the SL4 arena. If I find that plush ride is gone...I guess I'll have to look elsewhere...


That sounds like an exaggeration of the SL 4 stiffness. I just bought a 10r Roubaix and is certainly stiff but not as stiff as my Giant Defy. On the other hand I can sway the bottom bracket of an SL 2 which should not happen on any carbon bike as far as I am concerned. Prior to the SL 4 the only Specialized carbon frame I liked was the SL 3 Pro.
My opinion is when in doubt buy the Roubaix and I doubt very much you will regret it.


----------



## Dunbar

Well, the frame repair Specialized did on my SL2 didn't work. The exact same creak came back on the third ride following the repair. They better step up and replace my frame now without putting me through another 5 week ordeal. Even though the SL4 frame is quite a bit stiffer than my SL2 I think I'll have a tough time turning down an upgrade to a $3k frame if it is offered to me. Especially considering that I paid a fair bit less than that for my entire bike.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> Well, the frame repair Specialized did on my SL2 didn't work. The exact same creak came back on the third ride following the repair. They better step up and replace my frame now without putting me through another 5 week ordeal. Even though the SL4 frame is quite a bit stiffer than my SL2 I think I'll have a tough time turning down an upgrade to a $3k frame if it is offered to me. Especially considering that I paid a fair bit less than that for my entire bike.


Can you describe where the creak emanates from and what the alleged frame repair was?


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> Can you describe where the creak emanates from and what the alleged frame repair was?


It's in the seat tube, the frame was shipped to their warranty center and Specialized confirmed there was a small internal crack. The repair was described to me (second-hand by the LBS) as some carbon fiber and epoxy was added to reinforce the area. 

From hundreds of miles of riding I could only get it to creak while seated - either pedaling or coasting over bumpy roads. Standing and hammering wouldn't induce the sound. I tried different saddle, post, skewers and pedals with no change. I could remove my hands from the bars and still get the sound. The LBS checked a few more things at Specialized's direction before shipping the frame in. I just hope they don't string this along for a few more weeks. They've probably already spent more covering shipping and labor at this point than their cost on new Roubaix frame...


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> It's in the seat tube, the frame was shipped to their warranty center and Specialized confirmed there was a small internal crack. The repair was described to me (second-hand by the LBS) as some carbon fiber and epoxy was added to reinforce the area.
> 
> From hundreds of miles of riding I could only get it to creak while seated - either pedaling or coasting over bumpy roads. Standing and hammering wouldn't induce the sound. I tried different saddle, post, skewers and pedals with no change. I could remove my hands from the bars and still get the sound. The LBS checked a few more things at Specialized's direction before shipping the frame in. I just hope they don't string this along for a few more weeks. They've probably already spent more covering shipping and labor at this point than their cost on new Roubaix frame...


That would be frustrating. A pretty rare occurrence and pretty good that Specialized would even consider addressing it, attempting to repair it and even entertain a warranty replacement. If a SL4 is in the offing, you are a lucky man.
What did you ride this summer which the frame was being shipped all over the US?


----------



## Dunbar

True, although unless they can show that my negligence caused the crack I think that's what warranties are for. I rode it for about a week or two initially while they went back and forth with the warranty rep. Then Specialized requested the frame be sent in so the LBS loaned me a Roubaix SL4 Expert rental bike for 3 weeks. Pretty nice of them to do that but the agreement was that if somebody reserved the bike for a rental I had to bring it back (which I totally understand since they rent for $100/day.) My only other bike is my errand running rig with a rack and platform pedals which makes a poor Roubaix substitute!


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> True, although unless they can show that my negligence caused the crack I think that's what warranties are for. I rode it for about a week or two initially while they went back and forth with the warranty rep. Then Specialized requested the frame be sent in so the LBS loaned me a Roubaix SL4 Expert rental bike for 3 weeks. Pretty nice of them to do that but the agreement was that if somebody reserved the bike for a rental I had to bring it back (which I totally understand since they rent for $100/day.) My only other bike is my errand running rig with a rack and platform pedals which makes a poor Roubaix substitute!


I didn't know the crack was discernible...thought it may have been only an audible creak.
Hope you get a nice new SL4.
I have to tell you how I feel about my SL3 Roubaix Pro. I have a heavy design background. I couldn't hope to design any product as good as my '12 Roubaix...and yet Specialized did a pretty sweeping redesign with the SL4. The real question is...where will bike tech go in the future? Hard to believe there is much opportunity for great improvement at this point. I am waiting for the SL5 or SL6 because I am so pleased with my SL3.


----------



## purdyd

ToffieBoi said:


> Roads I am riding are mostly hilly. Full of 3rd and 4th category climbs, strava says like that. Many short and stiff climbs too. Also 50% of it have bad quality tarmac with many potholes, damages. Rest is quite good.
> 
> 
> Bad roads and some pain on my shoulders and arms says that I need roubaix. Also red frame is tempting
> But since I have many climbs and I like climbing, I don't want to sacrifice any performance at all. Buying $3000 bike and regretting because of performance will destroy all my motivation.
> 
> So if there are anyone out there who could compare those bikes, or have both, can you please tell me if I will regret buying roubaix because of performance issues or not.


i have a sl3 tarmac and sl4 roubaix

climbing wise, there is really no difference

if i had to have one bike to go down hill with any curves, it would be the tarmac

if the road is rough the roubaix

i've done everything on the tarmac from crit training to a double

somewhere about a year and a half ago i realized my rides including some organized riders were over increasingly bad roads and so i bought the roubaix for Christmas and have been very happy with that bike

the sl4 is just as stiff if not stiffer than the sl3 in power transfer

if you are slamming a 17 degree stem all the way down on a SL2 tarmac, i think i would be tempted to go with the SL4 tarmac, the sl4 roubaix in the same size would simply have too high a head tube


----------



## PJ352

purdyd said:


> *if you are slamming a 17 degree stem all the way down on a SL2 tarmac, i think i would be tempted to go with the SL4 tarma*c, the sl4 roubaix in the same size would simply have too high a head tube


This stood out to me as well. While it's sometimes acceptable to drop down a size to compensate for HTL/ saddle to bar drop, there's a risk that f/r weight distribution will suffer. To what extent, depends on a number of factors. Mainly, the riders current frame geo and stem length.

JMO, but if I could tolerate a Tarmac's ride for ~10 hours, a Roubaix wouldn't be on my list.


----------



## darwinosx

A lot of people slam stems that shouldn't.


----------



## PJ352

darwinosx said:


> A lot of people slam stems that shouldn't.


Very true, but if the OP is riding ~10 hours and wanting to match his current fit, I wouldn't put him in that category.


----------



## ToffieBoi

PJ352 said:


> Very true, but if the OP is riding ~10 hours and wanting to match his current fit, I wouldn't put him in that category.


I wouldn't put myself there too. I have longer arms and hands than average so I need handlebars a bit further than me. 
I tried 56cm frame with 140mm stem. Also 54cm frame with 140mm stem too.
Best fit was 56 on 120mm -17 degree or 54cm on 140mm on -7 degree...

Now there is an option like that too.
My friend already have a Roubaix SL4 Sport 105.
Specialized Bicycle Components

So there is an option like that;
My Tarmac is not even SL series (it is just and expert) but it has the same geometry with SL4 tarmac, I can keep both bikes.
Since I couldn't decide what to do...

So it will be like that;
I will buy SL4 Roubaix with 105 Group for $2100. 
I will keep both bikes and try them with same wheelset and tyre configuration. If fitting on Roubaix will be good enough, and stiffness is good as I've been told; I will sell Tarmac and keep just Roubaix.

If I will be still in the dilemma I am in now, I will keep both bikes with 10 speed Shimano groups.

If I will be not happy with Roubaix's handling but stiffness will be better than my Tarmac, I will try to sell my Roubaix here in Turkey and buy a new Tarmac Sl4 later.

I think this is the best option now...:idea:


----------



## PJ352

ToffieBoi said:


> So it will be like that;
> I will buy SL4 Roubaix with 105 Group for $2100.
> I will keep both bikes and try them with same wheelset and tyre configuration. If fitting on Roubaix will be good enough, and stiffness is good as I've been told; I will sell Tarmac and keep just Roubaix.
> 
> If I will be still in the dilemma I am in now, I will keep both bikes with 10 speed Shimano groups.
> 
> I think this is the best option now...:idea:


If you like Tarmacs handling, I'd be willing to bet that even if the Roubaix works for you, you'll want a Tarmac in your stable as well. :wink5:


----------



## ToffieBoi

PJ352 said:


> If you like Tarmacs handling, I'd be willing to bet that even if the Roubaix works for you, you'll want a Tarmac in your stable as well. :wink5:


I am not someone who likes fast descents and dangerous downhills. I am a bit "coward" about it. So maybe I can tolerate the handling like that. Even the people who was riding on both bikes couldn't make my decision more clear. I think the best will be trying both bikes and see what will be better for me


----------



## roadworthy

ToffieBoi said:


> I wouldn't put myself there too. I have longer arms and hands than average so I need handlebars a bit further than me.
> I tried 56cm frame with 140mm stem. Also 54cm frame with 140mm stem too.
> Best fit was 56 on 120mm -17 degree or 54cm on 140mm on -7 degree...
> 
> Now there is an option like that too.
> My friend already have a Roubaix SL4 Sport 105.
> Specialized Bicycle Components
> 
> So there is an option like that;
> My Tarmac is not even SL series (it is just and expert) but it has the same geometry with SL4 tarmac, I can keep both bikes.
> Since I couldn't decide what to do...
> 
> So it will be like that;
> I will buy SL4 Roubaix with 105 Group for $2100.
> I will keep both bikes and try them with same wheelset and tyre configuration. If fitting on Roubaix will be good enough, and stiffness is good as I've been told; I will sell Tarmac and keep just Roubaix.
> 
> If I will be still in the dilemma I am in now, I will keep both bikes with 10 speed Shimano groups.
> 
> If I will be not happy with Roubaix's handling but stiffness will be better than my Tarmac, I will try to sell my Roubaix here in Turkey and buy a new Tarmac Sl4 later.
> 
> I think this is the best option now...:idea:


You would save yourself a lot of money by raising the handlebar on your Tarmac and putting on a longer and more upright stem.


----------



## PJ352

ToffieBoi said:


> I think the best will be trying both bikes and see what will be better for me


That's the bottom line. Only you can decide what's best. Good luck!!


----------



## the mayor

I had a chance to ride a friend's 2012 Roubaix ( don't remember which Sl#) last summer at a hilly dirt road event for a few miles.
My main bikes are a Cannondale Evo Ui2 and a Ridley X-Fire disc ( which I was riding at this event)
Even though it wasn't set up for me ( seat was way too low)....the Roubaix impressed the Hell out of me.
I have the hots for the Expert Ui2 disc.....I think it could be the ultimate do all bike with just tire and gearing changes.


----------



## Mark 63

The local shop loaned me an S-Works Tarmac today (it was a family bike not one for sale). He has been encouraging the Roubaix for me based on my size, riding style and the fact that I've been riding a Secteur Comp for the past 3 years, but I wanted to give the Tarmac a chance.
The verdict: Tarmac is not for me. The ride and response are fantastic, but I couldn't put in long hours on that geometry at my age and flexibility. Also the roads in my town are in lousy condition, so the short, fast weeknight rides are where I'd get pounded the worst. 
Bottomline: I'm watching 2013 closeouts and hoping for a killer deal on a Roubaix Expert.


----------



## roadworthy

Mark 63 said:


> The local shop loaned me an S-Works Tarmac today (it was a family bike not one for sale). He has been encouraging the Roubaix for me based on my size, riding style and the fact that I've been riding a Secteur Comp for the past 3 years, but I wanted to give the Tarmac a chance.
> The verdict: Tarmac is not for me. The ride and response are fantastic, but I couldn't put in long hours on that geometry at my age and flexibility. Also the roads in my town are in lousy condition, so the short, fast weeknight rides are where I'd get pounded the worst.
> Bottomline: I'm watching 2013 closeouts and hoping for a killer deal on a Roubaix Expert.


Basically you describe why many of us choose a Roubaix. Riding on poor roads and riding position. If you are long legged for your height without great flexibility the Tarmac and other race bikes are even less tolerable. So I believe you have made a wise choice.
What I would do in your shoes if not buying a 2014 full bike with DA, 11s Ultegra or redesigned Red is...find a frameset and build it. Also, if you can find a Sworks or Pro SL3 Roubaix late 2011-2013...don't shy away.
The SL3 is a whale of a bike. The problem with a 2013 off the rack bike is the groupset. I will tell you as an experiment I built a bike with DA 7900 and it was awful. New DA9000 is much much better...so is new Ultegra 6800 or any of the electronic groupsets. New Red is excellent as well. I built with Campy in 2012 because Campy a couple of years ago was head and shoulders above Shimano and Sram. Not any more. Other two have stepped up. So if you can turn a wrench and build a bike, you will save. If you buy a Campy groupset out of the UK you will save more. Yes, the new SL4 Roubaix is a great bike, but don't look past a SL3 frameset for much less and then build it with the right groupset and put some good wheels on it. If you ride mostly bad roads, consider 23mm rims + 25c tires which allow lowering tire pressure without fear of pinch flats...more aero and more supple ride...jump ball for rolling resistance...every bit as good.
Have fun.


----------



## Dunbar

Update to my warranty saga. Specialized is warrantying my (creaking) SL2 frame and upgrading me to 2014 Roubaix SL4 Expert frame. I'd prefer the matte black but the warranty dept. doesn't have any so it will be the silver color which I can live with. Should have it next week and I'll start a new thread once I have enough miles on it to compare it to the SL2.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> Update to my warranty saga. Specialized is warrantying my (creaking) SL2 frame and upgrading me to 2014 Roubaix SL4 Expert frame. I'd prefer the matte black but the warranty dept. doesn't have any so it will be the silver color which I can live with. Should have it next week and I'll start a new thread once I have enough miles on it to compare it to the SL2.


Great news. As to the color, I personally feel you will be better with the silver because matte black is a dime a dozen and the silver is quite distinctive.
Pretty nice to get one of the best bikes on the planet. What kind of wheels and groupset you going to build with?
I look forward to your review.
Best Regards.


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> What kind of wheels and groupset you going to build with?


I'll be swapping my full 5700 105 setup over from the SL2. The wheels are my 1560g custom Kinlin XR-270 setup with GP4000s tires. I couldn't believe how much better my wheels/tires felt compared to those Dt Axis 4.0 wheels & Roubaix Pro tires that were on the SL4 Expert loaner I was riding. It will be interesting to see how much the ride improves with my wheels & tires on the SL4.


----------



## ToffieBoi

And I am telling my plan now.
I think this will be the final.

Now I have my friends Tarmac SL2 with Campagnolo Athena Carbon set. Which had multiple downshifting option, the old - better one. He gave me the bike to sell it.
Now I will sell my bike without my wheels and keep his bike until I got the Roubaix SL4.

My Roubaix SL4 will be like that;
8r SL4 Frame
Token C28A wheel set 
Campagnolo Athena Carbon 11s

All I need is new free hub for my wheel and it will be done. When I have time, I will upgrade the crankset on Roubaix later, since I don't have BB30 bottom bracket on my old bikes.


----------



## roadworthy

ToffieBoi said:


> And I am telling my plan now.
> I think this will be the final.
> 
> Now I have my friends Tarmac SL2 with Campagnolo Athena Carbon set. Which had multiple downshifting option, the old - better one. He gave me the bike to sell it.
> Now I will sell my bike without my wheels and keep his bike until I got the Roubaix SL4.
> 
> My Roubaix SL4 will be like that;
> 8r SL4 Frame
> Token C28A wheel set
> Campagnolo Athena Carbon 11s
> 
> All I need is new free hub for my wheel and it will be done. When I have time, I will upgrade the crankset on Roubaix later, since I don't have BB30 bottom bracket on my old bikes.


No doubt the 8r will be fine and cheaper but many that have ridden both...I own a 10r bike, much prefer the snappier feel of the high modulus carbon. If ride quality is the prize, then likely the 8r will be a bit softer, but if you like performance, you will appreciate the 10r. Most cyclists that ride toward the aggressive range prefer a slightly stiffer bike. The angles of the Roubaix smooth out the ride independent of carbon choice.

What do you mean about multiple shift option with the Athena? Athena doesn't have multiple shifting option.


----------



## Dunbar

ToffieBoi said:


> My Roubaix SL4 will be like that;
> 8r SL4 Frame
> Token C28A wheel set
> Campagnolo Athena Carbon 11s


Specialized only sells the bare frames in S-Works or SL4 Pro 10r. You would need to buy an entire bike and swap the group out to get an 8r Roubaix with those components. It might not be such a bad deal to buy the cheapest Roubaix and swap everything out now that Specialized only offers SL4 frames on the Roubaix and Tarmac line.


----------



## ToffieBoi

roadworthy said:


> What do you mean about multiple shift option with the Athena? Athena doesn't have multiple shifting option.


I think after 2011, Campagnolo decided to sell Athena group without multiple shifting. But I have old one. Thats why my thumb shifter has I think 3 levels.



Dunbar said:


> Specialized only sells the bare frames in S-Works or SL4 Pro 10r. You would need to buy an entire bike and swap the group out to get an 8r Roubaix with those components. It might not be such a bad deal to buy the cheapest Roubaix and swap everything out now that Specialized only offers SL4 frames on the Roubaix and Tarmac line.


I am buying Roubaix SL4 Sport 105.
Specialized Bicycle Components

And then I will transfer the components between, then sell my old frame


----------



## roadworthy

ToffieBoi said:


> I think after 2011, Campagnolo decided to sell Athena group without multiple shifting. But I have old one. Thats why my thumb shifter has I think 3 levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am buying Roubaix SL4 Sport 105.
> Specialized Bicycle Components
> 
> And then I will transfer the components between, then sell my old frame


I see. I am a Campy fan but not a total gunkie for it with the advent of the new 11s stuff from Shimano and Sram which has really evened the playing field.
But I will always have a soft spot for the artistry of Campy Record and still my favorite mechanical groupset all said. I really wouldn't want Campy with the restricted single shifting. Love the multiple shift feature.
Good luck with your new bike.


----------



## Dunbar

ToffieBoi said:


> I am buying Roubaix SL4 Sport 105...And then I will transfer the components between, then sell my old frame


Just out of curiosity, why not buy the base Sora Roubaix SL4 for $1800 if you're swapping everything out? It has exactly the same frame. Are you confident you will get the extra $800 back with the 105 components? Because the difference between Sora and 105 groupset pricing online is only around $200-250.


----------



## ToffieBoi

Dunbar said:


> Just out of curiosity, why not buy the base Sora Roubaix SL4 for $1800 if you're swapping everything out? It has exactly the same frame. Are you confident you will get the extra $800 back with the 105 components? Because the difference between Sora and 105 groupset pricing online is only around $200-250.


There is a small possibility that I will not sell my Tarmac frame and use it. Thats why I don't want to ride on Sora again like the first times I started.

Also for selling, 105 groups are way to easier to sell here in Turkey. People care less about frame and more about groupset and 105 is in the middle, which looks professional and affordable. So it will not cost me more.

Specialized Bicycle Components
And the bike is just $2100, so there is only $300 difference. But it will make my sale faster so I will be happier


----------



## ToffieBoi

Hi again.
I have a question and I didn't want to start another topic about it.

Now, as I wrote before I decided on frame and groupset. Wheelset were a bit trouble, I was trying to find campagnolo freehub and everything. But now, there is a guy who wants to buy my complete bike, with my Token wheelset and he is paying well.

So I have around $700 extra for the wheelset for my new bike. Also I have Campagnolo Khamsin.

Now what I think is buying a Taiwanese carbon wheelset with 50 or 60mm profile (24mm wide) for the routes I know what they are. I will ride on 24C tires with that wheelset.
For bad routes, slow rides and exploring new routes, I will ride on my Khamsin with 28C tires.

2013 SuperLite Straight Pull Road Carbon Clincher Wheels SL-50C - Carbon wheels,Carbon wheelsets,29er carbon frames,carbon road bicycle wheels,carbon rims,carbon MTB bike frame-bicycle shop in yishun

This is the wheelset I am planning to buy.


I want this wheelset, firstly because here in Istanbul we have a meeting in twice a month, and we are riding on F1 track. I want aero wheels for it. But I don't trust carbon wheels on really bad roads. I think they will be cool with 28C tires but I still want to be safe.


----------



## Dunbar

I picked up my new 2014 Roubaix SL4 Expert frame with all of my components swapped over. I had them install Dura Ace 9000 cables/housings and an Ultegra 6800 front caliper. Took it out for a 30 mile shakedown ride. I made sure to run the same pressure in my tires I did on my SL2. I definitely noticed that the SL4 frame is stiffer and you could feel the extra harshness over rough pavement. Felt exactly like the Roubaix SL4 Expert loaner I had for 3 weeks. I thought some of the harshness on that bike was due to the Roubaix Pro tires but now it seems it's mostly b/c of the added frame stiffness. I got a flat half way through the ride  I think I only got 70-80psi in the rear tire with my C02 inflator and the ride smoothed out considerably. So there's always the option of running a 28c rear tire at lower pressure. Continental is coming out with a 28c version of the new GP 4000S II so I may end up going that route. I'll post more impressions once I put a few hundred miles on it. Here's a pic (didn't have time to install new bar tape yet.)


----------



## roadworthy

Hi Dunbar,
Congrats on the bike. I like the aesthetic and looks to be a good sportive position you ride...many Roubaix owners will ride a bit more upright. My view on the bar tape is...it is preferred to ride with no tape or old tape when building a new bike for the first ride or two. This allows for sorting the critical position of the shifters on the handlebar. They look to be in a very good position btw. I like your set up.

As to the ride quality. A point to consider. The engineers that design these bikes put a lot of thought into it and many times when changing the design...the SL4 is another major design change...they build up a few prototypes with different tube sections and carbon lay up to evaluate ride and performance. Specialized knows their demographic for the Roubaix and yet they took it closer to the Tarmac in performance and in doing so, with some assault to the ride quality. They did this with deliberation and decided that the performance improvement of the bike is worth the stiffer ride over rough roads. Has to be the calculus because there is no free lunch when it comes to energy transfer. This decision may or may not rest well with many that prefer the Roubaix over the Tarmac. As you say, ride quality can be somewhat tamed with 28c tires and lower pressure. I run 23's on my Roubaix SL3 at high pressure but it isn't quite as stiff as the SL4 I understand because of the rear triangle change in particular. All said, I am not sure I would prefer the stiffer SL4 but it probably has a quicker and more alive feel to it. I bet if living with both bikes however, over time, I would prefer the SL4 because I am a performance oriented rider. I like to ride fast and with guys who like to hammer and I want a bike that puts the power I have to the road.

Before the late Sheldon Brown passed away unexpectedly, I corresponded with the great bicycle savant about frame sizing and handling. Based upon the questions I had, one thing he wrote really stuck with me....as he categorized the wide difference in the hundreds of different bicycles he owned throughout his life. He said that humans are highly adaptive creatures and that there is a wide umbrella of acceptable characteristics the average cyclist will quickly adapt to even though bicycles can vary somewhat dramatically in ride and handling. I agree with him on this.

I look forward to your further thoughts as you ride the bike a bit more.




Dunbar said:


> I picked up my new 2014 Roubaix SL4 Expert frame with all of my components swapped over. I had them install Dura Ace 9000 cables/housings and an Ultegra 6800 front caliper. Took it out for a 30 mile shakedown ride. I made sure to run the same pressure in my tires I did on my SL2. I definitely noticed that the SL4 frame is stiffer and you could feel the extra harshness over rough pavement. Felt exactly like the Roubaix SL4 Expert loaner I had for 3 weeks. I thought some of the harshness on that bike was due to the Roubaix Pro tires but now it seems it's mostly b/c of the added frame stiffness. I got a flat half way through the ride  I think I only got 70-80psi in the rear tire with my C02 inflator and the ride smoothed out considerably. So there's always the option of running a 28c rear tire at lower pressure. Continental is coming out with a 28c version of the new GP 4000S II so I may end up going that route. I'll post more impressions once I put a few hundred miles on it. Here's a pic (didn't have time to install new bar tape yet.)


----------



## MMassey

*Roubaix vs. Tarmac, the Age Old Question*

I own a 2010 Roubaix and a 2013 Tarmac. I love both bikes. I time all of my rides. I have done century rides on both bikes.

I am consistently faster on the Tarmac than on the Roubaix. My times are better. I definitely notice the power transfer increase on the Tarmac when the hammer is down. I notice it when I am sitting during a climb and when I am standing during a climb. I am faster on the downhills. When at the end of a "friendly" competitive climb we are going all out, the Tarmac is more responsive and gets me there quicker whereas the Roubaix's flex in the rear compromises my performance. When I first bought the Tarmac, I was actually slower until I got fitted and until my body adapted to the bike. I believe that the more aggressive position uses muscles differently. Also, when they fitted me, they turned the handlebar stem upside down to raise me up a little bit. Which leads to the fact that...

I am consistently more comfortable and relaxed on the Roubaix. I am not as warn out on the Roubaix after a long ride. I enjoy the scenery a little more on a Roubaix. I am almost as fast on the Roubaix. 

For me, it comes down to this: Is it more important to be a couple of seconds faster and more competitve when the heat is on? Or is it more important to be almost as fast but a bit more relaxed and comfortable? The Tarmac, due to its nature, makes me want to ride harder for longer. The Roubaix makes me want to ride longer but not as hard. I, like many others, am very competitive by nature. When someone passes me, the race is on. I can't help myself. For this reason, I have been riding the Tarmac on all of my rides since I bought it. However, my neck is a little sore and I may have to switch back to the Roubaix...


----------



## s-one

Great comment MMassey


----------



## roadworthy

MMassey said:


> I own a 2010 Roubaix and a 2013 Tarmac. I love both bikes. I time all of my rides. I have done century rides on both bikes.
> 
> I am consistently faster on the Tarmac than on the Roubaix. My times are better. I definitely notice the power transfer increase on the Tarmac when the hammer is down. I notice it when I am sitting during a climb and when I and standing during a climb. I am faster on the downhills. When at the end of a "friendly" competitive climb we are going all out, the Tarmac is more responsive and gets me there quicker whereas the Roubaix's flex in the rear compromises my performance. When I first bought the Tarmac, I was actually slower until I got fitted and until my body adapted to the bike. I believe that the more aggressive position uses muscles differently. Also, when they fitted me, they turned the handlebar stem upside down to raise me up a little bit. Which leads to the fact that...
> 
> I am consistently more comfortable and relaxed on the Roubaix. I am not as warn out on the Roubaix after a long ride. I enjoy the scenery a little more on a Roubaix. I am almost as fast on the Roubaix.
> 
> For me, it comes down to this: Is it more important to be a couple of seconds faster and more competitve when the heat is on? Or is it more important to be almost as fast but a bit more relaxed and comfortable? The Tarmac, due to its nature, makes me want to ride harder for longer. The Roubaix makes me want to ride longer but not as hard. I, like many others, am very competitive by nature. When someone passes me, the race is on. I can't help myself. For this reason, I have been riding the Tarmac on all of my rides since I bought it. However, my neck is a little sore and I may have to switch back to the Roubaix...


In 2011 Specialized redesigned the Roubaix and created the SL3 version. It is a very fast bike...I own one. Cancellara who raced the Roubaix successfully said the SL3 was as stiff as the SL3 Tarmac. The SL4 Roubaix has just come out and it is even stiffer laterally than the SL3. There have been many timed comparison between the two bikes. I don't buy that there is anything between a new Tarmac and Roubaix in speed. Any difference you experience is probably the spec difference between the two bikes and mostly riding position. Most can slam a Roubaix to replicate the riding position of a Tarmac if that is their intent.


----------



## PJ352

MMassey said:


> ... my neck is a little sore and I may have to switch back to the Roubaix...


While I can understand your deferring to the Roubaix for a slightly more forgiving ride, neck soreness isn't a reason to switch bikes. Rather, look at reach/ drop of each bike and (assuming you ride relatively pain free on the Roubaix) consider replicating its fit on the Tarmac. 

The Roubaix versus Tarnac argument has been going on nearly as long as both bikes existed. IMO the real difference that separates them is the geo.. Tarmac is quicker to change its line, with less rider input. Some people prefer that, while others prefer slightly slower, more predictable handling.

Assuming a good fit (and good form), I honestly don't see how someone would be faster on one bike than another. At speeds under around 27 MPH, even any aero advantage wouldn't be discernible.

I say ride whatever makes you smile.


----------



## mmorales

MMassey said:


> I own a 2010 Roubaix and a 2013 Tarmac. I love both bikes. I time all of my rides. I have done century rides on both bikes.
> 
> I am consistently faster on the Tarmac than on the Roubaix. My times are better. I definitely notice the power transfer increase on the Tarmac when the hammer is down. I notice it when I am sitting during a climb and when I am standing during a climb. I am faster on the downhills. When at the end of a "friendly" competitive climb we are going all out, the Tarmac is more responsive and gets me there quicker whereas the Roubaix's flex in the rear compromises my performance. When I first bought the Tarmac, I was actually slower until I got fitted and until my body adapted to the bike. I believe that the more aggressive position uses muscles differently. Also, when they fitted me, they turned the handlebar stem upside down to raise me up a little bit. Which leads to the fact that...
> 
> I am consistently more comfortable and relaxed on the Roubaix. I am not as warn out on the Roubaix after a long ride. I enjoy the scenery a little more on a Roubaix. I am almost as fast on the Roubaix.
> 
> For me, it comes down to this: Is it more important to be a couple of seconds faster and more competitve when the heat is on? Or is it more important to be almost as fast but a bit more relaxed and comfortable? The Tarmac, due to its nature, makes me want to ride harder for longer. The Roubaix makes me want to ride longer but not as hard. I, like many others, am very competitive by nature. When someone passes me, the race is on. I can't help myself. For this reason, I have been riding the Tarmac on all of my rides since I bought it. However, my neck is a little sore and I may have to switch back to the Roubaix...


Well said Sir. I own both 2012 Tarmac S Works and the new Roubaix S Works SL4. I found that the Tarmac more sensitive to the riders inputs, and the Roubaix just a touch slower to respond to your demands. While I enjoy both bike immensely, they both have their place. I too tend to want to ride harder while on the Tarmac I think mostly because of it's aggressive nature. It does climb better than the Roubaix, but most people wouldn't buy the Roubaix to hit the hills with. The Roubaix is a perfect bike for those rolling Century rides where you may or may not come across some rough terrain or when you just feel like riding in a less aggressive posture. Both bikes are absolutely awesome and with a proper fit will leave a smile firmly engraved on your face. I love them more and more every time I ride them. Make no mistake about it, the Roubaix is no slouch when it comes to laying down the power on the road but it is a more endurance minded geometry frame. Thats not to say that you couldn't slam it and make it a close image to the Tarmac. Both bikes are only 6 ounces apart in weight so it's not like the Roubaix is a tub. 

In the end, ride which ever bike leaves you wanting more! Either way you win. Enjoy and be safe.


----------



## roadworthy

mmorales said:


> Well said Sir. I own both 2012 Tarmac S Works and the new Roubaix S Works SL4. I found that the Tarmac more sensitive to the riders inputs, and the Roubaix just a touch slower to respond to your demands. While I enjoy both bike immensely, they both have their place. I too tend to want to ride harder while on the Tarmac I think mostly because of it's aggressive nature. It does climb better than the Roubaix, but most people wouldn't buy the Roubaix to hit the hills with. The Roubaix is a perfect bike for those rolling Century rides where you may or may not come across some rough terrain or when you just feel like riding in a less aggressive posture. Both bikes are absolutely awesome and with a proper fit will leave a smile firmly engraved on your face. I love them more and more every time I ride them. Make no mistake about it, the Roubaix is no slouch when it comes to laying down the power on the road but it is a more endurance minded geometry frame. Thats not to say that you couldn't slam it and make it a close image to the Tarmac. Both bikes are only 6 ounces apart in weight so it's not like the Roubaix is a tub.
> 
> In the end, ride which ever bike leaves you wanting more! Either way you win. Enjoy and be safe.


I guess you don't ride or climb with any CAT 1 or 2 Roubaix riders. There is nothing between the two in speed with similar set up.


----------



## MMassey

In reference to an earlier comment about my opinion... I didn't ask anybody to "buy it." I am only voicing _my_ personal opinion based on _my_ personal experience from having ridden both bikes for thousands of miles on the same roads in similar circumstances. I am simply stating _my_ interpretation of data from _my_ timed rides. If someone else has done the same and has reached a different conclusion and/or experienced a different result, it is understandable; people are mentally and physically different. I am also not stating that one bike is better than the other; I thouroughy enjoy both my Tarmac and my Roubaix. They both “make me smile.”

I have been professionally fitted to both bikes. Both my bikes are Specialized Experts and have the same group set-Shimano Ultegra and the same wheels and tires, Mavic Ksyrium Elites and Conti 4000S. Comparing _myself_ on the 2010 Roubaix to _myself_ on the 2013 Tarmac, there _is _a difference in _my_ performance between the two bikes. I am not comparing my times to anyone else’s, especially not Cancellara’s or any other professional rider. I am not a pro and no bike in the world would make me as fast as a pro, except for maybe a Suzuki Huyabusa. I have only raced in sanctioned events a couple of times and I never reached <st1:stockticker>CAT</st1:stockticker> 1 or <st1:stockticker>CAT</st1:stockticker> 2 level. I am merely a performance based recreational rider who logs about 6000 miles a year and I thoroughly enjoy a spirited group ride with people at or around the same level as I consider myself to be. 

In reference to another earlier comment: To set the "geometry" of the two bikes up the same I would have to get a handlebar stem with a larger angle for my Tarmac, which would take more of my weight off the front end which would move the bike away from its intended design-<st1:stockticker>IMO</st1:stockticker>. I would also have to shorten the wheelbase of the Roubaix-not quite sure how to do that; or lengthen the wheelbase of the Tarmac, not sure how to do that either. Why would I want to? I appreciate the differences between the two bikes. And in my opinion, they are two physically different bikes. I may be wrong, but I believe the Roubaix is designed to have more frame flex for a suppler ride, where the Tarmac is designed with a more aggressive geometry, shorter wheelbase, and stiffer frame.

Thanks for reading and enjoy your ride.


----------



## roadworthy

MMassey said:


> In reference to an earlier comment about my opinion... I didn't ask anybody to "buy it." I am only voicing _my_ personal opinion based on _my_ personal experience from having ridden both bikes for thousands of miles on the same roads in similar circumstances. I am simply stating _my_ interpretation of data from _my_ timed rides. If someone else has done the same and has reached a different conclusion and/or experienced a different result, it is understandable; people are mentally and physically different. I am also not stating that one bike is better than the other; I thouroughy enjoy both my Tarmac and my Roubaix. They both “make me smile.”
> 
> I have been professionally fitted to both bikes. Both my bikes are Specialized Experts and have the same group set-Shimano Ultegra and the same wheels and tires, Mavic Ksyrium Elites and Conti 4000S. Comparing _myself_ on the 2010 Roubaix to _myself_ on the 2013 Tarmac, there _is _a difference in _my_ performance between the two bikes. I am not comparing my times to anyone else’s, especially not Cancellara’s or any other professional rider. I am not a pro and no bike in the world would make me as fast as a pro, except for maybe a Suzuki Huyabusa. I have only raced in sanctioned events a couple of times and I never reached <st1:stockticker>CAT</st1:stockticker> 1 or <st1:stockticker>CAT</st1:stockticker> 2 level. I am merely a performance based recreational rider who logs about 6000 miles a year and I thoroughly enjoy a spirited group ride with people at or around the same level as I consider myself to be.
> 
> In reference to another earlier comment: To set the "geometry" of the two bikes up the same I would have to get a handlebar stem with a larger angle for my Tarmac, which would take more of my weight off the front end which would move the bike away from its intended design-<st1:stockticker>IMO</st1:stockticker>. I would also have to shorten the wheelbase of the Roubaix-not quite sure how to do that; or lengthen the wheelbase of the Tarmac, not sure how to do that either. Why would I want to? I appreciate the differences between the two bikes. And in my opinion, they are two physically different bikes. I may be wrong, but I believe the Roubaix is designed to have more frame flex for a suppler ride, where the Tarmac is designed with a more aggressive geometry, shorter wheelbase, and stiffer frame.
> 
> Thanks for reading and enjoy your ride.


Look, its ok you don't get it. I accept that. I just have to set the record straight. First your Hayabusa analogy is funny. No you wouldn't be a pro rider on a Hayabusa either. A pro on a Honda 600 CBR would lap you at the track. The talent of the rider far eclipses the difference in the bike...same between motorcycles and road bicycles.

Second, you are comparing apples with watermelon. The 2010 SL2 Roubaix you own has been redesigned twice since 2010. You are comparing it to the latest SL4 Tarmac. There is nothing between the stiffness of the latest SL4 Roubaix and SL4 Tarmac with the same 10r carbon. There is nothing between them in speed no matter what you say.

The last point pretty much captures your false analysis. You say raise the handlebar on the Tarmac. No, you lower the handlebar on the Roubaix. If this isn't achievable with a negative rise stem slammed to the head tube, then you are on the wrong size Roubaix. You 'choose' to ride your Roubaix more upright than your Tarmac. This is your choice and the biggest difference between the speed difference you claim over and above comparing two model years older Roubaix which has nothing like the performance of the new SL4 Roubaix...a completely different bike. A SL2 Tarmac is nothing like the latest SL4 Tarmac either.
Just want to set the record straight.


----------



## PJ352

MMassey said:


> In reference to another earlier comment: To set the "geometry" of the two bikes up the same I would have to get a handlebar stem with a larger angle for my Tarmac, which would take more of my weight off the front end which would move the bike away from its intended design-<st1:stockticker>IMO</st1:stockticker>. I would also have to shorten the wheelbase of the Roubaix-not quite sure how to do that; or lengthen the wheelbase of the Tarmac, not sure how to do that either. Why would I want to? I appreciate the differences between the two bikes. And in my opinion, they are two physically different bikes. I may be wrong, but I believe the Roubaix is designed to have more frame flex for a suppler ride, where the Tarmac is designed with a more aggressive geometry, shorter wheelbase, and stiffer frame.


Please reread my comment. Nowhere did I say to set the geometry of the two bikes the same (that's obviously impossible). What I said was replicate the fit (specifically reach/ drop) of your Roubaix on the Tarmac. Since the geo of both bikes is similar, that amount of change isn't going to change f/r weight distribution. 

This 'fix' is common practice for riders experiencing neck/ shoulder discomfort, and something most any competent fitter can manage.


----------



## mmorales

roadworthy said:


> I guess you don't ride or climb with any CAT 1 or 2 Roubaix riders. There is nothing between the two in speed with similar set up.


I made no mention of the Roubaix's climbing speed or lack there of. I said " Most people wouldn't buy the Roubaix to use as a climbing bike". In my opinion the Tarmac climbs better. Thats not to say the Roubaix cannot climb, I feel as though the Tarmac is better suited for climbing, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Dunbar

MMassey said:


> I have been professionally fitted to both bikes.


I'm not trying to pile on here because I wish more people would post detailed reviews like yours. You didn't mention if the fits were done by different fitters but why would a fitter set you up differently on two different bikes? Unless you specifically ask for it they should be setting you up identically IMO. It's fine to have different bikes intended for different purposes but to say the Tarmac is faster than the Roubaix is just not true IMO. Honestly, I don't think my $3500 Roubaix is any faster than a 10 year old aluminum road bike you can pick up on Craigslist for $400.


----------



## MMassey

I never said the Tarmac is faster than the Roubaix. What I said was _I _am faster on the Tarmac than _I_ am on the Roubaix.


----------



## MMassey

You are the one who doesn't get it. I clearly stated in my original post what I was comparing and offering my opinions about. And why would I want to lower the handlebar on my Roubaix? I like it the way it is. I also like my Tarmac the way it is. It is a pity that you are so easily offended. You must have a Tarmac envy complex or something. Maybe you should see a psych about that. Just make sure he doesn't also own a Tarmac.


----------



## Dunbar

MMassey said:


> You are the one who doesn't get it. I clearly stated in my original post what I was comparing and offering my opinions about. And why would I want to lower the handlebar on my Roubaix?


We're just pointing out that a Roubaix with the same aggressive position will be just as fast as the Tarmac. So claiming that you are faster on a more aggressively fitted bike is stating the obvious. If I said I was faster on my TT bike than my Roubaix everybody would say "duh." You are the one that seems so defensive.


----------



## Typetwelve

I'm not trying to light a fire here (although I may) but I keep reading comments pertaining to the two being the same save positioning of the seat/handlebars.

I'll say it again, I disagree with this.

They are different bikes, if not, Specialized wouldn't sell the two, they'd sell a "Roubaix" edition Tarmac.

Frame stiffness, build, carbon material...all of this is all good and well but the geometry is still different.

People preach fit over and over again...which I fully agree with. Then they turn around and say that by manipulating seat height and the handlebars, you can turn a Roubaix into a Tarmac...which you cannot. The seat position on a Roubaix is different than a Tarmac, the head tube is taller and the chain stay is longer as well. These small things add up to a different ride. No matter how much you fool with a handlebar stem or seat adjustment, you can't match the two 100%. Also, if you artificially raise the seat on a Roubaix to give a more aggressive forward lean, you have now successfully thrown off your leg positioning...which is never a bright idea and can cause physical issues...

Specialized may have done quite a bit on the SL4 models to narrow the gap between the two...but there is a still a gap and it is wide enough that simply raising a seat of flipping a stem won't cut it.

*EDIT*

To help further my point, go to Specialized's website and actually look at the geometry specs of the bikes. Case-in-point, I own a SL2 Tarmac, somparing it to a SL4, which so many claim ride night and day different than a SL2, the differences are tiny.

Here's the variations from SL2 to SL4 Tarmac (listed as SL4 Tarmac specs +/- difference):

Front-center -3mm
Wheelbase -3mm
Headtube -10mm

And that's it...every other dimension is the same.

Now...the differences between the Sl4 Roubaix and the SL4 Tarmac (listed as SL4 Tarmac specs +/- difference):

Seat tube length -15mm
B-B Drop -2.5mm
Head tube angle +1 degree
Fork Rake -6mm
Front-center -15mm
Wheelbase -25mm
Head tube length -30mm
Reach -8mm
Stack -26mm

Those are some BIG differences. If 3mm here or there makes the SL4 more lively than than the SL2...what in the heck will +/- 15-30mm do? Heck, the head tube on the Roubaix is a whopping 30mm longer. That will make a BIG difference in how the bike handles.


----------



## roadworthy

Typetwelve said:


> I'm not trying to light a fire here (although I may) but I keep reading comments pertaining to the two being the same save positioning of the seat/handlebars.
> 
> I'll say it again, I disagree with this.
> 
> They are different bikes, if not, Specialized wouldn't sell the two, they'd sell a "Roubaix" edition Tarmac.
> 
> Frame stiffness, build, carbon material...all of this is all good and well but the geometry is still different.
> 
> People preach fit over and over again...which I fully agree with. Then they turn around and say that by manipulating seat height and the handlebars, you can turn a Roubaix into a Tarmac...which you cannot. The seat position on a Roubaix is different than a Tarmac, the head tube is taller and the chain stay is longer as well. These small things add up to a different ride. No matter how much you fool with a handlebar stem or seat adjustment, you can't match the two 100%. Also, if you artificially raise the seat on a Roubaix to give a more aggressive forward lean, you have now successfully thrown off your leg positioning...which is never a bright idea and can cause physical issues...
> 
> Specialized may have done quite a bit on the SL4 models to narrow the gap between the two...but there is a still a gap and it is wide enough that simply raising a seat of flipping a stem won't cut it.
> 
> *EDIT*
> 
> To help further my point, go to Specialized's website and actually look at the geometry specs of the bikes. Case-in-point, I own a SL2 Tarmac, somparing it to a SL4, which so many claim ride night and day different than a SL2, the differences are tiny.
> 
> Here's the variations from SL2 to SL4 Tarmac (listed as SL4 Tarmac specs +/- difference):
> 
> Front-center -3mm
> Wheelbase -3mm
> Headtube -10mm
> 
> And that's it...every other dimension is the same.
> 
> Now...the differences between the Sl4 Roubaix and the SL4 Tarmac (listed as SL4 Tarmac specs +/- difference):
> 
> Seat tube length -15mm
> B-B Drop -2.5mm
> Head tube angle +1 degree
> Fork Rake -6mm
> Front-center -15mm
> Wheelbase -25mm
> Head tube length -30mm
> Reach -8mm
> Stack -26mm
> 
> Those are some BIG differences. If 3mm here or there makes the SL4 more lively than than the SL2...what in the heck will +/- 15-30mm do? Heck, the head tube on the Roubaix is a whopping 30mm longer. That will make a BIG difference in how the bike handles.


At the end of the day, people believe what they want. The new SL4 Roubaix is the 3rd stiffest bike ever tested by Velonews. It is quite possible it is 'stiffer' than the SL4 Tarmac that came out before it. If you have data to the contrary, I would love to see it. The new Roubaix is basically a Tarmac with slightly longer wheelbase and taller head tube. If riding position is made the same between the two bikes, there will be nothing between them in speed. You want more? Very few of us ride pristine roads. The Roubaix will beat a Tarmac on rough roads that most routinely ride on.


----------



## Typetwelve

roadworthy said:


> At the end of the day, people believe what they want. The new SL4 Roubaix is the 3rd stiffest bike ever tested by Velonews. It is quite possible it is 'stiffer' than the SL4 Tarmac that came out before it. If you have data to the contrary, I would love to see it. The new Roubaix is basically a Tarmac with slightly longer wheelbase and taller head tube. If riding position is made the same between the two bikes, there will be nothing between them in speed. You want more? Very few of us ride pristine roads. The Roubaix will beat a Tarmac on rough roads that most routinely ride on.


Like I said before, I have no doubts as to how stiff the SL4 Roubaix is, or how fast of a bike it is. I rode a far different and far less stiff SL2 Roubaix last year and it was plenty fast...it was definitely more of a bike than I am a rider. I'm sure the SL4 is lightning fast.

I'm simply trying to point out that they are different bikes...moving a seat slightly up or flipping a stem cannot change the no-so-small geometry differences of the frame, no matter how hard you try. No amount of seat adjustment will make a Roubaix "feel" like a Tarmac. I consider this a good thing though, I am by no means slamming the Roubaix, its an amazing bike.


----------



## Dunbar

Typetwelve said:


> I'm simply trying to point out that they are different bikes...moving a seat slightly up or flipping a stem cannot change the no-so-small geometry differences of the frame, no matter how hard you try.


I don't think any of us were claiming a race bikes don't *handle* better than an endurance bike and generally feel more snappy. It's just that when people start claiming race bikes are faster than endurance bikes our BS meters start going off.


----------



## Typetwelve

Dunbar said:


> I don't think any of us were claiming a race bikes don't *handle* better than an endurance bike and generally feel more snappy. It's just that when people start claiming race bikes are faster than endurance bikes our BS meters start going off.


Oh...I couldn't agree more. They both are blazingly fast bikes...in the hands of the right rider. Me? I'd be no faster on either, I'm sure of that. Which I would prefer is another story I guess...


----------



## PJ352

Typetwelve said:


> I'm simply trying to point out that they are different bikes...*moving a seat slightly up or flipping a stem cannot change the no-so-small geometry differences of the frame, no matter how hard you try.* No amount of seat adjustment will make a Roubaix "feel" like a Tarmac. I consider this a good thing though, I am by no means slamming the Roubaix, its an amazing bike.


This is the second post where you mention raising/ adjusting a saddle. To my knowledge, no one advised the OP do that. In fact, it runs counter to fundamentals of bike fit for his purposes. A riders saddle height would only change if pedal stack height changed. Barring that variable, the OP's saddle height should be the same on both bikes - same holds true for KOPS (+/-). 

Because he was experiencing neck pain on the Tarmac, what I suggested was to consider having his fitter replicate the Roubaix's saddle to bar drop and reach on the Tarmac. In no way would a fitter even close to competent adjust a saddle to attain those fit requirements. It's all done at the stem (length/ angle/ spacers) and won't mess with f/r weight distribution.

No one's trying to make the Roubaix feel like a Tarmac.


----------



## Typetwelve

PJ352 said:


> This is the second post where you mention raising/ adjusting a saddle. To my knowledge, no one advised the OP do that. In fact, it runs counter to fundamentals of bike fit for his purposes. A riders saddle height would only change if pedal stack height changed. Barring that variable, the OP's saddle height should be the same on both bikes - same holds true for KOPS (+/-).
> 
> Because he was experiencing neck pain on the Tarmac, what I suggested was to consider having his fitter replicate the Roubaix's saddle to bar drop and reach on the Tarmac. In no way would a fitter even close to competent adjust a saddle to attain those fit requirements. It's all done at the stem (length/ angle/ spacers) and won't mess with f/r weight distribution.
> 
> No one's trying to make the Roubaix feel like a Tarmac.


In this thread? No. In others? Yup.

Being a Specialized fanboy...I often like reading the 100,000 Tarmac-vs-Roubaix threads that pop up on the inter-webs. I've seen seat height adjustments come up in the past, also, bar adjustments. Neither of which, I feel, will make one just like the other...as some claim it will (again, not necessarily anyone here or in this thread).


----------



## Rashadabd

This thread has been dead for a while, but it seems like this review addresses some of the questions that were left lingering in here. 

Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part I | RKP

Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part II | RKP

FWIW, every Specialized dealer I have talked to over the last week has said these bikes are equally as stiff in their 2014 iteration and that they give you a similar performance on climbs. The handling of the Tarmac on the descents is a little more lively/race like and the handling of the Roubaix a little more reserved in the corners. RKP liked that as it made the tester more confident and comfortable, others (crit racers/etc.) may not. There isn't a huge difference in weight anymore either. 

2013 Specialized Road, Cyclocross & Triathlon Bikes – Complete Overview & Actual Weights

The conclusion I have drawn is this- while a Roubaix is certainly a Roubaix and Tarmac a Tarmac, the difference between the two has been reduced with the 2013 and 2014 SL4 class. No you can't shorten the Roubaix head tube, but you can do a lot with your set up with stem choice. You can be properly fit on a Roubaix in a more race oriented position (no doubt about it). It will depend on your body, flexibility, and fitness, but you can remove spacers and choose a stem that can get you there, if that is what you like and want. Handling and comfort are the biggest difference (and the same can be said of the new Crux, which is basically a Tarmac for cyclocross). Both bikes are great and high performers, it just comes down to where one wants to put that extra bit of emphasis (comfort vs. aerodynamics and race handling).


----------



## Rashadabd

To be fair, here is the Tarmac SL4 review from the same folks:

The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part I | RKP

The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part II | RKP


----------



## darwinosx

A few people have mentioned being fit to the bike but I would really emphasize that a good fitter can do wonders for your fit on any bike. I also think he older you are the more important this is. I change saddles and I go see my fitter to make sure everything is just right...at 54 with a lot of old injuries it makes the difference between riding and not riding.
I've had my 2014 Roubaix for awhile now and it's a great bike but it doesn't handle as well as my Giant Defy and I find the Tarmac to be flat out twitchy. With the Roubaux I have to think about cornering at speed ahead of time but with the Giant it feels like I can just lean into the turn and confidently go at speed.
Too bad Giant does the S,M, L, Xl thing because thats not a wide enough range for me.
On both he Roubaix and the Giant I find the stiffness of the carbon frame over my Moots means I can feel the line much better as there is no lateral flex to speak of so i can can corner better at high speeds downhill and pick the line much easier with less preliminary setup. Basically I can swoop through downhill curves which is a blast!


----------



## dealraker

I've enjoyed reading this thread. I have both a Tarmac, way back to 2005 Comp model, and a Roubaix, a 2010 Expert. They both today have the same groupset - Ultegra - and wheelset - RS80. I really enjoy the way I feel on the Tarmac when I am in the mood to ride sort of hard- but ride the Roubaix most of the time because I am not riding to my max speed - rather riding with others I enjoy.


----------



## roadworthy

dealraker said:


> I've enjoyed reading this thread. I have both a Tarmac, way back to 2005 Comp model, and a Roubaix, a 2010 Expert. They both today have the same groupset - Ultegra - and wheelset - RS80. I really enjoy the way I feel on the Tarmac when I am in the mood to ride sort of hard- but ride the Roubaix most of the time because I am not riding to my max speed - rather riding with others I enjoy.


Can you tell why you believe you are faster on the Tarmac? The only reason is...you are set up more aggressively on your Tarmac than your Roubaix. Or the added feedback from the road on the Tarmac that some would call harshness simply motivates you to ride harder.

Some days I am faster on my Roubaix than other days. Some days depending on my riding objectives and the people I ride with I ride in heart rate zone 2 and other days I hammer in zone 4. It has nothing to do with the bike. Same bike, same rider, much different speed. Difference in speed between the Roubaix and Tarmac can be reduced down to a riding position difference. This is miniscule by any account for the simple reason that handlebar height has little to do with position on the bike...especially if one bike has a handlebar height conducive to using the drops. 

Both bikes have been tested against the clock and there is nothing between them in speed. I will go a step further and say I never get dropped by any rider when I am on my Roubaix because they are on any bike other than a TT bike. Btw, we are the same age and I can can keep up with any CAT 2 unless they really want to drop me. The biggest difference between the Roubaix and Tarmac is the handling and the ride quality...not the speed. There is negligible speed difference between any top tier road bike including the Roubaix or even Trek Domane and redesigned Synapse which are all race quality and for a 100 mile race, many if not most amateurs will be faster on an endurance geometry versus any more traditional race geometry.


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> Can you tell why you believe you are faster on the Tarmac? The only reason is...you are set up more aggressively on your Tarmac than your Roubaix. Or the added feedback from the road on the Tarmac that some would call harshness simply motivates you to ride harder.
> 
> Some days I am faster on my Roubaix than other days. Some days depending on my riding objectives and the people I ride with I ride in heart rate zone 2 and other days I hammer in zone 4. It has nothing to do with the bike. Same bike, same rider, much different speed. Difference in speed between the Roubaix and Tarmac can be reduced down to a riding position difference. This is miniscule by any account for the simple reason that handlebar height has little to do with position on the bike...especially if one bike has a handlebar height conducive to using the drops.
> 
> Both bikes have been tested against the clock and there is nothing between them in speed. I will go a step further and say I never get dropped by any rider when I am on my Roubaix because they are on any bike other than a TT bike. Btw, we are the same age and I can can keep up with any CAT 2 unless they really want to drop me. The biggest difference between the Roubaix and Tarmac is the handling and the ride quality...not the speed. There is negligible speed difference between any top tier road bike including the Roubaix or even Trek Domane and redesigned Synapse which are all race quality and for a 100 mile race, many if not most amateurs will be faster on an endurance geometry versus any more traditional race geometry.


Depending on which Roubiax and Tarmac he has, the Tarmac could be a stiffer bike which can help a little as well. For instance the lower end Tarmacs are 9r carbon while the Roubaixs are 8r. The handling is also different which can play a role in descents, etc. There is actually a reason the pro teams don't ride the Roubaix most of the year. Both are great bikes and both can be set up to ride fast and agressive or more relaxed, but to say they are identical or that the differences are irrelevant is a bit of an overstatement IMO.


----------



## seven

Some of the pro teams are experimenting with endurance/race bikes with a shorter head tube for stage racing, for example in the 2014 Amgen Tour of California, Trek Factory Racing is using the Domane Classics Edition.


----------



## Rashadabd

seven said:


> Some of the pro teams are experimenting with endurance/race bikes with a shorter head tube for stage racing, for example in the 2014 Amgen Tour of California, Trek Factory Racing is using the Domane Classics Edition.


It's actually not an experiment. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the Trek team rides the Domane full-time during the season. It's an exceptional bike. I just like the Roubaix better at the more affordable levels and prefer its slightly longer top tube. They seem to be the only team doing that however. I don't see anyone riding the Roubaix for stage races. In fact, most guys were even on a Tarmac in Flanders, for the Strade Bianche, and the other cobbled classics, etc.


----------



## seven

Have you tested a Domane 5.2 or 6.2?


----------



## Rashadabd

seven said:


> Have you tested a Domane 5.2 or 6.2?


It was a 2013 5.2, but everyone I have talked to that owns or sells the Domane has told me there is very little difference in ride quality between the 5 Series and the 6 Series. Again, it's one of those things that most of us wouldn't be able to feel or benefit from. IMHO, the Domane rides a little like a Tarmac. I honestly think it is a better all-around bike than the Madone in a number of ways and completely see why some pros would choose it as their every race ride.


----------



## 1Butcher

A 2005 Tarmac Comp is a 6r, the SW version was an 8r.

And just to put it on record, I can keep up with a pro, unless he wants to drop me.

One off topic question, Why does everyone quote someone when they are directly below the post? Seems like a waste of space. I think we are all grown up and can follow the thread without a quote when it is directly under the post


----------



## Rashadabd

1Butcher said:


> A 2005 Tarmac Comp is a 6r, the SW version was an 8r.
> 
> And just to put it on record, I can keep up with a pro, unless he wants to drop me.
> 
> One off topic question, Why does everyone quote someone when they are directly below the post? Seems like a waste of space. I think we are all grown up and can follow the thread without a quote when it is directly under the post


I do it because for the last good while on RBR, a number of the posts don't track one another in chronological order or just seem to get posted in some random place in the thread. So, it's nice to see what a person was responding to when they posted when that happens.


----------



## LVbob

1Butcher said:


> A 2005 Tarmac Comp is a 6r, the SW version was an 8r.
> 
> And just to put it on record, I can keep up with a pro, unless he wants to drop me.
> 
> One off topic question, Why does everyone quote someone when they are directly below the post? Seems like a waste of space. I think we are all grown up and can follow the thread without a quote when it is directly under the post


I do it because I type slowly and there is often additional posts made by the time I finish typing. It's just a force of habit thing for slower sub-forums.


----------



## Dunbar

Rashadabd said:


> IMHO, the Domane rides a little like a Tarmac. I honestly think it is a better all-around bike than the Madone in a number of ways and completely see why some pros would choose it as their every race ride.


I took a Domane 6 series out for a 30-40 minute test ride at a Trek demo event. My only complaint with the bike is that the frame feels quite soft/muted when pedaling hard out of the saddle. However, the ride quality over rough pavement is fantastic. It's *much* smoother than any Roubaix I've ridden including my SL4 with CG-R seat post. IMO the Roubaix SL4 is more like a race bike in terms of stiffness/responsiveness (I can't detect any real frame flex.) The CG-R seat post takes just enough edge off the ride that I don't feel like I'm riding a jack hammer on imperfect pavement.

BTW, I took a Madone 5 series on a brief 10-15 minute test ride when I was testing 11sp group sets. I would actually choose it over the Domane. It has a very smooth ride for a race bike but feels more responsive than the Domane IMO. Not that I think the Domane is a bad bike. I just wouldn't get one unless my local roads were in worse condition.


----------



## Rashadabd

Dunbar said:


> I took a Domane 6 series out for a 30-40 minute test ride at a Trek demo event. My only complaint with the bike is that the frame feels quite soft/muted when pedaling hard out of the saddle. However, the ride quality over rough pavement is fantastic. It's *much* smoother than any Roubaix I've ridden including my SL4 with CG-R seat post. IMO the Roubaix SL4 is more like a race bike in terms of stiffness/responsiveness (I can't detect any real frame flex.) The CG-R seat post takes just enough edge off the ride that I don't feel like I'm riding a jack hammer on imperfect pavement.
> 
> BTW, I took a Madone 5 series on a brief 10-15 minute test ride when I was testing 11sp group sets. I would actually choose it over the Domane. It has a very smooth ride for a race bike but feels more responsive than the Domane IMO. Not that I think the Domane is a bad bike. I just wouldn't get one unless my local roads were in worse condition.



That's a really fair and accurate assessment IMO. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I like the Domane more than the Madone given it's handling, comfort, and the fact that I am not a fan of integrated or relocated brakes at the moment.

And I guess we are kind of splitting hairs anyway as they are both great bikes as we have acknowledged. It just comes down to where you want to put that last bit of emphasis. Are you the type that wants a little more stiffness or a little more comfort? More race or more endurance? I should know where I stand after Tuesday.


----------



## dealraker

Replying to roadworthy.....

I am guessing that the Tarmac/Roubaix thing for me is somewhat similar to the 26" full-suspension Stumpjumper/26" full suspension Epic mountain bike thing that I went through in the 2008-2009 period (before I began using the 29er hardtail Stumpjumper which I am still on today for events/races). I was faster by accident on the Epic than the Stumpjumper and I can only guess that you are correct in that is has to be the more aggressive set-up. I also just felt it was so much easier to power up and keep powered up on the Epic. I just enjoyed the geometry so much. 

I've done the same timed charity ride four times on my Tarmac and twice on the Roubaix. It is 67 miles and I've averaged 20 twice on the Tarmac and slightly over 20 twice and felt good when I finished. My Roubaix times have been at or below 19.4 mph average speed. Of course I am trying to ride with others- pulling and drafting- which pretty much eliminates any way to compare anything- but the same thing ALWAYS happens to me--- I get dropped by the fast group and end up doing about 50% of the ride alone although there are 500 others participating and I don't much ever get to see them. But I just feel like a champ (I am no champ!!!!) when I ride the Tarmac......and I don't feel that way riding the Roubaix. Ha! But I love riding the Roubaix- and it gets 80% of my road time. The Roubaix is lighter than the Tarmac at 17lbs 4oz with pedals while the Tarmac is 17lbs 14oz with pedals. (They both have FSA K-Force Light cranksets, Specialized Toupe saddles, stock handlebars, Ritchey WCS stems, Ultegra everything else, RS80 wheels.) I still compete 5 to 10 times a year on the mountain bike- endurance events.


----------



## seven

> It was a 2013 5.2, but everyone I have talked to that owns or sells the Domane has told me there is very little difference in ride quality between the 5 Series and the 6 Series. Again, it's one of those things that most of us wouldn't be able to feel or benefit from. IMHO, the Domane rides a little like a Tarmac. I honestly think it is a better all-around bike than the Madone in a number of ways and completely see why some pros would choose it as their every race ride.


My wife and I rented some 2013 5.2s for an afternoon. We and were very impressed by the comfort, downhill handling, and acceleration of the Domane 5.2. The 5.2 provides major improvements over our previous bicycles a 1987 sports touring Davidson and a 2007 105 equipped Roubaix triple.

We purchased a pair of purple 6.2s in March 2013, (20th wedding anniversary), and have since added better wheels. We love these bicycles.

The Domane 6.2s are a little more comfortable than the 5.2 model, (I think due to the better quality carbon).


----------



## roadworthy

dealraker said:


> Replying to roadworthy.....
> 
> I am guessing that the Tarmac/Roubaix thing for me is somewhat similar to the 26" full-suspension Stumpjumper/26" full suspension Epic mountain bike thing that I went through in the 2008-2009 period (before I began using the 29er hardtail Stumpjumper which I am still on today for events/races). I was faster by accident on the Epic than the Stumpjumper and I can only guess that you are correct in that is has to be the more aggressive set-up. I also just felt it was so much easier to power up and keep powered up on the Epic. I just enjoyed the geometry so much.
> 
> I've done the same timed charity ride four times on my Tarmac and twice on the Roubaix. It is 67 miles and I've averaged 20 twice on the Tarmac and slightly over 20 twice and felt good when I finished. My Roubaix times have been at or below 19.4 mph average speed. Of course I am trying to ride with others- pulling and drafting- which pretty much eliminates any way to compare anything- but the same thing ALWAYS happens to me--- I get dropped by the fast group and end up doing about 50% of the ride alone although there are 500 others participating and I don't much ever get to see them. But I just feel like a champ (I am no champ!!!!) when I ride the Tarmac......and I don't feel that way riding the Roubaix. Ha! But I love riding the Roubaix- and it gets 80% of my road time. The Roubaix is lighter than the Tarmac at 17lbs 4oz with pedals while the Tarmac is 17lbs 14oz with pedals. (They both have FSA K-Force Light cranksets, Specialized Toupe saddles, stock handlebars, Ritchey WCS stems, Ultegra everything else, RS80 wheels.) I still compete 5 to 10 times a year on the mountain bike- endurance events.


Do you have pictures of your Roubaix and Tarmac? Since the head tube is 20mm shorter on the Tarmac, do you have your position more aggressive? This could easily account for the difference you note...you maybe kinematically more efficient on the Tarmac because of your riding position. Do you ride in the drops of both bikes the same amount?

As to the 26 versus 29'er thing, that is a completely different kettle of fish and it really depends on the course you are riding and what the racing conditions are. Taking the dual suspension aspect out...which also plays into what type of track you ride...a 26" bike at the same component level will out accelerate a 29er and on tight and twisty lower speed tracks you will be faster on a 26" bike. On long steady state riding like XC, a 29er will be faster because it is less impeded by road imperfection and lower rolling resistance of a 29" wheelset.. I have owned both and to me the difference is vastly greater than comparing a Tarmac to the Roubaix which aside from aerodynamic differences which can be tuned by choice of frame size, any difference in speed is negligible. The biggest difference between the two bikes is handling and will add in that regard, I prefer the steadiness of the Roubaix to the more nervous nature of the Tarmac which others prefer.


----------



## dealraker

roadworthy....
Well I'm not sure about the clarity of my writing but I was trying to compare the 26er Epic to the 26er Stumpjumper----- then just saying today I ride the 29er hardtails which I have found to be one of man's greatest inventions of all time! I've (as you would have likely guessed) tried to set my Roubaix up more like the Tarmac as to geometry and have over time done all kinds of measuring/comparing etc. I try to ride the drops when I'm thinking it is efficient - speed- wind - and am still flexible enough that I can do that for some time and actually enjoy it. My guess in all of this is that the speed difference comes from what is in my head and nothing much else. When I get on the Tarmac it- the bike is talking???- sort of says, "Well old fart you have no choice now but to think efficiency-to-go-fast-at-all-times because you chose me today." I use the word efficiency because "thinking efficient use of output" seems to be the only thing that makes me faster now----- more effort usually just results in downside consequences.

I will snap a couple of pictures. I am really enjoying this thread.


----------



## Typetwelve

Not that I'll ever get around to this...but I'd love to try a SL4 Tarmac/Roubaix back to back. The Sl2 difference is big...not only is the rider position different...the overall feel and flex is WAY different. I've read many times that gap is closed in the Sl4 lines. I'd love to try them out and see for myself...

That Sl2 Roubaix I spent time on just sits in my brother-in-laws garage...unused. I'd love to buy it from him, I really liked the smooth ride of that frame.


----------



## Rashadabd

Typetwelve said:


> Not that I'll ever get around to this...but I'd love to try a SL4 Tarmac/Roubaix back to back. The Sl2 difference is big...not only is the rider position different...the overall feel and flex is WAY different. I've read many times that gap is closed in the Sl4 lines. I'd love to try them out and see for myself...
> 
> That Sl2 Roubaix I spent time on just sits in my brother-in-laws garage...unused. I'd love to buy it from him, I really liked the smooth ride of that frame.


I am coming pretty close and I am happy to let you know what I think Tuesday. I tested the SL4 Tarmac Elite (9r carbon) last week and I test the SL4 Roubaix (8r) tomorrow.


----------



## Typetwelve

Rashadabd said:


> I am coming pretty close and I am happy to let you know what I think Tuesday. I tested the SL4 Tarmac Elite (9r carbon) last week and I test the SL4 Roubaix (8r) tomorrow.


Do tell once your finished...I'd like to hear your thoughts on the bikes.

I've always wanted a Roubaix for a century ride bike but if it is far closer to the Tarmac now than it used to be...possibly I'd look for a used SL2.


----------



## Rashadabd

Typetwelve said:


> Do tell once your finished...I'd like to hear your thoughts on the bikes.
> 
> I've always wanted a Roubaix for a century ride bike but if it is far closer to the Tarmac now than it used to be...possibly I'd look for a used SL2.


Well, I rode both Roubaix SL4 (8r carbon) and the Tarmac SL4 (Elite 9r Carbon) about a week apart. Here are my thoughts:

1. The first thing I can say is that you truly do not sacrifice much (if anything) in terms of stiffness and comfort on the 8r carbon Roubaix. I had questions/doubts going in, but the bike performed really well. It is not as smooth as the Domane over big bumps, but it's stiffer and I actually found myself really liking the feel the more I rode it. 

2. It does feel a bit heavier than both the Tarmac and the 5 Series Domane. Some of that is components and wheels, but my impression is that the frame is a bit heavier as well.

3. You can absolutely ride the 8r Roubaix (or any SL4 Roubaix) fast and if you upgrade a few things over time off of closeout sales, etc. you could have a relatively affordable and pretty incredible bike that is race worthy without a doubt. You can race and be a serious climber on a Roubaix if you set it up right, no question.

4. Finally, I like the Tarmac SL4 better. I feel like the Tarmac SL4 Sport with a GOBLR seat post is the best all-around bike for me when you take into account price, weight, stiffness, handling, and comfort, etc. My one knock on the Roubaix is that I didn't like how tall it rode with longer front end. I really prefer where the Tarmac is at (a 52cm with a 120mm headtube and a low-med cone is perfect to me). The headtube alone on a 52cm Roubaix is 145mm or so. I felt that and even if I had flipped the stem etc, I didn't like the feel of sitting that upright. I would love to look closely at the 2015 Tarmac Expert, but I really don't see a value there for me, it's probably twice the price, but it doesn't seem like it is twice as good.


----------



## Rashadabd

Update: the shop offered me an incredible deal on the Roubaix. I am still leaning Tarmac, but I may go back by when it's not a monsoon like today and see just how aggressively we can set up the Roubaix. Financially, it would be pretty beneficial if we could get position I like by slamming the a longer stem and flipping it, etc. because they are basically offering me the Roubaix for $400 cheaper than the Tarmac. That's a huge chunk toward a wheels or component upgrade. Decisions.....


----------



## roadworthy

Rashadabd said:


> Update: the shop offered me an incredible deal on the Roubaix. I am still leaning Tarmac, but I may go back by when it's not a monsoon like today and see just how aggressively we can set up the Roubaix. Financially, it would be pretty beneficial if we could get position I like by slamming the a longer stem and flipping it, etc. because they are basically offering me the Roubaix for $400 cheaper than the Tarmac. That's a huge chunk toward a wheels or component upgrade. Decisions.....


My view is when spending that much for a bike you may ride for 5 years, buying a bike because of that amount of money over what you prefer is a false economy. I personally prefer the Roubaix but you prefer the Tarmac which many do. I say buy what you prefer and you will be happy you did...especially if your goal is to slam the stem and ride aggressively. As I have written, I personally believe that neither matter much for speed..or any top bike for that matter...pick one...but the two bikes feel and handle different and you can get more aero on the Tarmac for the same top tube length. So they are different bikes and each suits a different rider if not riding style.
Among many, the Tarmac is considered the best road bike on the planet...having won Bicycle Mag's best bike 3 years in a row...and there is pretty stiff competition out there.


----------



## Rashadabd

roadworthy said:


> My view is when spending that much for a bike you may ride for 5 years, buying a bike because of that amount of money over what you prefer is a false economy. I personally prefer the Roubaix but you prefer the Tarmac which many do. I say buy what you prefer and you will be happy you did...especially if your goal is to slam the stem and ride aggressively. As I have written, I personally believe that neither matter much for speed..or any top bike for that matter...pick one...but the two bikes feel and handle different and you can get more aero on the Tarmac for the same top tube length. So they are different bikes and each suits a different rider if not riding style.
> Among many, the Tarmac is considered the best road bike on the planet...having won Bicycle Mag's best bike 3 years in a row...and there is pretty stiff competition out there.


Thanks man, very sound and unbiased advice. The battle going on in my mind is that the biggest factor in gaining speed outside of the fitness in your lungs and legs is keeping your body out of the wind (riding in the drops longer at an ideal height). So, I am trying to have an honest conversation with myself about which of these bikes I am going to be more comfortable riding for extended periods in the drops and for long days in the saddle with fairly serious climbing. 

I can't say for sure without trying it, but after the conversation I had with the shop, my guess is that we might be able to get the Roubiax in a similar position as the Tarmac with a slammed and flipped stem. That might even provide me with smoother ride even without the GOBLR seat post (which also saves more money). The only thing I would be giving up then is a little weight, but I planned on upgrading wheels and components over time anyway and all I care about is that total bike weight I end up with being sub 17lbs (preferably 16.5 or so lbs). 

So I am trying to really think about what would make the Tarmac worth spending more. It was a much simpler decision when the price was basically the same, but I'm not sure the Tarmac is actually worth more to me. They are definitely different, but the stiffness and acceleration is really similar when it comes to performance. Like I said above, that surprised me about the Roubaix. I guess the only way to figure it out is go back by the shop and try the Roubaix set up a bit more aggressively. I almost asked them to do it the other day too, but they had an event going on and I didn't want to be a nuisance when I wasn't sure which bike interested me more. Thanks again, your comments were helpful.

I should add that I was comfortable in the drops on my Cervelo R3 with 1 or 2 small spacers, but not on my Felt F85 for extended periods. I think a slammed stem Roubaix will be about the same as what I had on the R3 and what a set-up on a Tarmac with a small-mid cone spacer is. We'll see though.


----------



## scottma

Rashadabd said:


> I can't say for sure without trying it, but after the conversation I had with the shop, my guess is that we might be able to get the Roubiax in a similar position as the Tarmac with a slammed and *flipped stem.*


I see you mention "flipped stem" a few times. What are you calling a flipped stem? A flipped stem (to me) is when is is flipped to pointing up at an aggressive angle Vs the normal ~ level position. If you rode a Roubaix with a flipped stem, yes, it will have a VERY high riding position. When I git mine, the LBS set it up that way and I hated it. Now with it it the normal position, it is a good fit. I ride with a friend that has a Tarmac with a flipped stem and we have similar saddle to bar drops.

On the Roubaix, if a normal stem position is still too high for you, you can also lose the stack of spacers underneath the stem, even get a -17 offset stem. The tarmac is also an excellent bike. Besides the shorter head tube, it has a shorter wheelbase/chainstays, and steper angles. Its is a quicker (some may say twitchy) handling bike. If the Tarmac is more your style, I would go that way. 

Good luck


----------



## Rashadabd

scottma said:


> I see you mention "flipped stem" a few times. What are you calling a flipped stem? A flipped stem (to me) is when is is flipped to pointing up at an aggressive angle Vs the normal ~ level position. If you rode a Roubaix with a flipped stem, yes, it will have a VERY high riding position. When I git mine, the LBS set it up that way and I hated it. Now with it it the normal position, it is a good fit. I ride with a friend that has a Tarmac with a flipped stem and we have similar saddle to bar drops.
> 
> On the Roubaix, if a normal stem position is still too high for you, you can also lose the stack of spacers underneath the stem, even get a -17 offset stem. The tarmac is also an excellent bike. Besides the shorter head tube, it has a shorter wheelbase/chainstays, and steper angles. Its is a quicker (some may say twitchy) handling bike. If the Tarmac is more your style, I would go that way.
> 
> Good luck


Thanks man. I am not really a big fan of stems with steep angles (+/- 17 degree, etc.). I understand that some people need/like them though in order to get the fit they like. When I see a 17 degree stem, I often wonder whether the person is actually on the right size or type of bike though. I pretty much stick to +/- 6 degree stems or something close to that even though it is sometimes an added expense. My thinking right now is that it would be -6 100mm on a Roubaix and +6 on a Tarmac (100mmm or 90mm) with a small cone spacer. We'll see what a good fit session leads me to. Thanks again.

It's funny you mention the handing differences as it is a small part of the delimma for me. I like climbing on the Tarmac more, but descending on the Roubaix better so far. It just feels a little more stable and relaxed in the turns. I think it is mostly because the Roubiax feels a lot like the R3, which I am used to and I am sure I will adjust to the Tarmac just fine if I decide to go that route. It seems like you just need to be a little more precise. Still, at the end of the day, these are two great bikes that are really tough to beat at the $2000 or so price point.


----------



## Dunbar

roadworthy said:


> My view is when spending that much for a bike you may ride for 5 years, buying a bike because of that amount of money over what you prefer is a false economy.


Agreed, if the Tarmac is the bike that speaks to you spend the extra $400 now so you aren't second guessing your decision a year or two down the line. I'm on track to ride 9-10k miles this year. I spend too much time on my bike to worry about spending an extra 10-20% up front. That's not to say my next bike is going to be a $10k S-Works.

As far stems go, there's the adjustable stem that comes on the Specialized bikes that allows you to adjust from -8 to -16 in 2 degree increments. I think most people exaggerate the relevance of the 2cm difference in head tube length between the Tarmac and Roubaix. Between slamming the stem, adjusting stem angle, and tweaking bar/hood position/rotation, 2cm is pretty easy to work around. Unless of course you're trying to emulate your favorite pro's "low ain't low enough" position


----------



## Typetwelve

Rashadabd said:


> Thanks man. I am not really a big fan of stems with steep angles (+/- 17 degree, etc.). I understand that some people need/like them though in order to get the fit they like. When I see a 17 degree stem, I often wonder whether the person is actually on the right size or type of bike though. I pretty much stick to +/- 6 degree stems or something close to that even though it is sometimes an added expense. My thinking right now is that it would be -6 100mm on a Roubaix and +6 on a Tarmac (100mmm or 90mm) with a small cone spacer. We'll see what a good fit session leads me to. Thanks again.
> 
> It's funny you mention the handing differences as it is a small part of the delimma for me. I like climbing on the Tarmac more, but descending on the Roubaix better so far. It just feels a little more stable and relaxed in the turns. I think it is mostly because the Roubiax feels a lot like the R3, which I am used to and I am sure I will adjust to the Tarmac just fine if I decide to go that route. It seems like you just need to be a little more precise. Still, at the end of the day, these are two great bikes that are really tough to beat at the $2000 or so price point.


Wow..I've been out of this one for a few days. There's some great advice here...

I'm with everyone else...get what you want, not a quick savings. That $400 won't mean crap come 6 months from now and regret really sucks.

Second...geometry is geometry...and I'm talking about the frame, not the "fit" components. You cannot make a Roubaix ride like a Tarmac by adjusting fit items (stems, saddle, seatpost) because there is no getting around the build of the frame. A roubaix will ride like a Roubaix and a Tarmac like a Tarmac. Now...Specialized has done a ton to close that gap...but there is still a difference (as you noted).

Directly comparing the two...you are going to notice a difference in the "feel" of stability. The Tarmac demands constant attention...the Roubaix less. With a season on a SL2 Roubaix and one on a Tarmac...I actually posted faster times on the Roubaix than the Tarmac in most things I've done save climbing. Why? Well...I've thought long and hard about that. The Tarmac is WAY more touchy (at least with the SL2). I remember the first time I took it out, I was shocked how much more attention it took to maintain control over the Roubaix. The Roubaix was more confidence inspiring for a beginner, that confidence manifested itself in better downhill times and faster cornering.

While I am still getting my legs with downhill bombs...my cornering is getting better and better. As I push the Tarmac harder...I've yet to feel like I've hit its limits.

I don't regret the Tarmac decision one bit. Like I've said, I wish I could have the Sl2 Roubaix for the long grinds but I can always go out and pound out 20 hard/fast miles on the Tarmac vs the Sat/Sun 50+ mile grinds...


----------



## Rashadabd

Typetwelve said:


> Wow..I've been out of this one for a few days. There's some great advice here...
> 
> I'm with everyone else...get what you want, not a quick savings. That $400 won't mean crap come 6 months from now and regret really sucks.
> 
> Second...geometry is geometry...and I'm talking about the frame, not the "fit" components. You cannot make a Roubaix ride like a Tarmac by adjusting fit items (stems, saddle, seatpost) because there is no getting around the build of the frame. A roubaix will ride like a Roubaix and a Tarmac like a Tarmac. Now...Specialized has done a ton to close that gap...but there is still a difference (as you noted).
> 
> Directly comparing the two...you are going to notice a difference in the "feel" of stability. The Tarmac demands constant attention...the Roubaix less. With a season on a SL2 Roubaix and one on a Tarmac...I actually posted faster times on the Roubaix than the Tarmac in most things I've done save climbing. Why? Well...I've thought long and hard about that. The Tarmac is WAY more touchy (at least with the SL2). I remember the first time I took it out, I was shocked how much more attention it took to maintain control over the Roubaix. The Roubaix was more confidence inspiring for a beginner, that confidence manifested itself in better downhill times and faster cornering.
> 
> While I am still getting my legs with downhill bombs...my cornering is getting better and better. As I push the Tarmac harder...I've yet to feel like I've hit its limits.
> 
> I don't regret the Tarmac decision one bit. Like I've said, I wish I could have the Sl2 Roubaix for the long grinds but I can always go out and pound out 20 hard/fast miles on the Tarmac vs the Sat/Sun 50+ mile grinds...


I agree with you all and truly appreciate you taking the time to respond. They really do have different strengths and yet they are so similiar in other ways, which is what makes it tough when you have to choose one over the other. I am still leaning Tarmac, particularly after thinking about what you all have said, but I think I want to try the Roubaix with a more agressive set-up first just to make sure. The $400 truly would be irrelevant if the bikes weren't close on my list, but I really do think both are impressive and though I like the Tarmac more, I am still kind of questioning whether I like it that much more, if you get what I am saying. It's super close. The Roubaix REALLY surprised me how much it performed like a race bike. At the end of the day, I just want a good bike, that I can ride fast, be comfortable on for 50+ mile rides, enjoying climbing and descending on, slowly upgrade, get down to about 16.5 lbs or so, and that costs me around $2000 . I like these two much more than anything else out there in that price range. I place a slightly higher value on stiffness and responsiveness over comfort, and love the Roubaix and Tarmac top tube lenght for the 52cm and the bottom bracket height on both bikes (though they are slightly different). Given all of that, the Tarmac just might be the right move, but I want to give the Roubaix one last look before making the call.

One other thought in the back of my mind is to get the Roubaix now and a cheaper Allez Smartweld a season or two from now (once I have the Roubaix where I want it) as my foul weather, crit/race bike instead of having a Tarmac as my primarly bike. We'll see, but the decision will likely turn on my second visit to check out the Roubiax. 

For those that are interested, this is what the guys at RKP think about the difference in handling between the two (if you haven't read it):

Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part I | RKP

Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part II | RKP


----------



## Wetworks

Typetwelve said:


> Wow..I've been out of this one for a few days. There's some great advice here...
> 
> I'm with everyone else...get what you want, not a quick savings. That $400 won't mean crap come 6 months from now and regret really sucks.
> 
> Second...geometry is geometry...and I'm talking about the frame, not the "fit" components. You cannot make a Roubaix ride like a Tarmac by adjusting fit items (stems, saddle, seatpost) because there is no getting around the build of the frame. A roubaix will ride like a Roubaix and a Tarmac like a Tarmac. Now...Specialized has done a ton to close that gap...but there is still a difference (as you noted).
> 
> Directly comparing the two...you are going to notice a difference in the "feel" of stability. The Tarmac demands constant attention...the Roubaix less. With a season on a SL2 Roubaix and one on a Tarmac...I actually posted faster times on the Roubaix than the Tarmac in most things I've done save climbing. Why? Well...I've thought long and hard about that. The Tarmac is WAY more touchy (at least with the SL2). I remember the first time I took it out, I was shocked how much more attention it took to maintain control over the Roubaix. The Roubaix was more confidence inspiring for a beginner, that confidence manifested itself in better downhill times and faster cornering.
> 
> While I am still getting my legs with downhill bombs...my cornering is getting better and better. As I push the Tarmac harder...I've yet to feel like I've hit its limits.
> 
> I don't regret the Tarmac decision one bit. Like I've said, I wish I could have the Sl2 Roubaix for the long grinds but I can always go out and pound out 20 hard/fast miles on the Tarmac vs the Sat/Sun 50+ mile grinds...


Post is so full of win, thank you! 

I've been monitoring this thread for awhile. This post has all but sold me on going with the Roubaix for my next bike. Coming from a Bad Boy, I think I'll appreciate the more forgiving nature of the Roubaix.


----------



## Rashadabd

Rashadabd said:


> I agree with you all and truly appreciate you taking the time to respond. They really do have different strengths and yet they are so similiar in other ways, which is what makes it tough when you have to choose one over the other. I am still leaning Tarmac, particularly after thinking about what you all have said, but I think I want to try the Roubaix with a more agressive set-up first just to make sure. The $400 truly would be irrelevant if the bikes weren't close on my list, but I really do think both are impressive and though I like the Tarmac more, I am still kind of questioning whether I like it that much more, if you get what I am saying. It's super close. The Roubaix REALLY surprised me how much it performed like a race bike. At the end of the day, I just want a good bike, that I can ride fast, be comfortable on for 50+ mile rides, enjoying climbing and descending on, slowly upgrade, get down to about 16.5 lbs or so, and that costs me around $2000 . I like these two much more than anything else out there in that price range. I place a slightly higher value on stiffness and responsiveness over comfort, and love the Roubaix and Tarmac top tube lenght for the 52cm and the bottom bracket height on both bikes (though they are slightly different). Given all of that, the Tarmac just might be the right move, but I want to give the Roubaix one last look before making the call.
> 
> One other thought in the back of my mind is to get the Roubaix now and a cheaper Allez Smartweld a season or two from now (once I have the Roubaix where I want it) as my foul weather, crit/race bike instead of having a Tarmac as my primarly bike. We'll see, but the decision will likely turn on my second visit to check out the Roubiax.
> 
> For those that are interested, this is what the guys at RKP think about the difference in handling between the two (if you haven't read it):
> 
> Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part I | RKP
> 
> Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL4, Part II | RKP


Here's his Tarmac SL4 review to give you the full picture (he rides a Tarmac btw)

The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part I | RKP

The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part II | RKP


----------



## Rashadabd

"I think most people exaggerate the relevance of the 2cm difference in head tube length between the Tarmac and Roubaix. Between slamming the stem, adjusting stem angle, and tweaking bar/hood position/rotation, 2cm is pretty easy to work around. Unless of course you're trying to emulate your favorite pro's "low ain't low enough" position" 

This can't be said enough about the difference between "race" bikes and "endurance" bikes…. You can get in a good position on either, but some of us just have a preference for one over the other and there's nothing wrong with that either.


----------



## Rashadabd

Rashadabd said:


> Here's his Tarmac SL4 review to give you the full picture (he rides a Tarmac btw)
> 
> The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part I | RKP
> 
> The Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL4, Part II | RKP


And to give the real full picture, he pretty much says the new Tarmac is better than both:

Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP


----------



## Zampano

Rashadabd said:


> And to give the real full picture, he pretty much says the new Tarmac is better than both:
> 
> Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP




Although age and treachery (bulged disc/L4/L5) has me fit more suitably now with a taller HT, I don't quite need the full comfort of most Roubaix models. Like in the Tarmac from the review above, I want more liveliness and road feel-- but in a Roubaix. 

The plan is to wait and watch for the Roubaix SL5.


----------



## Typetwelve

Rashadabd said:


> "I think most people exaggerate the relevance of the 2cm difference in head tube length between the Tarmac and Roubaix. Between slamming the stem, adjusting stem angle, and tweaking bar/hood position/rotation, 2cm is pretty easy to work around. Unless of course you're trying to emulate your favorite pro's "low ain't low enough" position"
> 
> This can't be said enough about the difference between "race" bikes and "endurance" bikes…. You can get in a good position on either, but some of us just have a preference for one over the other and there's nothing wrong with that either.


I will say however that I do not get how people do not recognize the differences in geometry between the two. Riding position is one thing...frame build/design is another.

The Tarmac and Roubaix are not the same bike...and by quite a bit. angle teaks, section lengths, carbon layout...all have a HUGE impact on ride. The head tube difference is a big deal.

If you have a look here:

Specialized Bicycle Components

Specialized Bicycle Components

Take a look at the tweaks. Look at the differences between the frames. These things make a big difference in ride characteristics. Not noted is how the carbon is laid out on these frames...which also make a big difference.

Take a look at my SL2:

Specialized Bicycle Components

By everything I've read...the difference between the Sl2 Tarmac and the Sl4 is big...the only difference on paper looking at a 56 frame is a scant 10mm in head tube length...and that's it. But, to ride them is a big difference...

Time and time again I read people saying that the only difference between the Roubaix and Tarmac is rider position...and that's simply not the case.


----------



## darwinosx

This is all really interesting to me right now because I have a 2014 Roubaix Expert with 10r SL 4 frame and am pretty close to also buying a Tarmac. I want a second bike anyway and I want the second one to be stiffer and more reactive which the Tarmac will certainly be. The Tarmac would be for short fast rides and the Roubaix for everything else.
Instead of getting the Expert Tarmac i am looking at the Tarmac SL 4 Comp Ultegra. They have a higher position than the Expert with a taller spacer and shim and i will flip the stem up too as i do with the Roubaix. Also I will not keep the Fulcrum wheels, or FSA crank and can get Ultegra calipers pretty cheaply to upgrade the Comp Axis brake calipers to what I want.
Interesting that the Tarmac Comp has the higher spacer and shim but the Expert does not.
The LBS I went to today tried to tell em how much better the 10r SL4 frame was than the 9r SL4 but I find that hard to believe and really doubt I will notice any difference.


----------



## robt57

I know this is an older thread, but I gotta.

Point made re: Roubaix & Tarmac
"They are different bikes, if not, Specialized wouldn't sell the two, they'd sell a "Roubaix" edition Tarmac."

After spending good miles/time on my SL4 Roubaix, I have to say perhaps the SL4 Roubaix is exactly that.  Or maybe a Tarmac edition Roubaix anyway. 


I do not have a Tarmac, but have a Addict LTD, fair comparative?? Dunno. I do need to get out on a Tarmac some time.


----------

