# Tarmac Vs Roubaix S-Works



## wayne (Aug 3, 2006)

Probably been debated for quite some time but I really like a Tarmac but need the fit of a Roubaix. I was told by a local specialized dealer that the newer model S-Works Roubaix is about equal in performance to that of the Tarmac. Has anyone ridden both or own both?


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

If in doubt then follow this advice: If you plan on racing, get the Tarmac. If you plan on group and event riding, get the Roubaix. They both ride well and are suitably comfortable however, the geometry of the Tarmac favors jockeying for position, diving into corners in the heat of a crit, out of the saddle sprinting, etc. The Roubaix is virtually as stiff so it offers everything provided by the Tarmac with the exception of close quarters agility.

Now you can nick pick these words but in general, they are good advice. You're not going to give up anything with the Roubaix if you're not racing.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

how old are you? how fit? flexible? strong? how experienced are you on a bike?


----------



## Devastazione (Dec 8, 2011)

Moved from an sl3 Roubaix to a Tarmac. I can't belive i've wasted 2 and a half years of solid riding on a spaghetti like frame. I find my Tarmac to be equally comfortable on 50/80 km long rides,everything else above that is just a matter of training/streng/flexibility. And i'm 41,not a kid. Get the Tarmac,you won't regret it,the feeling is the one of a real road bike,not a full suspened mtb on the road..


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Are you sure the difference isn't SL3 -> SL4? I have an S-Works SL4 Roubaix and it is definitely no noodle. Not as quick in the corners as other bikes I have, but when I step on it, it goes.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

I own a Roubaix SL4 Expert and have spent about 90 minutes on the new 2015 Tarmac. I honestly couldn't feel much difference in handling or responsiveness. Ride quality is also very close if you install the same seat post on both. Many people think the of the Roubaix as a soft riding endurance bike. These people have obviously never ridden an SL4 Roubaix. I personally think the ride is too harsh without the CG-R seat post installed. The stack difference is only ~2cm so it's more about not liking the look of stem spacers than getting the bars up high enough on the Tarmac.


----------



## Bchan (Feb 24, 2014)

I owned a sl2 tarmac for three years. A year ago I bought a sworks roubaix sl4 as i have started doing more distance riding. In my opinion both bikes are equally as stiff. The two big differences I notice are that the roubaix seems to smooth out road imperfections and soak up the big hits better. The most noticeable difference is the handling. The tarmac corners better and is easier to throw into corners. The downside of this is that the tarmac can start feeling twitchy, even is a straight line, especially when you're tired on long rides. The roubaix feels much more stable. Stable to the point where it feels like it always wants to be completely upright even in corners. The roubaix doesn't have the twitchy feeling at all. This is a real positive on longer rides. I say if you are more of a distance rider, the roubaix is for you. If you are looking for speed and all out handling, I'd do the tarmac.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> Many people think the of the Roubaix as a soft riding endurance bike.



Well, I did due to my 2005 Roubiax which I thought the SL4 was replacing. 

I wonder if there is a SL4 Disc VS SL4 Roubaix thread/post. Mine is a disc, wonder if the non is same stiffness... Shouldn't assume probably.




Dunbar said:


> These people have obviously never ridden an SL4 Roubaix. I personally think the ride is too harsh without the CG-R seat post installed.




The SL4 is a stiff mamajama, and I agree on the CG-R.
The post does not make the SL4 like the 2005, but it helps enough I consider it mandatory. And considering the base 2015 even have them standard, Spesh figured it out.

I predict a SL5 or SL4R or something version for 2016. And I have said it before in threads. Unless Spesh does not care if they loose the demographic to the Domane...

I used to pump up the tires on my 2005 to abate some mush/cush, I do the opposite on the SL4.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

robt57 said:


> I wonder if there is a SL4 Disc VS SL4 Roubaix thread/post. Mine is a disc, wonder if the non is same stiffness... Shouldn't assume probably.



I'm pretty sure they're the same. I had a 2013 Roubaix SL2 before I got the SL4 (via warranty) and it was about the same smoothness as the SL4 with the CG-R seat post. Just with the SL2 you could feel the frame absorbing bumps. With the SL4 the seat post is doing all of the flexing.

I just bought a 2015 Cervelo S2 (still waiting for it to arrive) and frame vs. frame it's smoother than the Roubaix SL4. Yes, an aero road bike rides better than the Roubaix SL4. Only the CG-R seat post gives the Roubaix a slight edge in ride quality.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> I just bought a 2015 Cervelo S2 (still waiting for it to arrive) and frame vs. frame it's smoother than the Roubaix SL4. Yes, an aero road bike rides better than the Roubaix SL4. Only the CG-R seat post gives the Roubaix a slight edge in ride quality.


I have posted it before, my 2009 Scott Addict LTD, arguably a very stiff bike, is actually more comfortable than the 2014 SL4 Roubaix. And I am running 27mm Paves on the Roubaix, and 23/25 frnt/rear Conti GP4s on the LTD.

I am going to build up a flexy wheelset with Revos or Lasers in the effort to compensate.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

It may sound like I'm complaining but I'm totally fine with the ride of the Roubaix SL4 *with* the CG-R seat post installed. The problem is that the CG-R seat post is only offered with 25mm of setback which isn't going to work for everybody.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> It may sound like I'm complaining but I'm totally fine with the ride of the Roubaix SL4 *with* the CG-R seat post installed. The problem is that the CG-R seat post is only offered with 25mm of setback which isn't going to work for everybody.



Maybe it sounds like I am too. I just and emphasizing both my surprise and the stiffness. It is a beast really, the Chainstays are freaking 2x4s 

Also, as to the CG-R, it also made a seat I was not to crazy about work well too. I had taken it off my 05 Roubaix with a Pave Post.
The CG-R seems to move it just enough it became transparent even on the stiffer bike. Saddle is a Selle Italia SLC Gel Flow, which gets good review, only not from my bottom prior to the CG-R post.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Going to stick this here in this thread instead of starting another.

Have got some real miles and time on my SL4 Disc Roubaix, got it in August.

Recap: Got the Sora bike and put 7800 on it that night.

Been using the original Axis 2.0 28mm Rims with 27mm Paves. Recovering from the orig expenditure fully intending to build better wheels at some point/soon? 

OK, to the point. Grabbed sale item XT Centerlock hubs and WTB Speeddisk rims for like 100.00 total. Plan; build these & get rid of the Axis [before I use them too much] towards parts cost of new wheels. Then relegate the XT set to the 29er when I build up a more upper end set for the SL4.

Now really to the point, The low profile Disc only WTB rims [probably as light or lighter than the 28mm origs.] improved the ride quality more than putting on the CG-R post. I used Sapim Race 3x, because I have them.  Alloy DT nips FWIW, had them too.

So whereas I was thinking carbon 38mm rims for the 'final' set [chuckles] I am totally rethinking this now. 

In my minds eye [and my hands palms] the stiff SL4 is accentuated with stiff taller rims. 

New direction; I am spying some old Campy Track Strada Hardox rims in mint shape for the 'final' [chuckles again] wheels. All Sapim 32x Lasers [yeah, I know] on some XTR hubs I can grab NOS. Should lean towards a more supple ride I am thinking.

I have always used stiff wheels and higher pressures to combat a frame not as stiff as I like to offset some mush, funny how things change..


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Devastazione said:


> Moved from an sl3 Roubaix to a Tarmac. I can't belive i've wasted 2 and a half years of solid riding on a spaghetti like frame. I find my Tarmac to be equally comfortable on 50/80 km long rides,everything else above that is just a matter of training/streng/flexibility. And i'm 41,not a kid. Get the Tarmac,you won't regret it,the feeling is the one of a real road bike,not a full suspened mtb on the road..


Calling the SL3 "spaghetti-like frame" is a great way to lose credibility. Comparing it with a FS MTB tells me you just need to justify your purchase.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

serious said:


> Calling the SL3 "spaghetti-like frame" is a great way to lose credibility. Comparing it with a FS MTB tells me you just need to justify your purchase.



I rode a SL2 Roubaix a few years back, "spaghetti-like frame" is what I might have said back then. I wound up getting an older 2005 Roubaix which was not much less compliant. I was 230 lb at the time, I bet a 150 lb rider would take homage if I was to say a sl2 or 3 Spexh was spaghetti-like.  Now the Litespeed Catalyst I rode in 1995 or so I would say for sure "spaghetti-like frame".


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

robt57 said:


> I rode a SL2 Roubaix a few years back, "spaghetti-like frame" is what I might have said back then. I wound up getting an older 2005 Roubaix which was not much less compliant. I was 230 lb at the time, I bet a 150 lb rider would take homage if I was to say a sl2 or 3 Spexh was spaghetti-like.  Now the Litespeed Catalyst I rode in 1995 or so I would say for sure "spaghetti-like frame".


Any 16 lbs bike will feel spaghetty-like to a 230 lbs person. Physics cannot be ignored here.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

serious said:


> Any 16 lbs bike will feel spaghetty-like to a 230 lbs person. Physics cannot be ignored here.


I was probably 170 or 180 when I tested a Roubaix a few years ago. It felt Spaghetti made like compared to a Tarmac.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Youre all talking about stiffness. Very little about frame geometry, where the primary differences between the Tarmac and Roubaix lie.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

serious said:


> Any 16 lbs bike will feel spaghetty-like to a 230 lbs person. Physics cannot be ignored here.



My steel frame I had made in 2000 which I still have and is relegated to SS duty when I was @ that weight was the same as it always has been and will be, still and stout. Although 17lb at it lightest not 16 lb I admit.
I rode the Scott LTD I now have starting at 225 lb. It weighs under 15 lbs, in fact was 13.7 lb when I first put it together with crazy light tubular wheels. Yes, plenty stiff as compared to the SL2 or my 2005 Roubaix. Those two in my memory are more similar than not.

The Strong frame geometry is very close to the Tarmac. Now the SL4 Roubaix as I have said lots of times in threads is about the stiffest thing I have ridden. SL4 and and some Columbus Max frames I dub plenty stiff. The last MAX frame I rode gave the perception that I could have been the 800 lb gorilla on the bike.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

NJBiker72 said:


> I was probably 170 or 180 when I tested a Roubaix a few years ago. It felt Spaghetti made like compared to a Tarmac.


I'll say it again - I challenge anyone to ride a Roubaix SL4 and tell me the frame is flexy. The S-Works Roubaix SL4 was the 3rd stiffest frame Velonews ever tested as of last year. I'm really not even sure why we're talking about Roubaix's that aren't even sold anymore at this point.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> I'll say it again - I challenge anyone to ride a Roubaix SL4 and tell me the frame is flexy. The S-Works Roubaix SL4 was the 3rd stiffest frame Velonews ever tested as of last year. I'm really not even sure why we're talking about Roubaix's that aren't even sold anymore at this point.


I rode the SL3. And bought the SL3 Tarmac back in 2011. I liked the Roubaix. It was comfy but the Tarmac felt stiffer. Much stiffer. 

Now this is just feel but for what I wanted the Tarmac was the bike.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

And I will agree again. If I had read as much 'SL4' and 'Stiff!!!!' thread that exists now before getting the disc SL4 Roubaix I may have not jumped into to so quickly.

I have a 2005, and the rep these have if comfort bike. If you read my posts just here since I got this bike you will see on theme mostly.

Stiff! @ 210 and on a 58, even 27mm Paves and the CG-R post do not mask the stiffness. I thought I replacing a comfort bike, what I did was get a another race frame is seems. 

What helped also was taking the 28mm rimmed wheels in favor of some WTB Speeddisk rimmed XT wheels. Low profile rims helped, 27mm Pave 320 TPI tires @ 85lb helps, CG-R Post helps. Note the theme that I kept doing things to help. 

Read: Stiff!


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

robt57 said:


> My steel frame I had made in 2000 which I still have and is relegated to SS duty when I was @ that weight was the same as it always has been and will be, still and stout. Although 17lb at it lightest not 16 lb I admit.
> I rode the Scott LTD I now have starting at 225 lb. It weighs under 15 lbs, in fact was 13.7 lb when I first put it together with crazy light tubular wheels. Yes, plenty stiff as compared to the SL2 or my 2005 Roubaix. Those two in my memory are more similar than not.
> 
> The Strong frame geometry is very close to the Tarmac. Now the SL4 Roubaix as I have said lots of times in threads is about the stiffest thing I have ridden. SL4 and and some Columbus Max frames I dub plenty stiff. The last MAX frame I rode gave the perception that I could have been the 800 lb gorilla on the bike.


But my point is that the opinion of a 230 lbs person has to be taken with a grain of salt. For me it is beyond irrelevant, because I weigh 146 lbs. I find almost any bike to be very stiff, SL3 included. The Tarmac would probably feel like a rock.


----------



## jkcSD (Jan 11, 2015)

serious said:


> But my point is that the opinion of a 230 lbs person has to be taken with a grain of salt. For me it is beyond irrelevant, because I weigh 146 lbs. I find almost any bike to be very stiff, SL3 included. The Tarmac would probably feel like a rock.



I'v got two months on my s-works Sl4 Roubaix disc/Di2 and I cannot find enough time in the day to ride it. Coming off a Tarmac, NealH is spot on in his summary. Other than comfort, stability is the biggest difference. It is the perfect balance of speed, agility and comfort.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

serious said:


> But my point is that the opinion of a 230 lbs person has to be taken with a grain of salt. For me it is beyond irrelevant, because I weigh 146 lbs. I find almost any bike to be very stiff, SL3 included. The Tarmac would probably feel like a rock.


And I think the exact opposite is the case. You seem to got the point I tried to make via some route. If even now @ 210lb I say the SL4 is one stiff mama-jama, a much lighter rider could/should[?] infer in your words "probably feel like a rock". I'd say it rides like a truss. 

I won't take the Scoot LTD out in crap, so the SL4 disc is getting double duty, as was the purpose of the purchase.
I can wait until I get back on the Addict is all I can say. As much as I like the SL4.


----------

