# First Ride: 2015 Specialized Tarmac S-Works



## Stumpjumper FSR

First Ride: 2015 Specialized Tarmac S-Works - VeloNews.com


----------



## msg98

does anyone know when the "rider-first" engineering shows up in Roubaix? what are the chances it is this year as well?


----------



## Dunbar

msg98 said:


> does anyone know when the "rider-first" engineering shows up in Roubaix? *what are the chances it is this year as well?*


Slim to none.


----------



## NealH

According to the Bike Rumor article, some of the "rider first" principles are already integrated into the SL4 Roubaix.


Specialized Launches New Rider First Engineered 2015 Tarmac Disc and Rim Brake Models


----------



## oldskoolm4

Color scheme looks nice! I wonder what the non S-works frames will look like.


----------



## Cni2i

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> First Ride: 2015 Specialized Tarmac S-Works - VeloNews.com


Thanks for the link. I appreciated this tester's review, as he sounded pretty unbiased and truthful. The disc brakes will obviously make a difference in how the bike performs/functions (as he noted), but all the other changes will unlikely make much if any noticeable difference in performance (as he noted also). His review is more believable as he doesn't come out saying what many other testers often say...."much stiffer", "much more responsive", "more vertical compliance" and on and on...lol. Having said that, I will likely pick up the new Tarmac sometime late next year, but I am in no rush as:

1. Still thoroughly enjoying my SWSL4 
2. Maybe get the updated Venge instead?


----------



## scottma

Since that tester rode a 56CM, I dont think he would see a big difference. The changes are more on the 49/52 and 58/61cm sizes.


----------



## Cni2i

scottma said:


> Since that tester rode a 56CM, I dont think he would see a big difference. The changes are more on the 49/52 and 58/61cm sizes.


Point taken 

Still, I am always skeptical about some of these manufacturers' claims. But like I said, I see one in my garage in the future


----------



## Guru_jee

scottma said:


> Since that tester rode a 56CM, I dont think he would see a big difference. The changes are more on the 49/52 and 58/61cm sizes.


<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-formatther; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-formatther; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; colorurple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> IF you don’t ride a very big or very small size frameset then, disc brakes aside, the bike is pretty much the same as the previous Tarmac SL4 in terms of geometry, carbon (11r) and technology. Therefore if you ride a 54,56 or even the 58 the machine is not really that different from the previous model launched 3 years ago. I expected better returns on the heavy R&D they claim to do. 

Others have rightly pointed out that they are generalizing size. They are assuming that somebody who rides a 56 and larger frame is a heavier rider. That may not hold. You could be taller and lighter, not necessarily heavier. What if you ride a 54 or 52 frame but are more muscular/heavier or prefer not to be stretched out on a bike? While “every 10 percent you raised a rider’s center of gravity, you increased loads by 18 percent” maybe correct, some serious cyclists I know deliberately choose larger sizes to be “stretched out”.
A graph on their website illustrates that the “STEERING RESPONSE” of smaller frames has been reduced when compared to the SL4 because of feedback from the likes of Alberto Contador. It maybe right for Alberto but how many of us are actually as light as the pro cyclists?
Spesh’s marketing video claims “15-17% increased power transfer” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZywmTsVnI#t=1077). If that is the case then why haven’t they provided size specific conventional tortional stiffness data to back it up instead of their new made up criteria “rear triangle stiffness” and “steering responsiveness” metrics. I have a feeling they have changed this because in terms of conventional tortional stiffness of mid sized bikes it is no better than the old SL4. Spesh themselves used to claim on their website that power transfer is a function of bottom bracket stiffness and tortional stiffness (In fact Giant have been criticising how Spesh calculated it http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/showcase/tcr/#videos but nonetheless they did present their tortional stiffness data!). Unfortunately, I am sceptical and await independent testing by Velo (Velo Lab) or Tour Magazine (most thorough and respected bike testing around).


----------



## Cni2i

Guru_jee said:


> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:" "; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-formatther; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:" "; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-formatther; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:" "; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; colorurple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times; mso-fareast-font-family:" "; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:" "; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> IF you don’t ride a very big or very small size frameset then, disc brakes aside, the bike is pretty much the same as the previous Tarmac SL4 in terms of geometry, carbon (11r) and technology. Therefore if you ride a 54,56 or even the 58 the machine is not really that different from the previous model launched 3 years ago. I expected better returns on the heavy R&D they claim to do.
> 
> Others have rightly pointed out that they are generalizing size. They are assuming that somebody who rides a 56 and larger frame is a heavier rider. That may not hold. You could be taller and lighter, not necessarily heavier. What if you ride a 54 or 52 frame but are more muscular/heavier or prefer not to be stretched out on a bike? While “every 10 percent you raised a rider’s center of gravity, you increased loads by 18 percent” maybe correct, some serious cyclists I know deliberately choose larger sizes to be “stretched out”.
> A graph on their website illustrates that the “STEERING RESPONSE” of smaller frames has been reduced when compared to the SL4 because of feedback from the likes of Alberto Contador. It maybe right for Alberto but how many of us are actually as light as the pro cyclists?
> Spesh’s marketing video claims “15-17% increased power transfer” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZywmTsVnI#t=1077). If that is the case then why haven’t they provided size specific conventional tortional stiffness data to back it up instead of their new made up criteria “rear triangle stiffness” and “steering responsiveness” metrics. I have a feeling they have changed this because in terms of conventional tortional stiffness of mid sized bikes it is no better than the old SL4. Spesh themselves used to claim on their website that power transfer is a function of bottom bracket stiffness and tortional stiffness (In fact Giant have been criticising how Spesh calculated it http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/showcase/tcr/#videos but nonetheless they did present their tortional stiffness data!). Unfortunately, I am sceptical and await independent testing by Velo (Velo Lab) or Tour Magazine (most thorough and respected bike testing around).


Well said. I am getting one because I like the look of the little hole on the side of the top tube.


----------



## MMsRepBike

Cni2i said:


> Well said. I am getting one because I like the look of the little hole on the side of the top tube.


Actually a fantastic answer/reason. Get one because it's new, because it's cool and because it makes you want to get it out there. If it excites you more than your current bike than make the switch. No better reason needed. No need for your or my new bike to be x% thiser or x% better at that with x magical whateverhaveyou.

But on topic here... You know... I would probably put the sticker on. And when someone was checking out the bike I'd ask them where the seatpost clamp is, lol. Is it a quill stem? Nope. I do like the hole, it's cool, reminds me of the Foil a bit but I'd probably cover it or fill it. There must be some trick plug or something available soon in place of the standard clothes hanger S sticker they're using now. It would be nice to have it blend even better than the sticker could do.


----------



## Devastazione

As usual color schemes for Italy on the S Works sucks !!!!

The Pro on the opposite looks great to me. Just throw away all the Ultegra stuff and replace with Dura Ace :thumbsup:


----------



## oldskoolm4

Devastazione said:


> The Pro on the opposite looks great to me. Just throw away all the Ultegra stuff and replace with Dura Ace :thumbsup:


Looks great! I'd like to replace my '10 Tarmac with the '15 this year. Let me know what trash can that Ultegra stuff is going in! :wink5:


----------



## Rashadabd

Maybe it's not all hype after all. I really like these guys' reviews usually. This one is pretty positive.

Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP

This section was particularly interesting (and unexpected) to me:

"The greater precision and consistency in handling owes to its other banner quality, namely, how smooth it rides. This bike has an ability to smooth road surfaces on a par with many company’s grand touring bikes. This thing might be as comfortable as the Roubaix."


----------



## Typetwelve

Rashadabd said:


> Maybe it's not all hype after all. I really like these guys' reviews usually. This one is pretty positive.
> 
> Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP
> 
> This section was particularly interesting (and unexpected) to me:
> 
> "The greater precision and consistency in handling owes to its other banner quality, namely, how smooth it rides. This bike has an ability to smooth road surfaces on a par with many company’s grand touring bikes. This thing might be as comfortable as the Roubaix."


I wonder if the Roubaix is not long for this world...

It seems it used to be Roubaix = smoother road bike at a small cost to handling-vs-Tarmac = balls-out race machine.

Now it seems the Tarmac is moving into the "do-it-all" bike with a race side and the Venge is the new balls-out racer.

With the Roubaix being made stiffer/less forgiving and the the line between the Roubaix/Tarmac blurring...I don't really see the need for one over the other anymore.


----------



## LVbob

Typetwelve said:


> I wonder if the Roubaix is not long for this world...
> 
> It seems it used to be Roubaix = smoother road bike at a small cost to handling-vs-Tarmac = balls-out race machine.
> 
> Now it seems the Tarmac is moving into the "do-it-all" bike with a race side and the Venge is the new balls-out racer.
> 
> With the Roubaix being made stiffer/less forgiving and the the line between the Roubaix/Tarmac blurring...I don't really see the need for one over the other anymore.


The Roubaix still has the more relaxed geometry which, for many older riders, may keep it in the lineup.


----------



## LVbob

Rashadabd said:


> Maybe it's not all hype after all. I really like these guys' reviews usually. This one is pretty positive.
> 
> Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP
> 
> This section was particularly interesting (and unexpected) to me:
> 
> "The greater precision and consistency in handling owes to its other banner quality, namely, how smooth it rides. This bike has an ability to smooth road surfaces on a par with many company’s grand touring bikes. This thing might be as comfortable as the Roubaix."


This is an interesting first look and the second (I think) where the rider tested a 58 and both commented on handling in turns. Maybe there is more to this than just hype.

I suspect the engineered-to-size by a mass brand is something new and agree with the RKP review that this will likely force other players to step up their efforts in this area. Sounds like it could be a plus for the many smaller and larger riders.


----------



## scottma

I have a friend in the industry that says Roubaix/Tarmac are 80/20% of sales. The Roubaix isnt going anywhere. As above, the Roubaix and Tarmac have a different fit and appeal to different riders.


----------



## darwinosx

I think RKP is pretty over the top and has some sort of relationship with Specialized. Here is a real review.

The New Specialized Tarmac review | CyclingTips



Rashadabd said:


> Maybe it's not all hype after all. I really like these guys' reviews usually. This one is pretty positive.
> 
> Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP
> 
> This section was particularly interesting (and unexpected) to me:
> 
> "The greater precision and consistency in handling owes to its other banner quality, namely, how smooth it rides. This bike has an ability to smooth road surfaces on a par with many company’s grand touring bikes. This thing might be as comfortable as the Roubaix."


----------



## Guru_jee

darwinosx said:


> I think RKP is pretty over the top and has some sort of relationship with Specialized. Here is a real review.
> 
> The New Specialized Tarmac review | CyclingTips


I think you're right. Even on his own website a few commentators have questioned his bias and asked him to declare any benefits (financial or "in kind") he may receive from Spesh. Unfortunately his answer was not forthcoming.


----------



## Rashadabd

darwinosx said:


> I think RKP is pretty over the top and has some sort of relationship with Specialized. Here is a real review.
> 
> The New Specialized Tarmac review | CyclingTips


Thank you for the link, it was a good review. It's consistent with what Peloton Magazine, Velonews, and others said. One challenging thing for me is that many of the testers, including the one in this review, tested a size 56, where the benefits of the redesign are supposed to have the least impact. The Expert and Pro level bikes are likely out of my price range (or at least what I can feel good about spending given how good the more affordable versions of the Tarmac, Roubaix, and Allez bikes perform), but I am still interested in hearing what someone that rides a 52cm thinks of the new Tarmac after also spending a fair amount of time on a SL4.


----------



## Horze

$10000 LOL. 
Is it for framing and hanging on a wall if you pardon the pun?


----------



## darwinosx

The Roubaix is a very different bike in many ways and far more are sold than Tarmacs. It's not going anywhere.




Typetwelve said:


> I wonder if the Roubaix is not long for this world...
> 
> It seems it used to be Roubaix = smoother road bike at a small cost to handling-vs-Tarmac = balls-out race machine.
> 
> Now it seems the Tarmac is moving into the "do-it-all" bike with a race side and the Venge is the new balls-out racer.
> 
> With the Roubaix being made stiffer/less forgiving and the the line between the Roubaix/Tarmac blurring...I don't really see the need for one over the other anymore.


----------



## darwinosx

This is a great bike no doubt but the price is silly for a marginally improved frame. Plus it won't be going to lower levels this year so you will be spending 8k + to get one.
Rider first engineering? Bike manufacturers have been varying materials for a long time based on size. Nothing new here.
My local shop says Roubaix version in 2015 but I have no idea if that is true. Maybe by then it will only be 7k. ;-)


----------



## Rashadabd

darwinosx said:


> This is a great bike no doubt but the price is silly for a marginally improved frame. Plus it won't be going to lower levels this year so you will be spending 8k + to get one.
> Rider first engineering? Bike manufacturers have been varying materials for a long time based on size. Nothing new here.
> My local shop says Roubaix version in 2015 but I have no idea if that is true. Maybe by then it will only be 7k. ;-)


Actually, my understanding from everything I have read is that it will be released in the Expert and Pro Race levels this year.

Gallery: Specialized Tarmac Disc and new rim-brake Tarmac released | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## darwinosx

Sounds good. LBS said only the S-Works this year but looks like they were wrong.




Rashadabd said:


> Actually, my understanding from everything I have read is that it will be released in the Expert and Pro Race levels this year.
> 
> Gallery: Specialized Tarmac Disc and new rim-brake Tarmac released | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## WormDevil

I was very close to pulling the trigger on a 2015 Tarmac but now with the release of the Trek Emonda and talk of changes to the UCI minimum bike weight rule (currently 6.8kg.) I've got think that Specialized just might have something more up their sleeves (at least I hope so....). 
Thoughts?


----------



## Maximus_XXIV

Not for a few years unless they intend to replace the frame. Tarmac has never been updated every year. I thought the Emonda frame was not special light, they just threw a bunch of super light components at it.


----------



## Devastazione

just ordered one !! So long Roubaix,sorry but I'm sure you won't be missed much.


----------



## darwinosx

I just got my 2015 Tarmac Expert. I like the handling and stiffness better than my 2014 Roubaix.


----------



## roadworthy

darwinosx said:


> I just got my 2015 Tarmac Expert. I like the handling and stiffness better than my 2014 Roubaix.


Darwin did move one frame size up for your Tarmac to account for the 20mm shorter head tube of the Tarmac compared to your Roubaix?...or are you just running a more aggressive position on the Tarmac?
Is there a discernible ride quality difference between the Roubaix and Tarmac?
Thanks


----------



## darwinosx

roadworthy said:


> Darwin did move one frame size up for your Tarmac to account for the 20mm shorter head tube of the Tarmac compared to your Roubaix?...or are you just running a more aggressive position on the Tarmac?
> Is there a discernible ride quality difference between the Roubaix and Tarmac?
> Thanks


I did not because the difference between 58 and 61 is still too big for me. So I may be able to live with the Tarmac on long rides or only on shorter interval rides.my fit guy might not be too happy, I guess we will see. I'm still at the bike shop waiting on it but will do a 42 mile route at Camp Pendleton later today then I will know for sure. 
I really like the Tarmac handling more as the Roubaix has always felt a bit slow to me especially when going down twisty roads where I have to setup the turns more on the Roubaix. The Tarmac also feels stiffer. It's not like the Roubaix isn't stiff just that I like feel of the Tarmac more and it's also quite smooth. Everything I have read about the new Tarmacs is that 56 and below you won't see much difference but 58 and 61 you will.


----------



## darwinosx

Here it is
32 tooth cogs with mid cage rear for my dodgy left knee, Hed Belgium rims, aluminum seatpost instead of carbon, Brooks Cambium saddle, 46cm handlebars.
The FSA cranks look much better this year. I already asked Praxis and their replacement BB is fine on these frames but I think I'll stick with this crank instead of putting Ultegra on it as I did my Roubaix.


----------



## roadworthy

darwinosx said:


> Here it is
> 32 tooth cogs with mid cage rear for my dodgy left knee, Hed Belgium rims, aluminum seatpost instead of carbon, Brooks Cambium saddle, 46cm handlebars.
> The FSA cranks look much better this year. I already asked Praxis and their replacement BB is fine on these frames but I think I'll stick with this crank instead of putting Ultegra on it as I did my Roubaix.


Very pretty bike. How about coming back and sharing your thoughts after a bit more time in the saddle? Many of us here on Roubaixs toy with the idea of a Tarmac, but if say I bought one as a stable mate, I am just not sure how much I would ride it for the simple reason that the Roubaix encompasses the qualities I prefer. Handling difference is often discussioned. I have owned several bikes with the geometry of a Tarmac and know about its quick steering. On balance, I prefer the handling of a Roubaix personally. To choose an analogy, the Roubaix is a like a Giant Slalom ski. I can carve long sweepers with pure confidence. As to short radius turns, I just lay it over and it tracks like a slot car...but without any of the nervous nature of a shorter wheelbase bike like a Tarmac. Anyway that is the counterpoint. In FL I also don't climb much or may more strongly consider a Tarmac in fact because no doubt it is a great climbing bike.
And then there is riding position and I see you surmount that a bit with a turned up stem which is fine and I would ride it the same way.

I hope you share your further thoughts after living with your Tarmac a bit more.
Its a beauty.


----------



## darwinosx

Here is a better picture taken during my ride at San Onofre and Camp Pendleton.


I did a 42 mile route today that I do all the time. This is the most fun I have had on a bike in a long time. I much prefer it to my Roubaix. Which I didn't expect to this extent. The first thing is the handling is much better. It also feels stiffer but is plenty comfortable. You just want to ride hard on it all the time. Very poised and balanced and just really a great bike. 
I didn't notice any issues from the lower head tube but am still getting a fit done. I will probably get a slightly shorter stem. 
I'd say the rider engineered frame is no BS since I've ridden SL 4 Tarmacs and liked them but not as much as this.
I also prefer the 52/36 crank over 50/34. In fact the FSA crank is pretty darn good. I didn't like it on the Roubaix but it looks much better now, slimmed down and shifts extremely well.
I don't find the handling too quick at all.
I thought I would be keeping the Roubaix for longer distance and this one for short fast rides but I'm selling the Roubaix because I like this one so much and probably buying another one since I have been wanting two bikes anyway.
I really wasn't expecting this but man it is a blast to ride and I can't wait to get out on it again. I've been buying high end road bikes since the late 70's and would be hard pressed to think of one that impressed me so much on the first ride and I've had about everything you can think of.



roadworthy said:


> Very pretty bike. How about coming back and sharing your thoughts after a bit more time in the saddle? Many of us here on Roubaixs toy with the idea of a Tarmac, but if say I bought one as a stable mate, I am just not sure how much I would ride it for the simple reason that the Roubaix encompasses the qualities I prefer. Handling difference is often discussioned. I have owned several bikes with the geometry of a Tarmac and know about its quick steering. On balance, I prefer the handling of a Roubaix personally. To choose an analogy, the Roubaix is a like a Giant Slalom ski. I can carve long sweepers with pure confidence. As to short radius turns, I just lay it over and it tracks like a slot car...but without any of the nervous nature of a shorter wheelbase bike like a Tarmac. Anyway that is the counterpoint. In FL I also don't climb much or may more strongly consider a Tarmac in fact because no doubt it is a great climbing bike.
> And then there is riding position and I see you surmount that a bit with a turned up stem which is fine and I would ride it the same way.
> 
> I hope you share your further thoughts after living with your Tarmac a bit more.
> Its a beauty.


----------



## roadworthy

darwinosx said:


> Here is a better picture taken during my ride at San Onofre and Camp Pendleton.
> 
> 
> I did a 42 mile route today that I do all the time. This is the most fun I have had on a bike in a long time. I much prefer it to my Roubaix. Which I didn't expect t this extent. The first thing is the handling is much better. It also feels stiffer but is plenty comfortable. You just want to ride hard on it all the time. Very poised and balanced and just really a great bike. I didn't notice any issues form the lower head tube but am still getting a fit done. I will probably get a slightly shorter stem. I'd say the rider engineered frame is no BS since I've ridden SL 4 Tarmacs and liked them but not as much as this.
> I also prefer the 52/36 crank over 50/34. In fact the FSA crank is pretty darn good. I didn't like it on the Roubaix but it looks much better now, slimmed down and shifts extremely well.
> I don't find the handling too quick at all.
> I thought I would be keeping the Roubaix for longer distance and this one for sort fast rides but I'm selling the Roubaix because I like this one so much and probably buying another one since I have been wanting two bikes anyway.
> I really wasn't expecting this but man it is a blast to ride and I can't wait to get out on it again. I've been buying high end road bikes since the late 70's and would be hard pressed to think of one that impressed me so much on the first ride and I've had about everything you can think of.


Thanks for your further insight. Now you got me thinking. 
Since you have owned both and you even had a 2014 Roubaix SL4 which is closer to the Tarmac in ride quality with its stiffer rear triangle...my '12 Roubaix SL3 is generally considered a softer riding bike by comparison to the latest Roubaix...and yet you seem to much prefer the Tarmac. Very tall praise and food for thought. Maybe I need to get off the snide and build one up...or at least a SL4 Tarmac and spend some time with it and then decide if its a better way to roll. 

How tall are you Darwin and what size Tarmac is that? Are you long legged for your height?
Thanks


----------



## darwinosx

I can't recommend this bike enough.
My sizing is odd and you and I have talked about it a little in the past. The bike is a 58 but I am 6'2". I actually have a longer torso and shorter inseam than most people my height. So a 61 would be too much of a jump. If Spesh made a 60 I might be able to do that.
Basically I can make a smaller bike fit me better than I can make the next bigger size. 59cm would be perfect but only the italians still make 59's that I know of. At 54 I don't have the flexibility I used to have and it doesn't help that I have a lot of old injuries. The stem on this is a 110 and it's a bit long.I'm not really comfortable with my hands on the brake hoods stretched out. 
The geometry is the same as the SL 4 Tarmacs but you are a taller guy too right? I think you ride a 61? If I remember correctly. I would go so far as to say it you ride a 58 or especially a 61 this is worth an upgrade over an SL 4 Tarmac. But this is the same geometry as an SL 4 Tarmac so riding an SL 4 will tell you if you like or not.
I think Spesh has a winner on their hands here. Hopefully they can fix their supply chain issues and have enough to sell this year.
I really am surprised at how much I like this bike and especially that it makes me not want to keep the Roubaix. Wasn't expecting that at all. I was close to pulling the trigger on a custom Eriksen titanium frame but not now. Was all set to get measured for it in San Diego this week but not any more.


----------



## roadworthy

darwinosx said:


> I can't recommend this bike enough.
> My sizing is odd and you and I have talked about it a little in the past. The bike is a 58 but I am 6'2". I actually have a longer torso and shorter inseam than most people my height. So a 61 would be too much of a jump. If Spesh made a 60 I might be able to do that.
> Basically I can make a smaller bike fit me better than I can make the next bigger size. 59cm would be perfect but only the italians still make 59's that I know of. At 54 I don't have the flexibility I used to have and it doesn't help that I have a lot of old injuries. The stem on this is a 110 and it's a bit long.I'm not really comfortable with my hands on the brake hoods stretched out.
> The geometry is the same as the SL 4 Tarmacs but you are a taller guy too right? I think you ride a 61? If I remember correctly. I would go so far as to say it you ride a 58 or especially a 61 this is worth an upgrade over an SL 4 Tarmac. But this is the same geometry as an SL 4 Tarmac so riding an SL 4 will tell you if you like or not.
> I think Spesh has a winner on their hands here. Hopefully they can fix their supply chain issues and have enough to sell this year.
> I really am surprised at how much I like this bike and especially that it makes me not want to keep the Roubaix. Wasn't expecting that at all. I was close to pulling the trigger on a custom Eriksen titanium frame but not now. Was all set to get measured for it in San Diego this week but not any more.


I am almost your height but built differently...I am long legged with long arms. My long arms needs a pretty long top tube. My Roubaix is a 58 with 130mm stem. Honestly with my leg length and the shorter head tube of the Tarmac, I would have to go 61. Also the .5 deg sta difference effectively reduces reach by 5mm or so. I would need a 110-120mm stem on a 61 Tarmac. I like to ride a hint stretched out for my long arms but...not with much drop which is always a problem with my long legs as my flexibility while maybe not terrible...my neck complains riding in the drops if I do it too much and I like to ride in the drops when hammering.

I do hear you about the Tarmac and know you know your bikes and since you have now owned both, nobody better to listen to. I may hunt down a Tarmac SL4 in size 61 and build it up and see if I feel the same way and no longer prefer the Roubaix.
Congrats on the bike. Its fun to shuffle the deck once in a while and try a new bike.


----------



## darwinosx

If Spesh's charts are to be believed, and I think they are, the 61 sees the most dramatic difference. I was skeptical of the rider first engineering thing but I'm a believer now at least for the larger sizes. new bikes are always fun but this one more than spot.  Had a big grin riding it and this thing really makes you want to ride fast.
Specialized Bicycle Components


----------



## darwinosx

Peloton magazines comments on the 61cm;
2015 Specialized Tarmac: Adventures in Redefining Limits ? Peloton

First off the bike is stiff, the size 61cm we rode feels stiff vertically, at least as stiff as the 58cm SL4 we tested previously. After 6hour days in the saddle we weren’t beaten up, but it communicates with the road very directly. In terms of pure power transfer it feels a hint livelier, which is incredible, since the SL4 was the benchmark rocket ship, but more testing is necessary to say this with true conviction.

What we can say, unequivocally, is the bike is faster in the corners and downhill than the SL4, and faster than anything we have ever ridden. The 61cm, a size typically associated with sluggish downhill performance, corners on rails. Countersteer, set your line with the front wheel and rocket through the corner with total confidence. Day one on the bike took some getting used to as we cut apexes too tight. It was then we realized that our other bikes, SL4 included, required us to hunt for the line a second time as the frame loaded and unloaded. Both the 58cm and 61cm hit the target immediately and stay locked on. If this is how the 56cm’s have been cornering we finally know what we have been missing.


----------



## roadworthy

darwinosx said:


> Peloton magazines comments on the 61cm;
> 2015 Specialized Tarmac: Adventures in Redefining Limits ? Peloton
> 
> First off the bike is stiff, the size 61cm we rode feels stiff vertically, at least as stiff as the 58cm SL4 we tested previously. After 6hour days in the saddle we weren’t beaten up, but it communicates with the road very directly. In terms of pure power transfer it feels a hint livelier, which is incredible, since the SL4 was the benchmark rocket ship, but more testing is necessary to say this with true conviction.
> 
> What we can say, unequivocally, is the bike is faster in the corners and downhill than the SL4, and faster than anything we have ever ridden. The 61cm, a size typically associated with sluggish downhill performance, corners on rails. Countersteer, set your line with the front wheel and rocket through the corner with total confidence. Day one on the bike took some getting used to as we cut apexes too tight. It was then we realized that our other bikes, SL4 included, required us to hunt for the line a second time as the frame loaded and unloaded. Both the 58cm and 61cm hit the target immediately and stay locked on. If this is how the 56cm’s have been cornering we finally know what we have been missing.


Great read...thanks. Would be interesting to know just how Specialized changed the front triangle to increase steering response of the larger sizes. I presume they did this by stiffening up the head tube connection to top tube and down tube.
Also, I am presuming the slight parabolic difference between the optimized curve of the new SL5 from small frame to largest frame has to do with the wheelbase differences which affect steering response...stiffness compensates for differences in turning radius based upon wheelbase...but only a guess.
Thanks again. More tall praise from the article. Must be a whale of a bike.

PS: more reading between the lines would suggest that the previous gen SL4 Tarmac would lack some of the steering response moving it a bit closer to the Roubaix for larger frame sizes. Again, only a presumption since Spesh deliberately engineered the new SL5 Tarmac larger frames to be more responsive.


----------



## Dunbar

I rode the top level ($9500!) S-Works Tarmac Di2 Disc at a Specialized demo event today. It was not in my local area so it's hard to directly compare the ride to my Roubaix SL4 Expert with CG-R post. The ride did seem pretty good but the roads where I demo'd the bike are better than my local roads. It wouldn't surprise me if the new Tarmac rode better than the Roubaix SL4 with a standard seat post. I'm betting the CG-R post gives the edge to the Roubaix over bumps and expansions joints. The handling on the Tarmac did feel noticeably quicker/twitchier. Ultimately both bikes are pretty close so it just comes down to personal preference in fit, handling and ride quality. Wasn't blown away by di2 and the hydraulic disk brakes were kind of a let down so my credit card is safe for now 

I rode a Venge after the Tarmac and there was much more sharpness to road imperfections. I was on a 52 Venge (54 Tarmac) and with that slammed position and deep wheels the Venge felt fast!


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> I rode the top level ($9500!) S-Works Tarmac Di2 Disc at a Specialized demo event today. It was not in my local area so it's hard to directly compare the ride to my Roubaix SL4 Expert with CG-R post. The ride did seem pretty good but the roads where I demo'd the bike are better than my local roads. It wouldn't surprise me if the new Tarmac rode better than the Roubaix SL4 with a standard seat post. I'm betting the CG-R post gives the edge to the Roubaix over bumps and expansions joints. The handling on the Tarmac did feel noticeably quicker/twitchier. Ultimately both bikes are pretty close so it just comes down to personal preference in fit, handling and ride quality. Wasn't blown away by di2 and the hydraulic disk brakes were kind of a let down so my credit card is safe for now
> 
> I rode a Venge after the Tarmac and there was much more sharpness to road imperfections. I was on a 52 Venge (54 Tarmac) and with that slammed position and deep wheels the Venge felt fast!


Nice review Dunbar...thanks for sharing your observations here.
Its interesting to learn your impressions of the Tarmac and Venge compared to your new Roubaix SL4. I presume the wheels shown may contribute to some difference as well in addition to the different road surfaces.
Reports are they have done a nice job with the Tarmac's ride quality and apparently so if you believe without your COBL post they are similar. Hard to know how they achieved this because the Roubaix has more laid out angles conducive to more compliance but apparently Specialized has further solved the mystery of how to make a pure race bike comfortable.
Thanks again.


----------



## darwinosx

I would only add that everyone says at the 54cm size the improvements are not nearly as noticeable.
I really like the Tarmac's handling and don't find it twitchy at all but thought I might. I really enjoy the tighter handling but also always felt that Roubaix was a little slack for me in the handling department.
I don't notice a difference in ride comfort and wasn't really thinking about that but I think tires have a lot to do with it since I ride 25's and sometimes 28's. I understand the new Tarmac has room for 28's and may put some on there.
Stil find it interesting they dropped the price on the Roubaix so much that there is now a $700 gap between Roubaix Expert and Tarmac Expert.
Dunbar I'm curious to know why you didn't care for the Di2 and hydraulic brakes? I keep thinking I'm going to go to Di2 but then lose interest. I'm not price sensitive but the price difference seems still too dramatic for one thing. I also think the mechanical Ultegra and Dura-Ace has gotten so good I don't think I need it. But everyone says how great it is so I'm still curious.


----------



## Dunbar

darwinosx said:


> Dunbar I'm curious to know why you didn't care for the Di2 and hydraulic brakes?


I rode a Domane earlier in the year with Ultegra Di2. The Venge I rode right after the Tarmac had 6800 mechanical. I honestly am just not that blown away by electronic. I don't think it shifts any faster and I prefer the feedback you get from mechanical. The Di2 shift buttons are basically microswitches that don't give you any feedback. While I do think electronic is cool I'm not that blown away by it to spend $1500 on 6870 (9870 is too rich for my blood.) The 6800 brakes with carbon clinchers felt better than the hydraulic disc brakes. There was kind of a dead spot on the hydraulic brakes before tha calipers start biting into the rotors. I really couldn't feel much mechanical advantage from the hydraulic part of the system.

I found out Specialized is having another demo next Sunday at my local shop. So I'll probably go back and ride the Tarmac but on familiar roads this time. No idea why Specialized isn't putting these events on their demo calendar...


----------



## Dunbar

OK guys, I took a 2015 Tarmac Pro Race out today at my LBS Specialized demo event. I got to ride it on familiar roads so I can directly compare my Roubaix SL4 Expert. Overall I can't say I noticed a big difference with the Tarmac. The ride quality feels about the same as the Roubaix SL4 with a standard carbon seat post. It doesn't ride as well as the Roubaix with the CG-R seat post (which I have on mine.) The handling and responsiveness felt about the same this demo. Maybe slightly quicker on the Tarmac but I didn't notice any big differences when I jumped back on my Roubaix. So I really think it comes down to fit and ride quality preferences which are very individual and are going to depend on the quality of your roads. I know that the Roubaix SL4 with standard carbon seat post is too stiff for me after the 2 hour mark so honestly I don't know that the Tarmac is for me. But you really can't go wrong with either bike.


----------



## roadworthy

Dunbar said:


> OK guys, I took a 2015 Tarmac Pro Race out today at my LBS Specialized demo event. I got to ride it on familiar roads so I can directly compare my Roubaix SL4 Expert. Overall I can't say I noticed a big difference with the Tarmac. The ride quality feels about the same as the Roubaix SL4 with a standard carbon seat post. It doesn't ride as well as the Roubaix with the CG-R seat post (which I have on mine.) The handling and responsiveness felt about the same this demo. Maybe slightly quicker on the Tarmac but I didn't notice any big differences when I jumped back on my Roubaix. So I really think it comes down to fit and ride quality preferences which are very individual and are going to depend on the quality of your roads. I know that the Roubaix SL4 with standard carbon seat post is too stiff for me after the 2 hour mark so honestly I don't know that the Tarmac is for me. But you really can't go wrong with either bike.


Thanks for your second review on home roads to better define any differences between the two bikes. Perhaps even a bit surprising you consider the bikes to close in character but it has been reported the new Roubaix SL4 was moved closer to the Tarmac in terms of personality with the stiffer rear triangle. I suspected you may have a preference overall but sounds as though you could go either way and preference of riding position seals the deal.
Thanks again.


----------



## darwinosx

Not really sure how you don't notice a difference in handling between the Tarmac and Roubaix as I find them very distinct. I didn't find a huge difference in comfort but do find the Tarmac to be stiffer and much different handling which I really prefer. 
What size is that bike? Everything I have seen says the really noticeable differences are found in 58 and 61. Maybe the smallest size too. I do notice a difference in the 2014 Tarmac and 2015 Tarmac too by the way.
I've done some pretty long rides on the 2015 Tarmac by now and have had no real issues with fit or comfort. Absolutely love the handling and much prefer it over my 2014 Roubaix which I have already sold.


----------



## Cni2i

Dunbar said:


> OK guys, I took a 2015 Tarmac Pro Race out today at my LBS Specialized demo event. I got to ride it on familiar roads so I can directly compare my Roubaix SL4 Expert. Overall I can't say I noticed a big difference with the Tarmac. The ride quality feels about the same as the Roubaix SL4 with a standard carbon seat post. It doesn't ride as well as the Roubaix with the CG-R seat post (which I have on mine.) The handling and responsiveness felt about the same this demo. Maybe slightly quicker on the Tarmac but I didn't notice any big differences when I jumped back on my Roubaix. So I really think it comes down to fit and ride quality preferences which are very individual and are going to depend on the quality of your roads. I know that the Roubaix SL4 with standard carbon seat post is too stiff for me after the 2 hour mark so honestly I don't know that the Tarmac is for me. But you really can't go wrong with either bike.


Nice to c an honest review. A lot of times you see a review of a new bike and read reviewers really exaggerate the differences between the new and the previous generation model bike. 

As much as I love my new SW Tarmac, I honestly don't notice much difference between it and my SW SL4 Tarmac. To be perfectly honest, the biggest difference for me is that one has DA 9000 11spd and the other had RED 10 spd. no regrets though. 

I don't notice any issues with either being too harsh of stiff, but I never owned a Rbx for comparison.


----------



## darwinosx

Size?


----------



## Cni2i

darwinosx said:


> Size?


Agreed. Sizes at the extreme ends should notice more differences. Mine is a 54.


----------



## darwinosx

There is a picture out there somewhere showing the tube size differences. Very noticeable. 61 was almost twice the size of 54 in some areas.


----------



## Cni2i

darwinosx said:


> There is a picture out there somewhere showing the tube size differences. Very noticeable. 61 was almost twice the size of 54 in some areas.


I have no doubt about that. I easily notice that even on my 54. But would a 61 or 52 Sl4 Tarmac rider notice much difference compared to a new 61 or 52 SW Tarmac in terms of overall ride characteristics?


----------



## Dunbar

The demo bike in the picture is a 54cm Tarmac Pro Race. My Roubaix is also a 54cm. My fit would work on either bike BTW. I've been slowly dropping the bars on the Roubaix.


----------



## darwinosx

[/LIST]


Cni2i said:


> I have no doubt about that. I easily notice that even on my 54. But would a 61 or 52 Sl4 Tarmac rider notice much difference compared to a new 61 or 52 SW Tarmac in terms of overall ride characteristics?


I can easily notice the difference between a 58 cm SL 4 Tarmac and a 58cm 2015 Tarmac. Basically it feels like more of one piece especially when cornering downhill and it also tracks better through tight turns and you can pick out and hold a line really easily.


----------



## Cni2i

darwinosx said:


> [/LIST]
> 
> 
> I can easily notice the difference between a 58 cm SL 4 Tarmac and a 58cm 2015 Tarmac. Basically it feels like more of one piece especially when cornering downhill and it also tracks better through tight turns and you can pick out and hold a line really easily.


That's great. I guess larger size frames do offer more noticeable differences. I guess that makes sense after looking at the downtube and top tube size differences With the larger frames. I just find it hard to believe that there is much difference because my sl4 Tarmac descended and climbed really well. But again, I am on a 54 cm and that was plenty stiff and light. And I never felt the sl4 was too twitchy or too stiff either. Again, I primarily ride my new Tarmac now, but don't feel like I lose much if anything in performance when switching to my sl4.


----------



## darwinosx

The SL 4 is already a pretty great frame and their introduction of it on all bikes last year is what led me to buying a Roubaix Expert last November.



Cni2i said:


> That's great. I guess larger size frames do offer more noticeable differences. I guess that makes sense after looking at the downtube and top tube size differences With the larger frames. I just find it hard to believe that there is much difference because my sl4 Tarmac descended and climbed really well. But again, I am on a 54 cm and that was plenty stiff and light. And I never felt the sl4 was too twitchy or too stiff either. Again, I primarily ride my new Tarmac now, but don't feel like I lose much if anything in performance when switching to my sl4.


----------



## jeo218

Is there a review between the Specialized SL4 Tarmac versus the new Tarmac? My shop still has the SL4 pro on sale in my size and I didn't know whether to pull the trigger on it and skip out on the new tarmac.


----------



## Chader09

What size do you ride? If it is a 54 or 56, you might not gain much with the new bike. The larger and smaller sizes are the ones with the greatest improvement in ride compared to the old SL4.


----------



## darwinosx

jeo218 said:


> Is there a review between the Specialized SL4 Tarmac versus the new Tarmac? My shop still has the SL4 pro on sale in my size and I didn't know whether to pull the trigger on it and skip out on the new tarmac.


Pretty much every review I have seen of the new one compares it in some way with the old one. 
What is your size?


----------



## jeo218

darwinosx said:


> Pretty much every review I have seen of the new one compares it in some way with the old one.
> What is your size?


I'm a size 54. I can get the SL4 Pro tarmac for $4500. Just needed a second opinion on whether or not spending $5600 on the new tarmac pro will be the better investment. I'm upgrading from a 2011 Cannondale caad8.


----------



## darwinosx

I ride a 58 and can tell the difference.
Everything I have read or seen people say after riding one is that if you ride a 54 or 56 you won't be able to tell much difference.
Ideally you could ride one and compare. They seem to be showing up a lot of places so any chance you can ride a 54 2015 bike?
My guess is you will notice very little difference if any.
I may be missing something but from the Expert to the Pro you gain wheels and cranks form what I can see. I wouldn't want those wheels because I'm too big for them would rather choose my own anyway and the crank is irrelevant to me as well. I don't think there is enough difference between it and the FSA on the Expert. For another $1600 you could get an expert, choose your wheels, and put an Ultegra crank on there if the FSA bothers you. Ultegra cranks can be had for $200 at places like Eurobike.
I know you didn't ask any of this so just a comment.
Here is a review I liked;
2015 Specialized Tarmac: Adventures in Redefining Limits ? Peloton
and another
First Look: 2015 Specialized Tarmac | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com
and another
Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP

Personally no matter what I like to have the latest thing..


----------



## jeo218

darwinosx said:


> I ride a 58 and can tell the difference.
> Everything I have read or seen people say after riding one is that if you ride a 54 or 56 you won't be able to tell much difference.
> Ideally you could ride one and compare. They seem to be showing up a lot of places so any chance you can ride a 54 2015 bike?
> My guess is you will notice very little difference if any.
> I may be missing something but from the Expert to the Pro you gain wheels and cranks form what I can see. I wouldn't want those wheels because I'm too big for them would rather choose my own anyway and the crank is irrelevant to me as well. I don't think there is enough difference between it and the FSA on the Expert. For another $1600 you could get an expert, choose your wheels, and put an Ultegra crank on there if the FSA bothers you. Ultegra cranks can be had for $200 at places like Eurobike.
> I know you didn't ask any of this so just a comment.
> Here is a review I liked;
> 2015 Specialized Tarmac: Adventures in Redefining Limits ? Peloton
> and another
> First Look: 2015 Specialized Tarmac | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com
> and another
> Specialized Unveils the New Tarmac | RKP
> 
> Personally no matter what I like to have the latest thing..


Thanks for the added reviews! It totally help clear some of my other questions. I haven't had the chance to test ride the new tarmac since the size wasn't available for me. I'll probably wait till mid-September for my local shop to stock on more sizes. You do have a point about the $1600 going into something else. I just liked the color scheme on the pro better than the bland black/grey scheme on the expert. It still looks good but it was just dull for me. In addition, I thought the shimano dura-ace C24 wheel set would suffice my needs. Know anything about the specialized CLX 40 wheelset? Whether it's a good investment or would you suggest looking into other carbon wheelsets.


----------



## darwinosx

Sure. The Expert also comes in grey and red but it is still pretty understated.
I wouldn't be the person to ask about carbon wheels. There is a wheels section on this forum though.



jeo218 said:


> Thanks for the added reviews! It totally help clear some of my other questions. I haven't had the chance to test ride the new tarmac since the size wasn't available for me. I'll probably wait till mid-September for my local shop to stock on more sizes. You do have a point about the $1600 going into something else. I just liked the color scheme on the pro better than the bland black/grey scheme on the expert. It still looks good but it was just dull for me. In addition, I thought the shimano dura-ace C24 wheel set would suffice my needs. Know anything about the specialized CLX 40 wheelset? Whether it's a good investment or would you suggest looking into other carbon wheelsets.


----------



## roadworthy

jeo218 said:


> I'm a size 54. I can get the SL4 Pro tarmac for $4500. Just needed a second opinion on whether or not spending $5600 on the new tarmac pro will be the better investment. I'm upgrading from a 2011 Cannondale caad8.


Agree with Darwin. In fact we could have a whole other conversation about whether the larger size that he prefers with his new stiffer SL5 is better for all riders. Some riders may prefer the softer SL4 in larger frame sizes based upon personal preference and rider weight and power which affects frame flex.

Suffice to say that the new SL5 is a whale of a bike...perhaps the best road bike on the market...but the SL4 won repeated honors year after year.

So jeo it will come down to content then on each Pro frame. If the SL4 has last year's DA 7900 or Red, its a no brainer, spring for the SL5 with latest groupset. Both new DA and Red are head and shoulders above the previous gen.
Also have to look at wheelset. 
No losers...a matter of choice only.


----------



## RoadEye

roadworthy said:


> So jeo it will come down to content then on each Pro frame. If the SL4 has last year's DA 7900 or Red, its a no brainer, spring for the SL5 with latest groupset. Both new DA and Red are head and shoulders above the previous gen.
> Also have to look at wheelset.
> No losers...a matter of choice only.


Agreed with the latest groupset is a no brainer. The past 6 months had the opportunity to ride a Felt Z with the DA9000 group and it was all it is cracked up to be (shifting and braking). thanks to a misguided BMW, I am now more than likely to pick up a new Tarmac... w/DA9000 of course. Only question is the wheelset was thinking the C24's but may just end up with the HED Ardennes SL's.


----------



## sund

Any more reviews on the new Tarmac?


----------



## Horze

My 2c.

I don't like the integrated seat collar. I actually hate the design.
Totally unnecessary, and for nothing.


----------



## darwinosx

Specialized says the integrated seat collar gives them more control over the frame design and adds vertical compliance. I see no reason to doubt that. I have a 2015 Tarmac and it doesn't affect me in any way to have the integrated seat collar. It does make for a cleaner looking frame which is fine with me.


----------



## Cni2i

darwinosx said:


> Specialized says the integrated seat collar gives them more control over the frame design and adds vertical compliance. I see no reason to doubt that. I have a 2015 Tarmac and it doesn't affect me in any way to have the integrated seat collar. It does make for a cleaner looking frame which is fine with me.


Agreed. At 5'8" and 138 lbs, I don't really notice any benefits of the collar-less post, but I do appreciate the cleaner look.


----------



## Horze

darwinosx said:


> Specialized says the integrated seat collar *gives them more control over the frame design and adds vertical compliance*. I see no reason to doubt that. I have a 2015 Tarmac and it doesn't affect me in any way to have the integrated seat collar. It does make for a cleaner looking frame which is fine with me.


Not vertical compliance but near enough horizontal compliance of the seat post.
Sure it does but from a practical point of view, totally rubbish because it's an over design.
Sure it's fine with you but not me!


----------



## NealH

RoadEye said:


> Agreed with the latest groupset is a no brainer. The past 6 months had the opportunity to ride a Felt Z with the DA9000 group and it was all it is cracked up to be (shifting and braking). thanks to a misguided BMW, I am now more than likely to pick up a new Tarmac... w/DA9000 of course. Only question is the wheelset was thinking the C24's but may just end up with the HED Ardennes SL's.


The HED Ardennes are nice wheels, but the C24's are step above. They are arguably the best all around road wheel set you can buy. They are not cheap but they deliver the goods.....and rarely does anyone ever have a problem with them.


----------



## RoadEye

NealH said:


> The HED Ardennes are nice wheels, but the C24's are step above. They are arguably the best all around road wheel set you can buy. They are not cheap but they deliver the goods.....and rarely does anyone ever have a problem with them.


thanks, this was a tough call... the wheelset. everything else was a no brainer. but we went with the Ardennes. if nothing else, I had some concerns of the C24's as an everyday training wheel. now we are just waiting on the frameset to arrive. ugh.


----------



## darwinosx

NealH said:


> The HED Ardennes are nice wheels, but the C24's are step above. They are arguably the best all around road wheel set you can buy. They are not cheap but they deliver the goods.....and rarely does anyone ever have a problem with them.


I've had both wheels and have two sets of Ardennes now. The C 24's are nice but in no way a step above and in fact are not nearly as robust. The rim quality on the HED wheels is noticeably high quality. The C24's are actually overpriced for what you get.


----------



## darwinosx

Horze said:


> Not vertical compliance but near enough horizontal compliance of the seat post.
> Sure it does but from a practical point of view, totally rubbish because it's an over design.
> Sure it's fine with you but not me!


Then you shouldn't buy the bike if it bothers you sooo much that you "hate" it. Overdesign? Hardly. it's pretty simple actually.


----------



## aclinjury

NealH said:


> The HED Ardennes are nice wheels, but the C24's are step above. They are arguably the best all around road wheel set you can buy. They are not cheap but they deliver the goods.....and rarely does anyone ever have a problem with them.


The real beauty of the C24s are the hubs. But Shimano still uses the narrow 20mm wide rims, while the world has moved on to 23mm wide rims. Shimano dropped the ball by not going to 23mm wide rims on their C24 and C35 series. Their C50 series use 23mm wide rims. It's such a shame.


----------

