# 08 Tarmac Pro vs 08 Roubaix Pro



## Cykler (Jul 14, 2008)

Hey everyone, I'm trying to decide between the Tarmac and the Roubaix. My primary rides are 20-50 mile rides in the Texas Hill Country. I may do a century once a year. Trying to justified my choice based on what I do most often. All knowledgable feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Cykler


----------



## IAmCosmo (Jul 26, 2005)

I test rode both before buying a bike to replace my Allez. Both are good rides, and you can't go wrong with either. However, the Roubaix felt slow to me. Longer wheelbase, wider, higher profile tires, etc. It just felt too "plush", I guess. I know it's supposed to be a "plush" bike, but honestly it felt disconnected to me. The Tarmac felt more lively, but still smooth. Handled quicker, climbed better (well, as good as any bike under me can climb), and just felt better.

So, I bought the Tarmac.

However, if you can, I suggest you ride both and see for yourself.


----------



## Cykler (Jul 14, 2008)

*Cosmo you hit it!*

Thanks Cosmo, I will test both. Also, your assessment of both bikes goes with my thinking. Seeing that most of my rides will be on hills, I thought the compact geometry of the Tarmac would suit me better. Have you completed a century with your Tarmac? And how was it? CK


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Cykler said:


> Thanks Cosmo, I will test both. Also, your assessment of both bikes goes with my thinking. Seeing that most of my rides will be on hills, I thought the compact geometry of the Tarmac would suit me better. Have you completed a century with your Tarmac? And how was it? CK


My riding impressions of both the Roubaix and Tarmac are very much like Cosmos, except I'm not sure I'd call the Roubaix slow or disconnected. Maybe slower _handling_ than the Tarmac's, but I'm picking nits because we both ended up with Tarmacs.  

IMO, one thing you shouldn't overlook is the difference in riding positions of both bikes. All things being equal, the saddle to bar drop will be greater on the Tarmac, so if you're coming from a similar set up you might be fine, but coming from a more upright position, you may prefer the Roubaix.


----------



## Cykler (Jul 14, 2008)

Thanks PJ, seeing that I am a little longer in the tooth than some, I will take that into consideration. Back isn't what it used to be. Thank you once again. Whoooa, high speed, low drag!


----------



## PaulRivers (Sep 11, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> My riding impressions of both the Roubaix and Tarmac are very much like Cosmos, except I'm not sure I'd call the Roubaix slow or disconnected. Maybe slower _handling_ than the Tarmac's, but I'm picking nits because we both ended up with Tarmacs.
> 
> IMO, one thing you shouldn't overlook is the difference in riding positions of both bikes. All things being equal, the saddle to bar drop will be greater on the Tarmac, so if you're coming from a similar set up you might be fine, but coming from a more upright position, you may prefer the Roubaix.


I've also recently compared the Expert Level of the Tarmac and the Roubaix bikes (same frame as the Pro) by test riding the Tarmac extensively and the Roubaix some, though less extensively.

At the price point you're talking about, there's not a whole lot of difference between the bikes - they're both great bikes. If someone bought me either one for christmas, I wouldn't bother to return either to the store for the other! 

I thought the Roubaix had a very smooth ride, just like it's marketed as. I've ridden "smoother" bikes, but none that felt BOTH as smooth and fast as the Roubaix.  And when I hit a big pothole with the Roubaix, I remember barely noticing it.

The Tarmac was different. With the frame you're asking about, it was an extremely smooth ride for all the normal road stuff - bumps, railroad tracks, the dip between the sidewalk and the road - and I'm really sensitive about that stuff, so if I thought it was smooth I think anyone else at all would think the same thing, hehe. It wasn't quite as smooth as the Roubaix when I deliberately hit a couple of big basketball sized potholes, though.  Those where a millisecond of being a little bit jarring (though like I mentioned, I'm extremely sensitive to that stuff).

But (if I can find a frame color I like) I'm going with the Tarmac. Just like PJ said, I also though the Roubaix was a little slower in the handling than the Tarmac. It felt like once I got up to speed it was just as fast, but it was also a tiny bit slower at accelerating. And although the Roubaix had a little smoother of a ride when it came to potholes, the Tarmac made me "feel" like I was going faster. Objectively, I thought the Roubaix and Tarmac actually went the same speed, but on the Tarmac I just "felt" like I was going faster, which was totally fun.  When I road the Roubaix, it was very comfortable and it was easy to keep a straight line. But felt like I was always aware that I was riding a bike. When I rode the Tarmac that "I'm riding a bike" feeling melted away and I felt more like I was just running really fast or something. It was totally fun! It occurred to me that that might be fatiguing after 100 miles. But like you, I'll rarely ride that far and I thought the fun feeling was worth the risk.


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

I've got both...An 07 Roubaix Expert and an 08 Tarmac Expert....Best of both worlds...

Everyone's comments echo my feelings. The Tarmac is quicker handling, climbs and accelerates better. In general the Tarmac feels faster. The Roubaix is more comfortable and descends just as good as the Tarmac.

Funny thing is when I take either bike out I may feel faster on the Tarmac, but by the end of the ride the average speeds are pretty well the same.

For me, if I'm doing a short hammer type ride (50-75km) with a group or with my wife I"ll grab the Tarmac. On the weekends when it's rides over 100km I take the Roubaix and just cruise along.

Basically I use a car analogy, the Tarmac is my Corvette, while the Roubaix is my Cadillac STS...

Either way you can't go wrong with either bike....


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

rbart4506 said:


> I've got both...An 07 Roubaix Expert and an 08 Tarmac Expert....Best of both worlds...


You lucky dog! I've thought about adding a Roubaix to my Tarmac, but no $$$.

FWIW- I rode a hilly century several weeks ago with a guy almost exactly my size (6',165-170#) who was riding a Roubaix vs my Tarmac Expert. Funny thing was- he could climb slightly better than me, but I easily out paced in on flats (& did most pulls) & descended much faster. Even when leading on straight smooth descents, best full tuck with neither one of us braking, I would pull away. Made me think my Tarmac was a better descender, but we never switched bikes to compare. I honestly did not think our tuck positions were that different.


----------



## speedsterveloce (Apr 5, 2007)

I have a 07 Roubaix Pro with fiipped stem, upgraded wheels and tires which caused the bike "feel" night/day different....but have realized in my short riding tenure that legs, weight, height and condition of a rider has more to do with the performance vs. the bike


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

speedsterveloce said:


> I have a 07 Roubaix Pro with fiipped stem, upgraded wheels and tires which caused the bike "feel" night/day different....but have realized in my short riding tenure that legs, weight, height and condition of a rider has more to do with the performance vs. the bike


Absolutely true, but IMO (assuming fit is optimal) the right bike for a given rider does make a difference..


----------



## speedsterveloce (Apr 5, 2007)

PJ352 said:


> Absolutely true, but IMO (assuming fit is optimal) the right bike for a given rider does make a difference..


agreed


----------



## bike eagle (Jun 17, 2008)

Interesting thread, because I'm considering the same two bikes, and had similar experiences during test rides. As to the relative geometry of the two bikes, I can't find much difference from an ergonomic standpoint. The Roubaix is supposed to be a more upright geometry, but I can't find that in the specs, other than that the head tube is a whole 10mm longer on the Roubaix (not much). The Roubaix is also slightly more raked out, probably resulting in the dampened handling. I just don't see where the Roubaix is much more upright:

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCGeometryPopup.jsp?spid=33602

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCGeometryPopup.jsp?spid=34007

Or am I missing something?


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

It's that 10mm that makes it more upright, but you can set them up the same of you want be adjusting spacers and stem...


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

bike eagle said:


> Interesting thread, because I'm considering the same two bikes, and had similar experiences during test rides. As to the relative geometry of the two bikes, I can't find much difference from an ergonomic standpoint. The Roubaix is supposed to be a more upright geometry, but I can't find that in the specs, other than that the head tube is a whole 10mm longer on the Roubaix (not much). The Roubaix is also slightly more raked out, probably resulting in the dampened handling. I just don't see where the Roubaix is much more upright:
> Or am I missing something?



Beyond the head tube, geometry is quite different between the 2 bikes in ways set-up cannot compensate. For example (all figures for 58cm size):

Head tube angle- Tarmac 72.5deg vs Roubaix 73.5deg
Chainstay: Tarmac 407mm vs Roubaix 418mm
Wheelbase: Tarmac 1003mm vs Roubaix 1029mm

Roubaix is a more upright & longer frame, so a bit smoother ride and slightly "slower" (some might say less twitchy) handling. No value judgment there regarding ultimate speed of the bikes, just differences in riding & handling to match rider preferences. Both great bikes with plenty of pro wins to their credits (FWIW).


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bike eagle said:


> Interesting thread, because I'm considering the same two bikes, and had similar experiences during test rides. As to the relative geometry of the two bikes, I can't find much difference from an ergonomic standpoint. The Roubaix is supposed to be a more upright geometry, but I can't find that in the specs, other than that the head tube is a whole 10mm longer on the Roubaix (not much). The Roubaix is also slightly more raked out, probably resulting in the dampened handling. I just don't see where the Roubaix is much more upright:
> 
> https://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCGeometryPopup.jsp?spid=33602
> 
> ...


It's not that you're missing anything, it's that most companies don't publish the stats. What you're really seeing in the higher bar position is the result of a longer HT, but also what's called frame stack (see link below). Most people confuse it with reach, which is a seperate but somewhat related issue. As far as I know, Trek and Cervelo are the only manufacturers that publish frame stack and reach numbers.

I've never compared the two, but my guess is the Roubaix's frame stack is higher than the Tarmac's - obviously when comparing the same frame sizes). 

https://trekroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05/2008_trek_new_madone_stack_and_reac.gif


----------



## speedsterveloce (Apr 5, 2007)

When test riding the bikes make sure the tires are the same including PSI. At least for 07 the Roubaix it came stock with 25cc Spec Roubaix tire which attributed to the sluggish / cushy ride. As soon as I installed GP4000s 23's if felt more twitchy and improved cornering, accelleration, rolling resis, etc. No hard facts just my seat of the pants.


----------



## bike eagle (Jun 17, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> It's not that you're missing anything, it's that most companies don't publish the stats. What you're really seeing in the higher bar position is the result of a longer HT, but also what's called frame stack (see link below). Most people confuse it with reach, which is a seperate but somewhat related issue. As far as I know, Trek and Cervelo are the only manufacturers that publish frame stack and reach numbers.
> 
> I've never compared the two, but my guess is the Roubaix's frame stack is higher than the Tarmac's - obviously when comparing the same frame sizes).
> 
> https://trekroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05/2008_trek_new_madone_stack_and_reac.gif


Thanks for the link. I always wondered what stack and reach are.


----------



## bike eagle (Jun 17, 2008)

Oldteen said:


> Beyond the head tube, geometry is quite different between the 2 bikes in ways set-up cannot compensate. For example (all figures for 58cm size):
> 
> Head tube angle- Tarmac 72.5deg vs Roubaix 73.5deg
> Chainstay: Tarmac 407mm vs Roubaix 418mm
> ...


Thanks for the numbers. To me though, it seems like head tube angle, chainstay length and wheel base have more to do with ride and handling and little to do with placing the rider into a more upright position.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Can't really add much to what's already been said since I'm in agreement with just about everyone, but figured I should comment since I do own both.

I have an '06 Roubaix Expert/Pro and '08 Tarmac SL, both full Dura Ace. I really like both bikes a lot. I obviously bought the Roubaix first, and have close to 12,000 miles on it. It's a nice bike. But for me, my Tarmac is way more fun to ride, for the reasons others have mentioned, so it gets most of my attention. Mileage isn't a concern for me - I'd just as likely do a 100 mile ride on my Tarmac as my Roubaix. I do 300 miles/week on it (almost 4,000 miles total so far) routinely without any discomfort. To be honest, I don't really notice any significant difference in ride quality between the two. I like the handling of the Tarmac much more, and for whatever reason, as others have mentioned, it just seems easier to get up to top speed and to sprint. I tend to ride the Roubaix in uncharted territory since it has a compact crank, and my SL has a standard double.

I don't regret buying the Roubaix at all, I just like my Tarmac much more. I've seen several people on this forum who rode Roubaixs for a few years and then switched to Tarmacs. Really depends on your riding style and what you want to do. Both are great bikes, so buy whichever you like best. Just keep in my that the ride of the Tarmac isn't harsh, and the Roubaix definitely isn't slow.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bike eagle said:


> Thanks for the numbers. To me though, it seems like head tube angle, chainstay length and wheel base have more to do with ride and handling and little to do with placing the rider into a more upright position.


And if you said ..._*nothing* to do with placing the rider into a more upright position_... you would be correct in thinking that.  

I'm not speaking for Oldteen, but from the way his post is written, I think it's more a comparison of Tarmac vs Roubaix geometry and its effects on handling, not riding position.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> And if you said ..._*nothing* to do with placing the rider into a more upright position_... you would be correct in thinking that.
> 
> I'm not speaking for Oldteen, but from the way his post is written, I think it's more a comparison of Tarmac vs Roubaix geometry and its effects on handling, not riding position.


Right. 

Published seat tube angle is same for both (73deg for 58cm size). You could set up a Tarmac & Roubaix with same "contact point" dimensions (e.g. seat, feet, hands positioning) for either bike (except perhaps for a very low hand position on Roubaix due to its increased head tube length). 
bike eagle seemed to be thinking these bikes were the same from an "ergonomic" standpoint. To me, ergonomics includes not just "form" but also function. Just wanted to point out that setting up these bikes with similar "static fit" will not mean the bikes will ride the same for a given cyclist.


----------



## bike eagle (Jun 17, 2008)

Oldteen said:


> Roubaix is a more upright & longer frame,


Thanks for the clarification, folks. I am new to road biking, but I'm shopping for a lightweight road bike, hopefully with a more upright riding position to make life easier on my 48-year-old back. 

I've seen others say that the Roubaix is an upright bike, like the quote above, but having compared the dimensions from the Specialized website, I don't see where it's that much different than the Tarmac in that regard. I also prefer the handling of the Tarmac, as others have said. 

For those reasons, I'm leaning toward the Tarmac, but with a shorter and perhaps angled-up stem, to put me in the desired position. Am I on the right track?

Thanks, and sorry for all the dumb questions.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bike eagle said:


> Thanks for the clarification, folks. I am new to road biking, but I'm shopping for a lightweight road bike, hopefully with a more upright riding position to make life easier on my 48-year-old back.
> 
> I've seen others say that the Roubaix is an upright bike, like the quote above, but having compared the dimensions from the Specialized website, I don't see where it's that much different than the Tarmac in that regard. I also prefer the handling of the Tarmac, as others have said.
> 
> ...


If you've test ridden both the Roubaix and the Tarmac in conditions similar to what you'd ride in, tested handling, gauged comfort and obviously fit both equally well, then yes, you're on the right track with your plan for the Tarmac. It comes with a 4 position adjustable stem and there's another model available with a higher rise (17, I think), so no problem there. Shorter is fine, but too short isn't so good, because it could begin to affect handling. IMO 80mm would be the minimum.

One note. I don't know your road riding experience, overall physical condition (you mentoned 'lower back'), so don't let anyone sway you towards the Tarmac if you have any qualms about the more aggressive riding position, handling or road feel. I say this because I'm a firm believe in fit trumps all else. If you're not comfortable on and with the bike, you're much less likely to stick with cycling. The Roubaix will offer a more upright riding position (remember the frame stack info I posted) so fiddling with stems, etc. may not be required.

Not trying to confuse, just showing both sides.


----------



## bike eagle (Jun 17, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> If you've test ridden both the Roubaix and the Tarmac in conditions similar to what you'd ride in, tested handling, gauged comfort and obviously fit both equally well, then yes, you're on the right track with your plan for the Tarmac. It comes with a 4 position adjustable stem and there's another model available with a higher rise (17, I think), so no problem there. Shorter is fine, but too short isn't so good, because it could begin to affect handling. IMO 80mm would be the minimum.
> 
> One note. I don't know your road riding experience, overall physical condition (you mentoned 'lower back'), so don't let anyone sway you towards the Tarmac if you have any qualms about the more aggressive riding position, handling or road feel. I say this because I'm a firm believe in fit trumps all else. If you're not comfortable on and with the bike, you're much less likely to stick with cycling. The Roubaix will offer a more upright riding position (remember the frame stack info I posted) so fiddling with stems, etc. may not be required.
> 
> Not trying to confuse, just showing both sides.


Very good! Thanks. I'm hoping to find time to get some more test-riding in today. I'll keep in mind your recommendations while I'm riding, and let you know how it goes.

By the way, I reread the whole thread, and realized that my needs are similar to the OP. Note to him: how is it going with your search? Have you been able to get more test-rides on these two models? Have you made your decision yet?


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

bike eagle said:


> Thanks for the clarification, folks. I am new to road biking, but I'm shopping for a lightweight road bike, hopefully with a more upright riding position to make life easier on my 48-year-old back.
> 
> I've seen others say that the Roubaix is an upright bike, like the quote above, but having compared the dimensions from the Specialized website, I don't see where it's that much different than the Tarmac in that regard. I also prefer the handling of the Tarmac, as others have said.
> 
> ...


I think you are indeed on the right track. I went through the same decision making process last year with an excellent LBS that was willing to work with getting the exact fit I wanted. They made a big deal about fit being both a "static" and "dynamic" process. 

The Roubaix is generally felt to be more upright bike due to taller head tube and the way the bikes are normally set-up by bike shops (e.g. stock stem, steerer height, etc.). In theory the Tarmac's shorter head tube might allow for lower hand position- although I'll bet very few non-racer types would ever want that extreme set-up.

I ended up going with the Tarmac Expert & have not regretted my choice. Interestingly, earlier this year I experimented with a shorter (90mm vs 110mm) & more upright (+8 vs -8 deg) stem in an effort to reduce shoulder/neck strain on long rides. After 200mi I went back to my original set-up which actually felt better on my shoulders. Did a 250k+ ride a couple weeks ago without shoulder trouble. No offense to Roubaix riders, but the Tarmac can be a very nice long-distance bike too. Only slight negative is that I find the Tarmac requires more concentration when riding no-handed.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

Oldteen said:


> For example (all figures for 58cm size):
> 
> Head tube angle- Tarmac 72.5deg vs Roubaix 73.5deg
> Chainstay: Tarmac 407mm vs Roubaix 418mm
> ...


Not exactly a frame genius here but I did read a very good article on ride stability. It wasn't fluffy at all and most of the research was done in an academic environment.

Basically the study boiled down to
More trail = more stable. Stability was measured by how long an unmanned bike could travel before falling over. 

Since the headtube angle on the Roubaix is more slack it'd end up having a larger trail..which would mean that it tends to keep a straight-line, feel less twitchy and over long miles probably is easier on your shoulders (since you don't have to spend a lot of effort correcting the steering). It'd also explain why it feels more sluggish in the corners.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Oldteen said:


> Only slight negative is that I find the Tarmac requires more concentration when riding no-handed.


Oh, I think I caught that on Versus the other day. Was that _*you*_ crossing the finish line for a stage win??!!


----------



## PaulRivers (Sep 11, 2006)

bike eagle said:


> Very good! Thanks. I'm hoping to find time to get some more test-riding in today. I'll keep in mind your recommendations while I'm riding, and let you know how it goes...


You probably already know this, but if you're comparing ride quality make sure you pump both the tires both up the the same psi for an equal comparison.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> Oh, I think I caught that on Versus the other day. Was that _*you*_ crossing the finish line for a stage win??!!


ROFL!

Maybe in another life, but not with the bird legs I've got now.


----------



## roadandtrail (Oct 4, 2007)

*my $.02*

I have an 08 Roubaix Pro and love it. Just yesterday I flew down a decent at 36mph which leveled out onto some really bad pavement, the bike soaked it up like my Epic. And I run 120psi.


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

Summary - Tarmac seems really compliant for a racer.. good for the real world. I think the ride is flawless.

I'm deciding between several bikes, and have ridden a lot of bikes in the last two months. (I'm sort of geeking out on the test rides, but I've probably put twenty hours of riding on Giant OCR/Rival, C'dale Six13-1, Scott CR1 Team and Pro, Tarmac Comp and Elite, Trek 105, Fuji Team SL, Cervelo RS (4 grand), etc). If you need to know the best LBS's in the North DC metro area for test rides (trails close by...) then I'm your man.

I have a SJ for the mountain trails, but initially stayed away from the Tarmac because it was priced a little high for the components installed . In my opinion, a $2400 Comp should have full Ultegra.

Then I rode one, in Appleton, WI on a recent biz trip (Recyclist bike shop.... you can roll out the back door onto the CE trail and you can test-ride ALL YOU WANT.) 

Game over. Tarmac is the best bike in the 2000-2500 range I've ridden by far. I'm just waiting to get fit by my LBS then I'm getting one. (I am 73.5" tall with a 36" cycling inseam and probably going for size XL/58.2).

Nice thread. Glad to see the strong reviews.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

Like scott, I spent a lot of time doing test rides last summer looking for an "Ultegra-level" bike. Always tested tire pressure myself (or at least looked over tech's shoulder at gauge while he/she pumped up tire). For LBS that knew me, they even put my wheels on various bikes to make sure differences I felt were due to bike/frame not tires/wheels/etc. As a baseline for comparison, I brought my CAAD5 C-dale to ride same course just before & after test rides. Compulsive? Maybe, but IMHO it's best way to compare bike frames (not wheels & tires). Rode multiple models from C-dale, Giant, Felt, Cervelo, etc., inc. Spec Tarmacs (Comp, Expert, & Sworks), and Roubaix (Comp & Expert). And when I bought my Tarmac Expert ('07) I was VERY comfortable that it was best choice for me (165#, 4500+mi/yr with many 100k+ rides). No other bike I rode was quite the complete package- smooth, fast, sharp handling, stiff during acceleration, etc. It's great in a 25mph paceline, 40+mph descent, 15% climb, or a laid-back century tour. After 2500mi I'm still impressed by all-around competence of the Tarmac. Worst I can say is that I'm not quite as comfortable pedaling it no-handed as my old C-dale yet, but then I had over 10k miles of experience on that frame


----------

