# 2010 Roubaix S works frame



## Digger51 (May 12, 2006)

*2009 Roubaix SL2 frame*

I am currently riding a 2006 Giant OCR C3. It is equipped with Shimano 105 rear derailer and brakes and an Ultegra front Derailer. The rims and crank are nothing special. I found a 2010 Specialized Roubaix SL2 frame (new) with over sized bottom bracket for just over $1000. I am seriously considering getting this frame and moving my componants over.

Questions in my mind that perhaps you can help with:

1) Will the ride be noticibly different?
2) Is the Roubaix carbon a significantly better carbon than Giant's?
3) What risks are there in buying a frame and swapping equipment?
4) What do I need to know that I have not asked?

Your thoughts?


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

The SL3 Roubaix should ride smoother with better front end feel than the SL2 Roubaix. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the SL2 Roubaix, after all I own one, but the SL3 is an upgrade over the SL2. Having said that, fast descents dominate my reasoning. I like a stiff front end on a bike that feels very connected to the road. Otherwise, it feels a little numb or perhaps vague which makes fast descents a bit more disconcerting. On flat lands the SL2 is just fine. If you predominately ride flat lands, I would keep the Giant if it fits you and, if its not a perfect fit then consider the SL2. Fit rules. 

Keep in mind that the SL2 Roubaix might have the BB30 BB and, this will make you install an adapter to get your existing crank to work. What size are you looking at? I assume you have equated the size between the OC3 and Roubaix.


----------



## Digger51 (May 12, 2006)

NealH said:


> The SL3 Roubaix should ride smoother with better front end feel than the SL2 Roubaix. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the SL2 Roubaix, after all I own one, but the SL3 is an upgrade over the SL2. Having said that, fast descents dominate my reasoning. I like a stiff front end on a bike that feels very connected to the road. Otherwise, it feels a little numb or perhaps vague which makes fast descents a bit more disconcerting. On flat lands the SL2 is just fine. If you predominately ride flat lands, I would keep the Giant if it fits you and, if its not a perfect fit then consider the SL2. Fit rules.
> 
> Keep in mind that the SL2 Roubaix might have the BB30 BB and, this will make you install an adapter to get your existing crank to work. What size are you looking at? I assume you have equated the size between the OC3 and Roubaix.


I have an M OCR and the SL2 is a 56. The geometry is very similar. Yes, I will nee an adapter for my existing crank. That will be my first upgrade down the road. Most of my riding is flat, but I do take on the occasional hill.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

Let me give you some more to think about. For all practical purposes, the SL3 and SL4 Tarmacs will ride as smooth as the SL2 Roubaix. What this means is that if you run a quality tire like a Conti 4000 in 25mm at 80 or 90# of pressure, the only difference in the ride is that the Tarmac will feel more agile and quicker handling. The ride quality is pretty much identical. I know, cause I own the SL3 Tarmac (I own the SL2 Roubaix too). The SL3 Roubaix might be a touch smoother but we are talking about the SL2 Roubaix now. 

The Roubaix will be an "easier" bike to ride, which tends to be preferable when in casual group rides and events, or on lone excursions especially long distance. The Roubaix will not feel as agile and responsive on out-of-the-saddle sprints and maneuvers. It will not dive in into corners as quickly and confidently as the Tarmac. The longer wheelbase means a larger arc of travel. Perhaps even more importantly, the balance during out-of-the-saddle efforts are not as fluid on the longer wheelbase Roubaix. The longer wheelbase means your weight is not ideally located during these efforts. On the Tarmac, the balance is excellent during out of the saddle efforts and sprints. Acceleration is excellent on both bikes but the Tarmac just melds with your body better on out of the saddle efforts. 

If I was in your shoes, based on what little I know now, I would say to save some money then get the SL3 Roubaix. In the meantime, try to test ride one and a Tarmac also. You might prefer the Tarmac. Then again, you might prefer the Roubaix. In the end you will love either, just that one will be preferable most of the time. But if I rode predominately flats, I would get the Roubaix. With the SL3 version, you will get that stiff and connected front end feel in addition to a slightly more compliant frame than the SL2.


----------



## Digger51 (May 12, 2006)

I think my next step is to ride the Roubaix and Tarmac and decide which geometry I prefer. I am mostly a distace flat terrain rider, and I do a fair ammount of 30 to 50 mile rides. I have not done a century yet, but it is in my future. This suggests I get the Roubaix. However, I do enjoy the responsiveness of the Tarmac style of geometry. I am just unsure how this will effect me on long rides.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

NealH: *I would say to save some money then get the SL3 Roubaix.*

Remember that the OP wants to transfer "Shimano 105 rear derailer and brakes and an Ultegra front Derailer and rims and crank that are nothing special". I think SL2 or 3 won't make a difference.

I went from the 2008 S-Works Roubaix to the 2011 SL3 S-Works Roubaix (transfered complete DA drive train, S-Works cranks and Ksyrium ES wheels) and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference.


----------

