# Difference in Tarmac and Roubaix?



## MJCBH (Nov 25, 2002)

Hi all,
Can anyone tell me the big differences in the S Works Roubaix and Tarmac? From what I'm guessing, the roubaix has the zertz inserts and may be more of a "comfortable" ride versus the more racey Tarmac? Also, is the S-works just the "top of the line" for both models?
Thanks in advance! 
FWIW - I'm a small female who races but I'm more interested in a comfortable frame for long rides.


----------



## Mauro Brazil (Aug 17, 2010)

MJCBH said:


> Hi all,
> FWIW - I'm a small female who races but I'm more interested in a comfortable frame for long rides.


 So you would go with Roubaix. The female version is the Ruby model.:thumbsup:


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Like Mario, I picked up on your last sentence as well. And yes, you may want to check out the Ruby (basically Specs WSD version of the Roubaix):
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52878&scid=1001&scname=Road

If you find you prefer slightly more aggressive rider position and quicker handling, the Tarmac (or Amira - Specs WSD version) are both worth a look.


----------



## crumjack (Sep 11, 2005)

Redkiteprayer did a good comparison of both. This is their conclusion. You can dig to find the leading articles on their site as well.

http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=1408


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes, the the Roubaix/Ruby is a more cush ride, but the Tarmac/Amira won't shake your eyeballs out. I have a Tarmac and a Roubaix, and routinely do 100+ miles on my Tarmac. The Tarmac, and presumably the Amira are very smooth riding race bikes.


----------



## adamssss (Mar 22, 2010)

My girlfriend has the 2011 Ruby Pro (no s-works Ruby for 2011) she loves it, she says its super comfortable even on our 100+ mile rides.

If your a racer, I know i am, I would go for the Amira. 

I ride Tarmac just because i liked the way it handles faster than the Roubaix


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

I have been riding for many years and racing mountain bikes for 7 years (with a lot of training on the road). I completely understand the advantages of quick handling in XC mountain biking (although it can be a liability in fast descents). But on the road, I don't quite get it.

Comparing my old road bike with pure race geometry and sharp handling with my new bike (the Roubaix), I am wondering what was the point of that sharp handling. I don't feel I need quick handling on the road and I certainly don't want it in fast descents. I could see some advantages in a crit, but even then, all I would want is the short chain stays for quick acceleration and climbing. I know that a more relaxed front end tends to make the front wheel wonder in climbs, but it has to be way slack and really steep for that to be a problem.

So can somebody explain to me why quick handling is so critical on the road?


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Quick handling just feels good, the way a race bike should


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

tommyturbo: *Quick handling just feels good, the way a race bike should*

Doesn't feel all that great at very high speed. And unless you need to make quick turns it is a non-issue. Either I am missing something obvious or the industry managed to brainwash everyone into thinking that quick handling is a must. Most like I am missing something, but I need a bit more that "just feels good like a race bike should".


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

serious said:


> *Doesn't feel all that great at very high speed*. And unless you need to make quick turns it is a non-issue. Either I am missing something obvious or the industry managed to brainwash everyone into thinking that quick handling is a must. Most like I am missing something, but* I need a bit more that "just feels good like a race bike should". *


This reminds me of the Lexus owner asking a Porsche owner how he could possibly enjoy such a quick handling car like the Cayman S. 

If you need to ask the question, you _don't_ get it.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

You are missing something. I agree with the comment, "If you need to ask the question, you don't get it."

I've held 50-55mph for quite a long time descending steep grades in the Sierras and Cascades. Other than a sport bike motorcycle, I've never ridden anything on two wheels as stable and as solid at speed as my S-Works Tarmac SL2.

FWIW, I've ridden several Roubaix's, and they are nice bikes, but the handling doesn't feel right to me. My Tarmac allows me to make a correction in a turn in a split second. If you really understand how to "steer" a bike, quick handling is wonderful.

There is no "brainwashing" going on.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

serious, in reading back my post I think it sounded kinda snarky (and that wasn't my intention), so FWIW I'll give you my take on the issue.

I don't think quick handling is a must (and the proof is that Roubaix's win pro races), but I do think for us mere mortals it comes down to simple preferences, probably rooted in no small part in our cycling experiences.

I started out doing fitness riding in the mid 80's on a Bianchi that has classic Italian race geo, 'plastic' bar tape and a leather saddle. Comfort was not part of this equation, but that aside the bike was (as one would expect) a quick handler and (IMO) fun to ride. Going from that to a more 'relaxed' geo bike like the Roubaix seems to me that, while they're nice riding/ handling bikes, that edge is gone, and I miss it. I like a bike that (in my words) feels lively and quick. Not quick as in faster, but quicker in responding to my inputs. Some find the Tarmac twitchy and say you have to stay focused, but to me that's what makes it fun. I_ want _to be intimately involved with my ride.

No, I didn't directly answer your question about why we _need_ a quick handling bike on technical descents (or anywhere else), because I don't think we do. I simply think those of us choosing to ride a race bike, _want_ (and enjoy) them.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

PJ352,

I was not offended, because you are absolutely right, I asked because I don't get it. However, remember that I don't get why sharp handling is such a must for everyone. I do get the difference and I accept you argument for preference. And I do appreciate that you have taken the time to answer.  

But I really do think that most *casual riders* who "prefer" quick handly simply don't know any better. I think they often reflect what the industry tells them to like or dislike. There are enough riders out there who simply regurgitate what the experts say without taking the time to understand and reflect on their own experience and preference.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

tommyturbo: *Other than a sport bike motorcycle, I've never ridden anything on two wheels as stable and as solid at speed as my S-Works Tarmac SL2.*

This is a perfect example of a rather frivolous statement. Just about any decent motorcycle would be infinitely more stable than a race bike, including the Tarmac. Try taking your hands off the bar at 50mph on the Tarmac to understand the meaning of stable and then you will never compare a road bike with a motorcycle. Just kidding, don't ever do that! 

Stability is a function of geometry, not just build. The S-Work Tarmac's build is impecable, but the geometry and super light weight make it anything but stable (in comparison with a motorcycle). I would expect that to be obvious. And obviously you have not ridden an S-Works Roubaix. Any objective rider would see that it is more stable than the Tarmac, for the very same reasons why it is slower in handling and acceleration. But you would have to be OBJECTIVE to see that.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Serious,

You need to be "serious" and drop this whole line of whatever it is that you are trying to prove. "Other than a sport bike motorcycle, I've never ridden anything on two wheels as stable and as solid at speed as my S-Works Tarmac SL2" was meant to imply that the Tarmac is more stable than any other bicycle I have ridden. Obviously you didn't get that, but I bet most people did. You said, "I would expect that to be obvious." Uh, yeah, I guess that is why I thought most people would understand what I meant. 

I have about 50,000 miles on motorcycles, so yes, I do know that any motorcycle is more stable than any bicycle.

I am well aware as to how geometry affects stability. I worked with the builder to spec the geometry of a custom steel bike that I ride.

Oh, and yes, I have ridden an S-Works Roubaix. One of my best friends owns one. No, I have not ridden it down a mountain pass as I have my SL2, but I have ridden the Roubaix at 40mph. As I said, it's a nice bike, but not for me. It's plenty stable, but no more than my Tarmac. How can the Roubaix be more stable when my Tarmac has never twitched and never done anything other than run like it is on railroad tracks, whether on rough roads, cross-winds, whatever.

And no, I am not saying that my Tarmac is more stable than a freight train!


----------



## roscoe (Mar 9, 2010)

tommyturbo said:


> Oh, and yes, I have ridden an S-Works Roubaix. One of my best friends owns one. No, I have not ridden it down a mountain pass as I have my SL2, but I have ridden the Roubaix at 40mph. As I said, it's a nice bike, but not for me. It's plenty stable, but no more than my Tarmac. How can the Roubaix be more stable when my Tarmac has never twitched and never done anything other than run like it is on railroad tracks, whether on rough roads, cross-winds, whatever.
> 
> And no, I am not saying that my Tarmac is more stable than a freight train!


just because your Tarmac has never been twitchy for you, doesn't mean a roubaix can't be even less twitchy

when people talk about a bike being stable, they're not talking about being able to hold a line in a corner, they're talking about it requiring more input to make it change direction


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Going back to the question:



> So can somebody explain to me why quick handling is so critical on the road?


My first road bike (in the modern era anyway) had very slow handling due to its geometry and particularly long wheel base. The scenario where this was problematic was fast, twisty descents. Examples of this in the CA Bay Area would be Kings Mountain Road and parts of Page Mill Road. It took a lot of rider input to initiate the turn. The bike just wanted to "under steer" off on every tight, fast corner into the weeds (or trees or into the ravine). This did not inspire confidence to say the least. I upgraded to a Tarmac and the problem was completely solved for me. I have not had problems with either bike with stability at speed. Maybe the Roubaix would have solved the problem too - don't know because I've never ridden one. The Tarmac's different handling took only a small amount of time to get used to (ie. one ride), and I'm just as happy to ride it on fast aggressive rides or relaxed century rides.

To state the obvious, there's a wide range of handling characteristics and a wide variety of riders - one size does not fit all.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

serious said:


> PJ352,
> 
> I was not offended, because you are absolutely right, I asked because I don't get it. However, remember that I don't get why sharp handling is such a must for everyone. I do get the difference and I accept you argument for preference. And I do appreciate that you have taken the time to answer.
> 
> But I really do think that most *casual riders* who "prefer" quick handly simply don't know any better. I think they often reflect what the industry tells them to like or dislike. There are enough riders out there who simply regurgitate what the experts say without taking the time to understand and reflect on their own experience and preference.


I don't think sharp handling is a must for everyone and (as mentioned previously) I don't think all riders prefer it. Conversely, I think many (mostly noobs, I suspect) are actually intimidated by it and opt for a more relaxed geo bike. 

As far as (paraphrasing) marketing hype, that pretty much permeates the biking (and most other) industries. This 'argument' could bleed into the_ need _for BBXX (name that OSBB 'system'), internal cable routing, ISP's.. the list goes on and on. But I don't really think Specialized and a number of other manufacturers much care _which_ of their bikes we buy (as long as we buy one), so I don't really buy into your claim that there's a push for selling a quick(er) handling bike. A sale is a sale and most offer relaxed geo as well. IMO, from a consumers standpoint, choices are a _good_ thing.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

When I was commenting on stability, it was in response to "Try taking your hands off the bar at 50mph on the Tarmac to understand the meaning of stable." I believe that Serious was talking about high speed stability.

There are indeed different types of stability, and I was commenting on the type that Serious was discussing.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

tommyturbo: *You need to be "serious" and drop this whole line of whatever it is that you are trying to prove.*

I really am not trying to prove anything. I simply wondered about the need for sharp handling. To be honest, I bought the S-Works Roubaix because the bike was 50% off and it fit me (they were unloading Quick Step team bikes at a bike show). I only knew that the Roubaix was built for rough, endurance rides. I had no clue about the geometry difference at the time.

And I should add that if I had the same deal for a Tarmac I would have gladly bought that bike (assuming that it fit me). If I came across the wrong way in my post I do apologize.


----------



## tommyturbo (Jan 24, 2002)

Serious,

No need to apologize as you didn't come across the wrong way in your post. Opinions are what the forums are for, and we all have different ones.

One more thing that comes to mind for me is that Specialized basically created the "endurance road" category. Specialized makes great bikes, and they are not slouches in the marketing area either. I'm not saying that they have "brainwashed" everybody into thinkng that we all should need an endurance road bike, and I mean no offense in using the same word that you did.

I'm only saying that the endurance road category (and geometry) came way later than the basic racing bicycle. If there is any marketing hocus-pocus going on about convincing riders that they need something that they really don't, perhaps it is with endurance road.

Bikes are so good today, it's getting harder to imagine what the manufacturers can cook up next to make us want to buy a new one. For ex, I race and multi-day credit card tour on the same bike (my S-Works Tarmac SL2). I can comfortably ride that bike 100+ miles day after day, and yet it's one of the best racing bikes around.

Specialized claims that the SL3 is a superior bike, and I am sure it is, but the SL2 is so darn good that I am not even motivated to test ride the SL3.


----------



## darkest_fugue (Mar 14, 2009)

i tested the roubaix and tarmac back to back, i really didnt notice much of a difference between the 2, except when i rode over a bad road the roubaix was a lot smoother, as well as that i liked the colour of the roubaix more, im only 140 pounds so i didnt notice any extra stiffness in the tarmac frame, i could'nt flex the roubaix frame, i also cut the steerer tube of the roubaix and have the bars right down on the headtube, no regrets with my roubaix, it feels racy to me due to my weight looks great and is very comfortable, you know what though, now i have some road bike experience, id love to test out a tarmac again


----------



## Tagez (Jun 14, 2010)

Tarmac!


----------



## bonz50 (Jun 10, 2010)

this is what I found when I test rode the 11 Roubaix Expert and an 11 Tarmac Pro... disclosure: I haven't owned a roadbike in 20+yrs, my last road bike for a mid80's Fuji Touring 3... mt bikes yes, road bikes not for a long time...

i went into the test ride believing that the Roubaix would be hands down what I was going to want, I have a herniated disc in my lower back and at 42yr old the rest of my body is starting to 'creak' a bit more and not so much agreeing with aggressive mt biking any more... I found the Roubaix to be extremely comfortable, road buzz disappeared on it, it is an amazing machine, smooth, quiet, and firm... I was very impressed... I could totally see how people would fall in love with this bike... in fact before I demo'd the Tarmac I was asking about pricing on the roubaix and seeing when they were going to be getting the 11's in stock while they were prepping the Tarmac...

after that I took out the Tarmac, it was exceptionally sharp handling, it was much more connected and everything about it screamed FASTER DAMMIT!!!! that bike is a rocket ship, every minimal input was translated into motion... you could feel the road a lot better than the roubaix... hell, the only reason I even gave the tarmac a try was simply for perspective and I ended up liking the tarmac SOOOO much more... I came away from the demo ride a believer in the Tarmac... come spring (after my blown out knee heals up) I'll be purchasing a Tarmac Comp


----------



## Tagez (Jun 14, 2010)

Can't we all just get along...

Ride both bikes and get the one that feels right. Fast or not!


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

Had both, Experts...Loved the Roubaix, bought a Tarmac, sold the Roubaix, bought another Tarmac...Had a Blue AC1 in between...

The Roubaix is a very nice riding bike, but just a bit sluggish and soft feeling for me...After riding the Tarmac...

The Tarmac dampens road vibrations just enough, but feels so much quicker and climbs so much better. I know if you had a stopwatch the times at the top would not differ by much, but I feel like there is more power being transferred to the wheels with the Tarmac.

The Roubaix is a more stable descender on high speed descents, but the Tarmac is a much better cornering bike....

I race, therefore I have a Tarmac...

When I go back to just riding I may get a Roubaix, but for now I love the Tarmac!


----------



## ausdb (May 20, 2009)

bonz50 said:


> this is what I found when I test rode the 11 Roubaix Expert and an 11 Tarmac Pro... disclosure: I haven't owned a roadbike in 20+yrs, my last road bike for a mid80's Fuji Touring 3... mt bikes yes, road bikes not for a long time...
> 
> i went into the test ride believing that the Roubaix would be hands down what I was going to want, I have a herniated disc in my lower back and at 42yr old the rest of my body is starting to 'creak' a bit more and not so much agreeing with aggressive mt biking any more... I found the Roubaix to be extremely comfortable, road buzz disappeared on it, it is an amazing machine, smooth, quiet, and firm... I was very impressed... I could totally see how people would fall in love with this bike... in fact before I demo'd the Tarmac I was asking about pricing on the roubaix and seeing when they were going to be getting the 11's in stock while they were prepping the Tarmac...
> 
> after that I took out the Tarmac, it was exceptionally sharp handling, it was much more connected and everything about it screamed FASTER DAMMIT!!!! that bike is a rocket ship, every minimal input was translated into motion... you could feel the road a lot better than the roubaix... hell, the only reason I even gave the tarmac a try was simply for perspective and I ended up liking the tarmac SOOOO much more... I came away from the demo ride a believer in the Tarmac... come spring (after my blown out knee heals up) I'll be purchasing a Tarmac Comp


I am a 41 year old with similar back issues, whilst the Tarmac feels great for the short rip around, in the long run your back will thank you if you get the Roubaix  lose a few of the stem spacers and get a slightly longer stem if you want a racier fit.
I bought a 2010 Roubaix expert earlier in the year and specialized have just given me a set of the carbon Rapid 45SL wheels after numerous problems with the Fusee El28's that came with the bike. The Roubaix is still comfortable to ride with the stiff as all hell carbon wheels, there is something in those zertzy things and the funky chainstays that is not just marketing hype.


----------



## SunnyinCO (Oct 26, 2010)

I own a '10 Roubaix Expert after riding a Giant TCR for about 5 years. For me deciding on the Roubaix or Tarmac came down to the simple fact of what fit the best for me, and it was the Roubaix. I have very tight hip flexors which affects a lot of body parts especially my lower back. Riding in Colorado I ride a lot of hills and mountains and the more stretched out positioning of the Expert was not good for my back.
Now the question for this year is my team is only being offered a deal on a ’11 Tarmac so should I stick with my Roubaix or upgrade to the new frame? Should be an easy question based on what I said before but damn Specialized marketing is good!


----------



## lamazion (Sep 11, 2004)

I have owned both in the last two years. Both are great bikes! My Roubaix is the newer model with the stiffer BB, so I doubt there is much difference in stiffness. On handling, I can tell a slight difference, but I would have no issues racing either one. On comfort, I could tell a slight difference, but either were fine for 100 mile ride. I'm currently riding the Roubaix because I have long legs and short torso, so it just fits me better.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

*Anecdotal:*

A close friend was riding a Pinarello Prince with about 12 cm saddle to bar drop, and then he got a neck prolapse.

Roubaix the rescue. Note flipped short stem and spacer stack.


----------



## roadie01 (Apr 13, 2010)

SunnyinCO, I would consider the team bike Tarmac only if you can match your fit needs with it. If not stick with your Roubaix. 

I've been on Tarmacs since 2006 with no issues and love the way they ride. The Roubiax does have a taller head tube, 20 mm to be exact. The top tube and seat tube lengths are the same between the two models. The other remaining geometry differences are what makes the Roubiax a smoother riding, slower handling, more stable bike (depending on your perspective or preference).


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*I have both...*

... a 2010 Roubaix Expert and a Tarmac Pro. Both are great in their own way. Where I feel the Roubaix really shines is being the more pleasurable descender. On one of the fast downhills nearby their is a broken up asphalt patch about half way down. I find myself tensing up and gripping tight as I pass over it with the Tarmac (and getting my teeth rattled!) whereas the Roubaix just sucks it up with no fuss.


----------



## roadie01 (Apr 13, 2010)

Maybe I should get a Roubaix for Lotoja and keep my Tarmac for shorter faster rides.


----------

