Old vs New
 

I have spent decades on vintage bikes and in particular my 88' Marinoni. However, this summer I finally broke down and bought a new carbon fiber Specialized Roubaix Elite. So a comparison between these two bikes was unavoidable. This thread is nothing more than my personal opinion and this new Specialized is my first new road bike since the 80's. Not counting touring bikes of course!
What can I say about a Marinoni that hasn't already been discussed? It's fairly light (but this thread isn't about numbers) responsive and comfortable. And its a beautiful bike to look at. Very nice bike in its day. Still is.
The Specialized Roubaix. I'm still getting used to the appearance of this bike. Its not ugly but the Marinoni has it beat in looks.
How do they compare riding? I spent over 200km on the Roubaix this weekend and about the same on the Marinoni last week so I have a good idea now about a back to back comparison.
The Roubaix simply is more comfortable to ride. At first I thought the tires were low it rode so smooth. The small, minute vibrations felt on the Marinoni are simply not there on the Roubaix. The Roubaix's 23/25 tires are larger then the 23 that the Marinoni is wearing so that probably has something to do with it.
Is it faster? I have and will never have a computer on the Marinoni so I don't know. I don't feel any faster but the new bike comes up to speed quicker. What I do know is the new bike allows me to ride for a longer time because its more comfortable. I did a metric century on it and wasn't even heading out to do that. I just felt like riding longer.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b4...0/DSC03010.jpg

I do know one thing. The gearing on the Marinoni is superior to what comes on a new bike. I cannot get used to the compact crank. I just can't seem to figure out what gear I should be in. And when you drop from the big ring you need to adjust the rear at least 2 or three cogs. I don't like it. But I live on the prairie and maybe its meant for climbing?
Nice gearing.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b4...0/DSC03015.jpg

What were they thinking here? I've already ordered a new Ultergra 52/39. If I want gearing this low I'll ride my Sherpa touring bike.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b4...0/DSC03013.jpg

These tires seem huge! Sure don't look very elegant.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b4...0/DSC03020.jpg

I know that the Roubaix has clipless pedals however I don't feel that is any advantage to comfort over the long rides. I have no problems with the Chorus pedals and straps regarding comfort or positioning.
The new bike and its carbon frame ride better. I would expect that 21 years of technology would allow for that.
So if I had to pull one out of the garage for my next century it would be the new bike. But feeling good and looking good are two entirely different matters.

Isn't the Roubaix's geometry geared towards comfort, as opposed to the Tarmac? Our bike club got a Specialized rep in for a presentation and I liked what I saw. He brought a Roubaix in with him and he mentioned it as having a long headtube. He also pointed out the "dampeners" in the fork and seat stays which I thought were interesting. It looks like a nice bike, and I don't think modern bikes are ugly at all... just different in their own way.

Thanks for the comparison and enjoy your new ride.

I have had a Roubaix on the radar for a while. I have had multiple back surgeries and the realxed geometry is alluring.

You gotta figure it is designed for a smoother ride given it's namesake race.

Yes the Roubaix has comfort geometry. But it's every bit as responsive as the old Marinoni. It just goes down the road smoother.
And because of that higher headtube I can ride in the drops for extended periods. I just wish I would have bought a new road bike years ago.
But on a sunny Sunday morning ride, I would expect to be on the Marinoni.
If I'm out on a century with friends I will be on the Roubaix.

I think that the "comfort" geometry is a marketing ploy. If you look at the two discussion bikes, you'll see that the seat/handlebar/pedal relationship is the same, long headtube or no.

I'm getting older, and I was seduced by the geometry claims last year. I got a more upright position...and gradually tweaked it back to my original setup over the course of about six weeks. I had a little epiphany when I rode one of my older bikes and, geez, it fit just like my new one! I measured, and found that I'd morphed the new geometry to match the old.

I am now happy to continue riding just like I have for years past. I consider that bike an educational expense.

Of course, the Roubaix has a lot of other things going for it beyond the long headtube; my wife will not be parted from hers. And I have been struggling with the compact gearing too...I have just about gotten adjusted to it, although I still have to think when I'm shifting. I've decided that it is kind of like it was in the 80's...I have to select the proper cassette for the planned ride. I use a 12-23 for most everything (I won't be sprinting with Cavendish soon, so I really don't need the 11 as bad as the 18), and when I go to the hills I have a 11-27 that I switch to. Nothing's perfect, certainly not me.

Hm, not sure I agree. If he rides the hoods, the brifters on the Roubaix are significantly higher. I also used a piece of paper on my monitor, and the reach from the seatpost top to hoods is significantly shorter on the Roubaix, by as much as 3-4 cms it looks. Also, using my scientifically rigorous paper/monitor method, the wheelbase on the Roubaix looks a good 2 cms longer, though the chainstays look about even.

My understanding is also that carbon frames produce less buzz than even a steel frame, so that may account for the impression of its 'smoothness'. It probably feels more responsive because it's less springy than steel (which some may interpret as dead, according to preferences).

yes, reach is different. the picture slopes uphill though...they are similar, I suppose I should have said. I ride a full-carbon, a carbon-scandium mix, a titanium bike, and a steel bike. If the seal-coat is heavy, they all buzz. I truly cannot tell the difference nearly as much as a 10 pound difference in air pressure.

Oh, and I don't mean to disagree with the OP...the specialized is way more comfortable than the steel bike that I ride on a regular basis. Steel still has it's place, though.

Just not for anything over about 60 miles for me.

I see your point..you were referring to the sloping geometry. Yes, the headtubes look even on both frames. So the new comfort geometry is the old road race geometry.

But, yeah, those tires will make a difference. My old Trek with 32c tires is smoooth. Like rolling on marshmallows, and no noticable penalty in rolling resistance.

I think Specialized is claiming the comfort geometry comparing against the Tarmac. I think the marketing is justified there. Now the specialized rep did lose me when he said the full carbon roubaix is perfect for loaded touring....

Roubaix:
http://www.specialized.com/media/201.../9003-11_d.jpg

Tarmac:
http://www.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/.../9006-15_d.jpg

I have to agree that the new bikes have the old bikes beat it terms of comfort & ergonomics. It's hard to believe but some things did actually improve over the last 25 years. The down side, these new bikes are ugly as h3ll. That Marinoni is one beautiful machine! I also think my Klein is not too bad for a 6 year old bike but in know way does it have the beauty of a classic steel bike.

Really comfortable and still capable of knocking down some serious ride times.

http://www.ravingbikefiend.com/bikepics/regnew1.jpg

You nailed it. Thats what I was trying to say.
The pic is a wide angle lens so the measurements taken from the screen are not accurate. I will measure both today just for kicks.

Bicycle magazine reported on the research Specialized did and they found that comfort was a big deal for most riders, and took active steps to make it more comfortable. They also found that comfort = speed in many, many cases. I trust their research, as I've not seen a bad Specialized bike.

I wish I could relate, but I'm still sorting out the dozens of variables involved in a comfortable ride, generally by trial and error but often by discussing them with BF members.

If I had to rate the variables, I'd do so this way, assuming as you go down the list that you've satisfied the variable above it:

1-Fit. Fit. Fit.
2-Frame, as far as geometry and material.
3-Wheel set and tires.
4-Bars.
5-Saddle.

I struggled to fit a modern geometry bike and make it comfortable, using my C&V dimensions as a template. I made it comfortable enough to be faster but after 28-30 miles of WFO riding, it simply hurts, and I'm glad when the race is over. I wouldn't want it on a century.

I took some of what I learned, though, and re-approached my C&V bikes. After only minor adjustments, I was sure I had "the Fit" down. I moved to #s 2-5 and am pretty satisfied I've got them as good as I'm going to get them, given difference in variables 2-5.

In terms of comfort, then, it came out this way, with nearly identical, to the cm, fit:
C&V carbons required a stiff, tight wheelset, but were definitely the most comfortable.
C&V steel, less susceptible to wheel changes, more susceptible to tire differences.
Ti with classic geometry, and very sensitive to wheel/tire changes and the CF fork is a must.
Modern carbon, no matter what you do, it's stiff and fast, but not that comfortable. I TT/Tri'd it.

I'm not looking for a new century bike, but if I had to spring for one and only one century bike, I think I'd look at ricohman's bike very hard.

The tire difference is huge. Put wider tires on your Marinoni, run them at slightly lower pressure, and a lot of that road buzz will disappear - without sacrificing speed. BQ has done a lot of well-designed tests that back this up.

My old Lenton has 26 by 1 1/4 Dunlop tyres that run at 65 psi... they amazingly fast and very very nice riding.

Carbon compensates for road bikes that run high psi slicks but a steel frame with the right tyres is still very hard to beat in the comfort department and different tyres with the same measurements can often have very different rides.

The 630:20 tyres on my vintage Cooper run at 120 psi and ride like tubulars.

The seat height on the Maronini is 76cm
The Roubaix is 75cm. I attribute this to the pedal and shoe and saddle differences. But I am stil dialing the Roubaix in.
The saddle nose to seat is 53cm on the Maronini and 52cm on the Roubaix.
The bar drop is 6.5cm on the Maronini and 5cm on the Roubaix.
These bikes are very close but the Roubaix does have higher bars and a shorter reach to the bars But again any of this can be adjusted with a stem or saddle.
This week I will swap some wheels with wider 23's onto the Marinoni to see if the tires are making all the differences, but I don't think so. My Sherpa 30 touring bike rolls on some wide tires with lower pressures and the Roubaix rides every bit as smooth as that bike. Maybe smoother.
I think the long exposed carbon seat post has a lot to do with it. Maybe even the saddle. But there is definately less buzz in the bars.

One of the things that I found very useful this year was shallower-reach handlebars. I especially like the Easton Pro Equipe (not ergonomic). I can actually use the drops for extended periods now, and I never have before. So, for me, where the stem, hoods and tops are all at the same height as my older bikes, the drops are much nearer to me.

Funny, but I used to think that Cinelli 63s were terrible. I now think that was just macho me, about 25 years ago. 63s were really about 25 years ahead of their time...

The zerts have a lot to do with vibration damping. I swapped out the seatpost with the zert in it, though, because it abraded a hole in the inside of one of my wife's very expensive shorts...

she mad!

Seatpost zert?


The roubaix also has the seatstay and front fork damper pods or whatever. Those allow the stays and forks to flex with the poly insert absorbing vibration. From tech for the Paris-Roubaix of course.

I'd be interested in hearing of a comparison with the tarmac listed above.

How can her shorts reach the seatpost?

Don't go there.

Patti's road bike is the Ruby. The women specific Roubaix. It has a big, not well fitted zert in the seat post, down a ways from the clamp. Combination of narrow toupe, ill-fitted zert. Good idea, bad execution.

Seat and post went in the parts pile.

That specialized has to be the most hideous looking road bike Ive ever seen, ah! my eyes!! No one could pay me enough money to ride something like that.

Not gonna get into the old vs new thing, although I gotta say a lot of what people say is pure BS if you ask me, but I think you could of found something a little bit more easy on les yeux!

I agree with much of what's been said here. The new bikes are mostly better, but I like the looks of the old bikes better.

Also, Specialized seems to have a knack for making good bikes overall. I haven't seen a bad one from them. What other brand does this?

Your comparison is really unfair if the tires are so different. Please try to put four of the same tires on the two bikes and do it again. Now that new frame designs are putting comfort back in, some of us are discovering that we never should have been riding tires less than 28mm in width, either.