Sweet thanks. I got worried when I was reading about how some people thought it was like tiagra and it would be better to go for 105s.

Agree. Zero loss shifting on the rear is meaningful, no doubt. I've followed this thread and the other 2011 Tarmac thread because my next bike will likely be a Tarmac. However, I desire a Force group with Red shifters. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that I'll be able to purchase this build as a complete bike from Specialized dealers.

Just picked up my 2010 Tarmac Pro build last night, I received the 2010 Tarmac thru a warranty claim on my 2007 Tarmac Pro. What a difference three years can make!

I guess that means the pro.

That's fantastic! What happened to your '07?

The frame developed a crack on the top tube, near the intersection of the seat tube. I noticed it wiping it down before a race two weekends ago. After the race that Saturday I stopped by the shop. The shop sent pictures off to Specialized on Monday, by Wends Specialized said they would ship a replacement frame. The bike was delivered and built in less than a week. Awesome warranty service! Now if I could only get Shimano to warranty my semi-functional Dura Ace shifter all would be great. No worries I hear SRAM calling!

Not exactly.

Sworks: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...enuItemId=9256
Pro: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...enuItemId=9256

Yeah I am well aware of their Tarmac lines. I can't get the S-works, for reasons untold. So, thats why I said "I guess that means the pro." Thanks for the clarification anyways.

Cartwheeling/tumbling a bike by itself is a lot different that running into a stationary object with the front wheel with the mass of a rider on board, which from the damage in that pic above is pretty obvious as to what happened on the Allez...

Do you remember the pics of Gary's Tarmac busted into 3 pieces from the IV crit crash a few years back? That frame busted because someone landed on it! I don't think an aluminum bike would've shattered like that under the same loading. So, you see...it's all about the loading...

I've been in at least 3 serious "tumbles" with my aluminum Soloist over the years (one of which put me in the hospital for a couple of days with a fractured clavicle, cracked ribs, and a punctured lung)...and it's no worse for the wear. Luck of the draw on the loadings, I guess. I never crashed because I ran directly into something with my front wheel...Oh, and it also survived the rabbit suicide decapitation last year, remember?

Threads like this piss me off. Because I'd love to be able to walk into a shop and say "I'll take that new 2011 Robaix." But when I do that, and add "Can you get it in 68cm?" they just laugh. Then they ask if I can reach that tube on the top shelf for them. Bikes are built for fricken short people!

Ahh, right. I didn't notice your original post. With this year's Pro is using the new SL3 frame, you aren't missing a ton (just the level of carbon fiber).

Yeah, I think that the pro is great deal. To be honest, I am not sure I will be able to afford the Pro though. I really want SRAM, so this is the root of my dilemma.

Man, I wish I still had the bookmark - last thread in the "carbon fiber vs aluminum" debate had a bunch of people talking about denting their lightweight aluminum bikes when they fell over in their pickup truck, when a shovel in the garage fell on it, etc etc.

It seems to me like it's been around long enough that it's been proven that modern carbon fiber is just as durable and resistant or prone to getting broken as modern aluminum.

Both materials are less likely to be broken if they're built for durability rather than lightweight - which can be difficult to find nowadays. I mean they make mountain bikes out of carbon fiber - it's certainly possible for them to make an extremely durable road bike out of it.

From left to Right: Contador, Cancellara, Schleck.

You can get a better idea of how glossy these are and the silver in Schlecks. There is also an ALL BLACK & white/blue version, which is shown in dealer catalogs. Hard to find pics online of the all black. By 2 teammates just ordered them. Pics should come within a few more days when they arrive and get built.

Personally, I think these 3 designs are lame. Who would want that crap on their bike?

Dented doesn't mean "broken" though...most dents in an aluminum frame don't render it unusable.

Don't get me started on the use of CF in MTBs...

Chris' Allez was a little more than dented. Nobody landed on it, it just tumbled riderless down the road. I'm just saying, a bunch of bikes go into a huge pileup, the carbon bike is not necessarily going to be the one to be destroyed.

I've been in way more crashes than I would like to admit, but the only frame damage I've ever had was to an aluminum frame. An Allez at that...

The point is something *falling* on the bike - and not something terribly heavy like the rider behind you - dented the frame, which shows modern lightweight aluminum frames aren't some sort of incredibly sturdy thing, and in my opinion makes it highly doubtful that aluminum frames have any sort of better survivability in a crash vs carbon fiber.

You're not getting it...it wasn't the tumbling riderless down the road that caused that damage...it was the event that CAUSED it to go tumbling riderless down the road, i.e. the initial T-bone into a relatively stationary object (probably you).

I'm just saying that your premise is flawed when comparing the damage amongst the bikes in the pileup. They all didn't have the same impact loading.

Also...remember, all you have to do to render a CF frame unusable is to cause it to crack...and that type of damage can easily be caused by events that would merely dent a frame made of a metallic material.

Let's put it this way...it's easier to "total" a CF frame (especially "weight weenie-ish) frames than metallic frames...not to mention the "notch sensitivity" (i.e. scratches turning into crack/failure sites) of CF construction.

I find it kind of amusing that you seem to have the opposite opinion on CF vs. Al handlebars

Should I tell you about the guy who "totaled" his brand new Soloist carbon frame just by dropping the bike (where the top tube contacted something on the way down)? I'm sure that an Aluminum Soloist wouldn't have been totaled in that situation. It might have had a dent in the top tube, but it would still be safely ridable.

That was a cost consideration more than anything else

There is a reason that CF is more expensive than Aluminum. No more discussion.

Do you mean the tradeoff of extra cost for little to no extra performance value, combined with higher likelihood of total breakage from just minor incidents? Got it

I mean that I couldn't spend the extra money at the time because Kim wasn't working...

But...do you really "miss" the CF bars?