Spesh comparison- Tarmac v. Roubaix
06-23-14, 08:38 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 257
Bikes: Orbea Orca Rival, Specialized Roubaix SL2 Rival, Specialized CrossTrail Sport
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Spesh comparison- Tarmac v. Roubaix
My original LBS set me up w/ the Roubaix SL2 as my first road bike, citing it's more relaxed geometry and comfortable ride as "the only way to go" for a new cyclist. Really like the bike- don't know if I "love" it, but it does handle 50-70 mile rides (which is long for me) very comfortably.
A couple of years later I added the Orca BRV (NOT a Tarmac, I know), which I think I like better than the Roubaix. I'm faster on it, it climbs better, responds better and I can much more easily go "hands-free" on it (if that's even relevant). 95% of my rides are in the 15-25 mile range, and while the ride is not as "plush" as the Roubaix, it's fine at those distances. Not sure that I can say that I love this bike, either. In fact, I'm not sure (experienced enough?) what it'll take for me to "love" my bike. The biggest question on the Orca is how it/I would handle a 50+ mile ride on it... which only happens once or twice per year... and hasn't happened yet this year.
Now, I was having a discussion w/ the owner of my current LBS about my preference for the Orca over the Roubaix for local rides, but questioning how I would like it on a longer ride of 50 or more miles. He said many of his customers start w/ the Roubaix, only to eventually transition to a Tarmac, "even for 100-200 miles," in his words. (These folks likely ride more than I do- I'm happy to hit 100 miles/week.) But he went on to say that way too many "noobs" are pushed into the Roubaix by the hype and the sales force, and that in many cases the Tarmac would be a better fit and offer greater comfort for the rider, even at greater distances.
I understand the importance of fit, and I also understand that a properly fit Tarmac would be more comfortable than an improperly fit Roubaix. But all things being equal, assuming the proper fit on both bikes, is it logical to believe that the Tarmac could be just as comfortable as the Roubaix at rides of 50+ miles? And, if so, would it also then be logical to believe that the biggest advantage of the Roubaix over the Tarmac would be for rougher-surface (cobbles, chipseal, etc.) rides?
A couple of years later I added the Orca BRV (NOT a Tarmac, I know), which I think I like better than the Roubaix. I'm faster on it, it climbs better, responds better and I can much more easily go "hands-free" on it (if that's even relevant). 95% of my rides are in the 15-25 mile range, and while the ride is not as "plush" as the Roubaix, it's fine at those distances. Not sure that I can say that I love this bike, either. In fact, I'm not sure (experienced enough?) what it'll take for me to "love" my bike. The biggest question on the Orca is how it/I would handle a 50+ mile ride on it... which only happens once or twice per year... and hasn't happened yet this year.
Now, I was having a discussion w/ the owner of my current LBS about my preference for the Orca over the Roubaix for local rides, but questioning how I would like it on a longer ride of 50 or more miles. He said many of his customers start w/ the Roubaix, only to eventually transition to a Tarmac, "even for 100-200 miles," in his words. (These folks likely ride more than I do- I'm happy to hit 100 miles/week.) But he went on to say that way too many "noobs" are pushed into the Roubaix by the hype and the sales force, and that in many cases the Tarmac would be a better fit and offer greater comfort for the rider, even at greater distances.
I understand the importance of fit, and I also understand that a properly fit Tarmac would be more comfortable than an improperly fit Roubaix. But all things being equal, assuming the proper fit on both bikes, is it logical to believe that the Tarmac could be just as comfortable as the Roubaix at rides of 50+ miles? And, if so, would it also then be logical to believe that the biggest advantage of the Roubaix over the Tarmac would be for rougher-surface (cobbles, chipseal, etc.) rides?
06-23-14, 09:52 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: san diego
Posts: 2,981
Bikes: custom caad9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
My original LBS set me up w/ the Roubaix SL2 as my first road bike, citing it's more relaxed geometry and comfortable ride as "the only way to go" for a new cyclist. Really like the bike- don't know if I "love" it, but it does handle 50-70 mile rides (which is long for me) very comfortably.
A couple of years later I added the Orca BRV (NOT a Tarmac, I know), which I think I like better than the Roubaix. I'm faster on it, it climbs better, responds better and I can much more easily go "hands-free" on it (if that's even relevant). 95% of my rides are in the 15-25 mile range, and while the ride is not as "plush" as the Roubaix, it's fine at those distances. Not sure that I can say that I love this bike, either. In fact, I'm not sure (experienced enough?) what it'll take for me to "love" my bike. The biggest question on the Orca is how it/I would handle a 50+ mile ride on it... which only happens once or twice per year... and hasn't happened yet this year.
Now, I was having a discussion w/ the owner of my current LBS about my preference for the Orca over the Roubaix for local rides, but questioning how I would like it on a longer ride of 50 or more miles. He said many of his customers start w/ the Roubaix, only to eventually transition to a Tarmac, "even for 100-200 miles," in his words. (These folks likely ride more than I do- I'm happy to hit 100 miles/week.) But he went on to say that way too many "noobs" are pushed into the Roubaix by the hype and the sales force, and that in many cases the Tarmac would be a better fit and offer greater comfort for the rider, even at greater distances.
I understand the importance of fit, and I also understand that a properly fit Tarmac would be more comfortable than an improperly fit Roubaix. But all things being equal, assuming the proper fit on both bikes, is it logical to believe that the Tarmac could be just as comfortable as the Roubaix at rides of 50+ miles? And, if so, would it also then be logical to believe that the biggest advantage of the Roubaix over the Tarmac would be for rougher-surface (cobbles, chipseal, etc.) rides?
A couple of years later I added the Orca BRV (NOT a Tarmac, I know), which I think I like better than the Roubaix. I'm faster on it, it climbs better, responds better and I can much more easily go "hands-free" on it (if that's even relevant). 95% of my rides are in the 15-25 mile range, and while the ride is not as "plush" as the Roubaix, it's fine at those distances. Not sure that I can say that I love this bike, either. In fact, I'm not sure (experienced enough?) what it'll take for me to "love" my bike. The biggest question on the Orca is how it/I would handle a 50+ mile ride on it... which only happens once or twice per year... and hasn't happened yet this year.
Now, I was having a discussion w/ the owner of my current LBS about my preference for the Orca over the Roubaix for local rides, but questioning how I would like it on a longer ride of 50 or more miles. He said many of his customers start w/ the Roubaix, only to eventually transition to a Tarmac, "even for 100-200 miles," in his words. (These folks likely ride more than I do- I'm happy to hit 100 miles/week.) But he went on to say that way too many "noobs" are pushed into the Roubaix by the hype and the sales force, and that in many cases the Tarmac would be a better fit and offer greater comfort for the rider, even at greater distances.
I understand the importance of fit, and I also understand that a properly fit Tarmac would be more comfortable than an improperly fit Roubaix. But all things being equal, assuming the proper fit on both bikes, is it logical to believe that the Tarmac could be just as comfortable as the Roubaix at rides of 50+ miles? And, if so, would it also then be logical to believe that the biggest advantage of the Roubaix over the Tarmac would be for rougher-surface (cobbles, chipseal, etc.) rides?
It is very logical to believe that, especially considering it's use in Paris-Roubaix. Note that the geometry, however, is closer to the Tarmac with a smaller head tube.
Pro Bike: Tom Boonen's Specialized Roubaix SL4 - VeloNews.com
I don't think the Roubaix is simply hype. You can read great reviews about it on RKP:
The Crucible: Tarmac vs. Roubaix | RKP
The Specialized Roubaix | RKP
The Specialized Roubaix, Part II | RKP
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bobonker
Road Cycling
10
01-25-12 10:40 AM
hobkirk
Road Cycling
86
11-02-10 08:29 PM
