The Cooper was my "A" bike until a few months ago, when I picked up the Tarmac on ebay. Since then I've been trading off rides between the two bikes, and so far I have about 400 miles on each. I have some strong impressions of the differences between the bikes so I thought I'd post my thoughts. Whenever I am thinking about some new gear, I find posts about real-world experiences like this to be useful.

2010 Specialized Tarmac SL3
Shimano Di2
Specialized carbon crank BB30
Roval Rapide SL45 wheels
15.5 lbs

2008 Lynskey Cooper
SRAM Rival
Fulcrum 3 wheels
17.5 lbs

Both bikes have a 50/34 crank and 11-25 cassette (it's steep here). Setup/fit is identical, except that the bars are set 1cm lower on the Tarmac. Wheelset weights are similar (~1600g), though the Rovals are carbon/aero, which of course makes a big difference to the ride. About half the weight difference between the bikes is from the frame, half is from the Di2 vs Rival.

Tarmac:

This bike feels like it could not be any stiffer. Every watt gets converted directly to forward motion. I am significantly faster on this bike, both on the flats (where the aero wheels are a factor), and on the hills. This part is psychological, but because the power transfer is so efficient, it is hard not to attack hills as hard as possible. I have never once been caught on a hill while riding the Tarmac.

The Tarmac is also fatiguing to ride. It's partly because of stiffness -- it feels like every variation in the road surface gets transferred directly to your hands. (It is no fun at all to ride this bike on gravel.) It's also because the bike rewards a higher level of physical output. After 30 miles I start to feel beat up, and I've never gone more than 50 miles on it without a break. I usually get off the Tarmac feeling like I have gone as fast as I could, but glad that I didn't have to ride 10 miles further.

Cooper:

I can ride this bike forever. The geometry of the bike is more performance than comfort -- compact frame, straight seat stays -- so it's not like riding a sofa, but it is amazingly comfortable. I did a very hilly 70 mile ride last week and at the end, I was tired, but without any specific physical complaint -- no buzzing hands, no stiff back, no soreness. Despite the high comfort level, the Cooper still feels like a light, fast, high performing bike.

The Cooper is also noticeably softer, springy and flexy, especially after coming off the carbon bike. The chain will rub if I stand and mash up a hill, and it can get downright squirrelly on a fast descent. I know this is a cliche, but it also feels more alive. I get a sort of high when riding it, especially up hills and through tight curves. I usually get off the Cooper with a sense of exhilaration that I just don't get from the Tarmac.


I get good use out of both bikes. I'll take the Tarmac for any ride where performance is the goal -- either because it's competitive, or because I want the hard training -- and be confident that I will get the maximum performance out of it. I'll take the Cooper for any ride where enjoyment is the goal, and be confident that I will get the maximum fun out of it.

i would swap the Di2 to the cooper. just sayin

Interesting. Nice work.

As a 3rd party observer, it sounds like you're disappointed with the Tarmac but don't want to admit it. I mean, we've all been there with some bike-related purchase or another.

You need to remember that the Tarmac was designed and built to do one thing.

GO FAST and screw comfort.

I like Ti bikes better.

Same tire pressure?

Yes, 95/105 (clinchers) on both. Since everything else is so stiff on the Tarmac I should probably run higher, but I can't bring myself to do it.

That is an astute observation. The truth is, there's no holy grail. A bike can't be as stiff as the Tarmac and as comfortable as the Cooper.

The performance difference is for real, though. There was a 50-mile charity challenge last month that I had trained for on the Cooper, but did the event on the Tarmac. I blew away my best training time by almost 20 minutes, setting all sorts of personal bests. Some of that is race-day overachievement, but whatever the cause, the proof is in the result.

I enjoyed reading the comparison. Thank you.

2lbs lighter made part of the difference, but likely seconds instead of minutes. The aero wheels likely made a minute or two. New toy effect had to be a factor.

But the biggest likely difference is your lower position on the Tarmac, which is not only leading to the time difference, its also likely a big part of your difference in perceived comfort.

I don't know. My personal experience with super-stiff bikes is similar--they FEEL fast, but then they just start to hurt. I would never have survived a century on my old Pinarello F4:13 with Fulcrum Racing 1's, for instance. I guess the F4:13 wasn't a disappointment--the handling and responsiveness were awesome--but by the end of a longish road race it did start feeling like pedaling a steel I-Beam. For me, i.e. someone who's NOT a 140-lb bike racer who needs only a good pair of tires for all-day shock absorption, it was a bummer.

I'm as happy with my R230 speed and handling-wise as I've ever been with my CAAD8 or Pinarello, and find it all-day comfortable. At 210lb with max powers around 1500-1600W, I don't have enough in me to flex it noticeably.

+1, though 1cm doesn't make that much of a difference.

although if your position is comparable on both bikes, i do hear that the Tarmac is a bit more aero, at least more aero than a Supersix in wind tunnel tests.

i personally don't produce enough peak watts to notice flexing of any sort on my cooper

I enjoyed reading the comparison too up until a scrolled down and saw no pictures.

This thread is meaningless without pics!

Plus, the R230 is designed to be laterally stiffer than the Cooper.

PS. Updated first post with pics.

Ah. Didn't realize that. I thought the R230 and Cooper were separated only by butted vs straight gauge tubing. That might explain it.

Now it all makes sense.

On lynskeyperformance.com, they say "bi-axially ovalized downtube boosts bottom bracket stiffness for enhanced power transfer" about the R230. You'd have to get the bikes side by side to see if that means anything other than words on a web site, I guess. I'm sure the frames are separated by more than the tubing, though (the seat stays are obviously different).

Very nice review...good read..

I do not have a Tarmac but I do have a Raleigh Team frame which is also stiff. I also have the Lynskey cooper. Lynskey has a weird drop- out design that until l I shimmed my rear wheel axle, however tight I have the skewers, there was a bit of play on the rear. I would also rub my back wheel but after I addressed that issue, I am not able to flex it and I have laid down up to 1300 watts. Also the squirrely feeling it may be due to rake. After I went to a fork with a rake that works, I have no problem doing technical descents on the Lynskey vs the carbon team race frame ( modeled along the lines of the Madone with straight(er) top tubes). It is really imperative to match the fit and feel of your road bikes regardless of weight or material.

Good review nonetheless.

I too have both a Cooper and a 2010 Tarmac. My Tarmac 8r frame and not the 11r frame like yours is actually buttery smooth on rough roads and yet its super stiff where you feel every power stroke go directly to the rear wheel. I know the type of wheel you use also plays a part in how smooth a bike rides. I love my Tarmac, but I ride my cooper 90 percent of the time, it just seems to have that magical ride!

The persistent discomfort on the Tarmac has really been bugging me. I spent some time with a tape measure and level and tried to get more confident that I have got the bikes fit exactly the same (apart from the extra 1cm drop on the Tarmac).

It turns out, the fit isn't the same. The effective top tube on the size 54 Tarmac is actually almost 55cm. Saddle setback can be tricky to measure, and it turns out I had the Tarmac saddle set further forward to compensate for the longer reach.

I'm going to try a 90mm stem on the Tarmac. I hope that helps -- I'm even wondering if I should have looked for a size 52 Tarmac. I am 5'9 and assembled in a fairly normal manner, I've never ridden a 52 in my life.

OK, I know I'm talking to myself which is lame, but the 90mm stem makes a world of difference. Short version, Tarmacs are sized big, the size 54 has an effective top tube length of almost 55cm.

Nice bikes!

The handlebar and hood setups look very different. The Di2 hoods are angled up more, and the bars have more of a traditional shape and drop to them. This seems like it would affect comfort, no? You should try running the same bars and hood setup before making any final judgment on comfort IMO.

As for being faster on the Tarmac, that is not really surprising. Not only is it stiffer and lighter, but the shorter head tube combined with more handlebar drop means a more aerodynamic body position.

I'm also 5'9'' (and 3/4's...) and I have a 54cm tarmac, with a 90mm stem. Fits great.

Good advice ... that I already took! Since taking these photos I've changed the Tarmac to Ritchey Logic bars and moved the shifters down, trying as much as possible to get the cockpit geometry identical. Personally I think I prefer the feel of the fatter SRAM hoods to the very skinny (and harder) Di2 hoods, but fit wise, I think I now have the two bikes as close as they can be. The Tarmac is still a harsher ride, but that's how the bike is designed. Comfort wise I am very happy now. I did a pretty hard 50 miles today on the Tarmac and didn't have any hand or back issues at all.

Did you ever try switching the wheels between the two and seeing what kind of difference that made to ride quality?