Just one little thing that is bothering me a bit; why do people refer to the Roubaix as a comfort bike and if you want to race the Tarmac is a better option?
IMO a comfort bike will be a city Hybrid or something similar, the Roubaix is a race worthy bike!
There are actually pro-peleton riders that prefer the Roubaix above the Tarmac and I doubt that they will ride a bike that will hinder their ability to perform well or be competitive. Personally I think that the Roubaix can be made just as aero as the Tarmac by removing a spacer or two...
I know there is subtle difference in the geometry between the two, I have felt both and the difference is not that big. We are not all pro racers and even for a Recreational racer like my self I would much rather be that little bit more comfy 90km into the race and still be able to push hard than having a sore back, but and neck distracting me near the end.
[font=Verdana]I am currently looking at the Tarmac Pro and Roubaix Pro framesets (Was considering the Bianchi 928 but the 2 year warranty thing has put me off and it has ALOT more flex that the two Specialized frames) and have read good things about both Specialized frames; it would be great to hear your point of view on this... [/font]
The term "comfort" is a bit misleading. It's part of an industry wide move to make fast bikes that regular people actually want to ride. Other examples are the Cannondale Synapse and Trek Pilot. The idea being to get a slightly more relaxed geometry and smoother ride than the typical racing models. The performance tradeoffs are minimal. Pro teams have been using the Roubaix for races such as its namesake where there are long stretches of rough cobblestones, so in addition to being comfortable that frame can really take a beating.
I have a Roubaix Pro that I use for distance rides, like centuries and charity events. It's geometry is not as aggressive as a race bike but it is absolutely incredible at smoothing out a crappy road. It is a little harder to get out of the wind on, at least with a standard setup. I can definitely tell the difference between it and my race bike, but I too don't think of it as a comfort set-up.
artmichalek - That is correct, further more there are members in the Gerolsteiner team that use the Roubaix as their full time race bike! See the below link: cyclingnews.comroubaix tarmac.phpOpen ↗
rule62 - I think it might be possible to make the Roubaix position a little bit more areo by removing some spacers in the steerer, and then you will have the best of both worlds; awesome frame plus more aggressive position 😎 Not so?
Just one little thing that is bothering me a bit; why do people refer to the Roubaix as a comfort bike and if you want to race the Tarmac is a better option?
IMO a comfort bike will be a city Hybrid or something similar, the Roubaix is a race worthy bike!
There are actually pro-peleton riders that prefer the Roubaix above the Tarmac and I doubt that they will ride a bike that will hinder their ability to perform well or be competitive. Personally I think that the Roubaix can be made just as aero as the Tarmac by removing a spacer or two...
I know there is subtle difference in the geometry between the two, I have felt both and the difference is not that big. We are not all pro racers and even for a Recreational racer like my self I would much rather be that little bit more comfy 90km into the race and still be able to push hard than having a sore back, but and neck distracting me near the end.
[font=Verdana]I am currently looking at the Tarmac Pro and Roubaix Pro framesets (Was considering the Bianchi 928 but the 2 year warranty thing has put me off and it has ALOT more flex that the two Specialized frames) and have read good things about both Specialized frames; it would be great to hear your point of view on this... [/font]
I took a look at the Zertz advert on the specialized website. They have a nice graph of vibration damping between the rear axle and the saddle by frequency. And no comparative data for a similar frame without the Zertz! So it'd be most realistic to assume that they don't do much at all; it's probably the frame that's absorbing the bumps, and they're there to sell a more comfortable geometry (which is of course available from some other manufacturers). Otherwise they'd show you the data. What *is* cool about the graph is that you can see the resonant frequency of the frame... it's about 290Hz....
I took a look at the Zertz advert on the specialized website. They have a nice graph of vibration damping between the rear axle and the saddle by frequency. And no comparative data for a similar frame without the Zertz! So it'd be most realistic to assume that they don't do much at all; it's probably the frame that's absorbing the bumps, and they're there to sell a more comfortable geometry (which is of course available from some other manufacturers). Otherwise they'd show you the data. What *is* cool about the graph is that you can see the resonant frequency of the frame... it's about 290Hz....
It would be interesting to see more information about the test, because that's a pretty bad plot. If, as I suspect, their input was at ground level it shows that the wheels have a much greater influence on the dynamic response than the frame. A sweep test with the input at the rear dropouts for frames with and without Zertz would be a lot more compelling.
I'm still not sold either way on the effectiveness of the Zertz. In theory anything moving through that tube with a wavelength shorter than the insert is going to loose some energy. That should damp out higher frequency (the real killer on long rides) vibrations, but they haven't proven how much.
