Specialized Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Tarmac Comp or Pro (road bikes) - owners opinions?

[Yuri Budilov]

Hello

I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road bicycles. I
am looking to buy one of those bikes (2005 model) in a few months time and
also wondering if I should be spending money elsewhere......

Good? Bad? Ugly?
Value for money? Warranty? Reliability? Comfort?

thanks!

 

[Francesco Devittori]

Yuri Budilov wrote:
> Hello
>
> I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
> Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road bicycles. I
> am looking to buy one of those bikes (2005 model) in a few months time and
> also wondering if I should be spending money elsewhere......
>
> Good? Bad? Ugly?
> Value for money? Warranty? Reliability? Comfort?
>
> thanks!
>
>

It's about the Pro, not Comp or Elite, but better than nothing:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2004/reviews/specialized_roubaix_pro

 

[Callistus Valerius]

> I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
> Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road bicycles.
I
> am looking to buy one of those bikes (2005 model) in a few months time and
> also wondering if I should be spending money elsewhere......
>
> Good? Bad? Ugly?
> Value for money? Warranty? Reliability? Comfort?
>
Have a couple thousand miles on Roubaix 105 alu, and at first the
geometry was a little hard to get use to. Took a while to figure out how
high my seat should be, because of the compact design. Now that I'm getting
use to it, I really like it. But I'm planning to use it for long distance
riding (>125 <201 miles) about that range. It has a longer wheel base, and
is slower steering, but it is extremely stable, and you can really sit in
for miles on end. Comparing it to a Trek 5200, the Trek takes alot more
attention while riding. One thing that might give you a problem is the tall
head tube. Expect to have your handlebars an inch higher, even with all the
spacers out. Might add a little wind resistance in that area, but it
doesn't seem to bother me too much. The bike will also feel "bigger", don't
ask me why. Someone told me it has the geometry that old tour de france
bikes had years ago, before they turned them all into crit bikes.

 

[Johnny]

"Yuri Budilov" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
> Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road
> bicycles.

Roubaix is more of a touring bike with an upright riding position. Tarmac is
a pure racing bike with a more aggressive riding position. Take some test
rides and buy the one that fits you best.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
> Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road bicycles.
> I am looking to buy one of those bikes (2005 model) in a few months time
> and also wondering if I should be spending money elsewhere......
>
> Good? Bad? Ugly?
> Value for money? Warranty? Reliability? Comfort?

If it's going to be a few months, you'll have some new choices as well- the
Trek "Pilot" series will be out by then. Similar approach in terms of a
higher handlebar position, different approach in terms of how they damp buzz
(Specialized applies stuff to the outside of the tubes to damp road buzz,
while the Trek will have tubes with extra buzz-damping qualities built into
them).

Haven't ridden one yet so can't tell you how it feels. Best "comfort"
performance road bike I've ridden to date is the new Klein Reve. That was a
real eye-opener; perhaps it *is* possible to have a bike that climbs great
and kills the bumps. If only they'd put that technology into a carbon frame,
I think you'd have the ultimate Paris Roubaix bike.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Yuri Budilov]

Thank you to all who have replied!

I am looking to try the all-carbon 2005 Roubaix Elite so I am hoping for a
very comfortable ride. The up-right position is something I find attractive
anyhow. But I also really like the look of 2005 Tarmac Comp (also all
carbon) which seems to have the *same price* as 2005 Roubaix Elite. It will
be hard to decide between these two bikes given they are basically the same
price and even group-set and wheels appear to be the same. Must be the frame
choice....

Cheers all

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> I would like to hear opinions of owners (or test riders) of Specialized
>> Roubaix (Comp or Elite) or Specialized Tarmac (Comp or Pro) road
>> bicycles.
> I
>> am looking to buy one of those bikes (2005 model) in a few months time
>> and
>> also wondering if I should be spending money elsewhere......
>>
>> Good? Bad? Ugly?
>> Value for money? Warranty? Reliability? Comfort?
>>
> Have a couple thousand miles on Roubaix 105 alu, and at first the
> geometry was a little hard to get use to. Took a while to figure out how
> high my seat should be, because of the compact design. Now that I'm
> getting
> use to it, I really like it. But I'm planning to use it for long distance
> riding (>125 <201 miles) about that range. It has a longer wheel base,
> and
> is slower steering, but it is extremely stable, and you can really sit in
> for miles on end. Comparing it to a Trek 5200, the Trek takes alot more
> attention while riding. One thing that might give you a problem is the
> tall
> head tube. Expect to have your handlebars an inch higher, even with all
> the
> spacers out. Might add a little wind resistance in that area, but it
> doesn't seem to bother me too much. The bike will also feel "bigger",
> don't
> ask me why. Someone told me it has the geometry that old tour de france
> bikes had years ago, before they turned them all into crit bikes.
>
>

 

[Bob Anderson]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:05:41 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If it's going to be a few months, you'll have some new choices as well- the
>Trek "Pilot" series will be out by then

I really want to test ride a Trek Pilot, looks good in the
catalog.


---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon

 

[remove the polite word to reply]

I believe I test rode the Aluminum and the Pro, and for me the
shallower
head tube angle on the Pro was more comfortable.

I like to stand up and climb hills and lean quite a bit forward when I
do and the
72 vs 73 felt more stable to me.

I think the head tube angle may be one of those things where they
shift it o 73 or more and it's not best for a lot of people but a lot
of ppl don't know because there's hardly anything else on the market
anymore.

 

[Alan Acock]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If it's going to be a few months, you'll have some new choices as
> well- the Trek "Pilot" series will be out by then. Similar approach in
> terms of a higher handlebar position, different approach in terms of
> how they damp buzz (Specialized applies stuff to the outside of the
> tubes to damp road buzz, while the Trek will have tubes with extra
> buzz-damping qualities built into them).
>
The Trek 2300 coming out next February? looks like a copy of the Klein
Reve. I wonder how they will compare to each other and to the all carbon
fiber bikes like the Pilot and the Roubaux. I HATE chip seal and need a
solution to road buzz.

Alan Acock

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The Trek 2300 coming out next February? looks like a copy of the Klein
> Reve. I wonder how they will compare to each other and to the all carbon
> fiber bikes like the Pilot and the Roubaux. I HATE chip seal and need a
> solution to road buzz.

Just between you and me, why wait until February to buy a Trek with the
suspension feature (SPA technology, they call it) when you can get a Klein
right now? They're putting a *lot* of effort into the Klein product, with
some of the best paint & welding you'll find anywhere. Nice spec too. And,
if you read the piece on our website, you'll see that I was very impressed
with how well it rode. If there was room in the garage for another bike, no
question it would be a Reve. Especially since it will take wider tires &
fenders if you want, so I could retire the Iron Pig (my 1974 Cinelli, which
is my current rain bike).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Alan Acock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> If it's going to be a few months, you'll have some new choices as
>> well- the Trek "Pilot" series will be out by then. Similar approach in
>> terms of a higher handlebar position, different approach in terms of
>> how they damp buzz (Specialized applies stuff to the outside of the
>> tubes to damp road buzz, while the Trek will have tubes with extra
>> buzz-damping qualities built into them).
>>
> The Trek 2300 coming out next February? looks like a copy of the Klein
> Reve. I wonder how they will compare to each other and to the all carbon
> fiber bikes like the Pilot and the Roubaux. I HATE chip seal and need a
> solution to road buzz.
>
> Alan Acock

 

[Callistus Valerius]

> I believe I test rode the Aluminum and the Pro, and for me the
> shallower
> head tube angle on the Pro was more comfortable.
>
> I like to stand up and climb hills and lean quite a bit forward when I
> do and the
> 72 vs 73 felt more stable to me.
>
> I think the head tube angle may be one of those things where they
> shift it o 73 or more and it's not best for a lot of people but a lot
> of ppl don't know because there's hardly anything else on the market
> anymore.

I've got an '04, but you're saying the carbon version head tube is more
shallow than the alu version? I think mine was a 72 also. Makes steep
descents not as hairy, being more upright, with the shallow head tube angle.
It does take some getting use to. I didn't like the wheels my Roubaix 105
alu came with. I put my wagon wheel rolf wheels on it, and it really
started sailing. The other wheels seemed sluggish to me, don't know why.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Alan Acock wrote:

> The Trek 2300 coming out next February? looks like a copy of the Klein
> Reve. I wonder how they will compare to each other and to the all
> carbon fiber bikes like the Pilot and the Roubaux. I HATE chip seal
> and need a solution to road buzz.

Fatter tires! Seriously...

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Just between you and me, why wait until February to buy a Trek with
> the suspension feature (SPA technology, they call it) when you can
> get a Klein right now? They're putting a *lot* of effort into the
> Klein product, with some of the best paint & welding you'll find
> anywhere. Nice spec too. And, if you read the piece on our website,
> you'll see that I was very impressed with how well it rode. If there
> was room in the garage for another bike, no question it would be a
> Reve.

What is it about this bike's ride and handling that you prefer (or not) to your
5900(?), and how do you explain the difference?

Especially since it will take wider tires & fenders if you
> want,

Now *that's* an improvement!

Matt O.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Just between you and me, why wait until February to buy a Trek with
>> the suspension feature (SPA technology, they call it) when you can
>> get a Klein right now? They're putting a *lot* of effort into the
>> Klein product, with some of the best paint & welding you'll find
>> anywhere. Nice spec too. And, if you read the piece on our website,
>> you'll see that I was very impressed with how well it rode. If there
>> was room in the garage for another bike, no question it would be a
>> Reve.
>
> What is it about this bike's ride and handling that you prefer (or not) to
> your
> 5900(?), and how do you explain the difference?

My 5900 (and prior 5200) does an exceptional job of eliminating road buzz.
Back in the day, before chip-seal was king, road surfaces seemed a lot
smoother. But today? Yuck! Seems like roads are worse each year, with
cheapie surface repairs done once in a while but rarely do they get the
repaving they need.

But big bumps- that's another thing entirely. That's where wider tires can
work wonders and, until I rode the Klein Reve, I thought that was pretty
much the only way to deal with nastily chopped-up road surfaces. Not
anymore. The elastomer bumper on the Reve does a wonderful job of taking the
edge off the nasty stuff, without the squishy feeling you get from a large
tire. You stand up and sprint and the bike still feels like it wants to go.
Climbing hard out of the saddle and there's nothing funny going on in the
tail end. Descend fast and you still feel like you're directly connected to
the bike.

There's a Northern California century in March called the Tour of the
Unknown Valley. We call it the Tour of the Unknown Pavement. Absolutely
incredibly route, but roads designed to knock your fillings out. The Reve
would be a great bike, a much better choice than my 5900. But roads like
that aren't what I commonly ride, nor do I get rattled on bumpy stuff as
much as some, so the 5900, for me, remains my bike of choice.
>
> Especially since it will take wider tires & fenders if you
>> want,
>
> Now *that's* an improvement!

There are trade-offs to get fender clearance, including a strange one with
the Campy-equipped Reve XX- it used Shimano brakes! Why? Because Campy
doesn't make a long-reach brake. But overall, the Reve is a winner. It
definitely brings something new & exciting to the party.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>> What is it about this bike's ride and handling that you prefer (or
>> not) to your
>> 5900(?), and how do you explain the difference?
>
> My 5900 (and prior 5200) does an exceptional job of eliminating road
> buzz.

I'm not a big believer in road buzz, that it even exists in the seat of the
pants. It's a noise thing, which tricks people into thinking they feel it. For
example, my new Klein always transmits some tire noise, where an older steel
bike would be totally silent. But this has no effect on the ride.

> Back in the day, before chip-seal was king, road surfaces
> seemed a lot smoother. But today? Yuck! Seems like roads are worse
> each year, with cheapie surface repairs done once in a while but
> rarely do they get the repaving they need.

Yup. It does seem like CA roads have gone to hell in recent years. The
freeways down south have potholes worse than Detroit's. Repairs and repavings
are extremely shoddy. Rough surfaces and bad repairs are one thing, but when
they smooth it all out with fresh pavement it's still all wavy. Then they leave
gaping seams that open up into potholes the next winter, etc. It's a disgrace.
CA used to have the best roads in the country. Now they're some of the worst.

> But big bumps- that's another thing entirely. That's where wider
> tires can work wonders and, until I rode the Klein Reve, I thought
> that was pretty much the only way to deal with nastily chopped-up
> road surfaces. Not anymore. The elastomer bumper on the Reve does a
> wonderful job of taking the edge off the nasty stuff, without the
> squishy feeling you get from a large tire. You stand up and sprint
> and the bike still feels like it wants to go. Climbing hard out of
> the saddle and there's nothing funny going on in the tail end.
> Descend fast and you still feel like you're directly connected to the
> bike.

I think there's some merit to this kind of design, if it's done properly. Big
tires do work, but if you let the tire absorb all the big bumps, it takes a toll
on rolling resistance. Let the frame squish and the tire squishes less, and
loses less energy.

I've had a few rides on a friend's Moots mountain bike, which climbed like a
goat with skinny tires. It was noticeably more comfortable on descents, and
handled rough corners better, without ever feeling like it soaked up pedaling
energy. I really liked that bike, but $2000 for a frame was a bit too rich for
me.

Another friend was experimenting with "softtail" mountain bikes back in the late
80s. He used elastomers from skateboard trucks, etc., but never really got it
right. If he had been able to actually engineer the thing by calculating the
loads and putting exactly the right material in there, he might have had some
success.

So it will be interesting to see how these new road bike designs work. I
suspect they won't affect speed or times at all (that's all fitness), but riders
may like them better. They may also feel more confidence-inspiring in rough
corners.

> But overall, the Reve is a
> winner. It definitely brings something new & exciting to the party.

I'll have to check these out. I'm sure one of our local shops will have one
in -- they're a Trek/Klein/Fisher dealer. The Specialized looks interesting
too.

Matt O.

 

[Jean]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
|
| >> What is it about this bike's ride and handling that you prefer (or
| >> not) to your
| >> 5900(?), and how do you explain the difference?
| >
| > My 5900 (and prior 5200) does an exceptional job of eliminating road
| > buzz.
|
| I'm not a big believer in road buzz, that it even exists in the seat of
the
| pants. It's a noise thing, which tricks people into thinking they feel
it. For
| example, my new Klein always transmits some tire noise, where an older
steel
| bike would be totally silent. But this has no effect on the ride.
|


Noise can affect comfort and long-term efficiency by causing a
physiological stress response; the resulting tension is "uncomfortable" and
can lead to fatigue. The effect of noise on human performance is pretty
well documented.

Jean

 

[Matt O'Toole]

> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> Noise can affect comfort and long-term efficiency by causing a
> physiological stress response; the resulting tension is
> "uncomfortable" and can lead to fatigue. The effect of noise on human
> performance is pretty well documented.

I'm sure it is, but probably not with respect to bicycles.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:57:43 -0500, "Matt O'Toole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Noise can affect comfort and long-term efficiency by causing a
>> physiological stress response; the resulting tension is
>> "uncomfortable" and can lead to fatigue. The effect of noise on human
>> performance is pretty well documented.
>
>I'm sure it is, but probably not with respect to bicycles.
>
>Matt O.

Dear Matt,

I hear (sorry, couldn't resist it) that professional
athletes often claim to perform better when urged on by more
crowd noise, except when playing golf or shooting free
throws.

Then they go home and fall asleep to the sound of the
fountains in their courtyards or the ocean on their beaches.

Carl Fogel

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles]

>> Noise can affect comfort and long-term efficiency by causing a
>> physiological stress response; the resulting tension is
>> "uncomfortable" and can lead to fatigue. The effect of noise on human
>> performance is pretty well documented.
>
> I'm sure it is, but probably not with respect to bicycles.
>
> Matt O.


Matt: I can't imagine anything that makes a bicycle so special that
"physiological stress response" wouldn't apply. For what it's worth, NASA
put a huge amount of effort into studying the effects of different-frequency
vibrations on humans. Obviously, there's a lot going on when one is rocketed
into space, and they needed to design things such that people performed as
optimally as possible under difficult conditions.

The most-dramatic issues were in the 10-30hz range, by the way.
Higher-frequencies had various negative effects (with road buzz
theoretically in the 400+hz range, so I am told), mostly dealing with
perceived comfort etc., but the lower stuff... yuck. Big increase in the
desire to urinate, for example. Actually, I can't think of much worse than
that...

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

 

[Alan Acock]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> The Trek 2300 coming out next February? looks like a copy of the
>> Klein Reve. I wonder how they will compare to each other and to the
>> all carbon fiber bikes like the Pilot and the Roubaux. I HATE chip
>> seal and need a solution to road buzz.
>
> Just between you and me, why wait until February to buy a Trek with
> the suspension feature (SPA technology, they call it) when you can get
> a Klein right now? They're putting a *lot* of effort into the Klein
> product, with some of the best paint & welding you'll find anywhere.
> Nice spec too. And, if you read the piece on our website, you'll see
> that I was very impressed with how well it rode. If there was room in
> the garage for another bike, no question it would be a Reve.
> Especially since it will take wider tires & fenders if you want, so I
> could retire the Iron Pig (my 1974 Cinelli, which is my current rain
> bike).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
A Trek repreentative who was loaning bikes on Cycle Oregon this September
(Reve and Madone) told me about the Trek 2300 comming in February. He
said he thought the Pilot (all carbon with the rubber compound) would be
better than the Reve or the Trek 2300 at absorbing the buzz you get with
chip seal. 90% of my world is now chip seal. My hands buzz, my seat
buzzes, and feet--oh my feet--buzz. When I hit a strech that has no chip
seal the lack of buzz is stunning. The Reve and the Trek 2300 have the
elastomer, but with RIGID alumninum frames (I have an Klein Quantum--pre
Trek now). The elastomer would take up road shock, but my problem is the
vibration. My feet ache from the constant vibration after a 50-100 mile
ride on mostly chip seal.

The Trek guy didn't seem to have any reason to lie to me because he
represented all three bikes (Reve, new 2300, and Pilot). Still, I would
love to hear what the new group people think.

Alan Acock