Tarmac S-Works SL3 vs Roubaix S-Works SL3 vs Trek Madone 6.9

stevepeter83

Hi guys,

I've ever mentioned that I was interested in getting Tarmac S-Works SL3 bike but after reading and researching it seems that the Roubaix is smoother than the Tarmac? Is this right? The Roubaix - apparently - is not as stiff as the Tarmac (that's what they said).

What I'm looking for is a very smooth bike that will absorb as much sting as possible from pothole/uneven/hard surface. I live in Perth, WA south of the river and the path to city (where I work) is a bit bumpy. I'm currently riding Giant TCR Advanced 1 and it's vibrating a lot although it's carbon frame.

What's your take on those 3 bikes? People also say that Trek Madone 6.9SSL is the best of both worlds because it's smoother than Tarmac but stiffer than Roubaix.

Please do not answer with "You have to test them yourself to know what's best for you" because I don't have the luxury to test those bikes. The LBS around my suburb just don't have the bike in the shop unfortunately.


Thanks guys,
Steve

spasypaddy

roubaix for me unless you are going to use it for racing.

balthazar

Tyre size, tyre pressure, saddle type, handlebar tape; all are enormously more consequential for ride comfort than the type or design of bike frame – which is a pea next to that heap of mattresses.

Get the bike that fits you the best, and fit wider tyres or a more flexible saddle if you want a "smoother" ride.

ride_whenever

Get a mtb... big slick tyres, 100mm suspension. You won't feel a thing.

cougie

My carbon TCR rides like a dream.

What PSI do you use, and what tyres ?

(and just by looking at the names I'd have thought that the Roubaix would have been designed to take more road buzz out than the tarmac)

cal_stewart

PLANT X

Try a Canyon

marcusjb

stevepeter83 wrote:

Please do not answer with "You have to test them yourself to know what's best for you" because I don't have the luxury to test those bikes. The LBS around my suburb just don't have the bike in the shop unfortunately.

Surely (unless you have more money than sense) on a purchase of this value you owe it to yourself to test ride all of your candidate bikes?

Then make your choice based on whichever fits best. As others have said, other factors make a huge difference on ride comfort, so get the fit right first and then work on any comfort issues.

stevepeter83

Thanks very much for your reply. I have tried Amira Elite (Ultegra) few weeks ago and that was a lot smoother than my TCR especially on rough roads. That bike - although it came with exact same group as my TCR Advanced - was $2K more expensive than my TCR so I'm assuming if I get the highend bikes (which costs a lot more), I will get even a lot more smoothness out of them or am I wrong?

I'm not doing road racing but riding centuries is what I'm interested in doing. I'm a beginner by the way and the longest I've ever ridden was 73km on ~28kmh speed which was not too bad but yeah....why I asked the question was because of my experience riding the Amira. That - seriously - felt so different. That bike was a lot smoother than mine.

FYI I'm using Continental GP4000s tyres and Selle SMP Extra saddle which is a lot more comfortable than the OOTB Fizik ARione. But even with these I'm still not too happy with my TCR. In terms of the riding position I'm fairly happy with the TCR. I actually prefer a higher riding position. I feel that I can ride quicker with that. I'm assuming if I get Madone/Tarmac I can always do the same? I know the Roubaix has already had a higher riding position.

So all in all....out of those 3 bikes I'm interested in...which one would suit me best? Grrr..if only the shops here have those bikes to test.


Cheers,
Steve

balthazar

@stevepeter83: I think your approach is unclear. These are all expensive bikes, but they aren't the answer to the question you pose.

I'll interpret "smooth" as comfortable, or damping road shock. As I and others have noted, a bike frame is simply not a component in absorbing shock between the road and you. It is a rigid, triangulated structure mounted on air-filled rubber bumpers.

There is another aspect of comfort, and that is fit: the more time you spend cycling, the more imperative it bocomes that your body is in a natural and comfortable position. That position takes time to determine, despite a plethora of formulae and calculations supposed to determine it. Once you're comfortable on your current bike, note down the relative locations of the three contact points: saddle, pedals (bottom bracket), and handlebars, and ensure that your next bike can be adjusted to permit the same position, preferably without any adjustment being at an extreme end of its range.

A good bike shop salesperson should be able to do all this for you, but if you're buying online then you must do it yourself. That can be difficult if you're neither experienced nor mathematically minded, because bike frame diagrams can be tricky to visualise. Still, with the money you are proposing spending, I think at least you should find a bike which is perfectly sized for you.

Contrary to the normal advocation here, I don't think you gain anything very useful in riding a bike before you buy it, but you must know that it's the right size and shape.

Whichever bike you get, put 25mm tyres on it. Compared to 23's, they are no slower rolling, grippier, safer, and more comfortable.

Fat-Boy-Roubaix

I have a Roubaix comp and came from a Hybrid, and the difference was enormous, I ride an hour each way on a commute and the Roubai smoothed everything out, to the extent that I had to watch out for pot holes and lumps and bumps because it smoothed so much of it out I got to relaxed and didn't stand out the saddle or anything when I "had to hit one"

The difference was so great I took my Hybrid on the worst mile of my commutte large stone tarmac just to check it was not me justifying my purchase.

The main reaso I bought the Roubaix was to ease the pain of the commutte and it really did do that. Not sure I would go all the way to an SL3 though, I only went to the comp because I got a good deal on 2010.

6k GBP seems like an enourmous amount of money and I think over the 2k mark its diminishing cash to value to actual difference. I think only pro might feel the difference?

stevepeter83

@balthazar: Correct what I'm looking for is comfortable and dampening road shock. My TCR is already comfortable in the sense of the geometry but surely it's not dampening the road shock that well.

In terms of the positioning of the body on the bike I think it's already pretty good. What I'm really looking for is just things I can do/implement to dampen road vibration as much as possible.

For me look is important and from the other brands I've looked at, these 3 bikes were the most appealing to me. So what I need to know is which of these 3 bikes will dampen road vibration the most without sacrificing speed/stiffness. I'm sure that these 3 bikes - as they're high-end bikes - will be stiff so I'm really looking for "smoothness".

I feel that my TCR is a bit "flex" at times. I shouldn't say this but anyway....it's the same as driving BMW vs Hyundai. The BMW (which was Specialized Amira I mentioned earlier) feels a lot smoother and "quieter" compared to Hyunday (TCR).



Cheers,
Steve

Fat-Boy-Roubaix

If you want smooth rule the Tarmac out. Chalk and Cheese to the Roubaix.

cougie

Your TCR already has rave reviews. I have one myself - it damps the road out fantastically. I ride mine over grids just to amaze myself at how little I can feel.

I think you're doing something wrong if you're getting vibration off it. Is everything tight ?
You still havent said what PSI you ride at. 95 PSI is ample for the contis.

Pokerface

balthazar wrote:

As I and others have noted, a bike frame is simply not a component in absorbing shock between the road and you. It is a rigid, triangulated structure mounted on air-filled rubber bumpers.

I respectfully disagree.

I have two road bikes - the Trek Madone 6.9 and a Cervelo S3. Both built with the same components. The wheels and saddle get swapped from one bike to the other before riding.

And the Cervelo is MUCH smoother. Why? The frame was designed to soak up road vibration more so than the Trek.

The same goes for the Roubaix - the frame has inserts built in to make it more resistant to road noise.

All OTHER things being equal - the frame DOES make a difference to ride comfort.

izza

I have the tarmac frame.

I used a roubaix seatpot and in terms of vibrations and shocks to my nether regions this has done the job this has soaked them up fine.

In terms of vibrations to the nads via the handlebars - never found it a problem with the tarmac.

airwise

I had an SL3 but wouldn't wish it on anyone. The flattest most boring and dead ride I have yet had. The Roubaix is nice but the handling is slow as an articulated lorry. Sorry. I usually love Specialized products.

Pokerface

airwise wrote:

I had an SL3 but wouldn't wish it on anyone. The flattest most boring and dead ride I have yet had.

You should meet my ex-wife :oops:

balthazar

Pokerface wrote:

balthazar wrote:

As I and others have noted, a bike frame is simply not a component in absorbing shock between the road and you. It is a rigid, triangulated structure mounted on air-filled rubber bumpers.

I respectfully disagree.

I have two road bikes - the Trek Madone 6.9 and a Cervelo S3. Both built with the same components. The wheels and saddle get swapped from one bike to the other before riding.

And the Cervelo is MUCH smoother. Why? The frame was designed to soak up road vibration more so than the Trek.

The same goes for the Roubaix - the frame has inserts built in to make it more resistant to road noise.

All OTHER things being equal - the frame DOES make a difference to ride comfort.

I think confirmation bias is plenty to account for your experience, especially when their are other de facto differences between different frames (geometry, aural effects, lateral rigidity) which make it difficult to isolate vertical compliance outside of an experimental rig. Those experiments have been done, with obvious conclusions, but there are endless "god-of-the-gaps" style arguments: my frame vibrates at this or that resonance, etc. Anything to preserve the mystique of the bicycle frame, and to justify a new one. Once, everybody claimed that old steel frames went floppy with use, a nonsense that manufacturers were happy to maintain.

However, this has been disputed as long as grown men chose to hang around arguing in bike shops, and I normally don't bother contributing to it here. People have a religious attachment to the mystical qualities of their bicycle frames, and articles of faith are difficult to argue against. I only risked the waters this time because the OP was suggesting spending a lot of money to change a specific characteristic that I think is imaginary; and that he will be disappointed.

Pokerface

balthazar wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

balthazar wrote:

As I and others have noted, a bike frame is simply not a component in absorbing shock between the road and you. It is a rigid, triangulated structure mounted on air-filled rubber bumpers.

I respectfully disagree.

I have two road bikes - the Trek Madone 6.9 and a Cervelo S3. Both built with the same components. The wheels and saddle get swapped from one bike to the other before riding.

And the Cervelo is MUCH smoother. Why? The frame was designed to soak up road vibration more so than the Trek.

The same goes for the Roubaix - the frame has inserts built in to make it more resistant to road noise.

All OTHER things being equal - the frame DOES make a difference to ride comfort.

I think confirmation bias is plenty to account for your experience, especially when their are other de facto differences between different frames (geometry, aural effects, lateral rigidity) which make it difficult to isolate vertical compliance outside of an experimental rig. Those experiments have been done, with obvious conclusions, but there are endless "god-of-the-gaps" style arguments: my frame vibrates at this or that resonance, etc. Anything to preserve the mystique of the bicycle frame, and to justify a new one. Once, everybody claimed that old steel frames went floppy with use, a nonsense that manufacturers were happy to maintain.

However, this has been disputed as long as grown men chose to hang around arguing in bike shops, and I normally don't bother contributing to it here. People have a religious attachment to the mystical qualities of their bicycle frames, and articles of faith are difficult to argue against. I only risked the waters this time because the OP was suggesting spending a lot of money to change a specific characteristic that I think is imaginary; and that he will be disappointed.

The odd thing is that I noticed the difference in the ride, before I was even aware that there was 'supposed' to be a difference. I don't see how frame geometry can make road vibration less prevalent in one frame over another, and similarly I'm not an engineer so can't verify that the design of one frame over another can make any difference whatsoever.

But I CAN see how the use of different thicknesses of materials and smart design could soak up road vibration.

But as you say - the debate can rage on pointlessly.


EDIT: Are you saying that there is 100% no difference between any bike frame in the ability to soak up road vibrations?

stevepeter83

@cougie + all:

My bike setup is as follows:
Giant TCR Advanced 1 2010 49cm (small)
Ultegra 6700
Selle SMP Extra saddle
Shimano MTB M540 Pedal
My height: 170cm
Weight: 72kg
Tyre: Continental GP4000s
PSI: 110psi (that's what I've been told to run the tyre with and I thought the bike will get harder to pedal if it's lower than this i.e flat? No?)
How long I have been riding for: 5 months


Cheers,
Steve

stevepeter83

And oh:

Wheelset: Mavic Ksyrium Elite (comes with the TCR stock standard 2010).

cougie

If you take the psi down massively youll notice it being slightly harder but you could easily take it down to 90 psi and the only difference you will notice is a slightly more comfy ride. You arent a heavy rider anyway.
Try it and see - cost is zero.
Slightly wider tyres help too - lowest i go is 23mm - much better for comfort and better cornering on a rounder tyre.
A wider tyre would be my next option.
Frame design and material will make a difference to comfort - but as a rough rule the more expensive frames will probably give a harsher ride - theyll be more for full on racers - who want maximum performance - not necessarily comfort.

balthazar

Pokerface wrote:

EDIT: Are you saying that there is 100% no difference between any bike frame in the ability to soak up road vibrations?

Pretty much, though I think 100% is unhelpfully precise. There is some vertical deflection –nothing is perfectly rigid–, though it's off the bottom of the scale (perhaps there would be something in it if we rode with steel wheels on train-track). The story of the princess and the pea is a thoroughly apt analogy: next to frame deflections (pea), your tyres really are a teetering pile of mattresses.

Bike wheels deflect more than frames, and wheel deflection was analysed and measured in "The Bicycle Wheel". The total deflection is in the tenth-millimetre range. That is about the height of step created by a piece of photocopy paper on the ground.

A much ignored quality of frames, which varies wildly, is their acoustic effect: control cables and grit twang tunefully against some bikes, and thud heavily against others. I think it is clear how suggestive this can be.

Still: as I wrote, this is akin to attacking religious canards, and I've mostly taken to biting my lip, partly because it's so futile. People chatter away happily about "ride quality" (and the fairies in their garden..!), across the internet as they used to in bike shops: who am I to spoil their fun.

motdoc

I spent an absolute fortune on my last bike, I think it's amazing, because otherwise I'd have wasted my money (this is true, I'm not taking the piss).

The germans, who do things better, did a test on multiple road frames they disguised the frames with lagging and gave them all the same gear. The most comfy was an aluminum frame. Although it was probably being ridden by nutters.

I'd get a ti bike. Lovely.

Pokerface

motdoc wrote:

I spent an absolute fortune on my last bike, I think it's amazing, because otherwise I'd have wasted my money (this is true, I'm not taking the wee-wee).

The germans, who do things better, did a test on multiple road frames they disguised the frames with lagging and gave them all the same gear. The most comfy was an aluminum frame. Although it was probably being ridden by nutters.

I'd get a ti bike. Lovely.

I think this may be the stiffness review you speak of?

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... mbers.html

northpole

110psi will generate a heap of buzz on the road if it isn't smooth as a baby's bum. Definitely try dropping the psi even 95-100 I reckon would make a substantial difference. Another cost effective experiment would be to switch tyres - if you can get hold of a set of Vittoria Open Pave I suspect you will be well chuffed - I'm not speaking from experience of that particular tyre, only going by what others have said on the forum. The Corsa's whilst soft/ easily cut are amazingly comfortable compared to my conti's.

Do try this before rushing out to change your bike. I'd really recommend you stick with it until it's a year old - you should have a better idea what to look for then.

Peter

Soni

balthazar wrote:

Tyre size, tyre pressure, saddle type, handlebar tape; all are enormously more consequential for ride comfort than the type or design of bike frame – which is a pea next to that heap of mattresses.

Get the bike that fits you the best, and fit wider tyres or a more flexible saddle if you want a "smoother" ride.

Yes handlebar tape makes all the difference, have the Specialised Phat Tape on mine and its lovely and comfy.