I bought one of these three weeks ago(400 miles). The bike is great very comfortable. The long wheel base lends to the sense of security on the descents. Yet the bike is still stiff. I did switch some parts to tailor it abit, but it was great off the rack.

I bought my Roubaix Comp used one year ago. I also changed a few parts to personalize the bike a bit. I have put 3,300 miles on it and I like it now more than ever. I have read comments from some who think the frame is too soft or too long or dead. They are entitled to their opinions but most of them have either not ridden the bike or have only gone around the block with it. I find the bike very responsive, very quick and just a great ride. It's also nice that after 60 or 70 miles in the saddle, you aren't beat up and sore.
It's a minor complaint, but I wish the lettering and decals were much smaller. No matter how clean the frame is, the words simply dominate the look of an otherwise very cool looking frame.

Do you guys find that the relaxed geometry of the bike much different than a more traditional bike?

On paper, the geometry of a roubaix seems slightly more relaxed but the numbers only vary slightly from similar sized bicycles with traditional geometries.

I don't race and my experience with cutting-edge bikes is limited but I ride pretty hard for an old guy (52). My old bikes were all steel and I liked them a lot. They were top flight technologies of the 1970's with tubular tires and full Campy. Here's what I do know: My Roubaix is much quicker and simply snaps to attention when I want. I can ride the Roubaix all day and feel good in the evening - no back pain, no butt pain, shoulders and wrists are also just fine. I just love to cut a tight curve with the Roubaix. I bought a pair of Gomitalia Targas after I finished my first 2,500 miles and, on dry pavement, the bike feels like it's on a rail. I really enjoy the feeling of becoming one with the machine during a long ride. Sometimes with my old bikes, certain body parts were too sore to fully appreciate the effect. There are a lot of bikes to choose from and no one bike is great for everybody. For me, the Roubaix frame is excellent. I put carbon ergo bars and a better saddle on it, and of course the Gomitalias.
On the Specialized web site, about a year ago, I found an explanation about carbon fiber technology: "Taking The Witchcraft Out Of Advanced Composite Bicycle Frames". Of course, the text has a bias toward Specialized but there is some really good information in there about stiffness and materials.
I hope this helps.
Enjoy the ride!

My old bike was a Bianchi Titanium. It was fast handling. In fact a little skittish. And it was stiff. The Roubaix is more comfortable and except for very sharp cornering I can ride faster because the stability inspires more confidence. Today while riding I came around a corner and hit a rock the size of a fist going 40. On my old bike I probably would have crashed but on the Roubaix there was a thud and then a small speed shudder, but I kept on rolling. I have not noticed any flexibility in the frame but I only weigh about 150.

I don't have a Spec Roubaix, but I have a steel DeRosa in a "long distance cut." 72* seat tube / head tube. I've had this bike since '93, & IMO, it's the best I've had. I've owned many other bikes since the mid 60's, and there still seems to be a romance with crit geometry. I hate it. I've had bikes that were so upright it was like riding a unicycle with an auxillary front wheel.

I'm done with that. It's like Groundhog said, no pain, feel relaxed, lots of stability, no numb hands or butt. I will admit that it doesn't climb or sprint quite as well as "tight" bikes that I've owned, but generally, it handles like a Porsche 911, and rides like a Buick.

Stiffer, stiffer, stiffer...........no thanks.

Just got an 05 Roubaix Comp and coming from a 03 Fuji Steel Marseille,the Roubaix gets up and goes when you get out of the saddle,thats the first thing i noticed. Its quicker to respond to. The only thing is i think i'm going to change my 120 stem to a 100.

I changed the stem to a 105. The top tube is long for the size ( A 54 has a 54.8 TT).

I changed the stem to a 105. The top tube is long for the size ( A 54 has a 54.8 TT).

Bianchi Ti, actually the top tube is short for the size, not long. If you look at the spec sticker that came with the bike, the Roubaix is actually measured c-c (not c-t), although the triangle lines are really imaginary (as shown on the sticker) since it's a compact. A 54 c-c seat tube (equivalent to around a 55.5 measured c-t of top tube) would typically have a TT more like 55.5 or even a little higher. (Of course, seat tube angle matters too, and if you compare the 54 Roubaix, with its 73.5 STA, to another frame having a 73 STA, the effective difference between the two TTs will be shortened by around 0.5.)

That said, I think many people are shortchanging what the Roubaix is about by calling it a comfort bike intended for aging warriors with bad backs. There are very few bikes out there sized for those with longer legs than average; I view the Roubaix as one such bike. I happen to be 2 cms longer in my legs than the average for my height (5'9"), which has been confirmed by a custom builder and numerous others who have measured my inseam. At the same time, I am very flexible in my back and legs--I can palm my hands flat on the ground in standing forward bend, or put my head between my legs in the same pose. But I still find the reach on most standard frames a tad long, and, to a lesser extent, a tad low, due to the inseam issue; 2 cms is a lot to make up. The Roubaix makes the reach a bit shorter and a bit higher so as to better fit someone with longer legs and shorter torso/arms. On my 54 Roubaix Pro, which I love, I still have around a 3.5" seat-to-handlebar drop, and could bring it lower yet if need be by removing the 2-cm cone or the 1 cm of spacers. I get to keep an 11 stem on it. As mentioned in this thread, the comfort of the ride is outstanding AND yet the performance is right up there with the big boys (stiffness while climbing particularly stands out), a secret many don't know. A great bike, putting into question why many buy something that beats them up, especially with no real enhanced performance in return.

ET

I also changed the stem to a 105. My frame is a 54 and I'm 5'9". The shorter stem gave me the less "stretched-out" feel I wanted.
As for skittish handling; While the bike is very stable, it's still a very lightweight, high performance machine and a rider who is unaccustomed to that could get into trouble. It's comfortable but it's not a "comfort bike".

ET

Are you sure?
The chart at specialized.com says that the 54cm has a 54.8cm tt. Usually a 54 would have a 54cm tt.

ET

Are you sure?
The chart at specialized.com says that the 54cm has a 54.8cm tt. Usually a 54 would have a 54cm tt.

Sure I'm sure. Here's some examples:

Litespeed’s 55 c-t (c-c this would come out to an even smaller ST than the Roubaix at around 53.5) with 73 STA has a 55.5 TT:

http://litespeed.com/bikes/2006/road/vor_geo.aspx

Seven’s 54 c-c stock frame with 73.5 STA has a 55.2 TT:

http://sevencycles.com/bikes/axiomspecs.html

Others known to have rather long TTs for given ST include Lemond, Trek (the ST is really much shorter than advertised after putting it on a similar basis to others), Ciocc, Look, etc. Most compacts also have longer TTs for an equivalent size but this gets obscured.

You can find some frames that for the same standardized ST come close to the Roubaix,

Pinarello Dogma FP (ridden by Alessandro Petacchi), 54 c-c with a 73.5 STA has a 55 TT, so very close to the Roubaix:

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1235

Colnago is also known to have shorter TTs; the C50, size 56 (c-t of seat tube) is listed as 54 c-c, with a 73.5 STA and a 55 TT:

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1249

but the vast majority have longer TTs.

One warning that should be clear from the examples: you can't just take two 54s and compare the TTs; you must put the STs on the same basis. STs can be measured as c-c, c-t of tt, c-t of st, c-t of st collar, clamp or whatever. (You should not ignore STA either, although the one that puts you closer to center of rails is of course the better fit with regards to STA.) A Trek size 54 may have a 54.6 TT, but that 54 ST is really only a 52 when put on a similar basis to others, so now its TT is very long for a 52, or put another way, its seat-to-handlebar drop (or standover clearance) is very large for a nominal 54. Factor in the steep 74 STA and add another .5 or so to the TT length. Now it's really long for a 52.

What's odd to me (and maybe I'm not tracking this conversation - thanks for the patience!) is that most companies measure a frame size by the seat tube length, which is normally c-t of the seat tube. So a 54cm trek has a 54 CM c-t seat tube.

A 54 roubaix has a 50 CM c-t seat tube. So why would they call a 54 roubaix a 54? Is that because in a conventional geometry, this would fit someone who would be comfiortable on a 54 CM c-t?

Also, does STA and ST stand for?

Thank for all the discussion. It's really helping me understand.

What's odd to me (and maybe I'm not tracking this conversation - thanks for the patience!) is that most companies measure a frame size by the seat tube length, which is normally c-t of the seat tube. So a 54cm trek has a 54 CM c-t seat tube.

A 54 roubaix has a 50 CM c-t seat tube. So why would they call a 54 roubaix a 54? Is that because in a conventional geometry, this would fit someone who would be comfiortable on a 54 CM c-t?

Also, does STA and ST stand for?

Thank for all the discussion. It's really helping me understand.

All companies measure the frame by the seat tube length. The question is, what is called the seat tube length? You start at he center of the BB, but you can stop at where the center of the seat tube (ST) line intersects the center of the top tube (this is c-c). You can stop at where the center of the seat tube line intersects with the top of the top tube (c-t of tt). Or you can follow the ST further up. As I made clear in my earlier post, c-t of seat tube (ST) can mean a lot of things, which makes it the least informative sizing method. It can also be quite arbitrary: the amount by which the seat tube extends beyond the top tube can vary temendously, even within a single company's line. Who really cares how much the ST metal or carbon or clamp extends above the tt? If you think a 54 Trek is sized the same way as others, go to the Trek website,

http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1470000&f=1

and notice that in the geometry stats, the 54 has a standover of only 77.0; this is despite a steep 74 degree seat tube angle (STA) which should raise it more. Now go to many other sites with traditional (non-sloping) top tubes that list standover, and notice that their size 54 has a standover of more like 79. Why do you suppose that is so? Because Trek's 54 ST is measured several cms above the top tube, meaning its 54 ST measured as c-t of tt would come out considerably smaller than another bike's 54 ST as measured c-t of tt. This is why many who buy a Trek find they have trouble with the drop. Ever notice that most of the cyclists out on the roads riding Treks have a full stack of spacers left on?

Regarding the Roubaix geometry, if you draw an imaginary line from the center of head tube at the right point just below the spacers horizontally back towards the seat tube, it will hit somewhere on the seat post, but that would be the true (albeit with imaginary lines) center-to-center measurement, and that is the proper way to do things for a compact.

After riding a Roubaix for a year I could never go back to Al. The Roubaix is light, stiff and super comfortable.

After riding a Roubaix for a year I could never go back to Al. The Roubaix is light, stiff and super comfortable.

It's the geometry, not the materials that makes for a comfortable ride. There are plenty of really stiff riding carbon bikes out there. Upright seat tube and head tube angles and tightly tucked rear wheels transmit road vibration very effectively. Spread out the geometry and everything smooths out.
My Motobecane is a very smooth riding aluminum bike thanks to it relaxed geometry, in fact it rides much like my gently aging Look 231 (carbon) frame.

It's the geometry, not the materials that makes for a comfortable ride. There are plenty of really stiff riding carbon bikes out there. Upright seat tube and head tube angles and tightly tucked rear wheels transmit road vibration very effectively. Spread out the geometry and everything smooths out.
My Motobecane is a very smooth riding aluminum bike thanks to it relaxed geometry, in fact it rides much like my gently aging Look 231 (carbon) frame.

You cant tell me a Alum,Carbon and Steel frame of the same geometry will be the same,they will not. Of course the geometry has a lot to do with it but you cant say materials have nothing to do with it.

What's odd to me (and maybe I'm not tracking this conversation - thanks for the patience!) is that most companies measure a frame size by the seat tube length, which is normally c-t of the seat tube. So a 54cm trek has a 54 CM c-t seat tube.

A 54 roubaix has a 50 CM c-t seat tube. So why would they call a 54 roubaix a 54? Is that because in a conventional geometry, this would fit someone who would be comfiortable on a 54 CM c-t?

Also, does STA and ST stand for?

Thank for all the discussion. It's really helping me understand.

Well it says on the chart a 58 like i have but its really as it says on the frame a 58.2

You cant tell me a Alum,Carbon and Steel frame of the same geometry will be the same,they will not. Of course the geometry has a lot to do with it but you cant say materials have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the geometry, not the materials that makes for a comfortable ride. There are plenty of really stiff riding carbon bikes out there. Upright seat tube and head tube angles and tightly tucked rear wheels transmit road vibration very effectively. Spread out the geometry and everything smooths out.
My Motobecane is a very smooth riding aluminum bike thanks to it relaxed geometry, in fact it rides much like my gently aging Look 231 (carbon) frame.

Sorry to get so technical but from an engineering stand point the material matters a lot, as it is the foundation of the machine itself. Al is cheap/plentiful, light and can be make stiff. It is also one of the best materials for vibration to travel through, just like it use to be used for electrical wiring, but copper is a better material for electricity to travel through. The material matters.

So many of the Al fans say it is the way it is used that really matters, well where are all the super smooth, stiff and light bikes? Surely if Al could be built to the same ride characteristics, it would be. Remember it is a cheaper material and the Al manufacturers whould not just hand over the highend bikes to carbon builders, would they?

So many of the Al fans say it is the way it is used that really matters, well where are all the super smooth, stiff and light bikes? Surely if Al could be built to the same ride characteristics, it would be. Remember it is a cheaper material and the Al manufacturers whould not just hand over the highend bikes to carbon builders, would they?


The Vitus 979, a very popular frame in the 80s, was famous for having a good ride. It used small diameter tubes compared to todays bikes. This made for a frame that was fairly flexible, but that didn't bother a lot of riders. Many pro racers were on 979s, often repainted to look like the sponsor's bike. Sean Kelly won a lot of road sprints on 979s, which he rode for much of his career. The 979 was light weight for its day but at around 1500g isn't light now.

As you can guess from my handle, I have a 979. I rode and raced on it for many years, and it is still in use as my rain/backup bike. The geometry is kind of funky, with very steep head and seat tube angles, so it is quick steering and needs a seatpost with decent setback to get me in the proper position.

The ride from the frame is about as cush as my Airborne Zeppelin Ti. There is a bit more road vibration through the aluminum fork than the Zepp's Ouzo Pro carbon but that is to be expected. The rear feels a bit stiffer but that is due to the compact Zepp having a lot of seatpost sticking out (I'm tall) and that seatpost being a small diameter Specialized Pave carbon post that is designed to flex a bit. The 979 is by no means harsh. The frame flex has never bothered me, in fact it is an asset when standing on climbs, I can often ride them in a taller gear than I can on the Zepp. It may just make low rpm standing climbs more comfortable for me, or the flex matches my style, I don't know for sure.

If there was a modern version spaced for 130mm wheels that weighed a pound less I'd buy it in a second.

You hear about these Vitus's alot, wonder why they can't make Al bikes like this today? But I quess you're right, the wieght is to much for today.

The Vitus 979, a very popular frame in the 80s, was famous for having a good ride. It used small diameter tubes compared to todays bikes. This made for a frame that was fairly flexible, but that didn't bother a lot of riders. Many pro racers were on 979s, often repainted to look like the sponsor's bike. Sean Kelly won a lot of road sprints on 979s, which he rode for much of his career. The 979 was light weight for its day but at around 1500g isn't light now.

As you can guess from my handle, I have a 979. I rode and raced on it for many years, and it is still in use as my rain/backup bike. The geometry is kind of funky, with very steep head and seat tube angles, so it is quick steering and needs a seatpost with decent setback to get me in the proper position.

The ride from the frame is about as cush as my Airborne Zeppelin Ti. There is a bit more road vibration through the aluminum fork than the Zepp's Ouzo Pro carbon but that is to be expected. The rear feels a bit stiffer but that is due to the compact Zepp having a lot of seatpost sticking out (I'm tall) and that seatpost being a small diameter Specialized Pave carbon post that is designed to flex a bit. The 979 is by no means harsh. The frame flex has never bothered me, in fact it is an asset when standing on climbs, I can often ride them in a taller gear than I can on the Zepp. It may just make low rpm standing climbs more comfortable for me, or the flex matches my style, I don't know for sure.

If there was a modern version spaced for 130mm wheels that weighed a pound less I'd buy it in a second.

I've never heard that flex is an asset when standing on climbs. It might have been a good ride in 80's.

The Vitus 979, a very popular frame in the 80s, was famous for having a good ride. It used small diameter tubes compared to todays bikes. This made for a frame that was fairly flexible, but that didn't bother a lot of riders. Many pro racers were on 979s, often repainted to look like the sponsor's bike. Sean Kelly won a lot of road sprints on 979s, which he rode for much of his career. The 979 was light weight for its day but at around 1500g isn't light now.


I think many people really mean "reactivity" when they say that they want a frame that is "stiff". In French, the former is described as "nervosit\'e". The Anglicized version of the same word, "nervousness", has a negative connotation to it. Many climbers say that they like a frame that has a lot of "snap" to it, which in many cases come from the rider learning to take advantage of the slight flex of the frame. There are many frames with this behavior, including many Ti frames. Ask around your riding buddies, and you'll find one or two who can point you in the right direction. For one, Cyfac is quite direct in saying that some flex can be good:

http://veloeuropa.com/product_gothica.shtml

STIFFNESS -- this term is thrown around all too easily...What does it mean? Why does it matter? "Stiffness" in bicycle frames is a relative thing. Important in some respects but detrimental in others, "stiffness" certainly cannot be held up as the only standard to reach with respect to a frame design.

Frames are dynamic. As such, there should be some flexibility/movement to one because, when done correctly, this increases the reactivity of the frame, boosts efficiency, and improves performance. A rider who is on the wrong frame cannot elicit the dynamic nature of the frame correctly and will suffer a negative impact on performance/comfort/efficiency.

Some people also tend to associate a "flexy" frame with a "noodly" handling behavior. The noodle-ness (gah, running out of adjectives and adverbs!) of the handling probably comes from having a flexy fork that bends under braking or heavy steering

So I don't think that a stiffer frame, i.e. one with less BB sway, is necessarily better. A stiffer fork is always better, though ;-).

More flex=less power transfer,thats the way i've always read it.

More flex=less power transfer,thats the way i've always read it.
You're absolutely correct...................on paper.

However, they way the bike feels when you ride it makes all the diff. If a frame flexes, and they all do, exactly how much does it flex? How much does that transfer into forward motion? Can you compute this for ea. pedal stroke? For 20 miles? A century? Exactly how much, if any, does it cost in forward motion? I've been riding & racing since the 60's, and I've never seen these questions answered. I know people who would say. "If it costs me an inch, it'd be too much." OK, I see your point of view.

On the other hand, how much more comfortable, (and therefore maybe feeling fresher?), would you be on a frame that was a bit more forgiving? How would you like to have a smoother ride, less vibration.

I had a Cannondale R1000 that I bought new in 1992. That bike looked great, handeled very well, and fit me perfectly. I hated it. Why. It was too stiff. On smooth pavement, I could actually feel it when I rode over something like a gum wrapper. I'm a pretty strong rider, even considering my age. I couldn't budge the BB on that thing. The result was, and of course this is my opinion, that it felt dead. Slowing for a light to 8-12 mph, then getting out of the seat to accelerate felt like an enormous effort. It was like pushing against a brick. Same thing when climbing. It was an extermely light bike for that time, but I had a hard time climbing on it because it was so stiff & unforgiving. I had it a year, then sold it. Went back to steel, which I still ride.

As I said in my earlier post........lighter, stiffer, lighter, stiffer...no thanks. Well OK, maybe lighter, but what I have is plenty stiff for me, thanks.