Yet Another Ruby Question...measurements

[dex]

When I measure that way, I don't have a single finger that manages to nudge past 2.75". Short, stumpy little fingers have I...heh.

[Starfish]

Aah, Oakleaf, thanks for the education. Now I know!

And, Dex, that's right...we are in the same ballpark. I still might take you up on your offer of checking out your bars and levers when I come to Seattle to test bikes.

[ehirsch83]

Another question for all you Ruby women.

I am looking for a new bike and think I have settled on the Tarmac, I like the more aggressive positioning, where I feel that the Ruby is set up more like the Roubaix- so more of a distance bike.

Is this true? The LBS doesn't have a Ruby in, in my size, at the moment so I haven't riden one, only the Tarmac- which I love.

Is the Ruby deceiving? Is it more aggresive then it looks? I would love to hear all your opinions.

[Bluetree]

I am looking for a new bike and think I have settled on the Tarmac, I like the more aggressive positioning, where I feel that the Ruby is set up more like the Roubaix- so more of a distance bike.

You are correct, Emily, the Ruby is modeled after the Roubaix. However, I've seen a number of smaller women crit racers with Rubies because the Tarmac does not go down so far in size. Taller women racers on Tarmacs? Yes!

Unless I find a more aggressive racing bike in my size (unlikely) I plan on modifying my Ruby for crits later this year.

[Starfish]

I am looking for a new bike and think I have settled on the Tarmac, I like the more aggressive positioning, where I feel that the Ruby is set up more like the Roubaix- so more of a distance bike.

I don't know this from any experience...just what the bike shop guy told me as we were comparing all the geometry numbers with the Ruby, the Roubaix, and the Tarmac (I'm also interested in the Tarmac). He said the Ruby fell somewhere between the Roubaix and the Tarmac.

[Bluetree]

I stand corrected. You are right, Starfish. I spoke with my Specialized guy and he said the same. However, the name "Ruby" was an offshoot of the word "Roubaix" when they designed it. Also, the Roubaix is not considered just a long-distance bike. Many use it for hilly road racing, esp the S-Works.

...Darn, I wish I was taller. He's selling an S-Works track bike with DA cranks/Zipp 404 tubulars for $2400. But it's a 56.

EDIT: I got an email back from my other Specialized guy:

The Ruby is really in a class of it's own, but in reality, it's between the two in terms of positioning. If I were to place it closer in design to one or the other, it would be the Roubaix. I have not heard of any plans to introduce a Tarmac WSD, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. Specialized keeps any new designs very close to their chests until they want the press to release the information about anything new to the public. If I hear anything at all, I will surely let you know.

[Eden]

In the really small sizes (like mine and Bluetree's) its pretty difficult to get a really aggressive position period - if you want to keep the bigger wheels you are kind of limited (and even with 650's its only marginally better) as to how low you can get the handlebars, because you can only make the head tube so short....... On most (probably all?!) of my bikes the down tube and the top tube pretty much meet, so its not like I could get those bars down futher. A Terry style bike with differently sized wheels would make it possible to get lower, but wouldn't be legal for races. I've given myself a little more drop by putting an angled stem on.

[kelownagirl]

Eden - I think I read somewhere that the Madone 5.1 is a more aggressive bike than the Ruby. Do you know if that's true?