Because it's fun. Gravel bikes are light and fast, and mountain bikes are slow and boring.

Here in Michigan road races are disappearing while gravel races are growing. Last year was my first season of racing in 25 years and i tried a variety of different types of events and as it turned out I found the gravel races to be the most enjoyable! So, yes, i would buy this bike to ride on rough roads! BTW, we have some great gravel races in Michigan

You've never been out on a ride and needed to go a couple miles in dirt? Or down Dillon road in Palm Springs? :D

It seems like they're going away from the old-manness of the old Roubaix design and made it racier with some cobble absorbing characteristics, so maybe it's not being designed for people like us, it's being designed for classics racers and they're hoping the "win on sunday, sell on Monday" approach works out.

I think the new frame is significantly better looking than the old roubaix, particularly in larger sizes.

Is the new Roubaix SCS-spaced? Is the frame still designed with the proprietary spacing? I did not see mention on that in the specs but surely Specialized would not abandon it (I hope they do). Alright, decisions have almost been made...I need a new mountain bike first (my true passion) and then I'll look into trading or selling my SL4 and picking up this 2017 model. I can only afford one big purchase at a time but before I plonk down that much cash, I'll certainly demo the Roubaix to make sure the rear is slightly more compliant than my SL4. The front is going to be cushy for sure.

Nope it is I believe a 142. They did drop SCS from the Roubaix and it looks like they will not be pushing too many bikes to that spec. The 17 Diverge I know still uses it but I bet the 18 wont.

I thought all their road bikes (not the SCS frames) were 135F/100R. 142 though? That's a MTB spec. Glad they dropped SCS, but I hope it is 135.

Site says it is a 12x142. I assume this is to make room for the disc.

I think it could be the disc, and the thru axle. I have a disc CruX, a rim-brake Roubaix SL4, and a 2016 Tarmac Disc...all 135 spacing. My MTBs are 142 (though the new standard is 148- Boost). So it could be that Specialized wanted to build a stiffer rear triangle and a stiffer wheel with the 142 spacing...and it will build a stiffer wheel. Interesting stuff. Thanks for checking that.

I have onwed the following bikes from Specialized:

Roubaix SL4 Expert
S Works Tarmac SL5

Just recently rode 30 fairly hard miles on a 2017 Roubaix Expert. Quite an experience

Good or bad?

I agree. I used to ride a tarmac, but since I'm older at 46 it's was too racey and aggressive on my back after 20 miles so I got a 2016 Roubaix recently. I go it not because I ride cobbles or bad roads, but because it's just more of a comfortable relaxed ride.. Last night I rode over a bad beat up part of the MUP that was horrible on the tarmac last week, but last night it was a breeze. Would it have been better on the new 2017 hrmmmm maybe, but not much more if at all. I think most Roubaix riders are more concerned with the relaxed comfort than trying to race over cobbles and still be "comfortable" which seems to be lost on the more aggressive tarmac geometry of the 2017.

I think Spech is on to something and will corner the market by getting all the road racers who ride bad roads, but they will also lose all the guys like me who want to purchase a nice relaxed fitting bike who doesn't race or ride cobbles.

I know! Nice cliff hanger :D Tell us more!

Geoff

So... if carbon fiber is the ultimate material from which to make bicycle frames, forks and other parts due to its unmatched ability to be designed where it is stiff where it should be, yet supple in areas to adequately comfort the rider; why is it that every year these bikes get more and more suspension parts on them ala MTB's to soften the ride?

Zertz, flexy seatpots, flexy downtubes, flexy headtubes, now a combination of flexy seatpost + flexy downtube + a MTB-like suspension in the head tube is the "game changer."

Wouldn't the magic of properly designed carbon fiber negate the need for such things if it truly was the ultimate material?

I can tell you have not ridden the new one. Go test one and see for yourself. I'll say this, I have done several races, including crits, on my SL4; I would not do a crit on a 2017 Roubaix.

Waiting for the local bike shop to start "renting" them so I can at least put 20+ miles on it AND beat it up on the bad roads to see what all the hype is about.

So although they are moving more toward a race geometry it seems it can't be raced? Just adds more confusion as to whom the bike is really designed for...

It can be raced, i just wouldnt race it in a crit.

The new roubaix is faster, stiffer, more compliant and more comfy than the old one. It mutes the ride to buttery smooth, which is something i cant say of my SL4. It doesnt feel quite as explosive but that is just because your contact points are detached from what the bike is doing. The bike is actually going faster, you just dont feel it. The SL4 rides more like a tarmac. The new roubaix is a whole different game. I found it even a little too comfy. I like being aero and these bars were high up. Made it feel very relaxed for all day riding. The gearing is great too for endless hours of spinning.

Yeah, I felt the bars were ridiculously high on the one I test rode around the block. They did the same on Diverge bikes... When I ordered my Diverge, I told the shop right away to reverse the stem when they assemble it, and I ended up lowering the stem by swapping some of the rings up!

If I ever get the blessing to order a 2017 Roubaix (very unlikely haha), I'll actually order a negative stem, which I believe one of the many reviews indicated was available.

Geoff

:lol: HAHAHAHAHA

I'm on a 2014 Sworks Roubaix, full Ultegra mech. Apparently it will be my last as my road bike will not be a disc brake bike until I'm unable to find a bike I like without disc brakes. I have 5 bikes and 4 of them have discs because they are needed...but I don't need or want them on a road bike. Additionally I got a Roubaix so I could have a geometry that was NOT like a Tarmac (I'm 65). Oh well. I'm sure many will love it.

Carbon finer does have excellent damping properties compared to aluminum (not steel per se), from a purely material perspective, meaning energy is dissipated within the material, causing shock and vibration to decay more quickly - all other things being equal.

Comfort has always had a lot to do with geometry, whether it be the seat stays in combination with seat posts or the fork geometry. We have always relied on the flexibility of these frame elements in some way.

Designs like the Trek Domane merely reduce the geometric constraint on some of these members in a purposeful way that increases their ability to deflect under high loads…the carbon fiber is still responsible for the decay so that the rider doesn't bob endlessly and get thrown off the bike.

The Roubaix has taken it a step further in the absorption of large displacements at the front of the bike on the basis of their own research which suggests that 'axial' deflection is the most beneficial relative to forward speed. This is something that the carbon elements in the design are not capable of achieving at - least with existing bicycle geometry. So they have reached limits of what carbon can offer here, and are layering on new tech to bring new levels of comfort and control.

Zertz don't offer more displacement, but rather promote quick decay of micro vibrations through the frame, transmitting less roach chatter to the rider. This appears to be intended to enhance carbon's already favourable damping properties (relative to Al). Again, in no way does this increase deflection of the frame, thereby reducing deflection of the rider.

So, each implementation seems to take very different approaches to improving rider comfort, either by dissipating energy through damping (hertz), OR by increasing frame deflection to reduce transmissibility and overall amplitude of larger bumps to the rider (Domane, Roubaix). Zertz and the new Roubaix suspension pick up where carbon leaves off, whereas the Domane simply exploits carbon's existing flexibility by bringing the members together in innovative joints.

Is carbon the ultimate material? It is very lightweight and formable and has excellent damping properties. It excels primarily in its weight relative to steel which is also known to be a very comfortable material.

gotcha

hmmm.. basketball sized? barely felt it? You're talking about holes roughly 10"/25cm across and 10"/25cm deep.

For people that have test riden... How much slop is there in the Future Shock? Like, put on the front brake and rock the bike back and for by the handle bars.

Noted in some reviews is a desire to have a 'lockout' similar to mtb fork lockout (woulda been my first thought for this type of use) - I imagine if the future shock is already 'done' for '17, then it should make it into the next version.

SO lsberrios1,why would you not race it in crits? I have my considerations, but would love to hear your reasons...

If it rides even close to my tarmacs, I would be very stoked to try and prolly buy... not sure if my wheel budget would be able to take the whole disk thing right now, since I'd want at least 1 bkup wheelset for it. But, hey, you gotta go sometime... and at the rate I injure myself, I'm not gonna be able to do much of anything in a few years, better to get all in right now.

I didn't mean in depth, but in width yeah, at least 10 inches across. That's why I was so impressed. Probably 3 or 4 inches deep. It was a pothole not a sinkhole lol.