Specialized is advertising a "Future Shock" component that I've seen referenced now in a couple of recent threads. According to their marketing, it is smoother because it is above the head tube and the wheelbase doesn't change.

I've been trying to give the idea the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind about it, but I can't see any reason mechanically for there to be much difference with the shock in the steering tube vs a shock in the fork. The weight of the bike pivoting on the rear axle, the bike itself jarring more with the new future shock, and that's about it as far as I can see.

Yes, the wheel-base changes when shocks on the front fork compress, but it's what a fraction of a mm? Compared to a change of reach when the future shock compresses. I don't see how either effect improves or degrades handling more than the other.

So geek out and explain why this is advantageous. Or is it a gimmick?

Use search (advanced search is your friend!) for 2017 Roubaix reviews, also on Google. This has been discussed at length and although I have not personally tried it, the reviews are generally quite favorable. You may wish to go to a local dealer and test ride to see what all the hoopla is about.

But what do you think, and why? We can go beyond internet searches for reviews here.

Why do you think that the position of the shock will decrease the bobbing of mass?

I like how it does not look like you have a shock.

If the point is rider comfort,

there is no need to absorb shock to the frame.

Brake dive is a thing.

It's not just wheelbase, it's also weight transfer... and is part of the reason the stuff on your back seat goes sliding off onto the floor (as the back seat becomes an decline place exactly when the forward force increase) and the tools in your truck come flying forward under braking.

1983 Yamaha XJ900 Seca-anti dive

One answer that makes sense to me.

Possibly also less stiff spring, with differing fundamental frequency, more appropriate for the road. But that's not dependent on moving the spring from the fork to the handlebar.

But other answers ... weight transfer during braking, for example, will not be appreciably altered if at all.

Ride the Futureshock and a regular fork shock AND FEEL THE DIFFERENCE or not.

I have ridden both, currently have an Expert on order. There is NO DIVE so there is NO REBOUND from a dive, there is simply a soft dampening effect going on that feels cushy with no drawback (that I could feel) on acceleration or out of saddle-up on the pedals cranking.

Don't know the mechanical side of future shock, but definitely noticeable improvement over no FS, or even Trek's elastometers on their domane series. Im toying around with the idea of an endurance geo road bike and tried both Trek's domane with elastometers, which while I liked the geo, could not tell that their carbon layup or elastometers were really adding anything comfort-wise that couldn't have been achieved with better tires. The FS definitely did take the edge off...maybe no more than what really good, cushy larger tires would do, but better than is typically achieved in the 26's that were mounted on the bike.

That said, someone that road the shock system that C'Dale used to have on the steering tube, right above the fork? It didn't have much travel either, thought it was a similar theory, yet they did not continue manufacturing that ride dampening system.... As much as I appreciated the ride that the FS provided, I've yet to pull the trigger on the bike. I have other road bikes to ride, so guess I'll wait and see a bit longer while I make up my mind, to see if Spec sticks with FS, or this was a 1-2 season experiment.

Having owned a Roubaix (with the FS) for 3 weeks the greatest benefit to me is the calming of the heavy front end vibrations it provides. My story is a bit unique in that I broke both my wrists in a motorcycle accident years ago and the repair was not cut and dry. So because of that my wrists are more susceptible to vibration than most.

It was affecting me a good bit with my old Cannondale too. I could ride it but rough roads were a pain from a vibration standpoint. So when I decided I wanted to upgrade my bike (wanted to try electronic shifting and a carbon frame) and I heard about the FS I had to give it a shot!

And it does exactly what it says it does. Roads that I would avoid on my Cannondale to avoid the vibrations in my wrist I can down go down with ease now. There is still vibration (it's not a cure-all) but the level is acceptable to my wrists.

I'm also not foolish enough to go hit every deep hole or crevice I can find to test it out (I do avoid the major pits in the road as i did with my other bike).

So while it might be a gimmick (especially if you can handle the vibrations and rough impulses from a regular frame with carbon fork) it can be valuable to some subsets of riders!

Definitely not a gimmick. I've seen early-20s folks who haven't yet learned about mortality and wear/tear decry it as unnecessary, and I must say that if I were still 21 I would have a Tarmac instead as well. But instead I choose this bike which seems -almost- as nimble, but which allows me to go over rumbly bridges and railroad crossings without feeling a hint of the harshness that I still found coming through the 2011 Roubaix (which handled as a truck in mud.)

Not a gimmick.

Just not necessarily appreciated or needed by everyone.

That is 1 of the 2 reasons I'm drawn to it. The 2nd one is that I'm getting old and the idea of having a nice bike that will also smooth out the road is quite compelling. So whether it's gimicky or solid science, it looks like something I'd be interested in. Whether or not it's still around 5 years from now...

Great advice. Did you stop riding motorcycles? I did. Saw a bad crash the other day where the rider didn't make it.

Spot on.

Not entirely. I definitely ride my bike much more than my motorcycle now.

With the weight you have on your hands being less than the weight born by the fork, then a smaller and weaker spring might be used. Less weight is bobbing up and down that on a fork shock, because there is typically 35%-40% of your weight on the front wheel but only a few pounds on your hands. Less mass bobbing up and down means you don't lose that efficiency. The physics/mechanic geeks let us down on this thread, not jumping all over that.

So why are there no hood covers with 2cm shocks built in?

Maybe because that approach would double the number of mechanisms required and halve the number of situations where they are useful?

Good point, but they'd only need to be half as strong and could potentially be applied to any road bike.

Like this for instance but tuned up to 2cm compression

I suspect they have simply discussed this to the extent they felt useful in earlier threads.

Specialized put out a few videos on this tech as well.

You don't know the BF geeks very well I may have been too hard for them on previous threads.

Did you ask a question to which you already knew the answer?

Sorry, I've exceeded my quiz quota for this lifetime.

Maybe if the frames weren't so small, stiff and short, you wouldn't need FS.
What happens when it wears.......will it be called Future Slop?

I suspect anyone unaccustomed to servicing bearings and springs on a bike is one of two types. One, the type who doesn't mind worn-out components. Or the other, the type that puts little enough mileage on their bike so as to never see such components (hubs, future shock, bottom bracket, pedals, derailleurs) need servicing.

What do you think? Oh wow that's almost recursive