The design is overly fiddly to FS set screw preload torque. A precarious balance between not tightening the preload enough to quiet FS rattle vs. overtorquing set screws freezing FS bearings and prematurely failing it requiring replacement. No doubt much of the issues that owners have are with misadjustment of the FS preload. A basic threadless headset steerer has one central preload screw. Many...not all here, know how to adjust the preload on a road bike with a std headset. That said, probably 50% of those who ride their road bikes...even on this forum have their headset set too tight or too loose. Too loose and headset bearings can 'false brinnel'...
https://www.linearmotiontips.com/how...at-brinelling/

and conversely, too tight, headset bearings can prematurely fail due to excessive ball/race stresses. A balance which btw is little different than setting up press fit crankset axial preload many get wrong and prematurely fail BB30 bearings for example for the same reasons.

So that is the balance with a 'std road bike headset'.

Now introduce two game changing design ingredients.
1. Two preload screws. Why did they not opt for a better singular axial screw as with a std head set? Because the inner working of the Future Shock preclude this. What is the pitfall with having two bi-lateral screws control FS retention? Competing inequivalent torque can cause cocking of the Future Shock inhibiting shock stroking.

2. Preload now has to work with a stroking shock. With a std headset, a singular axial screw only has to retain the bearings in place so they won't brinnel due to clearance and road shock nor fail due to excessive axial stress due to screw overtightening. A stroking shock that is sensitive to competing screw torque headset preload is a POOR design that is fiddly...which flirts with a balance of either prematurely failing the shock or rattling if set screws aren't at an inequivalent and just the right torque.

Here is a video of average Joe who struggled with it which reflects the above. So that is the technical description set to comments made in this thread and elsewhere.

So all these words to complain there are two head set set-screws in stead of one?

Only things I can think of is there is no real retention of the two set screws. > Use loctite, or the collar fixating the FS cartridge doesnt stay in place, but I have heard no such thing.

Re. #1 "What is the pitfall with having two bi-lateral screws control FS retention? Competing inequivalent torque can cause cocking of the Future Shock inhibiting shock stroking." What are you even trying to say? How would the two head set set-screws prevent the FS cartrige from working?

Re. #2 Equally convoluted language. You seem to not understand the set screw on a standard head set, does noting once the stem clamp is tightened. You can take it out if you wish. If the set screws/pre load is set right, there is no "stroking shock" to either a normal or FS headset assembly.

Overall I do agree its a little bit fiddly, but that, IMO, is to be expected with a suspended design.

Im not sure what Im supposed to see in the video. Anyone can struggle with anything. Lots of ppl doesn't know how to put on on a new chain or patch a tube either. Doesn't mean tubes or chains are rubbish

OK then, you have proved your point. All future shock issues discussed on this forum are an illusion. This thread and those with bad experience with the future shock are mistaken. Nothing to see here. Everybody move along.
Have a nice day Dan. :)

Yeah, what ever :rolleyes:

In case you didn't read the whole thread, this is the opening post from Big Wally. Maybe you could help out and give him some good advice. I am sure he would appreciate it:


Having some impact-related noise coming from the shok cartridge area. Started suddenly after ~1300 silent miles and coincided with the shok somehow binding resulting in loss of 1/3 to 1/2 of its normal range of travel. LBS able to restore range of motion but not eliminate the noise. Modest impacts (which are frequent) result in a knock sound reminiscent of two metal surfaces contacting each other that presumably shouldn’t be, and weren’t before the binding occurred. LBS has tried retorquing etc and also swapping FS cartridges. Knock still present and now also present on the donor Roubaix. Both puzzling and troubling.
So I’m curious if other 2017-2018 Roubaix (or Diverge with FS) have had same/similar issues. And if so how was the problem resolved? Thanks

You are just deflecting. I asked you a specific question related to your reply in #101.

You said: "What is the pitfall with having two bi-lateral screws control FS retention? Competing inequivalent torque can cause cocking of the Future Shock inhibiting shock stroking."

And I asked in #102: " What are you even trying to say? How would the two head set set-screws prevent the FS cartrige from working?"

To which you, in #103, replied a snide remark, that is now edited to another snide remark. None of which is actually a reply to the question.

This is a silly question. No one ever claimed each and every FS units are free from defects. Im sure some experience trouble, just like some experience trouble with every other mechanical part of a bicycle. That, however is not proof its a bad design, that ist poorly manufactured or what ever else you claim. The headset on my new bike came loose too. So what. Is that proof ordinary headsets are poorly designed too?

The is what the assembly looks like:

You are right Dan. You make a lot of sense. Good designs experience the most trouble. Bad is good and good is bad. This thread isn't proof of a bad design. For one thing, nobody has held up a sign and decried it so. Most owners that have struggled with their FS may have been demons in their previous life and carried karma on through.
Of course there are those that don't believe in such things.
I think you have solved the mystery of why some have struggled with the FS. I am sure those you help here will be grateful..lol.

Here is another member you can help:

My Diverge has had done around 180 miles and had one cartridge replaced after 70 miles due to knocking. I’ve just come back from Italy and it’s knocking again so I’ll be taking it back to the shop. The knocking is apparent if I drop the front wheel from a few inches onto a hard surface. This disappeared as soon as it was replaced the first time. I’ll be asking the shop to contact specialized and if it can’t be fixed I’ll be demanding my money back.

In stead of deflecting and spouting nonsense, you could just answer the question I asked you, if you wanted to contribute anything meaningful.

Your questions suggest, there isn't much opportunity to communicate and you don't follow what I'm laying down.

Will give you an example. Did you study the design? Do you see where a hollow larger allen lock screw is superimposed onto a smaller allen screw?...this construction on each side of the steerer?...responsible for headset preload. I am going to give you shot at a design critique. Questions are:

1. What is the fundamental flaw of this design...having a lock or set screw on top of hidden free turning preload screw?...again, hollow allen lock nut on top of smaller allen preload screw...one on each side.

2. Based upon this flawed design, what is a basic design tenant that allows the top lock screw from breaking free from the bottom hidden preload screw during disassembly?

3. And if you feel confident in your response to 1 and 2, why are lockscrews even necessary with the FS design versus a standard steerer? 3rd question is the easiest.

If you get these questions right, we have a basis to communicate. Otherwise we are just wasting our time.

I hope this makes sense.

I can even take a stab at why some rattle and some don't. Its based upon a stack up of how the collar is located to the fork. The true position of this set screw..both on the collar and on the fork...this tolerance stack up may compete with how much preload is applied. The design is frought with issues.

Make no mistake, when customers struggle, the robustness of the design including manufacturing variation do not encompass the operational variation and build adjustment.

More deflection.

I have read and reread your posts and answers several times. You honestly appear to not understand how the shock cartridge is secured in the fork steerer and how the head set pre load is adjusted. The way you word your posts, indicates that you think the two set screws both set the pre load and secures the cartridge in the sterrer. That is not how it works.

#101 "2. Preload now has to work with a stroking shock. With a std headset, a singular axial screw only has to retain the bearings in place so they won't brinnel due to clearance and road shock nor fail due to excessive axial stress due to screw overtightening. A stroking shock that is sensitive to competing screw torque headset preload is a POOR design that is fiddly...which flirts with a balance of either prematurely failing the shock or rattling if set screws aren't at an inequivalent and just the right torque."

If this is what you think, you are simply wrong. As seen in the above video, there is a collar, similar to a seat post clamp, that secures the cartridge in the steerer. That collar also holds the two set screws for the headset, but setting the pre load and locking in the cartridge is still separate. First you clamp in the cartridge with the collar, then you set the head set pre load. I can see how this can be confusing to some, but im betting modern standard head sets were confusing to most, first time around too.

You still haven't answered my question in #102 that was repeated in #106.

Let's do this Dan. Let's stop talking past one another. This is what I did for a living. Not sure what your background is but pretty clear it isn't design. Your comments are beyond simplistic and will leave you to your world view. :)

Bottom line, is the design is flawed and why many can't tame their particular bike after repeated visits to the bike shop. It has to do with the tolerance stack up of the assembly...the sensitivity of the design. The future shock cartridge is a slip fit into the large diameter fork steerer. A single set screw attaches the FS cartridge to the collar which creates an eccentric attachment of the cartridge within the collar as looking from above aka plan view. Further eccentricity of the cartridge within the steerer tube ID is introduced by inequivalent preload screws. This will further cock the cartridge within the fork steerer ID. Depending on any asymmetry of preloading side to side by having two preload screws which can compete in torque and further rotate the cartridge when looking from the front of the bike, the bottom of the cartridge can and WILL cock within the steering tube inducing a rattle because it is a slip fit only. One side of the fork steerer ID at the bottom of the FS cartridge contact will have more load than the other side of the cartridge which may even have slight clearance. It is little different really than an undersized seat post within a seat tube that toggles about the seat collar clamp based upon rider loading setting up a rattle. Some bikes won't rattle. This is based upon the build tolerances interacting with part variation aka mfg tolerance. Also has to do with rider loading of the handlebar.

Above is all I will say on it. There are other issues with the design but the design is prone to rattle.

I hate people....

Dude. No one cares for your claimed credentials you seem so eager to remind us every other post. Especially not combined with your ever present snide remarks.

Your answer is a bunch of baloney. It assumes poor build tolerances, that you dont know anyway, and someone not understanding how it works and how to adjust it, like the guy in the video you posted. Arguing this way, anything on a bike >may< not work. - If there is a stack up of anything, its a stack up of ifs and butts, thats handy if you want knock something you dont like. You post is akin to arguing bicycle hubs with QRs doesnt work or are poorly designed, because the QR load WILL compress and bend the axle. True, but none the less we have used them for the better part of 100 years. Your answer is also not in line with earlier replys. Learn something in the meantime, silently moving the goalposts, are we? :rolleyes:

I've resisted responding to your posts in this and other threads for several days...I can resist no longer...

Every one of your posts is laced with hubris...'Simplistic' is how I would describe the narrative you're spinning with respect to 'bean counters' and 'greed' at Specialized...They are no more greedy than someone having any kind of publicly-listed stocks or funds in a 401k.

I, like you, have a background in design. I lead programs in the design and production of rugged products for military apps, many of which of have shock/vibration isolation systems to enable electronics to withstand gunfire and the shock and vibration of miitary-vehicle environments. I have a bachelor of aerospace engineering degree, master of mechanical engineering degree, and an MBA. My career as a PE was spent designing isolation systems for ground and airborne military systems. I have a strong appreciation for the technical nuances on which you speak. What I find deafening about your pitch is not the merit of your technical points, but the air of superiority you project.

Your narrative suggests that a) Specialized designers/engineers are incompetent or at least less competent than you, and b) that the so called 'bean counters' over-rule the better judgement of the technical staff. I think this is a very naive and arrogant posture. If you've moved through the ranks in any engineering or product-design-based company, you would have a more balanced, less cynical view than this. Especially if you were to rise to Director of Engineering - a critical executive function within such an organization - not merely a technical puritan without a grounded sense of business reality.

The idea that Specialized would knowingly release a faulty design is not the most likely explanation. It is reasonable to assume that they might 'learn something' upon transitioning to production, revealing tolerance-based defects as the ones being discussed in this thread. When I go to low-rate initial production and transition into full-rate production, I routinely expect to observe synergistic effects (often based on poor supplier Cpk) that haven't presented themselves previously. The measure of any good company is how much of this learning they can complete prior to release, and how prepared it is to respond to such defects that land in the hands of the early-adopter customer. It is totally reasonable to assume that this issue may never have presented itself on highly toleranced pre-production protos that may have been produced in local machine-shops in a highly repeatable fashion. It's possible that specialized never tested all combinations of worst-case tolerance stack-ups and that all pre-production assemblies may have landed deceptively in a sweet spot. This happens a lot in pre-production. Part drawings show a tolerance but that tolerance-range and the stack of ranges is rarely exercised until the drawing is sent to a different supplier for example, or until enough copies are produced for the effects to emerge - only then do such effects present.

You seem to think you're the most technically competent poster in this thread. I chuckle when I see someone like yourself splashing credentials around...you come off as being very needy for recognition of how exceptionally insightful you are rather than letting your arguments stand on their merit, and the evidence would show that you love to hear yourself type.

Finally, you haven't really answered previous queries as to why you are so militant on this issue...my own hypothesis is that you believe your unique experience in design provides you a platform to self-aggrandize, rather than coming from an altruistic concern for others.

While I may not buy a FS equipped bike, I do own two domanes, one being the SLR model with adjustable 'first-mode'. I, for one, applaud industry-leaders for their attempt to build a better mousetrap. It keeps the designer and engineer in me lusting for newer and infinitesimally better performing gear.

I empathize with any FS owners experiencing issues with their new bikes. I applaud FS owners for their willingness to try something new and hope that Specialized works to ensure that they have a satisfactory outcome.

How can I possible respond without lowering decorum on the forum. So I just can't address all the things you wrote without it sounding like a diatribe of repudiation.
Can't respond to your incendiary attack because incompatible with forum guidelines.

In bold, and no surprise, you are wrong about that too. I simply see it too often and have lived it. An indictment about the dark side of industry. A rerun that never ends. Same reason that NASA killed those astronauts with space shuttle Columbia. Incompetence in part but generally somebody knows what should have been done going in. Countless designs are released in spite of knowing the technical risk and greed is always at the core. There is a saying perhaps you have heard, that at some point in a project life, the engineer has to be killed and the project released. Many designs are ill fated and to me...perhaps you differ on the FS, but to me the design is very poor. This is my opinion. The point of the forum is to share our opinions. Perhaps you like the FS and Specialized carbon OSBB on their S-works that they finally discontinued or the bad brakes on the VIAS...or maybe you work at Specialized and you know they were shipping bad forks on their new Allez redesign which is a repeat of previous gen Tarmac fork failures which they should have learned their lesson. As you know, there is a discipline all the critical path of development of all of this...what a DFMEA is for and all the disciplines put in place to prevent failures in the field.

I probably shouldn't dignify your comments because they weren't nice, but objectively how I feel. People know better and yet do the wrong thing. The engineers at Specialized know exactly what is going on with every product. Yes, once in a blue moon they are caught by surprise. Or a supplier lets them down and incoming inspection misses a critical check which robs functionality out in the field. But designs get release to all the FS owners here and it turns out to be a lottery of which ones will work versus not and just aint cool for those that lose the bike lottery.

Good news on this is...this issue won't cost lives. Not the case in other industries where doing the right thing is skirted. People trying to save their skin at the expense of others.

This isn't a bad response...I appreciate the decorum...

My post above is not intended to be incendiary, but observational. And it is 'designed' to cause you some reflection on how your posts are perceived by me and ostensibly others - I have taken care to try not to overreach into maliciousness. I do not have the benefit of knowing you or your experiences personally, and can only take your posts at face value.

The possibilities of greed and corruption of which you speak are not impossible. Consider that it might be a stretch, and is at the very least an uninformed guess from the cheap seats when it comes to this specific case. I think it borders on conspiracy-theorist to liken the gravity of releasing a new suspension design to corruption that may have led to the death of astronauts.

Corruption shouldn't be your first 'go-to'...it is why there exists Professional Engineering licensure in many western jurisdictions. To neglect such defects is often punishable by law. I am a licensed Professional Engineer and this is strong component of the judgment exercised in any application where human safety hangs in the balance. Understand that product development is hard to get perfectly right, and small design errors and oversights become amplified once things hit production. Consider that not everyone is experiencing issues at this time with their FS bikes which should highlight the possibility that under the controlled conditions of pre-production, such a (hypothetical) flaw may have gone undetected.

If you think it's easy to get it perfectly right, you aren't experienced enough in design. Often the more successful your products, the more likely you are to quickly learn their shortcomings, notwithstanding their excellence (see bending iPhone 6).

Consider the impact of human cognitive bias, especially in the use of DFMEA. To quote Daniel Kanheman, What you see is all there is. Nowhere is this more true than in DFMEA or PFMEA. You are almost completely perfect at controlling for those failure modes that you can identify. Upon completion of your analysis, you are now falsely assured that you are safe from those Black Swans that are inherently unknowable or not previously observed.

I would simply advise that you tone down the attribution part of your posts, and leave it to your expert dissection of the components. Avoid the condescending tone if you want others to absorb the technical value you are trying to provide.

I can't help but condescend to you so please forgive me. I find your mentality to be beneath mine. Your sophomoric rambling. :) You have taken me to task without provocation. Basically an ad hominem attack. You even admitted you had nothing to challenge my technical attribution. You don't understand industry if you can't grasp the Space shuffle analog. Your last sentence was simply laughable. You of all people..now that is rich...lol.

Not ad hominem. I am not assailing (or even commenting-on for that matter) the integrity of any of your technical observations, on the basis of the vulgarity of your tone. I was too awestruck by your attribution of greed and 'bean counters' to get much further, frankly.

Three issues:

Your technical dissection: I have never held or examined the mechanics of the FS. You and other posters seem to have analyzed the issue well...I am attracted to the aesthetic of your argument relating to tolerance-stack susceptibility, preload, and adjustment and think you may be onto something, as covered in my first post. Especially given the sporadic nature of the issue's prevalance.

Your attribution: You have tried to explain the rash of issues and possibility of a latent design defect by greed or incompetence, drawing on vast generalizations of things you've seen in your experience. One could argue that such statements are libellous. If you re-read your posts you will see that you have suggested things would have been different under your watch either due to your virtue or technical prowess. I simply think that you are drunk on your own awesomeness if you truly believe such things...which takes me to the final point...

Your delivery: I have taken care to tell you my hypothesis on this. I admit that I may be wrong. I apologize if I am. Consider that others have been providing you similar feedback in this and other threads.

You seem like a smart man (or woman), and you are arguably a brother (or sister) in-arms when it comes to mechanical innovation and our love for cycling and cycling tech. We are more similar than we are different, and I sincerely apologize that what I've written stung. It was not my primary purpose.

Pardon the interruption while I laugh my ass off at the notion of C4L complaining about "not nice" comments being directed at him.

:thumb::roflmao2:

Well said.

+1

Just snorted and had some beer come out my nose. GOTTA LOVE THIS STUFF!!!

BTW, FS 2018 Roubaix Expert owner and been enjoying my multiple 100+ mile rides.