Rather common? I would say the converse. Almost non existent. Myself nor all my riding group have never experienced it. Carbon fiber is indeed known for it tensile strength but has acceptable compressive strength as well. It doesn't have great fracture resistance however as a rule but formulation can change this characteristic dramatically as well...as witnessness by Boeing's new CF airplane.

Yes designers can make mistakes. These mistakes are typically eradicated by exhaustive testing and benchmarking competitor's designs during the design phase however. The bar today is nothing like the 70's when lack of global competitition created very poor quality by comparison. Further quality and design....and even throw in performance are often confused. A design can be solid but execution can be poor. Making 10 of something in a laboratory can sometimes be a lot easier than making 1000 a day with the same quality on the assembly line.

We can use BB30 as an example. Many believe eliminating threads on a BB is a big mistake. Threads exist to address axial forces which are relatively low due to crank loads...predominantly a normal force is applied to the crank due to pedal forces. However there is a lateral torque applied to the BB and bearings are known to rock if press isn't precise or loctite used...and most importantly, if crankset axial preload is not properly set up to keep BB bearings bedded...very important say with Trek's slip fit BB30 design which some and I would submit is a mistake. Is it an insurmountable mistake? No...bearings can still be loctited in place to keep them quiet even though they are drop in fit. Trek and Specialized take a very different approach to the same design...what causes so many Madone BB's issues. The design isn't natively poor, but Trek's execution wasn't very good.

Also, you may see the industry morph toward PF-30 as Specialized is doing with the S-works frames. This reduces the tendency for bearing click or rattle because the composite cups quell resonant frequency aka noise of the bearings and reduce manufacturing cost...lessen frameset wear due to bearing replacement....and a few more benefits.
When looking at design evolution, you can look at it in weeks or months or even year to year. If you constrast designs by decade however...virtually anything made today versus the 70's is better. Also there is no question that stuff today which is much more technically advanced will tend to promote much greater probability of failure and yet the opposite is true. Products are more reliable. This is due to the discipline of design development has gotten more rigorous...the roadmap used and quality systems put in place.

I agree and disagree with you. Yes I understand and agree that it has to do largely with the external cable housing loop at the RD and so does my LBS. But look at the design of the SL3 Roubaix (and I'm not saying it isn't a great bike BTW...I'm a coin flip between it and the Giant Defy Advanced right now) the exit of the cable from the frame is above the RD attach point resulting in a short bit of housing between it and the RD. Now look at the Giant Defy Advanced, the cable exits the frame (also internal routed) about the same location as the traditional external routed cable attached which results in a longer routing.

http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Spec...9596?$Display$
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/_gener..._1_compact.jpg

I think by design the Giant will have less issues...not saying the Roubaix can't be made to work...stick a zero compression housing on there like Nokon or Yokozuna. You shouldn't have to buy aftermarket cables to get your bike to work though. Specialized should/should have provided a solution out of the box that works properly.

In a perfect world, yes.

But this is far from a perfect world. Do a search on pretty much any product line you care to choose, and you will find example after example of defective designs, features poorly implemented or just not working, buggy software (and I don't mean personal computer software; I mean embedded devices)... the list goes on and on.

The expectation is that many products are disposable or will be replaced by something newer in short order, so things are no longer engineered to be lasting. Instead, cost reduction is the order of the day, and to hell with quality.

With the exception of anything using a microcontroller (because they were not commonly available yet) almost any home appliance with a motor or heating element was better in the 70s than today, if the measure of "better" is durability and serviceability. Metal castings vice injected molded plastic, assembled with threaded hardware that can be disassembled for service vice one-way "snap tabs" that speed assembly but are next to impossible to take apart without breaking, motors without serviceable bushings, larger gauge wire that was more vibration fatigue resistant....

That is not to say that EVERYTHING was better in all possible metrics (I for one rejoice that I will never again have to deal with a Quadrajet carb) but neither is it safe to assume that all things are better NOW in all possible metrics. Nor is it safe to assume that anything new has been purified by QA. It may well be that lurking within any new product is a fatal flaw that by all rights SHOULD have been detected and eliminated in QA, but was not.

DG

Ui2 would fix the shifting problems.
BTW, comparing the RS to the other models it has longer WB, CS, less HT angle and shorter standover. HT isn't the only thing that makes a difference.

Actually we disagree on a number of levels...I respect your opinion however. I can tell you that the engineer responsible for designing the rear loop exit of the SL3 has copious data on rear cable loop radii as it pertains to internal cable psi and drag. I can see the powerpoint now. Why? Because that is how it works in product development. I prefer the Roubaix rear cable exit. I disagree it is higher friction. Further the loop can be made bigger. It doesn't take special cable to make it work. The fact is the rear loop likely have virtually nothing to do with the shifting issues for that particular Ultegra 6700. I will restate, both Ultegra and Dura Ace are VERY sensitive to cable routing with the under the handlebar tape routing in particular.

As to comparing the two bikes, the Defy is a nice bike, but I prefer the Roubaix for the simple reason that it doesn't use a trapazoid shaped proprietary seat post. Btw, Roubaix has their own post with excellent clamp system but they choose a 27.2mm round seat post for two good reasons. Btw, this is also why I wouldn't consider a S-series Cervelo. Credit Cervelo for having a 27.2mm round post on their R-series bikes which is by nature more compliant independent of design intent.
The seat post on the Giant by design is 'stiff'. It is conjectured and no doubt true that the seat post by design on the Roubaix, is an integral suspension component. Much of the heralded ride comfort is due to their post they supply with the frameset. L over D and section modulus = stiffness.
Second reason? Angular orientation of the saddle. Many don't want their saddle set straight ahead. I don't. I angle mine about 5 degrees to the left. Most don't have a symmetric pelvis and more comfort is derived with an angled saddle. Cobb writes about this on his website and is absolutely correct.

we have sold 15 of them, one had shifting issues, it was because there was not shim on the derailleur. but what ever.

The problem is...you are preaching to a guy who has worked in product development for the past 30 years. :) I have seen the evolution. What obfuscates your argument is technical advancement. Every single mechanism is more complex. Typically complex things deliver more performance however are less reliable...statistical probability. You are absolutely correct about throw away and serviceability. Lets take an Ipod shuffle. Who could realistically service one?...and how could it be cost effective? That technology didn't even exist 15 years ago or wasn't manufacturable.

There is a list of design blunders out there. BMW comes to mind with their MS based I-drive. An abomination. Yes they did perform their beta testing on their customers. Just deserts to the fat cats that bought a 7 series not knowing an automobile from a toaster where their pride and joy just sat at the dealers because the techs couldn't fix them. BMW forever pushs the technical boundary for exclusivity and their poor quality rating reflects this.

Real question is...how much functionality do you need? Di2 comes to mind. Do you need electronic shifting on a human powered bicycle? Not really. It is complex but reliable so far it seems...or so are the reports.
Broad stereotypes are a bit dangerous but the divert curves are...with the advance in technolgy, quality is surprisingly good. Engineers are limited by cost and development time aka rush to market to beat the competition.

A last note about servicability. You are absolutely right. Cost and liability far and away trump servicability. This isn't necessarily a bad thing however because many companies don't want consumers trying to fix their complicated products...they aren't technically qualified. So yes, it is evolving more toward throw away items, mostly because assemblies are more complicated, and cost of product out the door compromises servicability which makes the product cheaper to sell and therefore replace without fixing it. Take BB30. Look at all the reports of clicking integrated BB's on the internet transcending what type of bike it on. BB30's if set up properly, 'can't click'. It is about as simple of a joint as can be designed any yet many bike shops can't even set up a crank properly.

Can you explain where the shim goes and what purpose it has?
Thanks

dated? no way.....
2010 RS w/ full 6700, still rides like a dream. and cute girls like to sit next to it
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...n5858/done.jpg

i'm not hating, just stating the facts.

look at what they did with BB30 (which is open source), they essentially said it was garbage, made a minor revision to it, and called it BBright, how ******y is that? oh and btw, anyone who wants to use BBright is welcome to use it, just cut a check out to Vroomen.White design first . . . . . .

tapered head tubes, women specific geometry, shaped carbon fiber, the only design features they think are effective are the ones that they've patented.

The RS is a older design but still a good bike for the money.

If I was getting a new bike it would be the S2 or S5.

Wanted to revive this thread because I believe there was some misinformation posted about the Roubaix SL3 Roubaix which I wanted to clear up. I just completed my new build with Campy and the bike shifts flawlessly as I expected it would. The rear routing of the new Roubaix which is identical to the new SL4 Tarmac is not only an aesthetic improvement over longer rear cable loops that emit forward of the rear drop out conventionally, but is very low drag. The bike upshifts (climbs down the cassette) immediately with no lag. Specialized suggests the 'California cross' for internal routing inside the downtube. I show a pic of the handlebar routing...which in my case is the FSA K-wing. I route brake cables thru the bar and derailleur cables around the back of the bar. I believe if owners suffer any shifting issues with this bike independent of group set installed, it is due to an installation error and not the fault of the design.

Looks good and I'm glad you have it shifting well...my LBS claims they have no issues with SRAM and I know they haven't seen one with Campy...they hardly deal in it. The issues they have seen have been with the models with large frames and Ultegra or DA.

I still haven't purchased anything yet but am still leaning toward the Giant Defy Advanced...though someone here posted their TCR Advanced build and their small frame was over 1100g which is pretty disappointing considering they were claimed to be under 900g. In that vein...any chance you weighed your frame before assembly?

As to the shifting thing...don't see much difference between Campy and Shimano in terms of derailleur spring tension...so probably your friend's Ultegra build was poorly assembled...poorly cut housings...stops with too much restriction due to internal rubber O-rings...a few different opportunities for increased cable drag...notably...tangling the cables inside the downtube or installing the rear chainstay noodle cocked. As to rear loop length...mine is not long by any means as you see by the pic...so no contributor there. Btw, my frame is size 58 or XL so no contributor in terms of larger frame sizes either. Larger frame sizes shouldn't matter a bit and in fact have more relaxed cable radii and less drag. As an aside, the reason my cable loop isn't longer in the rear btw is because the Campy Ultra shift derailleur cable was at max length and I had to go that short of a loop to connect the end of the cable to the derailleur. Campy should make their cables a bit longer. Granted mine is a big bike and the longer Roubaix head tube etc takes up some cable length...but guys who build Campy with this bike for XXL will be hard pressed to use a std Campy rear derailleur cable. Not sure if Campy makes a longer one...maybe Jagwire's Campy cables are fractionally longer.

As to weight...I didn't weigh my frame but the combined frameset, fork and Roubaix carbon seat post weigh a respectable 3.13 lbs for a size 56....see pic below..another member just weighed his. That said, my bike is by no means light...about 19 lbs or just under....Toupe saddle, FSA carbon handlebar...Chorus carbon crank...with bottle cages and computer and tape. Wheelset is a bit heavy at 1800 grams or so and bike has some protective clear tape on it. Below a quick pic on left side.
PS: I believe an uncut fork on these bikes weighs 380-390 grams if you want to do the math on the frame itself.

Ok so who weighs their bike like that? In pounds and ounces?

So doing some conversions here we are looking at 1728g for the frame, fork, seatpost and hardware. If we say the fork is 380g then we are looking at 1348g...less about 65g for the headset and seatpost clamp (I weighed mine) puts us around 1283g. So if we assume the seatpost weighs the claimed 200g (Specialized S-Works Pave NH) then we are looking at 1083g for a size 56 Roubaix SL3?

Doesn't sound too far off to me. Now that is the 68mm threaded version right?

I can only assume you weren't a math major. ;)
454 grams = 1 lb
3.13 lbs = 1421 grams
subtract off the fork =390 grams = 1031 grams for frameset + headset + seatpost
Subtract off the headset and seatpost and the frame itself comes in underneath 1000 grams which I believe is what is often said about it...perhaps even quoted by Specialized. As to a threaded BB...yes the frameset is and another determining factor for me as Campy UT cranks + BB-30 is not a very happy marriage.
One tech I spoke to said...and you see a few of these on ebay...that the Roubaix Pro complete bike with Specialized crank built with say DuraAce...has BB-30 because Specialized cranks don't work with a threaded BB. It makes sense but haven't seen a Pro with Specialized crank torn down to see if indeed it is BB30.

I strongly considered just buying a complete Roubaix Pro bike from Specialized already built with Dura Ace because it is such a fine bike...good wheelset...I like DuraAce...but in the end, I wanted a threaded BB...to me Campy cranks are the prettiest and very reliable...I prefer the ergos of Campy hoods and shifting...would have changed the bars and tape...like a 155mm wide Toupe...so would have ended up changing the bike anyway. Plus if I build the bike, I know its built right. :) If there is an off the shelf bike for me however...the new Roubaix Pro with DuraAce or Red is very desirable for distance training.

Were you a math major?
3 pounds, 13 ounces = 1728 grams

3 lbs 13 oz does not = 3.13 pounds, because a pound is not 100 oz.

and i was an english major.

Exactly what I was pointing out to Campag4Life...

He is the one who said 3.13 pounds. I was pointing out that the scale reads 3 pounds 13 ounces as the first person calculated.

Campag's math was right, his reading of the scale wrong. Grasschopper's reading and math was right.

Thank you. :)

And just to bring this thread around, the "dated" 56cm RS weighs ~1040 grams with bottle cage bolts and seatpost clamp(no headset) and 3T funda fork uncut weighs 364 grams. (verified weights online)
Or a 58cm RS weighed as Campag4Life did (frame, fork, headset, seatpost(Syntace P6 that was stock a year or two back), bottle bolts and post clamp) = 1730 grams

the sl3 is something new, people look and look at it when you ride, and ask about it, and drool! so right now the WOW SHINY factor has surpassed exclusivity.

i bet you guys could shed 10 pounds from yourself, which would kill any argument against any of this 2 (rs vs roubaix) fine frames.


PS - i ride an sl3 roubaix, and i agree its comfortable and stiffer than the sl2 roubaix =-).....AND NEXT WEEK IM GETTING A ROUBAIX SL3 S-WORKS! YEAH!

I'm sure I could loose 30 lbs...but why does that mean I can't spend my heard earned money on a fine bike?

Why do people always make this stupid comment?

Please accept my apology guys...actually I am good at math but have poor eyesight as you figured out. :)
I did read the scale wrong. What is that a fish scale?...lol. Honestly, the weight thing isn't my bag really...or I am not focused on a pound or two...don't believe it matters much.

Gchopper...as to spending your hard earned money...I like all the bikes we talked about in this thread. I would be happy with any one of them...Cervelo RS or R3...Defy...actually any name brand top frame is better than I am a rider. I don't believe there is much between them. So it just comes down to personal taste and when Specialized upgraded the Roubaix...and I like the geometry so much...and reviews were so positive...that was the bike. I actually lost out on a very lightly used Cervelo RS on ebay....have been tempted by the R3 etc.

Good luck with what you decide. If you have a chance ride them all and then decide. Echotraveler...be sure to come back and provide a comparison if you will between the SL3 Roubaix with 10r FACT carbon and the mac daddy SL3 11r carbon Sworks Roubaix...which btw has a PF-30 BB. No doubt the Sworks is outstanding...but reports are there isn't $1K between them in performance...but if you gots the cash, why not? :) Would love to hear if you can feel any difference at all between the two frames.
Cheers guys.