Campag4life

Basically what Specialized did when creating the endurance genre of bike in early 2000 is they 'borrowed' fit philosophy from Grant Peterson...the company founder of Rivendell. Grant for decades has espoused a larger frame size...theory being a taller bike is generally more comfortable for the average rider.


https://www.rivbike.com/pages/choosing-a-frame-size


But for those average of inseam, a tall head tube plus horizontal top tube which begets a long seat post bike...what frame size to this day still relates to...which has evolved to virtual seat tube size due to sloping top tubes...tall head tube bikes for many are hard to stand over. Specialized with their sloping top tubes surmounted this challenge allowing riders to have their cake and eat it too. Further, the Roubaix has evolved more to a race bike but with comfortable compliancy. Way back to the SL2, many thought the bike felt more like a wet noodle which was great for pot holes but a pretty uninspiring bike to ride. That all changed with the SL3 which had more Tarmac like stiffness laterally but still wouldn't loosen teeth on rough roads. SL4 Roubaix was even stiffer which btw some didn't appreciate and of course the new Future Shock Roubaix has won bike of the year because of its uncanny comfort and laser like handling and energy transfer. I even look forward to the next gen where they take the Future shock to another level because it seems that a spring needs a damper for maximum efficiency and I see a day where Specialized further tames the future shock with companion damping. I believe technology will take us there...a miniature mountain bike front fork effectively which most know that have torn them down for rebuild have both springs and of course fluid or pneumatic damping as well to attenuate unwanted spring oscillations.


Point I was trying to make to Masque is...he basically chose a very racy frame size for somebody 6'1" which btw some do, even a few on this forum but he rides it in an un-racy manner which gives his body no place to go but upright. A way to look at fit on a road bike is...whether you ride with a low handlebar or a high handlebar, reach must be served. If it isn't, this generally results in an uncomfortable or non powerful position. Pretty hard to propel a road bike fast if riding in a cruiser position...not only mechanical inefficiency due to lack of glute enlistment but catching too much air which robs watts at 20 mph. Of course a 6'1" guy can ride a 56, but typically the cockpit is lengthened to that of a 58 with a longer stem. The net result is simply more drop....maybe a bit more toe overlap and .5 degree sta...generally. Now Masque said he would need a 90cm stem of a 58 which again is pretty bolt upright...so pretty clear that is his riding preference. On my 58cm Roubaix for example, and I believe I have a shorter torso than Masque, I ride a 110-120mm stem length. I have what I consider a very average road bike fit...not overly aggressive but not bolt upright...back angle close to 45 deg with hands on the hoods...a pretty nominal if not conventional road bike fit.


HTH

Masque

A couple of points.

But(t): Glute enlistment is more affected by fore-aft position than by torso angle. This is easily demonstrated. Slide back to engage your glutes, slide forward to emphasize quads. And then do these while riding no-handed, and notice it works exactly the same way.

You speak of uprightness, and stretching out, and I appreciate your longer explanation of your perspective much more than in the one which simply said I was too stupid to understand.

You still refuse to acknowledge that arm length is a factor in fit. Torso and leg length are only two of the three lengths that matter. Let me supply you with some numbers, though, and perhaps you will reconsider your conclusion.

• The 56 comes has a reach of 385mm, a stack of 629mm, and comes with a 100mm stem.
• The 58 comes has a reach of 390mm, stack of 650mm, and comes with a 110mm stem.
• Presuming the stems are mounted downward, at -6°, the handlebar reach difference is 15mm.
• This is also the exact difference in front-center measurement between the two sizes (590mm/605mm).

By fitting a 56 with a 110, handlebar reach is five millimeters less than a stock 58. That is what you see in the photo above.

Let's consider physiology:
• My wingspan is 180.5cm, or 4.5cm shorter than the "normal" 185cm for someone 6'1".
• That 4cm difference, or 22.5mm per arm.

My arms are likely 2cm shorter than yours, yet my reach is within 5mm of yours. And I am too upright, you say?

Later today I am auditioning a -17° 120mm stem, which will reduce my stack height by 22mm and lengthen my reach 11mm.

This will put my effective reach, given arm length differences, at about 3cm longer than yours — and my measured very close to the stock reach of a size 61!

I suspect I won't be too upright on that setup, either.

Campag4life

No arm length matters for sure as you say. But for me for example...I have a saddle height of 78cm from top of saddle to BB center and yours is likely less, so not only is my saddle height higher on a given frame compared to you which increases my reach but you likely have a bit longer torso which decreases your reach as well. You may in fact with your short arms need even more reach than me. Hard to know because we are talking theory here. All said, you may prefer a more upright set up...which is OK...it just isn't a typical roadbike set up. I have a 6'1" friend who has a Venge VIAS size 56cm with 110mm stem and even with shorter head tube than your Roubaix, he rides upright...and I do too when riding his bike which I have.


As far as glute enlistment...you talk about fore/aft saddle position...I presume you mean relative relative to BB centerline. Yes...but you can't get glutes in the game....the pick up the chair next to a wall analog is often mentioned...or getting out of chair, without about a 45 degree torso angle...or abouts. Same FWIW if hitting a hard forehand in tennis or driving a golf ball a long way...no power with an upright torso.


Good luck with your fit. I probably am guilty of speaking a bit out of school without seeing you in person riding the bike but we are the same height and ride a different size Roubaix and I saw your seat pointing down and handlebars rolled back common to upright riders...and made a comment and I probably shouldn't have. Me personally, I don't think you need a -17 stem. You don't need more drop...just more reach...120mm or 130 stem with 6 deg stem would be fine probably. A 56 is already going to have more drop than a 58 and drop isn't the point of the Roubaix...rather the opposite.


But fit, is a search and good luck to each of us to find our best fit as each of us are different as pointed out.

johngwheeler

Looks like a Bianchi and a Spec Tarmac have been left too close together in the garage and produced this offspring....

johngwheeler

I'm curious which spring weights you have settled on for you 2017 Roubaix.

I imagine rider weight and typical road surface type are important in this choice, so here are mine:

69kg/152lbs - riding mostly on average quality urban pavement with some damaged / rough surfaces.

I'm using the default yellow (40lb) spring but am looking to go lighter as long as this doesn't compromise the handling.

What do you use?

Gr00v3

question for all fellow Roubaix owners. I've noticed some noise coming out of my front end when I'm doing out of saddle efforts, whether it's climbing or sprinting. It sounds, for lack of a better description, pebbles in a jar shaking about. Has anyone else encountered this?

Roderick77

Stick69, did you get the SL4? How's it working out? I tested an SL4 out for 4-5 miles and it felt great. I'm looking at either an SL4, an SL4 Sport, or going with a 2018 model with the disk brakes and Future Shock that are standard for each Roubaix.

Thanks,

Rod

Stick69

We went to Performance to look at Fuji bikes. They had a new-old-stock carbon Scattante that fit him really well so my son decided to save some money. He never road the Roubaix with future shock just the older version.

Dean V

Remember to allow for stack in the reach measurement.
The 58 is effectively around 12mm longer than the 56, not 5mm.

Masque

Okay. I'll bite. Show me the math on this?

Masque

I'd have that inspected by a mechanic you trust. Nothing should sound like that.

Dean V

It is because the reach is measured at the stack height.
If you had two frames of equal reach but different stack heights and then set the bars at the same height(saddle/bar drop) on both, ie the shorter stacked frame would require more spacers, the end result would be a different reach on each frame.
If you look at a pic of how they measure stack and reach it should make sense. Basically due to the head angle effecting measurements.

Masque

This is the hypothesis. I was hoping to see the math; the proof.

Dean V

(Stack 1) - (Stack 2) x Tan(90 deg - head angle) = change in reach.

Campag4life

Dean's premise is correct. It isn't a stretch to understand the construct that reach which is really a misnomer...that reach connotes actual rider reach which it isn't...reach is the distance from the top the steerer where stack is determined to horizontal centerline of the BB. Further actual rider reach is even affected by sta for the same rider position relative to the BB.
So to construe that a 56 Roubaix has only a 2mm difference of actual 'rider' reach is false and it starts that reach mathematically is a function of stack. Stack is a determinant of reach. So the nomenclature of 'reach' really confuses the average consumer.


I can wheel out the math because I have done it to develop a deeper understanding but if you don't have a math background, not sure it will make sense to you.

Campag4life

Thought I would post the math Masque because you requested it and you may be interested in why reach is a function of stack. If you look at the geometry chart of a 2017 Roubaix, the reach difference between a 56 and 58cm frame size is a paltry 5 mm. But do the bikes ride 5 mm's apart which can be tuned by less than a stem size? No. So the term 'Reach' is really misleading to the uninitiated because as Dean stated, it is a function of Stack. But there is more. Reach by the definition used in a geometry chart is only for keeping score. I don't want to say it is an arbitrary metric because it has more veracity than that, but it doesn't tell the full story of 'true rider reach'. Actual rider reach between a 56 and 58 is much greater. Why is that you may wonder? Because the reach of the rider factors in the position of the rider behind the BB...and....reach also factors in the Stack...or fall to the handlebar. So Reach in the context of rider reach is really a misnomer. Truthfully, top tube length is more accurate metric of rider reach than what is referred to as 'Reach' on a geometry chart. Seat tube angle affects rider position behind the BB and of course the longer the riders legs, the farther behind the BB that seat tube angle takes the rider's saddle which influences 'true reach' of a given rider.


Maybe delving into the math will help a bit. I have put together a calculation for my size 58 Roubaix.
When starting out, you first must solve for stack. Because reach is a 'function of' of stack.
Stack is a bit tedious to calculate because it involves a bit of trig and also solving for 'effective' fork length based upon fork rake typically published by manufacturers.


So here goes, and ask if you have any questions:

Masque

I think I see your point. You are saying that for a seat height that is consistent between a 56 and a 58, that the effective reach will differ more that I've said. You may be right, to a point.

But for my situation, to put the end of the stem at the same point in space relative to the same seat height on both frames is tricky.

To be clear for anyone who may not have caught it, the reach and stack being discussed is to the stem. It is not the stack and reach measurements of the frame. It is the distance from the bottom bracket centerline to the intersection of the bars and the stem. Frame stack and reach are useful for determining your starting point for a build. Stem stack and reach are useful for fitting a bicycle to a human rider.

If my 56 is set up with:
• No spacers (save the 30mm that is the FutureShock itself)
• The shorter headset hood
• Flat bars instead of the hover bars, and
• a 120mm -17° stem, then
Effective reach is 496mm, and effective stack is 625mm.

To get a 58 to those same effective reach/stack numbers would thus require also a 120mm stem, but at an angle of -32°.

The 58 is thus demonstrated to be the wrong choice, barring custom stem options.

I invite you to check my numbers, if you like. I appreciate you discussing this with me!

Masque

C4L, this is a wonderful post. Thank you so much!

Campag4life

Masque,
We've chatted as you recall a bit before about it. I wouldn't put a guy your size on a 56, but in fairness, I would have to see you on the bike. You mention you have real short arms...but honestly that works against you because the 56 has more drop...but your short arms do help create more reach for you with the shorter top tube of the 56.


I believe to do justice to a true comparison, you have to do it in CAD for a 56 and a 58 with the handlebar you ride including the seat height.


All said, what matters is, you are happy with the bike size you have chosen. I know other guys 6'1" on a 56...but they tend to be racy riders who run more drop to compensate for lack of top tube length because to lay down the watts, the big body of guys our size has to be served.


Below is my current fit...a cell pic I took the other day of size 58cm Roubaix. Note, my fit is completely unremarkable including modest drop which serves me as a good recreational cyclist who trains with fast guys.

Masque

C4L, you have a beautiful SL3. It looks a lot like how my SL2 was set up, except your seat is higher and your stem is a bit longer. If I'd had an SL3, though, I might not have upgraded.

As for drop, I had a whole 3 cm saddle to bar drop with a 110mm -7° stem. Going to 130mm and -17° increased that to 5cm*. Swapping out the Hover Bar to a bar with flat tops is next, which will put it at 6.5cm.

Without growing longer legs, adopting an even steeper stem angle, or shimming my cleats a few centimeters up like phone books on a chair at dinner, that's it for what I can do on this frame.

How much drop do you have there?

* I did find 120mm and -12° to put more pressure on my hands. I suspect that was the no-man's-land effect you were talking about.

Dean V

What is your seat height? Doesn't seem like much drop for your height on a 56.

Campag4life

Thanks Masque. Much appreciated. This is my principle road bike. I ordered it as a frameset before my bike shop ever saw one back in Nov of 2011 after reading all the reviews of how it was such a watershed bike and 30K miles later it has never disappointed. I would have bought a complete bike but preferred the SL3 Pro paint job and I am partial to Campy. The bike started life as Campy 10s and now is built as a 11s with Shimano freehub and Ultegra 11s cassette and Ultegra caliper brakes I so love. Of course Specialized has just developed another watershed with the Future Shock Roubaix which is touted as even more responsive than any of its predecessors and so when time to replace this bike, I will have to take a hard look because with that shock as reported by virtually all, there is little downside. Kudos to Specialized for continuing to raise the bar.

I have had a chance to ride many different bikes through the club I ride with and local bike shop but truthfully the SL3 Roubaix is a rare mix of comfort and decent response. I learned a long time ago, if the rider can find the geometry he/she needs, then it more about the rider than the bike and I have always been astounded by how good this bike has been down to its English threaded BB which works so nice with a Campy crankset in particular.

The stem length is 110mm and my saddle height is 78cm and drop is around 2 inches. My fit in general terms is pretty close to a French fit...or a more recreational version of what Lance rode which was more aggressive and far from aggressive for a pro rider. As to what you are doing now experimenting with different stem sizes. I have had every permutation of stem size and countless different handlebars...different width and shape on my bike....slamming the stem all the way down and 130 -17 for max drop. I have played with saddle setback quite a bit as well both forward and back. Note that I run a straight seatpost presently with the saddle pushed back a bit from center on its rails.. So I have played extensively with my fit on the bike. What I find is...the more aggressive the riders I ride with, the lower and longer the front of the bike has to be. Longer is generally a result of the back getting flatter which requires a corresponding increase in stem length But unless, I am putting out more watts to ride with faster riders, a bit more upright and less stretched out is more comfortable for my aging body. Because I am old, trying to ride with the fastest riders in town is less of priority for me now. I can keep up for a while but at greater cost to recovery and so opt to ride less aggressively almost everyday and my body feels better versus a steady diet of riding too close to my maximum which is what I have to do to keep up with the A group. Still jump in the fray now and then tho for a bit of punishment.

Good luck in your experimentation on your fit. To me, fit is work in progress and not a destination. It evolves with rider fitness. As I have written often on this forum, I believe the rider him/her self has to go out and find their best fit. A fitter can't find it...though they can put a novice rider in the ball park starting out. No teacher better than trial and error. Try everything and then settle on what works best so I believe you are on the right path with playing with different stems. Flip them up and flip them down. Push your saddle forward a bit and tilt the nose up for example. Congrats again on your new Roubaix. Would definitely be on my shortest list of bikes to choose to replace my SL3. Pure race bikes make the most sense if hammering all the time in the fastest A group rides. But for less aggressive but sporty riding, a bike like a Roubaix makes perhaps the most sense in my experience. I never felt this bike held me back...all on me.

Masque

73.5cm, if I remember correctly. I'll re-measure it and update tomorrow if this is wrong.

It's likely to go down a couple of mm as I transition to thinner-soled shoes this week... :/

ruppster

Make sure there is one of those plastic spacers above the future shock cover. If not, the cover can rattle. I put one back in because of the rattling after initially slamming the stem on mine. For what it's worth I really don't think the term "slamming the stem" works with this height head tube.
Also check that your front axle is tight.
BTW mine is a 58 (I'm 6'2"), black and orange Comp with the stiffest spring installed. Very comfortable bike, I rode it 100 miles Saturday and 65 more yesterday.

Gr00v3

Thanks mate, I discovered that yesterday. That fixed the cover rattle, but I still have the creaking/crackling noise in the out of saddle efforts. Yesterday while climbing, I tried putting less weight on the bars, and I think maybe the bottom bracket is making the noise, and traveling up to the bars? I'll probably have my LBS check it out sometime this week if I can find the time