New S-Works Roubaix stack

[Boshk]

Still early stages, I'm looking for a lighter-weight climbing bike and came up so far with these:
S-Works Tarmac SL6
S-Works Roubaix
Emonda SLR
TCR SL
Chapter2 Tere

I'm just going through their geometry and what stands out the most is the Specialized Roubaix's stack, its 570mm for a size 52.
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/s-wor ... 620-170278

Comparing it to the others, the TCR is 529mm, Tarmac is 527, Emonda 547 and Tere 555mm.

Does that imply the Roubaix has the most upright position even compared to TCR/Emonda?

[Alexbn921]

Yes and No. What stack do you have now and are you using spacers/riser stem? Riding position has a very large range of adjustment. Stack is a starting point and a -10 to -16 stem will most likely get you lower than you need to go. If you want a really low front end then its high starting stack can hinder that.

Slammed stems look cool so that might be a bonus.

[Karvalo]

Still early stages, I'm looking for a lighter-weight climbing bike and came up so far with these:
S-Works Tarmac SL6
S-Works Roubaix
Emonda SLR
TCR SL
Chapter2 Tere

I'm just going through their geometry and what stands out the most is the Specialized Roubaix's stack, its 570mm for a size 52.
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/s-wor ... 620-170278

Comparing it to the others, the TCR is 529mm, Tarmac is 527, Emonda 547 and Tere 555mm.

Does that imply the Roubaix has the most upright position even compared to TCR/Emonda?

'Even' compared to the TCR? The TCR (like the others) is a race bike, the Roubaix is an endurance bike. There would be something seriously off if the Roubaix wasn't the most upright of all of those. It's supposed to be more upright, that's the whole point.

That said, the numbers are somewhat misleading. Roubaix stack includes the future shock height, and allows for fewer spacers to be added above than most other bikes. So while the lowest possible position is comparable, the highest possible isn't.

[JohnHinMD]

The Roubaix does have a higher stack compared to all the others, and that’s because of the future shock 2.0. I previously owned a Tarmac SL3, Cervelo R3SL (2008), S-Works Roubaix SL4, and a Giant TCR Advanced SL. I now have the new S-Works Roubaix (Sagan ed.) and love it. It’s very quick handling, climbs well, is modestly aero, stiff in the wonderful threaded BB, and IMO looks better than its predecessors. I need the extra stack due to flexibility challenges from injuries/wear n tear from other sports, but I still like to ride fast and far with my group. The vertical comfort from the future shock 2.0 which I keep dialed to lockout (still a few mm’s of travel) and the Pave seatpost’s lower clamp location are just bonuses. My 54cm has a 125mm headtube (same as my 3T Exploro). The future shock on top adds the stack.

[citrusparty]

Have you looked into the "pros" edition s-works? From memory it has a proper race geo, but because they're made for the pro riders, there aren't many frames made

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[silvalis]

Still early stages, I'm looking for a lighter-weight climbing bike and came up so far with these:
S-Works Tarmac SL6
S-Works Roubaix
Emonda SLR
TCR SL
Chapter2 Tere

I'm just going through their geometry and what stands out the most is the Specialized Roubaix's stack, its 570mm for a size 52.
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/s-wor ... 620-170278

Comparing it to the others, the TCR is 529mm, Tarmac is 527, Emonda 547 and Tere 555mm.

Does that imply the Roubaix has the most upright position even compared to TCR/Emonda?

Tere's aren't that light in that sort of company. Smigeon over 1000g for the frame and the seatpost wedge was ~45g from memory. Great handling bike though.

Is a roubaix really considered light? 900g frame weight, but with all of the associated bits?

[Boshk]

The Roubaix does have a higher stack compared to all the others, and that’s because of the future shock 2.0. I previously owned a Tarmac SL3, Cervelo R3SL (2008), S-Works Roubaix SL4, and a Giant TCR Advanced SL. I now have the new S-Works Roubaix (Sagan ed.) and love it. It’s very quick handling, climbs well, is modestly aero, stiff in the wonderful threaded BB, and IMO looks better than its predecessors. I need the extra stack due to flexibility challenges from injuries/wear n tear from other sports, but I still like to ride fast and far with my group. The vertical comfort from the future shock 2.0 which I keep dialed to lockout (still a few mm’s of travel) and the Pave seatpost’s lower clamp location are just bonuses. My 54cm has a 125mm headtube (same as my 3T Exploro). The future shock on top adds the stack.

Ah thanks, the Future shock....thats why its at 570mm.
Is it true the Shock needs servicing every 500miles?

Yes and No. What stack do you have now and are you using spacers/riser stem? Riding position has a very large range of adjustment. Stack is a starting point and a -10 to -16 stem will most likely get you lower than you need to go. If you want a really low front end then its high starting stack can hinder that.

Slammed stems look cool so that might be a bonus.

My Stack at the moment is 528 (C60 seize 48S) but I also have 20mm of spacers and 90mm stem, -7deg.
The bike is very comfortable but the most km I've done on it is only 120km.

'Even' compared to the TCR? The TCR (like the others) is a race bike, the Roubaix is an endurance bike. There would be something seriously off if the Roubaix wasn't the most upright of all of those. It's supposed to be more upright, that's the whole point.

That said, the numbers are somewhat misleading. Roubaix stack includes the future shock height, and allows for fewer spacers to be added above than most other bikes. So while the lowest possible position is comparable, the highest possible isn't.

I rode my friend's TCR Advanced, size Medium and that was seriously upright and comfortable. He did have 20mm of spacer
Demo tested a size 54 (based on the Trek sizing computer, 172cm) Emonda SL Disc in San Francisco from the Trek store, stock standard bike and that was very upright too but a bit of a stretch, I think because of the stem. Gotta love disc and braking on the downhill to Sausalito

Tere's aren't that light in that sort of company. Smigeon over 1000g for the frame and the seatpost wedge was ~45g from memory. Great handling bike though.

Is a roubaix really considered light? 900g frame weight, but with all of the associated bits?

That's true, Tere isn't lighter than my C60, but should be 'more comfortable/upright' I think if purely based on stack/reach numbers.
900g, probably not 'light' compared to the likes of Emonda SLR, SL6 and TCR SL

I'm considering doing a few events one of which is a charity event (next year, Rapha Autism charity MCR to London) which is 340km (220miles) and I suspect the C60's racier position may start to hurt.
Anyway, I'll be taking the C60 to a 180km and 220km event this year, I'll see how it feels.

Also, I want a disc bike as a 2nd bike

Thanks guys for your info

[ToileySiphon]

Is it true the Shock needs servicing every 500 miles?

It's actually every 500 HOURS

Envoyé de mon SM-A530W en utilisant Tapatalk

[silvalis]

That's true, Tere isn't lighter than my C60, but should be 'more comfortable/upright' I think if purely based on stack/reach numbers.
900g, probably not 'light' compared to the likes of Emonda SLR, SL6 and TCR SL

PS: an R3 has the same geometry reach/stack as the Tere and about 100g lighter.

[Karvalo]

I rode my friend's TCR Advanced, size Medium and that was seriously upright and comfortable. He did have 20mm of spacer

A TCR M is 2mm lower stack for the exact same reach as a C60 50s or 55T. The 48s has a lower stack for the same reach, sure, but that also has a seriously steep seattube ange and much shorter TT, so for most people the available range of saddle positioning will make it a functionally smaller bike

Yeah, that TCR is seriously upright...

[Boshk]

That's true, Tere isn't lighter than my C60, but should be 'more comfortable/upright' I think if purely based on stack/reach numbers.
900g, probably not 'light' compared to the likes of Emonda SLR, SL6 and TCR SL

PS: an R3 has the same geometry reach/stack as the Tere and about 100g lighter.

Just had a look at R3, frame is sub 900kg but according to 1 ww build, the fork is 490g?? really? I thought most of these 'high end' bike had forks around the 300-390g range.

[NJCyclist]

The Roubaix definitely has more stack than any other bike I've encountered except perhaps some versions of the Domane. One thing to note is that when you ride, at least with the original Future Shock, the shock / stem sagged perhaps 10-15mm, giving an effective bar position that much lower. I'm not sure if that sag is accounted for in the specified stack, but it may not be. Also, I'm not sure if the Future Shock 2.0 has the same sag.

Final side note regarding the Roubaix. I road a rental Roubaix on some bigger climbs / descents in California, and I found the "suspension" gave me significantly greater control and stability on rough patches of the descent. I really appreciated that.

[LD001]

Still a bit confused by the stack numbers on the Roubaix. I understand the Future Shock is included in the stack numbers? That would make sense since the headtubes aren't that long. Does anyone know how many cm's are included in the stack for the Shock?

[Alexbn921]

It's a complete system and stack is listed as the bottom stem mounting surface of the FS with the smallest mounting cover. Actual riding stack will be 5-7mm below listed number because of sag.

[spdntrxi]

That's true, Tere isn't lighter than my C60, but should be 'more comfortable/upright' I think if purely based on stack/reach numbers.
900g, probably not 'light' compared to the likes of Emonda SLR, SL6 and TCR SL

PS: an R3 has the same geometry reach/stack as the Tere and about 100g lighter.

Just had a look at R3, frame is sub 900kg but according to 1 ww build, the fork is 490g?? really? I thought most of these 'high end' bike had forks around the 300-390g range.

My timemachine fork was 470g (before cutting) atleast its stiff