speshelite

If you actually OWNED the product, you would've a) swapped out the elastomers appropriate for your weight, b) chosen the correct rise and length for the stem, and c) would actually be riding a bike that fit, and d) which you like.

Instead, you rode a bike you didn't like very much (or else you would've bought it) which didn't fit properly (because it's not your bike, and therefore stem length, ett, seat height and fore/aft are all off), with a stem not set up properly.

In other words, you wrote up a stupid, deceptive rant trashing a product which was not set up properly.

I hereby dub thee SpoonFRED.

curttard

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you misunderstood again, he listed the two bikes -- that he owned -- that he rode with the Shockstop. He didn't own the Shockstop, it sounds like he DID own the two bikes he tried it on:

curttard

Impression from the FB group:

And in response to someone who asked how it compared on smooth Tarmac to the previous Diverge:

wheelhot

Awesome!

Right now I'm considering the Diverge Comp E5 due to the fact that even with upgrades it's slightly cheaper or equal to the base Roubaix. And I'm not racing, so I shouldn't put too much emphasis on weight.

curttard

Yeah, if it's .1mph slower on a 30 mile ride than the previous Diverge but smoother and more comfortable and more capable on rough/off-road, sounds like an easy decision to me.

My only hesitation is the Futureshock. I'm not an upgrader -- I'd like to ride the same bike for 20 years if not forever. But a weird proprietary thing like that will almost certainly fall by the wayside during that time.

speshelite

So don't buy it. Easy decision for you.

curttard

Cool, thanks for your contributions to the thread.

curttard

Guy in FB group got the E5 Comp to replace his 2016 Diverge (didn't say what model). Asked how it compared on the road, he said:

sdcarp

Ordered an Expert Model yesterday. Specialized website was showing late July delivery date for 54cm (my order). However, Dealer warned me that promised Specialized delivery dates have been sketchy at best recently - so who knows? Regardless, excited about the bike and will report back.

Lazyass

Still thinking about the base E5. Upgrade the group, get some light 650b wheels with 650x42 Compass tires. I don't know, I think the ShockStem is a better option. It's not permanent, probably lighter, you can switch it to another ride and not lose it if you sell the bike.

curttard

Are you replacing an older Diverge? There is a shocking lack of direct comparisons still between this year's and last's.

GailT

I stopped by Ubikes in Boulder and they have several 2018 Diverge in stock, including some that they are building as rentals. None in my size yet, so no test ride.

speshelite

Diverge doesn't have rear suspension like Roubaix. The CGR is poorly rated.

sdcarp

I am NOT replacing an older Diverge - so I have no apples-to-apples comparison(s) for you. Essentially, I'll be replacing a Niner RDO that I have set-up for gravel/winter riding. I like everything about the Niner except that's it's too stiff for me (I weight in at 135). I'm hoping for more compliance.

Chader09

That's not really true.

The "suspension" you mention from the Roubaix is essentially a lowered clamp for the seat post. It is housed below the upper portion of the seat tube that attaches to the top tube. The seat tube is just ovalized to allow the aft-wards motion that comes from flexing the 27.2mm seat post under impacts (within the confines of what would otherwise be a tight tube connection).

Based on that, I don't really consider the Roubaix to have rear suspension as such. It just has a special frame design that allows the seatpost clamp to be extra low and therefore increase the leverage via more "exposed" seat post, which yields more flex overall.

The Diverge has a "normal" setup with the main seatpost clamp at the top of the frame. It is the same "suspension" as the Roubaix, because it is merely seatpost flex. The only loss is the fact that the clamp position essentially shortens the lever arm on the post, making it a bit less flexy.

So, same basic idea, with just a bit less leverage.

speshelite

Whether you call it deflection or suspension, diverge 2018 has far less of it, a design flaw since the diverge is supposed to be a more capable off road machine.

I'm curious as to which version of futureshock is better: the roubaix with zero stiction vs the diverge with futureshock which becomes more firm as you approach it's travel limit.

HTupolev

Tricky comparison since they're so much different besides just the clamp. For instance, the Roubaix is targeted at taking the edge off of sharp shocks while riding with stiff tires, whereas the Diverge is expected to usually have a very plush tire in back to begin with.

They're both designed for minimal stiction. The difference is just the force-deflection curve of the spring.

Chader09

Rear Suspension:
You are right that it will reduce effectiveness of the post flex. The clamp drops 2.5-3.0" [65-90mm] from the top of the seat tube. The actual seat tube height appears to be the same between the bikes (for a 56 anyway).

Depending on actual seat post height for the rider, that ~3" difference may add up to a noticable amount. The lower the seat height, the worse the loss of flex. Longer will matter less since it is based on a percentage of the overall lever length.

Front Suspension:
You mention "stiction" which is a specific attribute of most all suspensions. You have right idea on the increased resistance, but it is the Progressive spring (vs the Linear) that is the reason for the difference (not stiction).

Stiction:
"Static Friction" results from the resistance to movement caused by all of the parts between the sliding elements in the suspension. Commonly this is the environmental seals, fluid, and any friction between bearing surfaces. Again, this will be the same between the two bikes since they are the same mechanical design.

Progressive vs Linear Springs:
What is different are the upper springs. The Roubaix uses a Linear spring while the Diverge uses a Progressive spring. The difference is that the linear spring will take say 100 lbs force to compress 1/4". That is true no matter how far the spring is compressed.

A progressive spring will act like that in the initial compression, but it will ramp up it's resistance. So further into the compression, it may take 150lbs to compress the same 1/4" of travel. Effectively it gets stronger in resistance the more you compress it.

Chader09

Correct on both accounts.

I suspect they are relying on the large volume tires for much of the rear compliance. The post flex will help, but may not match the feel of a the Roubaix despite that, or when compared to the Trek Isospeed design.

I need to ride our demo to compare to my Boone on 38c tires.

speshelite

That's a great clarification chader.

Spesh's promotional literature seems to imply that the diverge futureshock is in fact better rather than simply different in that it prevents the shock from bottoming out harshly.

Considering how bad of a condition many roads are these days, it seems like the diverge's version of the futureshock is an improvement in all conditions, not just for off road rides.

So, it seems like a tradeoff: the diverge foregoes some rear compliance but has the better design up front and vice versa for the roubaix.

I don't see the point in foregoing one feature in each model except to differentiate product lines to prevent one from cannibalizing sales from the other.

Ideally the progressive spring (front) should be paired with a lower clamping point for the rear in both lines, with the ability to run fatter tires differentiating the diverge from the roubaix.

Or perhaps there is some other reason for these design decisions which I haven't accounted for here.

Chader09

Several reviews I saw said they think the progressive spring should be in the Roubaix too. They said that they didn't realize the issue with the linear spring Roubaix until trying the progressive Diverge. Most seem to like it more. The cool thing is that there are 3 progressive and 3 linear springs available, so there are plenty of options for people to try.

I agree. I was bummed to see the standard clamp height on the Diverge. The main reason I think they did the standard clamp is to allow the use of dropper posts. Total speculation on my part, but it makes a bit of sense.

Specialized seems to be focusing on the front for comfort (more than the rear). Trek seemed to do the opposite with their Boone and Domane. The new Front Isospeed in the Domane (and soon the Boone) are better than nothing, but they are well short of the Future Shock design, based on my initial tests of both.

My ideal bike would be a hack of the Future Shock front and Isospeed rear.

I am currently running the Redshift Sports Shockstop stem on my Boone and I really like the overall combo. The only issue is the limit of 38c tires. They may fix that with the new 2018 model coming soon, but we will see.

speshelite

Whoa. Are you saying that you can simply swap out the linear rate spring with a progressive spring in the roubaix? That would be pretty cool.

Good point about the dropper. I forgot about that--it's stock on at least one higher end diverge?

Trek dropped the ball with front Isospeed. I think they are disguising it's lack of compliance by spec'ing a carbon bar, stuffing gel under super thick bar tape, and spec'ing 30cc tires.

Chader, how do you like shockstop vs. futureshock or front isospeed? You seem to rate the redshift highly but wondering how you feel about it vs trek and specialized suspension systems.

BluesDawg

How shocking is it at this point? The new Diverge was first released a week ago yesterday. How many people have even ridden one yet? Of that small number, how many had also ridden an older model of the Diverge? Of that small number, how many post their impressions on social media or bicycle related forums?

I'm impressed that there have been any first hand reports this early on. I'm sure there will be many more as more bikes are ridden.

Chader09

Yes, the springs are the same size and are fully interchangeable.

Shockstop: I have 200 miles on mine in a few training rides and a 100 mile race. I will not ride without it now. It is a HUGE improvement in front end comfort on my Boone. Prior to that, it just had the curved carbon fork and it is lacking in real bump absorption. I love it on all stuff so far and still plan to try some softer settings to see if I can get it to work a tad better on the smaller stuff.

Future Shock: I have just a few quick demo runs on the Roubaix at the shop. No real miles. But comparing back to back with my SS, they are fairly similar. My boss said that he even likes my SS better than the FS. I think the FS is a very smooth system and want to ride our demo on some real gravel, but I think it is solid.

Front Isospeed: I have one short play ride at our shop. I also rode back to back with my SS and the FS. It is a far less impressive system on the small stuff. It is noticeable on the bigger hits and you can feel the bar rotation like the SS. Like you, I think it is just a step behind the SS and FS. it is better than the stock Boone, but not in the same field as the other two.

I love the Rear Isospeed and think it beats the Roubaix rear easily for comfort. I was all about moving to a Diverge until I got the SS for my Boone. I still like the Diverge and want to try it with the unique geo. But I am curious to see the final details on the new Boone. If they allow 40c+ tires, it will be worth a consideration to upgrade from my current model.

wheelhot

@speshelite regarding the whole Future Shock spring difference and CG-R. Good points provided by @Chader09 and @HTupolev

Future Shock
Both the Roubaix and Diverge has the same FS model, the only difference are the spring and it's confirmed to be interchangeable (probably more Roubaix riders would choose progressive spring (Diverge) vs the stock linear spring)

The reason for the spring change is because the Diverge is expected to be ridden at a far rougher terrain than the Roubaix and hence to prevent the hard clunk from bottoming out the 20mm suspension, the rate of the spring compression has to be altered. So in the case of Diverge, it's soft at the beginning and progressively gets harder, whereas the Roubaix has the same compression throughout the 20mm range. If you read some reviews on Roubaix, some reviewers managed to use the whole 20mm travel (probably cause they used the softest spring) and complained about the hard clunk feeling.

The only cons that I've read regarding the linear vs progressive were progressive doesn't react to small bumps as well as linear. But with the larger tyre volume, this might not be a problem.

And interesting you mentioned stiction as I remember when they interviewed one of the FS engineers, the reason why they went for spring over air is because spring has little or none stiction and simpler mechanism (lighter and less maintenance) than traditional air suspensions.

CG-R
The claim that CG-R on Diverge isn't good is not true as many 2017 and earlier Diverge users who bought CG-R (or upgrades to CG-R) mentions how much smoother the rear feels. However, if you compare it to the Roubaix, the Roubaix will be smoother as the lower clamping area and open seat tube (the one where the rubber seals at) allows the seat post to flex even more.

If you look at pro bikes Roubaix, they usually don't ride with CG-R as probably they feel the flex is a little too much

So if I were to do a rough comparison:
Diverge CG-R = Pro Roubaix with Standard Seatpost

But the most comfort will be:
Roubaix with CG-R

Also, we need to take account that the new Diverge dropped seat stay will provide more compliance then 2017 (and earlier) Diverge and with the carbon Diverge using 9r instead of 10r (like the Roubaix), should provide additional compliance (but not at the Roubaix with open seat tube level).

Worth mentioning that the new Diverge is designed to use 38C tyres, so the bigger tyre will naturally provide more comfort.

As for why Diverge didn't follow the Roubaix open seat tube design, I have 2 theories for it:
1. Roubaix design means you can't mount rear racks and pretty sure they'll be people upset if the new Diverge can't mount rear racks
2. The extra flex, while is nice, will probably lead to more crack frames as Diverge is expected to be abused and ridden at far rougher terrain and to make an open seat tube design with Aluminum frame might be a problem (I'm leaning towards this theory)

Shockstop
Principle wise, both FS and SS will not slow down your bike as it's located above the headtube, the only difference between them will be FS moves in a linear motion whereas SS moves in an arc motion, so probably SS will feel weirder the more it compresses? but I leave that to @Chader09.

On the topic of linear motion and arc, if we look at the CG-R seatpost which is essentially a leaf-spring, will move in an arc motion, though the effect is probably less noticeable or bothersome in comparison to SS.

Though from BikeRadar test, the most compliant seatpost will be the Canyon VCLS 2.0/Ergon CF3, though sadly it's not available in US and Canada directly.

Hmm, so looks like I can buy the Ergon from this site and have it shipped to my country, probably will consider it instead of CG-R. Also if you open the site, they'll be a video showcasing how it works and testing

Though, because of the nature of a split design, I wonder if it'll be a problem with dirt and grime getting stuck in between it. But it seems that Canyon specs this with their CX bike so maybe it's not a problem? Additional review links, link1, link2, link3