BEHIND THE BIKE

WE SPOKE TO HEAD OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES AT SPECIALIZED, CHRIS YU, AND JOHN CORDOBA, HEAD OF THE ROUBAIX, PROJECT ABOUT THE NEW MACHINE

How did you approach the new Roubaix project in comparison to the previous generation – did you have defined goals on aero, performance and weight?

(John Cordoba) Like every new project we kick off, we started with identifying our riders’ needs. We did this by collecting feedback, in this case primarily from our pro riders, and ranking the requests by priority since they are often competing challenges. For the new Roubaix, we ended up with three performance goals, in the order of: more control in the Future Shock, better aero performance and no heavier overall than the prior Roubaix. From there, we set aggressive stretch targets for our R&D and engineering teams. In this case, we aimed to at least match the aero performance of the Tarmac SL6 while reducing as much weight out of the frame and fork as possible to be able to afford the added weight of a fluid damper within the Future Shock 2.0.

How important has the depth of research and development you’ve made in recent years on projects like Tarmac and Venge helped, or indeed influenced, the new bike?

(Chris Yu) Everything that we’ve learned, especially through the development of the Tarmac SL6 and Venge, has been instrumental in achieving the aggressive performance targets of the new Roubaix. With the Tarmac SL6, we developed composite optimisation techniques that allowed us to create incredibly light structures while still maintaining aerodynamic tube profiles. Then with the Venge, we pushed our computer optimisation capability even further by utilising free shape optimisation techniques to develop our Free Foil aero shape library. Through the simulation of over 10,000 shapes, we were able to arrive at a collection that had an optimal combination of aero, weight, and stiffness characteristics across different tube sizes. All of this capability and learning culminated in a new Roubaix frame and fork that is more aero than the Tarmac SL6 and lighter than the Venge.

You’ve produced an even-more race orientated chassis in the S-Work pro-geometry frameset, what was the reason for not including this into the complete bike range?

(John Cordoba) While only some sizes come in team (race) geometry, where the stack and reach are more aggressive, all the frames have the same raceoriented features and capabilities. For example, the entire size range of frames have the same aero performance, stiffness characteristics and handling geometry. For the team geometry frames, we chose to focus on the sizes where they were being demanded the most (and we’d serve our pro riders).

Did the development of a more controllable Future Shock lead you down any avenues about full suspension for a road machine, like the partnership Pinarello made with HiRide on the DogmaFS (top right)?

(Chris Yu) Yes, we’ve looked into a myriad of potential solutions to provide compliance to our Roubaix riders. In our research and development, we kept coming back to the same conclusion: it’s critical to suspend the rider, rather than the bike like a traditional fullsuspension mountain bike. In particular, rear suspension within the frame resulted in measurable and detectable (by test riders) efficiency loss and handling vagueness due to the de-coupling of the rear triangle from the rest of the frame. On mountain bikes, this is much less noticeable since tyre pressures and volumes are so much higher and travel is so much greater. Even with lockable systems, just the introduction of a pivot point resulted in the same downsides, not to mention added weight.

Have you and the R&D team found yourself looking at Robert Egger’s Renegade concept (top left) from a fair few years back in a new light?

(Chris Yu) Yes, absolutely, our concept bikes, including Robert’s Renegade, are always inspiration for our designs of the future. In this case, it opened our minds to how beneficial suspension can be for most road riders, including our pro racers at Paris-Roubaix. However, as mentioned before, as we embarked on research and development, we found that all suspension isn’t made equal, especially when comparing mountain to road demands. This is what led us to the philosophy of suspending the rider for the Roubaix.

Anything else you’d like to get across to CP readers regarding the Roubaix?

(John Cordoba) Our goal for the Roubaix was to build the fastest, smoothest bike for the pavement. We feel proud to have accomplished this while also giving our riders more control, ultimately offering them more confidence than they could have on any other bike.