I feel like every manufacturer got together at a meeting and decided their goal for this year was to see who could make the most money off the most bananas design.
“hey, whats a feature that literally no one has asked for that we’re gonna tell them they need?”
And the winner of the “Cannondale Slate Award for Courage in Outrageous Design” is …
Could always do something likely Lauf Seigla which has zero maintenance suspension. Granted not tune-able either but still nice
In that light, I still see the RedShift Sports Shockstop stem as a winner. Light, maintenance-free for the 5 or so years I’ve used mine, tunable for rider weight & preference, and swaps between bikes as you upgrade.
Agree. I had it on my old gravel bike before I got my lauf. I have the redshift sports seatpost which works great once you get it tuned to your bodyweight. I’ve considered their handlebars as I like bars with a short drop
Nate Brown was so far ahead of his time when he rode a drop bar on his mountain bike for Leadville all those years ago. I think he was supporting Lance but, forget it’s been so long.
What is the point? Performance, niche or marketing?
Performance wise if gravel needs rear and front suspension, 45mm tubless tires, disc brakes, etc…why not just buy a mountain bike? IDK. Rear suspension w/o better front is strange to me. Taking gravel bikes on really chunky terrain I think front suspension is way more vital as the rock will move the bike rather than the bike rolling over it.
If it’s more niche I can maybe understand. Perhaps there is a large amount of people with bone and joint problems who this might make the ride just that little more comfortable? IDK. Just seems strange. If that’s the case a mountain bike will be more comfortable IMO.
If it’s marketing…
I’m sure I’m in the minority here. I’d rather have a newer lighter front suspension developed for gravel similar to mountain suspension. Don’t need the travel and maybe even a lefty type fork? Not sure but, something lighter than a mountain fork but same concept. Conversely, it might be interesting to put this rear suspension on a hard tail mountain bike.
Anyways, I ride really chunky trails from time to time and the front end is the limiter in comfort and speed 100%. Rear suspension is more icing on the cake. Seems like the industry is threading the needle here. They don’t want to do too much on the front for fear of market loss to mountain bikes. JMO
Slightly earlier, but to the same vein, article article about the legendary John Tomac in the 80’s on the Yeti C26
My full suspension mountain bike is far heavier than my gravel bike and I don’t need that much suspension on my gravel bike.
I use my gravel bike as a road bike as well. My mountain bike with full suspension and wide flat bars would make for a terrible road bike.
I wouldn’t buy this specialized bike. IMO it’s unnecessarily expensive
I think the key in that statement was the bit immediately preceding:
That describes a different use-case than Aspero/Kaius/OstroGravel. I think you could easily justify owning both an STR and a Crux for very different types of riding. Isn’t the question really about whether there’s enough empty space on the spectrum between the Epic and the previous Diverge to justify the existence of the STR? Or at least whether there’s enough empty space for one rider to justify owning all three…
It would be fun to start dropping all these bikes on a scatter plot graph to start to visualise/quantify the differences in intended use, especially now that gravel is starting to specialise into niches. I guess the x-axis would be for terrain and have downhill MTB at one end and a track bike at the other? Would there also be a y-axis for duration of event? Or something else? Or is it just a one-axis continuum?
The move to full suspension was inevitable for gravel…at least as an option. The bike industry loves to borrow from other segments and bring it over to new segments.
That said, I am really surprised that everything is being made so complicated (and heavy). Thee is aa case to made for suspension in gravel, but it is being poorly made.
IMO, the correct approach would be a Moots YBB-style rear end coupled with a fork similar to the old Cannondale Headshok. 20-30mm of travel, just enough to take the edge off. If you need more travel than that, you should be on a MTB, IMO.
Honestly, I am very surprised Cannondale has not reintroduced the Headshok on a gravel bike.
Maybe a bit different but BMC URS has some suspension built into their headset. Maybe a bit different than headshok.
I just wonder how much maintenance is involved with some of these solutions. Probably not that much but definitely not zero. If cost was no object then sure spend away and I can appreciate to some extent a manufacturer providing that all in one solution.
But I’m not certain a bike like this is any better than buying a nice frame and adding aftermarket redshift or cane creek solutions for front and rear suspension.
I’m probably more turned off by the price of the bike than anything else
Yeah, my impression of the BMC system is that it is closer to the Future Shock than then Headshok….but I haven’t looked at it in great detail yet.
Another case of the circular nature of bike development….this was a hot topic back in the early 90’s for MTB. Suspend the bike or suspend the rider? Using stems and seatposts only suspends the rider, while a system built into the frame suspends the whole system, bike and by default, the rider as well. Allsop Softride stem, anyone? 
In general, it is better to suspend the bike, IMO……however, given the limited travel we are talking about here, suspending the rider via a stem and seatpost is a very viable, and lighter, option. Arguably a better one.
I’ve been using a suspension seatpost on all my rigid dirt frames since the mid-90’s….hardtail, CX and now gravel. (Currently not using it since the bushings in my 90’s era USE seatpost schitt the bed this summer 
). I have a RockShox post that I probably should have put on for Big Sugar tomorrow, but…
The difference in ride comfort without my seatpost is noticeable.
I’m surprise they didn’t do something with flex stays so the bike has rear travel but no moving parts. A lot of XC bikes have gone in that direction.
I don’t get this solution. I think what gets me is that this solution cant really be used on the Roubaix or Epic bikes just to the left/right of it, so why add this? You’d get 2x the customers with a FS “Brain” solution, even with it’s flaws. I think the SuperCal and Epic add 800gr & $1200 over the HTs, that’s 400gr more at the same price and packaging, but you’re getting a lot more capability and comfort - I’m sure it could be tuned for flatter surface riding. I guess it’d require a bigger front end solution - and the Futureshock is better than a fork solution at not porpoising.
I’ve used the Futureshock 1.0 on the smoothest road in the world (Naples FL), and it was never a distraction; super non-bouncy; it does everything Spec says it does… I still wouldn’t want it… a lot of it has to do with the stem spacer rubber cover look. I’ve only hit one dirt road on my gravel bike where I wanted something. I’ve gone over the bars a few times as well, but a longer frontend (long gravel geo like the new Checkpoint) would do more than a short suspension solution. Same with the rear end (with a good seatpost solution). I don’t think 20-30mm in front would help much for that surprise rut or branch scenario that it’d allow you to do more aggressive rides.
This does look really cool. It looks like it’d work great. It looks like a way to justify a higher price on a gravel bike.
I had a 2020 Roubaix with future shock, and I honestly didn’t feel like it added much at all to the bike in terms of comfort. Also, annoying when out of the saddle and the front end bobs up and down. Not worth the weight and maintenance costs. Main reason I got rid of the bike.
I like this bike. How often have people wailed and that Spec has it all wrong only to find that Spec asked themselves these questions months ago and already figures all this sh… stuff out?
Gravel courses are getting much more varied. This looks like a bike that can handle some rough terrain while having a more minimal tire that can roll super fast on pavement.
I think a lot about bike tech and physics, but can always rely on the fact that Specialized has thought about and researched it much more than me. The main problem here is that bike quivers are generally getting bigger, not smaller. I don’t have that much space in my house!
Anti crux
Anti Aero
This is not a race bike, but rather im rich and want to be comfy while I spend 6 hours doing a 3 hour course, and whine that the water stops are empty when I get there.
I think the disconnect here is this isn’t a performance-focused bike, Specialized sponsored riders will all still be racing the Crux.
This STR sells comfort and “capability” to a broader market that doesn’t really care about ultimate performance. The part of the market that will buy a new bike for a new feature to show off in the two gravel events they do each year.
Man, the level of value judgements being tossed around here aimed at potential buyers of this bike is disappointing. Who cares who buys these bikes and why?
If it works for you, great. If not, pick whatever does. You do you and leave the rest for themselves, no judgements necessary.
Looks and sounds a bit like envy or some other driver of dislike for future owners. Makes no sense to me.
