Seems like it would be profitable to produce wheels. I know there’s a ton of competition in this space but that hasn’t stopped Specialized from successfully (in my opinion) producing items in other areas. So why no focus on fancy pants deep dish wheels?
I would guess it is a matter of resources. They pretty much have a finger in everything, except shifters, so it is probably hard to keep up the development effort across all those different components on a current basis. I remember reading that they felt their tire line had fallen behind the competition a couple of year ago and I think their very first real product line was tires!
It will probably take a huge effort to catch up with Hed or Zipp and I don’t think they are willing or able to invest that kind of time and energy.
The simplest answer is that Specialized has, this year, cemented a somewhat informal relationship to make it a lot more formal. If you look closely at the old Specialized team kits, you saw a LOT of specialized logos, but also a SRAM logo. That partnership has been formalized. SRAM/Zipp is now the official partner of Specialized Factory Racing (Triathlon; obviously they don’t make MTB wheels. Yet).
As for Roval, it’s an interesting subset. It makes more sense as a MTB brand, because there’s not really a clearly dominant MTB wheel company. So I think folks want their bikes to come with good, reliable, tubeless wheels. And the Roval wheels are certainly that. Good enough to win World XC champs. On the road side, it’d probably take a lot more resources to make wheels as good as Zipp, and I’m just not sure the ROI is there.
On balance, making Roval “good enough” seems to be the best option, since folks who want good wheels get them with the bikes. But making Roval REALLY good is probably too expensive a proposition for diminishing returns. The number of folks who will replace their Roval MTB wheels with something like Stan’s ZTR is much smaller (I think) than folks wanting Zipp race wheels for an SL3 or Shiv. So, in that sense, people are probably more willing to pay to have Roval be good wheels on the MTB side. But even on the MTB side, the highest end wheels are still not much different in price. Good wheels vs. great wheels is not nearly the same tiering as it is with road wheels.
Does that make sense? Roval wheels are very good. And there’s simply not the justification to try to make them great. The cost is too high for diminishing returns. Better to have a good relationship with an SRAM/Zipp. Everybody wins in that case. You’ll notice the neutral support bikes on the SRAM mobile are Zipp/SRAM-equipped Specializeds. That’s a nice partnership that couldn’t exist if Roval was a big focus.
Makes sense. I started this thread because I love using a set of Rovals in training and have always been surprised that they aren’t more widely used. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!
I agree- they should push them harder.
Specialized needs to make the jump with wheels like they have with saddles an shoes.
They would sell way more aftermarket, but more importantly road bike consumers would not be asking for wheel swaps when they purchase a Specialized bike.
I think Trek has done a good job raising the image of the Bontrager wheels.
I think Trek has done a good job raising the image of the Bontrager wheels.
…which have up until now been built by hed. and if i’m not mistaken, the design was also based around hed’s stinger 60/jet 60 - one of the reasons why they were/are so fantastically expensive, i’d wager (a set of aftermarket aeolus 6.5 tubular wheels today cost more than a set of zipp 404s).
It’s not difficult to make wheels. This is clearly a business decision. I was just surprised that Specialized invested in Roval, had difficulty getting the Star wheels to take off in the market, and abruptly changed direction. But that could be the sign of attentive management.
I agree with the comment on Trek getting the Bonty wheels up and going. I don’t understand the point of the Hed comments. Who cares where they are made as long as it’s done well?
It’s not difficult to make wheels. This is clearly a business decision. I was just surprised that Specialized invested in Roval, had difficulty getting the Star wheels to take off in the market, and abruptly changed direction. But that could be the sign of attentive management.
I agree with the comment on Trek getting the Bonty wheels up and going. I don’t understand the point of the Hed comments. Who cares where they are made as long as it’s done well?
The point about Bonty is that, with the high-end Aeolus wheels, because HED obviously doesn’t want to cannibalize their own wheels, they charge Bontrager a lot to make the wheels for them. This makes the Aeolus wheels quite a bit more expensive than an equivalently performing HED wheel, with the only real difference being the carbon hoop (and some would say the hub and potentially stiffness being different).
It’s like all those companies that used to buy undimpled Zipp hoops. Yes, they could make a wheel and sell it. But they were, generally, making less margin (or selling wheels for more $$) and offering an outdated product.
Aeolus Bontrager wheels are, IMO, designed to raise the profile of the Bontrager brand in general. They are designed as a loss leader to get people to trust Bonty aerobars, stems, saddles, shoes, etc. But Specialized’s accessory parts - tires, shoes, saddles, helmets, glasses - don’t need that sort of brand-enhancement. Roval is ONLY wheels, unlike Bontrager which is wheels, tires, etc. So there’s no carryover benefit as there is with the Bontrager name. So while Aeolus wheels make sense as a loss-leader, Roval does not.
Bontrager took YEARS (and a whole lot of $$$) to gain acceptance as a high end road component brand…and the muscle of LA. Many miscues along the way…USPS would not even ride the Rolf wheels at first and then the transition to Bontrager was met with brand skepticism at first. Partnering with HED gave them much needed credibility.
Specialized, OTOH, could not get their sponsored teams to ride Roval wheels in anything other than photo ops. Combined with some seriously questionable designs (c’mon…Star Hhubs? Uh, OK.) and Specialized was left with a LONG rod to hoe in terms of gaining brand credibility.
But Roval does give them the ability to use a “brand” wheelset on their bikes without having to pay the mark-up necessary for true aftermarket brands. It is a marketing slight-of-hand that many companies have tried. But without some serious R&D investment at this point, establishing Roval as a serious aero / performance wheel brand is gonna be challenging at best.
I’ll also note that the marketplace is substantially different today than 10 years ago as Trek was establishing Rolf / Bontrager. WAY more players now, which means price compression and an ever-increasing thinner slice of the target market. While the market is definitely larger, it is much harder to get noticed above the fray now.
I’ll just add that we are invested in and believe in delivering class leading product with the Roval range. For the price and specifications, the SL45, for example, is an incredible wheelset. Great all around aero, braking, low weight, for an affordable price.
Where Rovals are specified, they are the best value offering and best performing hoops for that price point.
Cheers,
Mark
It doesn’t seem like specialized really pushes anything but bikes. They make some great accessories across their whole line, but don’t really push them as far as marketing goes.
Take their high end carbon crank. From everything I’ve ride its one of the best out their, but I’ve never seen a single ad for it.
Styrrell
I hated my Roval Fussee Stars. They were o.k. wheels but ran out of true easily and my rim cracked with only about 700 miles on them. I sold the undamaged one, and one of these days will disassemble the hub and spokes an salvage what I can. You say Roval, I say fragile. Your mileage may vary. I am much happier on my OpenPros
As for Roval, it’s an interesting subset. It makes more sense as a MTB brand, because there’s not really a clearly dominant MTB wheel company. So I think folks want their bikes to come with good, reliable, tubeless wheels.
I would kindly disagree with that I believe Mavic is quite established in the industry in regards to their mtn bike line up. Used in every major race I have seen. Easton has been trying to get in but I do not see them as a big player. What I see right now more
than anything is the use of Stans Rims via a custom build. Less those I see more of the Mavic SLR and SL used all over the place.
I have another roval question. Why the hell don’t the Roval 45’s fit into a transition? I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out what was hitting the spokes only to discover it was the NDS chainstay.
Seems like a smart decision to me when you consider how saturated the market is. The Roval wheels that came stock on my Roubaix Pro have DT Swiss hubs so in this instance they are just an integrator. If you don’t have much value add then then why push it…?
I’ll just add that we are invested in and believe in delivering class leading product with the Roval range. For the price and specifications, the SL45, for example, is an incredible wheelset. Great all around aero, braking, low weight, for an affordable price.
Where Rovals are specified, they are the best value offering and best performing hoops for that price point.
Cheers,
Mark
Mark when you say that the Roval SL45 is aero can you quantify that? I have read that they are bombproof but are they comparable to other wheels that you have tested? I just bought an S-Works Venge and I’m debating whether to put my powertap on them or sell them and use my Easton Ec90 carbon clinchers. I’m guessing there isn’t much aero to be had between 45mm and 38mm anyway or am I wrong?
I wondered about this too.
My curiosity peaked after I a local guy won a cat 1,2,3 crit on Roval SL 45s.