Unfortunately, by this logic the Crux 5 would be subject to the same relegation. As would anything S-Works overall - too expensive and too fast compared to whatever baseline is used.
Equipment regulations in this manner are very hard to create without reductive logic that becomes meaningless, or over-regulation that can hardly be enforced without destroying the sport by alienating the most productive participants. Easily seen in motorsports.
But on the other end, if they’re crazy fast and an instant advantage, I could see that hindering progress because I could see even local races changing rules. Nobody wants to show up to a race and lose solely because somebody bought a special bike. And if taller riders or people with more money now have a major advantage, it wouldn’t surprise me if some races create a separate category to keep people happy.
Fallacy? Reduction to Merckx TT Rules
The perfect marginal estimation for 32" wheels is less than many other equipment gains, which are now taken as standard. It’s likely about the same, or less than the difference between previous generation gravel tires and the fastest XC tires for example. Probably less than aero wheels too.
Although, it does seem that gravel geometry can be made to work down to 5’, perhaps an inch or two lower. Which would include essentially all of the potential gravel market. There is still quite a bit of data to generate before a determination can be made.
Completely agree here. We don’t know for sure, but from all the signs most big brands are cutting production dramatically out of fear from the overstock issues post-covid boom. At the same time they are cutting the number of SKUs (models) from their line-up to be more profitable. End result is there’s less choice and less stock out there.
TT bars have been banned in many if not most gravel races. At least the ones I’ve raced in. So it wouldn’t be the first time an advantageous equipment choice has been banned. UCI already banned deep aero wheels as well. And while it’s not equipment, puppy paws and super tuck is banned which is a huge advantage. Point being that it’s not like bans are new.
To come back to this, it would appear that low stock and sold out bikes for the Crux 5 is less about tons of sales but more of a stock issue. At least that’s the word from dealers. And the rumor is that the Tarmac SL9 will be the same. Very limited frames at launch on the 30th with the next major restock in September. So it’ll appear to the public that the Tarmac is sold out with record desire. When in reality it’s just that Specialized has produced so few frames and bikes.
Are you racing in the USA, Europe, or somewhere else? I don’t think most gravel races in the USA ban aerobars, most don’t even have rules at that level of detail.
Regardless my argument is the relevance of a potential UCI ban. I don’t think it matters very much without some or all the major promoters in the USA going along with it.
IME there’s no access or performance argument to ban 32" wheels. Access to top-tier racing equipment is not equitable and will not be equitable. The probable performance difference is within the bounds of other equipment “updates” made recently. The argument for industry and consumer protection may hold some weight, but is hard to read as anything other than specious, watching the industry the past 10 years especially.
Seems to be dependent on the race/region. When I was in Texas, all the races I did or looked into, allowed aero bars.
Now living in Washington state, I haven’t found a single race that allows aero bars, and most that explicitly state they aren’t permitted.
I love my aero bars, but that in mind, they aren’t nearly as useful here. Much of the races are spent climbing at 5 mph or descending at 30+ mph where you’re limited in speed by the technicality of the terrain. Big races have people on the podium that averaged 15 mph due to the amount of ascending and terrain.
Yeah, I don’t claim to know their sales figures. But I do know a couple folks at different shops and they have sold all they can get their hands on, have waiting lists, and they have sold a bunch more of the crux 5 in the last month compared to how the old crux was/is selling. Maybe it’s all “fake” demand, but it sounds pretty real to me. Time will tell whether the bike is a winner or not, but my point was that a good percentage of the die hards will always flock to buy the shiny cool new thing from a brand like Specialized. There were a lot of fans of the old crux, but I didn’t see that many of them at gravel races over the past couple years. Even expensive low volume bikes like the Allied (which has only been out a little over a year) seem more popular. And you can’t swing a stick without hitting a bunch of MOG’s at any big gravel race. I expect to see a bunch of Crux 5’s under racers within 6 months. I might be wrong on that, but Specialized has a pretty good track history and the bike looks good on paper.
Yeah, all our local events allow them, but few people run them. 2 of the bigger races I do that ban them are Big Sugar and Valley of Tears. I run them more often that not and I think they are an advantage more often than not, but it definitely depends on the race. If you are in a pack all day mostly sitting in, they aren’t buying you much and the weight/aero penalty is real. I’d probably pull them off for my local races if just worried about results at those races, but I like to get as much time racing on them as possible so that I am comfortable using them at my target races.
extensive (~45 minutes) discussion of 32ers on the latest escape collective geek warning podcast.
my takeaway: 32" is dubious for mtb but brands are currently desperate for a way to sell more XC mtbs; 32" makes a lot of sense for gravel but gravel bikes are currently selling well so there’s limited interest in having to redesign everything there
Outlier bike and outlier person…he also looks significantly taller than everyone else, so maybe the 32" bike just fits without compromising. If anything, to me, it just makes the argument for wheel size based on rider size.
This could be true, lumberjack is a somewhat local race for myself but I have not done it. I know of plenty of people who have however.
The fact the bike is full ridged is yet another outlier, im not saying you cant do lumberjack full ridged (obviously it was won on one) but at the same time its not the norm to not have any suspension.
Not that anybody here really cares or that this is in any way a ‘game changing performance’, but as someone who considers themselves a mid-packer I did just squeak in a top 10 finish at the BC Epic 1000 aboard my rigid 32"er (I also got 10+ hours of sleep…pretty good compared to those in front of me )
From the chunky rail trail grades to the sandy singletrack, this setup was perfect for me. You can hate on 32"ers, but I love mine and appreciate the option to ride a bike that feels like it fits me more proportionately.
Yeah. I want more upsweep too, without having to tradeoff backsweep to get it, which I’m already doing. If the bars have some rise, rotating them forward also trades off rise for increased reach. Ideally I’d get bars close to what I want in upsweep, backsweep and rise and only rotate them a small amount for find tuning.
)
