That for that.
It’s a shame they didn’t show it from all the other angles with the road tires.
I owned the Crux 4 for 3 years, the only bike I’ve owned more than 18 months, seriously… I’m a serial trader… it was an incredible do all bike. I loved it for training, but loathed it on race day, especially on rougher courses. I knew the Crux release was imminent when I bought the Diverge 4, but I was desperate for a smoother ride, to which it delivers in spades, and I’ve been racing it with a handful of top 10s in the 100km distance category. Would a Crux 5 push me onto the podium? Maybe. But highly unlikely for a 40yo 80kg Dad that’s lucky to get in 7-8 hrs a week. But I’m still excited to build out a Crux for Fall or 2027 Spring gravel.
Yeah, the future shock would always be a deal killer and the stack on the diverge is pretty extreme even for an old fart like me. I just don’t get the appeal of twitchy handling in a gravel race bike. Anything that gets me down a fast descent safer and faster is going to trump whatever advantage I might see from quicker steering. It’s just not a good trade off for people like me who can’t handle a gravel bike like Keegan.
I honestly think that quick/twitchy handing even on road bikes is generally a bad idea for most riders. If we made every road race bike 1 degree slacker, I bet it would dramatically reduce crashes in amateur criteriums, road races, and even group rides. It’s like giving a bunch of “weekend” pilots fighter jets when they should be flying Cessnas.
I didn’t mind it, until I did. I rode the wheels off of Texas gravel on my Crux 4… Then I took it to Big Sugar and felt severely underbiked on all those wicked fast descents.
I managed them, but didn’t enjoy them, at all.
I started testing the Diverge 4 and wider tires on local segments and to my surprise it was putting big dents in my PRs and KOMs on local segments, so I pulled the trigger on one.
I love the FS… I didn’t at first but after racing on it, it takes the sting out of unseen potholes and road junk so well. Maybe I’m just getting old, who knows, but the comfort of the D4 allows me to stay on the power so much better than my Crux 4 ever did.
Anyway, all this to say on paper I think the Crux 5 looks like it’ll ride like a sporty Diverge, I’ll report back in due time with a grin or egg on my face. Either way, more bikes!
The old one was a more opinionated design, which, to me, made it more desirable. The new one follows the same recipe that other manufacturers have used.
For some reason, I find many other aero gravel bikes more desirable. Cervelo‘s Aspero and 3T‘s Exploro come to mind as the OGs in that space.
Not really comparable bikes IMO. The cervelo and 3T might be good bikes, but have very limited tire clearance. The new 3T extrema would be a comp I guess with clearance for 57’s, but 3T spins that bike as more of an adventure bike vs. a pure race bike (not that I really care what the marketing says). It looks really good on paper to me, but It’s also $10k for a basic rival/GX build and $6500 for a frame. And I don’t see any published weights, so not sure about that.
For aero/light with modern tire clearance, the Crux looks like the market leader to me right now. The frame is a bit pricey at $3500, but that’s $1000 cheaper than the Allied able (which isn’t as light or aero) and about half the price of the 3T. And for $4500, you get a decent Rival E1 build in the comp model. Not a cheap bike, but not crazy expensive and looks like the biggest bang for your buck in the Crux lineup. Take that comp model and swap in high end wheels, crank, and cockpit and you have a “no excuses” race bike for under $7500.
For those wondering if the crux actually fits 2.2’s as advertised - here are a couple pics of the tire clearance in the new crux frame. The tires are Race King 2.2’s on XPLR wheels and measure right at 57mm. No problem with the fit for dry or minor mud conditions, but I wouldn’t have run them at Unbound last week. Compared to my Lauf (officially supports 57’s), the crux has significantly less clearance up front and just slightly less clearance in rear.
Thanks for sharing!
Hmm…now what can you run for front suspension? I wonder if you could install a Lauf fork?
It would monkey with the geometry a bit for sure. And just to be clear, that’s not my crux. Just a test fit at local shop. I’m considering it, but will probably hold off. I’ll be on my MTB pretty exclusively for the next few months anyway and my gravel race season is basically done, so not much reason to buy now.
That’s not quite correct: 3T makes a version of the (Exploro) Racemax with wider tire clearance (up to 61 mm in 650b) called the Ultra.
Frames for the Ultra cost 2,400 € and prices for other Taiwan-made frames are in the same ballpark and significantly cheaper than Specialized. The Racemax Italia2 has clearance for 51 mm (700c). The Italia frames are made in Italy and are significantly more expensive. However, prices are comparable to S-Works frames, but are IMHO more desirable.
They kept their original aero gravel bike (now called Primo 2) in the line-up, a complete GRX build costs 3,200 €. If you want Rival AXS XPLR, it’s 4,000 €. The Racemax (≠ Italia) costs 1k € more, 5,000 € for Rival AXS XPLR, so very much in line and not expensive.
PS I realize 3T‘s naming scheme and its model line-up have gotten messy. Originally, their gravel bike was called Exploro, which bifurcated into two models, then they kept the old one (3). Then they started making frames in Italy.
It’d also be fair to criticize the Ultra that 650b wheels are no longer what the market wants. (I still think it is a clever solution to making a versatile bike where you keep geo roughly the same even if you drastically change tire width by adjusting tire diameter.)
Yeah, I don’t claim to understand their lineup, just saying I don’t consider bikes with sub 50mm clearance to be a good comp to the crux and other bikes with 55+. And it looks like that Ultra only takes 46mm tires in 700c. The only bike I see from 3T that has modern clearance with aero claims is the Extrema (nice looking, but very pricey). And I’m not saying there isn’t still a market for 2x bikes that take small tires, it’s just a different category in my mind.
Specialized’s latest releases (epic and crux) seem to be doubling down on “here’s what we think riders should be doing” and/or “here’s what we need to do to make this frame the lightest possible” rather than offering versatility. So lack of 2x drivetrain support on the crux, lack of cable routing and in-frame storage on the epic, headset routing… I do think that in a better bike market economy we would maybe see specialized offering these options on different tiers. I personally preferred the “world cup” epic version that was super slimmed down for world cup racing and then an epic version that was more applicable to the everyday rider who does most of their own maintenance. You could image a crux amateur version that offered 2x drive train, in-frame storage, and simpler cable routing, for example. Although that may converge with the diverge ;). But I don’t like the future shock on the diverge.
It’s hard to fault Specialized on the general approach for the race bikes. I’d still argue for in frame storage on full race gravel bikes, but I didn’t expect them to include it after being nixed from the epic 9. The only thing that surprised me on the new crux was including support for mechanical/cable drivetrain. I assume that was a nod to shimano and it’s nice they offer that $4k GRX build, but the support for mechanical does add weight and is a design/layup challenge with the chainstay width. I assumed the new crux would be electronic only, at least for the s-works frame. It seems like all the shimano fans are quickly going to wireless GRX for their 1x gravel needs, but I bet the crux features were locked in before that trend started.
I think removing cable options from any bike frame is a bad idea. If there is a difference in frame weight it is miniscule, and outweighed by the weight of the electronic derailleur. Trhe bike already has routing for the rear brake so it’s not like the complexity isn’t there already. IMO electronic drivetrains are a fad and we will go back to seeing a better balance, at least for mtb. I admit the road cable shifters have never been as nice as MTB shifters so electric may be stickier there. The only place where i think electronic outperforms mechanical though to be worthy of the price and weight and charging hassle is for the front derailleur. I’ve been pleased to see that specialized is so far the only manufacturer who has neglected cable shifting for MTB and afaik no major road or gravel frames have.
Hope we go back to moving towards better, lighter mechanical options, although it’s not looking to bright at the moment.
The driveside stay is the limiter on many of these bikes when it comes to tire clearance. And the brake line is non-negotiable. I don’t know how many other frames have gone wireless only, but I know my Lauf doesn’t support mechanical and that bike has been around for 4+ years. Allied Able doesn’t either. I’d bet there are others. But you are probably right that it would be less common with the big brands that have to maintain a relationship with Shimano (who has historically been behind the curve on wireless for off road). But now that shimano has real wireless, I think it’s just a matter of time.
As slow as Shimano moves, it might be another 10+ years before they stop making high end mechanical, but I can’t see it going much further. Mechanical will still exist, but the current trend of it being relegated to lower end groups with just speed up IMO. There’s not enough demand at the high end to motivate SRAM/Shimano to invest in mechanical. And if you want to see a dramatic difference is performance/reliability, look no further than Unbound in the mud last weekend for the amateur field. Lots of failed RD’s on mechanical setup because there is no motor to push the cage back out when they get covered with mud (and crappy shifting and maintenance afterwards due to cable housing filling with grit). There are things I hate about electronic for some uses, but I just can’t see the current trends reversing.
+1. A light weight xc or gravel race group set would be awesome. Frames are shaving grams but things keep getting heavier. More capability for some weight isn’t a bad thing but it seems like many things are getting a bit porky.
I have a question: one of the design ideas behind the Open UP and the original Exploro (continued in some of 3T’s current bikes like the Ultra) is that sticking to 700c wheels for all tire sizes would alter the geo too much. But the market has decided (the new Open UP sticks to 700c wheels even for wide tires and I expect the successors to the Ultra to do the same).
Do you plan on running your new Crux with narrower tires (e. g. 32 mm or 35 mm slicks) as well as 2.2" tires? If so, can you tell the difference? I’m curious to learn what the real-world impact is from someone who has actually ridden the bike.
I haven’t bought a new Crux, just testing to see what tire clearance looked like.
But I have spent a good bit of time on my Seigla running road tires (as small as 32’s) and it certainly handles differently. It basically reduces the trail in the front end, making the steering a bit quicker. With the slacker head tube angle and longer starting trail of a gravel bike, it’s still not going to be as quick handling as a road bike, but brings it closer. It’s also going to lower your center of gravity with the BB closer to the ground. All that said, I seldom bother running road tires and typically just leave gravel/mtb tires on the bike for road rides. Uses a few more watts, but still fine for fast group rides and super comfy on crappy country roads and chip seal. The other downside to running road tires is you lose top end due to the lower gearing.
Really? Did you see that in person or elsewhere? Honest question as I haven’t seen that difference show in group rides and small local races.