Probably not a dumb decision in the current market. I’ve been living without downtube storge on my Lauf for over a year and it’s not a show-stopper.
I like enough about the new Crux that I’ll probably end up with one before the end of the year, but not in a rush since I’ll be on my MTB full time for the next ~2 months. No plans to ditch the Seigla any time soon either, I think the Crux and Seigla will compliment each other well based on specific events and use cases. I’m a big believer in comfort = results in long races, so I’m not sure the Crux will be the better choice for the long chunky stuff. Maybe I’ll be surprised, but I love my squishy front end and flexy ergon seat post. But for the local ~60 mile smash fests that play out like 3 hour crits on gravel, I think the Crux will be great.
It’s very clearly a want and @Eddy_Twerckx wrote he would have preferred his new Crux with internal storage. Why not take that at face value?
There are quite a few reasons to prefer internal storage. One is that you never forget your essentials. In a good number of cases where I had a puncture, I was missing essential equipment. One time I was on a loaner while my bike was in the shop that came without a saddle bag. Another time I just forgot. Plus, it leaves me more space for other stuff like clothing.
I don’t like to mount my pump externally, because the pump will attract grime and dirt. Plus, it’ll break the symmetry of the bike.
I accept you prefer the bike without internal storage, which is fair, but it is something that others would like to see.
Have you tried stuffing it in clever ways? Like I wrote, that’s what I have successfully done with the fake bottle in my commuter. Zero rattles even when I ride down a flight of stairs (i. e. sharp bumps on concrete).
I hope we will get out of this mindset. Wheels have the same problem, weight is an easy, objective criterion. Things like hooked vs. hookless, ride quality and reliability are not.
Are S-Works framesets shipping yet? I got told July sometime. Still deciding between this or the new BMC. Would prefer Specialized because I get a discount but don’t really feel like waiting that long.
In an attempt to move on from internal frame storage discussion - here is just one man’s opinion so far on Crux 5. Sounds like he thinks the Crux 4 is a better “do it all” and road bike despite the new one looking like a Tarmac (makes sense given slight geo tweaks) but he said he will give a more full review after 500+ miles
If these threads didn’t go into rat holes debating the merit of the bike features (storage, 1x vs 2x, geometry, etc), these new bike threads would have like 3 posts. Whether you think that’s a good or bad thing is up for debate I guess.
After checking the Crux 5 in person I’m going to stick with the 4 for a while. The colors are ugly (IMO) and need the S-level minimum unless one wants shallow wheels for some reason. ETA I feel like the lineup is missing a pro version with Force and the aero wheels.
I’m just interested in the bike feedback. Given I have a Crux 4 and am looking at the 5, I didn’t quite catch that you thought the 4 was the better road bike in your original post. How do you find the two compare on the road specifically and how are you setting them up?
Man, I love my downtube storage on the Epic 8. Tools, plugs, CO2s, quick link, AirTag, and gloves, jacket, if I get hot. Could literally put a burrito in there if you wanted.
edit: oops, made this reply before I scrolled further and found out talking about frame storage isn’t allowed anymore
I’d say it depends on what you ride more. More road, stick with the 4. More gravel, go 5.
The 4 still has a lot of the CX geometry, which makes it really nice as a road bike. Higher BB, shorter wheelbase, steeper headtube angle. All of these are going to feel more like a true road bike than most gravel bikes and it’s going to give you a more road bike ride feel.
Couple that to light weight, external cables, and standard parts, it’s a killer allrounder.
As a Crux 4 owner I’ll go ahead and chime in a little bit. It’s probably the bike I ride the most between my aero road bike and 2024 Spesh Epic Comp. I race it, do easy rides, do workouts outside and do 4ish hour adventure rides on it regularly and that includes riding from my door to the trails and driving there too. The Crux 4 (I hate that I have to call it that now, btw) is such a fun and capable bike that I really don’t see myself upgrading.
However, If I did, I would LOVE the internal storage despite a 100-gram penalty for two simple reasons. First, every bike looks way better without a saddle bag and aesthetics matter for me. Second, I’m not the type that is digging into my saddle bag often at all and I prefer to keep my repair kit out the of the way. If I’m racing, I’ll revert back to my minimalist bike wallet that has my race day essentials and stick that in my jersey pocket.
No matter what, looks like the Crux 5 is a hit. Just my 2 cents amigos.
Personally, I would have loved to see them add frame storage since owning an Epic 8. Specialized seem to have figured out how to make it not rattle and actually be useful. But at the same time I wouldn’t rule out the bike for not having it. Actually feel the same about 1x only. I’d prefer 2x because I like it better, but I can run 1x and be ok.
Related to gearing, I did find it interesting to hear Mads explain his decision to run XPLR while Keegan and Beers ran the Transmission cassette. Being a roadie, he said he hated the big jumps in the 10-51t cassette. I think he was the only Specialized rider running the 13s actually.
From what he said, it had nothing to do with power but because the Transmission derailleur can handle mud better. He tried it (12s 10-51t) but he hated how it felt with the larger gear jumps.
I bet a lot of people would be fine with the 10-46t at Unbound.
I think there’s quite a few mid level racers who choose the 10-52 not so much for the 52, but moreso that they can run a larger chainring up front for the descents.
On my gravel bike I ran a 40T front and 10-46 rear for the last 2 years in southern Texas races, Unbound 100, and here in Washington. My local gravel rides often have 120-150’ of climbing per mile. With that, comes very fast descents. The current gearing was fine for climbing, but I’d spin out too much going downhill. I recently changed to a 10-52 with a 44T up front and I gained a tiny bit climbing and a really good chunk descending. There’s been a few times where I’ve noticed the larger jumps in gearing, but overall it’s a much welcomed change. I needed the 44T front much more than I need the 52 rear.
Yea I get that. I ran a 48t front with the 10-46t for BWR because I wanted more at the top end. For flatter stuff I usually run a 50t front. But I’m like Mads I don’t like the 10-51t cassette as a 12 speed. Haven’t tried the Garabuk 13s version yet though.
To add to the gearing. I live where its over 100 ft of climbing per mile. Not long climbs. Usually only 10 to 20 minutes. But steep 20% sustained. For Rule of 3 and most of my base training, I run an 40t with a 9-45 E13. It works great. When doing some local races that I didn’t have time to change the chainring, I wished I had more top end and would find the 45t unused. But for Z2 training, the 40-45 is unneeded but welcome.
For the rest of the year, I will run a 46t chainring with the 9-45t cassette. Is the 46-9 overkill? Yes. But the 46-45 is perfect. Plus it keeps my chain line great. As someone who has raced unbound, If I had access to every chainring I ever wanted, I would run the gravel cassette with a 50 or 52t chainring. I don’t need the top end. But I sure do not need an easier gear than a 50-45. Bigger gears, more efficient- y’all know the shpeal.
