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.
I saw the shifting problems in person at Unbound and saw several ripped off RD’s on social media that were hanging from shift cables. And I’m not saying electronic was working perfect, everyone was skipping at times and lots of dropped chains as well. The mechanical stuff just can’t shift to the smaller cogs when the RD is loaded with mud. For the RD’s that were ripped off, I think that is more about UDH vs. traditional hanger than electronic vs. mechanical, but most of the electronic out there is SRAM UDH, so not surprising that most of those failures are mechanical.
There were top riders who struggled because their sram t type drivetrains were failing too though. The unique mud at unbound shouldn’t force everyone to ride heavy, expensive electronic drivetrains. Wouldn’t be at all surprised to find some people have totally trashed their electronic derailleurs. Cabled derailleurs perform just fine in normal wet/mud conditions. Single speed would probably be the best option there.
Lots of conjunctivitis, scratched corneas, some leg infections at unbound too. Maybe people will start to think twice after they pay for their new bearings and Dr bills.
I say this as someone who has been there done that with the ER visit after unbound. The busiest place in emporia!
Don’t you get a special badge for that?
Got the scars as a forever reminder of Kansas!
I see. Yeah that makes sense. The anchor on Sram Transmission is very robust. Much more than rd hangers. Thanks.
I’m sure it happens, but it’s pretty amazing how well these things hold up in deep water. I choose to carry my bike through the really deep water in the tunnel, trying to protect bearings and RD from the deep submersion. But plenty of people were riding and several falling in sections that resulted in their bikes being totally submerged. Pretty impressive engineering on all the bike electronics (power meters, shifters, RD’s, computers, etc.) to make it through that stuff without issue.
Yeah, but I’ve ended up in multiple races where the conditions are far from “normal”. This year at unbound was pretty sloppy and 2023 had more challenging mud, but I’ve done other races that were much worse than either (just not as long). Just look at the opening world cup XCO race of the year this year, stuff like that is going to push all components to the limit. My personal belief is that SRAM t-type electronic is the most robust option in the slop, but that’s certainly not established fact and everyone is welcome to their opinion.
And the reports of stomach issues are starting to filter in. With the extreme amount and duration of the mud, I was thinking about the cow shit flying around any time I was behind someone. Giardia can take a while to start showing symptoms, I wonder how many people are going to end up dealing with it. I’ve got my fingers crossed.