On Road.CC today. Nothing really surprising here, I think all these things have been various speculated for a new Crux, but its a good summary.
It isnât really news or even useful for RoadCC to just write up what they think the Crux should or could be. I hate that so much of the news world is now, this is what MIGHT happen.
Speculating on industry and brand/model trends has been common for decades across all industries. Agree that a lot of âcreatorâ / clickbait stuff out there is just looking for views. Here they are at least speaking with authority on what they think S needs to do to keep up with the gravel race arms race, and have shown the examples of Roval and Specialized tech that is leaking, which points to a specific direction.
I am waiting for the Gravel Tarmac SL9. Or whatever. Just take the Tarmac. Slacken it out a bit. A little less stiff. And make the fork, seat stays wider. Sell it in masses. Throw some aero 55 up front, 47 in the rear, deep wheels. Give 50mm stated tire clearance, can comfortably squeeze in a Race King. It would be maybe 100g to 200g heavier at most. Plus go to 1 pice to save weight and aero. Boom. Most aero, lightweight gravel rig out there. I am not an industry person, but I do not see it that hard to convince.
Heck, keep the Crux the same. Make that the gravel atheos. Then make this one the Gravel Tarmac (does that kinda defeat the name tarmac), well. You get the point. I would probably willingly take out a loan to get one. (Mildy satire). Lets make it happen.
Am I delusional? Probably? But this is what I want. I think a lot of the market is wanting this from the Big S. So lets make it happen.
I really just want one of the big brands to still make a CX bike - but I guess I am in a shrinking minority at this point. Take the Crux back to 2019 and just give it slightly wider tire clearance - boom done. 
The Trek Boone and Crockett are still as CXy as ever.
Unfortunately (and this is speculation), but I think the Boone and Crockettâs days are numbered (I have a Crockett). Trek have not updated them in several years, and both have been frameset only on sale, with no new stock. If Trek made a new Boone I would be first in line, but sadly I donât think it is a priority for them anymore.
Yeah. But I donât see why an Aero Crux (if done like a sl8) would not simply work for CX. Tire clearance equals mud clearance. Keep the weight down. Win-win? Admittedly I have raced CX as of like 2 times but thatâs just my humble take.
It all depends how they handle tire clearance. If (as speculated) they go up to 2.2 tire clearance, they will likely have to extend the wheelbase, and possibly lower the BB. Both will make it less CX-y, and more gravely. Sure you could still do CX on it no problem, but it wonât be a true CX race machine.
I donât see it going bigger than a claimed 50mm. Seeing how the diverg is at 50. You could probably fit a 2.2 in. But I donât think it will be built to. But that is a valid point.
Interesting. I didnât know what the diverge is rated for, but my buddy runs 55 schwalbe RX on his with a really good amount of clearance leftover.
My front Enve fork is rated at 50mm but a 53mm thunder Burt is reallllly tight.
The diverage fits 2.2âs pretty comfortably and even Specialized has touted this. I donât know if that makes it an âofficialâ tire size that is supported, but whatever⌠Itâs hard to compare all these bikes because manufacturers are using different standards (road vs. MTB) to determine their official tire clearance. At the end of the day, I think 50mm with lots of mud clearance and 2.2âs for dry conditions is going to be enough tire clearance for most buyers. Based on how Specialized rated the diverage, Iâd be very surprised if the crux claims greater than 50mm, but hopefully the crux will fit a 2.2 with a bit of margin.
I think 3T checked pretty much every box on their new âextremaâ with aero frame and 57mm clearance. The pricing is completely nuts though, 6500usd for a frame and 10k for a rival/GX transmission build.
Yeah⌠and it is not a light bike either. Looks kinda like a box to ride. I figure if you went the Tarmac route, it would be a bit more lively. Plus spec it better. Put a 46 or a 48t stock. XPLR rear. Nice build I recon.
Iâve loved that bike and touted it as a top choice for fast carbon gravel. That being said, is it missing down tube storage? I couldnât find it on a quick once over. Might not be a total dealbreaker but sure is great to have.
I think you are right, so doesnât check every box. And Iâm always suspect on aero claims, but it looks like itâs somewhat aero optimized.
I donât think anyone is selling stock gravel bikes with 46t or 48t chainrings when there is a 10t cog in the rear. Very few amateurs would benefit from that kind of gearing. Itâs rare to even see a 44t on a new bike and most bikes appear to be shipping with a 40t these days (seems like it used to be 42t a few years ago).
On the XPLR vs. MTB Transmission groupset, I think it just comes down to what you ride and preferences. Even the pros that run SRAM typically go to the wider MTB gearing for any gravel courses with steep/extended climbing. I used to switch back and forth between xplr and MTB gearing based on course, but ended up selling my XPLR stuff because I never used it anymore. And it training, it really nice to have the bail out MTB gearing when you have to stay in Z2 on hilly terrain. Once you get used to the bigger gear jumps, there just isnât much advantage to XPLR (in my opinion).
Just the new Aspero-5 I think. I actually love that bike theoretically, havenât tried it or anything. A 48t in the front and aero (itâs basically an S5 w more clearance). Tire clearance is âonlyâ 45 so that is a deal killer for some/many, but where I live I have found the mtb tires to be overkill. Iâd deal with 45âs as a max for that frame and that gearing right out of the box.
I see your point. But if itâs going to be sold as a Race bike, it should have race gearing. Itâs like, why are we putting a 52-36 chainring combo on an aero bike? If I am spending 5k, I donât want to have to switch out the chainrings. For gravel, I think a 44t should be the standard for stock race bikes. The people who want the race bike want the speed. Plus a 1 to 1 is fine for the majority of the world.
You should have ran the new Garbaruk 13 speed 10-50 cassette. Runs with your XPLR deralliure. Gets all the range. And more gears!
When they sell new complete bikes, they are trying to target gearing that works for the biggest population possible. Some people have hilly terrain and most people arenât pushing huge FTPâs. Iâve raced a lot of gravel and most of it on a 42t. I will often run a 44t on flat/short races, but mainly because my gravel bike is also my road bike for fast group rides, etc. Iâm an old guy, but still pushing over 4w/kg and have never been dropped due to gearing when running a 42 (including podium finishes at Unbound 200 the last 2 years, a course with plenty of flat/fast/tailwind sections). A 44t ring on a stock bike would hurt a lot more people than it would help. That includes people who are racing. Even running 40t or 42t, most amateurs are over geared (in my opinion). People see pros pushing 48t rings and think thatâs a path to being faster, but those pros are all pushing over 5w/kg with outstanding durability/endurance while many amateurs are closer to 3w/kg without great endurance.
I agree that a 44 for race bikes is ideal but I also agree that most people buying gravel bikes really should be on a 40 or 42. I have always run a 44 on my old Crux and it was perfect with me being just over a 4 w/kg FTP. I will top out around 33-35 mph so can keep up with the fast groups but can still climb anything I have rode in Colorado. It does start to get a little spicy on longer steeper climbs and/or longer races with lots of climbing at the end.
I run a 44 with a 10-44 in the back and agree that for most people a 40 or 42 is fine. The reason I want that 48 with a mtb cassette is because at high speeds I donât like spending a bunch of time in my two smallest cogs. The chainline would be more efficient and straighter if I could run in the middle of the cassette more, plus Iâd still have the 48/52 which is even more climbing gear than the one to one I have now. Seems like a win-win to me.