They aren’t really first. One of the first bikes to go 1x only was 3T with its Strada. And I don’t see the problem: these are opinionated bikes and there are plenty of choices out there for people who want 2x. Lack of cables makes manufacture easier, and SRAM eTap (AXS) works very well.
For the record, I live close to proper mountains and own a 3T Strada. I can ride everything just fine (10–36 cassette and a 42-tooth chain ring), 1x works great for me. The steps between gears feel identical to the 11-32 cassette that I had on my previous road bike with 2x.
1x allows frame designers to make different choices. While that isn’t as important on road bikes as on mountain bikes, it still gives frame designers extra freedom. I believe that as soon as we get 13 gears from SRAM and Shimano (Shimano last) that over time most road bikes will be 1x.
Ah, I see. My guess is that the mainstream choice if you want to go 1x is SRAM. Shimano’s road groupsets are not made for 1x. Yes, you have Rotor’s and Campy’s 1x13 groupsets, but these are rather niche — although perhaps they shouldn’t be.
My Strada fully supports mechanical and wired electronic groupsets. Some (2x-compatible) high-end bikes only support wireless groupsets (e. g. the Venge).
Yeah, I don’t have an issue w/ the 1x option necessarily, it is the wireless only option that I think is dumb.
With this design, you have limited your entire customer base to those who want / are willing to ride SRAM. Between those who ride mechanical, prefer Shimano or simply don’t like SRAM, you have eliminated the majority of consumers out there from the consideration set.
And by eliminating other potential groups for being used, you have reduced volume potential, which raises your manufacturing costs by a much higher percentage.
There really is no advantage to this design idea. It is being “different” for the sake of being “different” with no benefit.
I’ve been noticing that some small manufacturers only seem to be able to get SRAM lately. All their bikes have SRAM and no Shimano in sight. I think they either didn’t plan/project/order early enough to beat out the major players like Trek and Specialized.
I think saying a majority is probably a bit much. If you had a venn diagram of folks who prefer shimano, prefer sram, refuse shimano, refuse sram, I’d think only a small percentage of those who prefer shimano would also be in the camp of refuse sram. I prefer Shimano, but if the bike I wanted had AXS on it only, I’d still buy it.
I say the majority because the majority of bikes out there are not SRAM….between mechanical groups, Shimano (the #1 share leader) and smaller players like FSA, Rotor and Microshift, that is the majority of the market and they have eliminated all that from the consideration set.
Skip the FD as they are intending 1x but I don’t see a problem with the seatpost to RD if there is a drainport at the rear for the chainstay. If they don’t have a drainport, then that’s a whole other issue for a gravel bike.
You mean like putting an ‘X’ over it like I did in my picture… and mentioning only the RD in my related text?
As to your speculation on a “maybe” hole in there, it is possible that one exists, but even if so, using it would be a hack and seemingly not at all what they intend.
And anyone willing to put the money into that (guessing a frameset would be $3000+ USD) and tack on even the “cheap” Ultegra Di2 12-speed would not be keen on using zip ties for the wire from the BB area to the RD.