Crux 2021

[FlatlandClimber]

Kinda defeats the purpose of those tires for me

[Gavin929]

As I reported earlier, even tough I haven’t tried it myself, 3T blog states that you can use wide force FD and chainrings with Red AXS cranks in order to keep a road Q factor.

On my road bike I have THM and honestly I didn’t know it had a different Q factor.

Thanks for replying again. I missed that in your original post. That's going to be key for maximizing tire clearance on this frame when running 2x

[maquisard]

Kinda defeats the purpose of those tires for me

Agree - seems very stupid! This removes the big benefit of those tires. The clearance also looks too small for any actual gravel, a trapped stone or mud could easily lock up the tire.

[FlatlandClimber]

Just took another look at my pathfinders, and the widest parts of the tire isn't even a knob, but just the sidewalls.

I think the wide set up makes the bike 150g heavier, but makes it a lot more capable when running 42c tires or wider.

[Matte86]

As I reported earlier, even tough I haven’t tried it myself, 3T blog states that you can use wide force FD and chainrings with Red AXS cranks in order to keep a road Q factor.

On my road bike I have THM and honestly I didn’t know it had a different Q factor.

Thanks for replying again. I missed that in your original post. That's going to be key for maximizing tire clearance on this frame when running 2x

No worries

Here’s the link https://blog.3t.bike/2020/05/14290/sram ... bike-tech/

[Karvalo]

Open say 700x40c but you can run 42-44c and I'm also running 2.2" (55mm) in 650b.

So if Spesh are saying 700x47c, you'd expect to be able to run 2.35" in 650b? That's a legit MTB tyre!

It doesn't scale like that. You can't say that just because bike A can take an x-mm wider 650 tyre than 700 then bike B will also definitely be able to take an x-mm wider 650 tyre.

The Open is limited on 700 tyre clearance because of height, but it has loads of width. The Crux has more height but it doesn't necessarily follow that it has anymore width, or even the same amount. As it's stated that the Crux is good for 2.1" I'd be surprised if 2.2" didn't fit but 2.35" sounds like a stretch, I think you'd have razor thin clearances at best.

[FlatlandClimber]

^^^
Good points.
Also, I would like to Stress the relevance of clearance on Gravel/ CX bikes depending on the surface you ride on.
If you are mainly riding in the dry, roads, hard pack, light gravel, you will not need huge clearance.
However, once you get into heavier gravel or mud, clearance become invaluable.
I just rode in proper dirt for a century and even the clearance of an Open Wi.De for a 42c tire became problematic.
The Wi.De is rated for huge 2.4 650b and can even be ridden with 2.6", but is only rated for 45c. That's because the bike can, as the name suggests, take super wide tires, but runs into problems with tall tires.
Once dirt accumulated on the seat tube, the tire started rubbing on that dirt.
Not to a point where the tire got stuck or anything, but I cleaned it out a few times to reduce friction.

So even this bike clearing monster 2.6" Mountainbike tires doesn't perform amazingly with a smaller than the clearance is rated tire, on another rim size.

That's why I agree that these extrapolations don't really add up.

[ryanw]

Open say 700x40c but you can run 42-44c and I'm also running 2.2" (55mm) in 650b.

So if Spesh are saying 700x47c, you'd expect to be able to run 2.35" in 650b? That's a legit MTB tyre!

It doesn't scale like that. You can't say that just because bike A can take an x-mm wider 650 tyre than 700 then bike B will also definitely be able to take an x-mm wider 650 tyre.

The Open is limited on 700 tyre clearance because of height, but it has loads of width. The Crux has more height but it doesn't necessarily follow that it has anymore width, or even the same amount. As it's stated that the Crux is good for 2.1" I'd be surprised if 2.2" didn't fit but 2.35" sounds like a stretch, I think you'd have razor thin clearances at best.

Did you forget to quote the first part of my post?

I'd also like to know the real world max tyre sizes on these.

[dzl]

As I reported earlier, even tough I haven’t tried it myself, 3T blog states that you can use wide force FD and chainrings with Red AXS cranks in order to keep a road Q factor.

On my road bike I have THM and honestly I didn’t know it had a different Q factor.

Thanks for replying again. I missed that in your original post. That's going to be key for maximizing tire clearance on this frame when running 2x

No worries

Here’s the link https://blog.3t.bike/2020/05/14290/sram ... bike-tech/

Hey Matte86, thanks for the link. I read through the post and all of the comments, and it seems that Gerard actually discourages using a WIDE FD with standard cranks:

"Michael Albrecht says:26 March 2021
Hi
Can I use the force etap wide front derailleur with the force 46/33 crankset? Thanks for any insights

Reply
Gerard Vroomen says:26 March 2021
Yes and no. A wide FD requires a wide crank. using a regular crank will really put the lower position on its limit and not give you guaranteed good performance. So you cannot use a wide FD with a standard 46/33 crank.

But if the goal is to run a wide setup with 46/33 rings, then there is a way. You can start with a wide FD and a wide crank with 43/30. Then you upgrade the spider+rings to 46/33 and voila, you have a 46/33 wide crank. This works because the “wide”ness of the crank is in the axle, not the spider. So putting a non-wide spider on a wide axle renders a wide crank."

Did I miss an update or correction from him somewhere?

Thanks.

[Matte86]

As I reported earlier, even tough I haven’t tried it myself, 3T blog states that you can use wide force FD and chainrings with Red AXS cranks in order to keep a road Q factor.

On my road bike I have THM and honestly I didn’t know it had a different Q factor.

Thanks for replying again. I missed that in your original post. That's going to be key for maximizing tire clearance on this frame when running 2x

No worries

Here’s the link https://blog.3t.bike/2020/05/14290/sram ... bike-tech/

Hey Matte86, thanks for the link. I read through the post and all of the comments, and it seems that Gerard actually discourages using a WIDE FD with standard cranks:

"Michael Albrecht says:26 March 2021
Hi
Can I use the force etap wide front derailleur with the force 46/33 crankset? Thanks for any insights

Reply
Gerard Vroomen says:26 March 2021
Yes and no. A wide FD requires a wide crank. using a regular crank will really put the lower position on its limit and not give you guaranteed good performance. So you cannot use a wide FD with a standard 46/33 crank.

But if the goal is to run a wide setup with 46/33 rings, then there is a way. You can start with a wide FD and a wide crank with 43/30. Then you upgrade the spider+rings to 46/33 and voila, you have a 46/33 wide crank. This works because the “wide”ness of the crank is in the axle, not the spider. So putting a non-wide spider on a wide axle renders a wide crank."

Did I miss an update or correction from him somewhere?

Thanks.

I was only referring to a way to keep the ‘road’ Q factor with a wide FD and 43/30, because I understood the author the post I replied was asking about that..
Could be I misinterpreted/my rusty English didn’t help.. or I replied to the wrong person..
It’d be great though to be able to use the wide FD with different Rings.

[gSporco]

So for all you 1x Users or converters out there, why not go with a Eagle AXS 1x setup on your Crux?

XPLR seems limiting to me at 10-44 with the only benefit of a 1 tooth jump from 10 to 11 cog... then its 2 tooth for most of the middle cogs.. Eagle 10-50 is 2 tooth from 10 through the kiddle... With a 44 or 46t CR you have plenty of low and plenty of high gears... seems that every Sram Pro running 1x is using a 46t 10/50 eagle axs setup...

What am I missing? What are you 1xer's going for?

[FlatlandClimber]

I am currently running 44 10-52 on my open wide.
Pretty awesome. The big jumps are not really a Hinderance if road. I actually like how easy I get get from fast to slow and back.
The reason for me to go 2x is that I want to have more gears at the top end for racing and a better chain line. That's all

[Karvalo]

Open say 700x40c but you can run 42-44c and I'm also running 2.2" (55mm) in 650b.

So if Spesh are saying 700x47c, you'd expect to be able to run 2.35" in 650b? That's a legit MTB tyre!

It doesn't scale like that. You can't say that just because bike A can take an x-mm wider 650 tyre than 700 then bike B will also definitely be able to take an x-mm wider 650 tyre.

The Open is limited on 700 tyre clearance because of height, but it has loads of width. The Crux has more height but it doesn't necessarily follow that it has anymore width, or even the same amount. As it's stated that the Crux is good for 2.1" I'd be surprised if 2.2" didn't fit but 2.35" sounds like a stretch, I think you'd have razor thin clearances at best.

Did you forget to quote the first part of my post?

I'd also like to know the real world max tyre sizes on these.

Clearly not, as it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[ryanw]

I was asking a question about real world max tyre sizes and then gave my own experiences of late regarding my OPEN.

I didn't need you to tell me why I can't compare bike A to bike B, that's pretty bloody obvious. But you do love getting on your high horse with me for some bizarre reason. I find it's like children in the playground. You're mean to me but deep down it's becasue you like me. Appreciate you spending the time to find my posts to comment on.

Anyway, if anyone with a new Crux would like to share their experiences with max tyre sizes, that would be greatly appreciated, 650B preferred.

[Karvalo]

[removed by mod, keep it civil]