3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

It’s been six years since Gerard Vroomen last designed a road bike, and this new one is an idea that he first started working on 10 years ago, but the market wasn’t there. It took quite a while for people to want wider tires. Many years ago, when he was at Cervelo, they spec’d 25mm tires and people freaked out, saying they were far to big. Fast forward to today, and we all want to cram 28s into our frames to improve comfort and control.

The new 3T Strada does that and more as the first aero road bike designed around wide tires. Oh, and there’s no front derailleur…

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

The Strada isn’t just about wider tires or a lack of front gears. It’s a new take on aerodynamics thinking with overall tube shaping. Arcfoil is their name for a new philosophy on tube shaping, taking air flow’s curvature into consideration. They say air doesn’t flow perfectly horizontal, that it hits the downtube and starts flowing upward at first, then levels out as it passes over the tube. So, they shaped the tubes accordingly.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

They also increased the width in front of the water bottle to improve flow around it.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

The biggest new thinking is about the clutter around the crankset with water bottles, front derailleurs and two chainrings. All of that blocks wind and forces air to go wider, all the way out around the legs.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

Getting rid of the front derailleur and small chainring lets air flow around the seat tube, between it and the chainring, keeping it more streamlined against the bike.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

This also let them optimize the seat tube’s shape to cover the rear wheel’s leading edge and further optimize air flow.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

About that gearing. They say an 11-36 cassette with a single chainring has the same range as a compact cassette with a double, but the gear steps are huge. A standard 11-28 cassette doesn’t have quite enough range for a 1x system, but has good steps between gears. Their solution is to create their own cassette, which will have single tooth steps for the first five cogs and a 350% (or greater) range. They say that’s equivalent to the prior generation Ultegra group’s recommended combination.

SRAM XDR XD Road freehub driver body for 12 speed road bikes

They’re not ready to show their cassette yet, but are hinting strongly that it might be sitting on the as-yet-unused SRAM XDR driver body freehub system. So far, that standard hasn’t been used and there’s not actually a production cassette designed for it, but it’s out there. You can mount any of SRAM’s XD-specific mountain bike cassettes on it with a spacer, which suggests there’s room on it for a proper 12 speed (or more) road cassette. SRAM is pushing the 1x road systems, and this could be the start of it all. But, for this particular bike, they’re claiming to have their own cassette with very specific gear steps. If we had to guess, a 10-35 provides that 350% range and would work on XD, but they also say the 40-tooth max XT rear cassette shown on this bike works really well.

We won’t have to wait long to find out, the bike will go on sale in July 2017. So, yeah, we’re getting ahead of ourselves a bit with this post’s headline, but seems like the writing’s on the wall.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

Back to tires. The 3T Strada is designed around 25-30mm tires. It’s for disc brakes only, which lets them optimize the design.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

Fork crown is minimal, which not only has a smaller frontal area, but also pulls the wheel and tire closer to the downtube to improve overall aerodynamics.

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

3T Strada aero road bike with 1x drivetrain and wide tires

They say they’ve done wind tunnel tests and are “very happy” but aren’t ready to release the actual data.

Actual weight photos provided by 3T, used with permission.

Frame weight is claimed at 970g for medium with paint and hardware, 395g for the fork with uncut steerer. Available in S/M/L/XL with the M and L coming available in July and others following shortly thereafter. Price TBD. More tech details will be released closer to the bike’s launch, they’re intentionally keeping a few things secret until then, but leave questions in the comments and we’ll be sure to get answers.

3Tcycling.com

126 COMMENTS

  1. super cool bike. Excited about 1×12 road. I do have a question though. Looks like in going for total aero they only have 1 spot on this bike for a bottle? Is that correct? No 2nd spot for a 2nd cage?

  2. Looks like a very short wheel base based upon the amount of overlap between the rear wheel and the crankset.

  3. okay, I’ll take the bait – 30 mm tires on a friggin aero bike? What? I’m all about aero for spanking my ride mates, or big tires for more comfort on secondary/gravel roads, but really? How wide of a rim do you have to run to get acceptable performance from a 30mm tire? And don’t get me started on the single ring – great for dicking around, but no way will you compete in a flat, group sprint with a 44-11. I’m on a 53-11 or 12.
    One more niche product for people that need a 12 step program for bikes.

    • The XD driver body lets you use 10 or even 9T cogs. 44×9 is bigger than 53×11, and 48×10 is exactly equivalent.

      • It may be possible to duplicate the gear ratio of the 53×11 using a 10t and 9t cog, but the 10t and 9t cogs are less efficient than the 11t. As in they are more parasitic and will increase losses in the drivetrain.

          • I would just like to point out that the wear lines on your chainring would align with the cog (9xpentagon = 45), such that wear on the cog would be highly uneven. Since you likely produce 1500W at all times, I assume you live in the 9T cog.

            -Armchair engineer at your service sir

    • Okay, I’ll take your bait – That’s not a 44.. That’s a 48, and with that XDR body you can put a 10t in the rear. 48-10 is right on par with 53-11. And with those’s 28 (yeah 28c not 30) you’ll also won’t need that 48-10 to get the same speeds.

      Regarding wheels, but the new Zipp or Evne tubeless wheels in there. They’ll be a perfect aero match with 28 tires.

    • SRAM cannot figure out the front derailleur, and now we have a 1×12 road bike. Nice gaps on that cassette. As for the frame, good stuff! Please include an optional front derailleur mount.

    • Tom, unless your last name is Boonen, you’re grossly overgeared for those flat sprints. A 53/12 at 120 RPM works out to 41.4 mph. A 53/11 at 120 RPM gets you 45.2 mph. For context, Marty Nothstein turned in a 10.166-second 200M time in the Sydney Olympics match sprint, which works out to 44 mph. And he did it in a 50/14.

      So you’re claiming that you need a 53/11 for your “flat, group sprints” because you’re going more than 1 mph faster than an Olympic sprinter at the peak of his condition? Keep in mind he made ~2200 watts while spinning his tiny, girly-man gear. How many watts can you make for 10 seconds?

      A 53/11 at 100 RPM is more like 36.2 mph, which seems more realistic. But even so, you’re still overgeared and therefore not accelerating as quickly as you should be. Nothstein often used a 50/14 in competition and still managed to go 41.4 mph. If you think you “need” a 53/11 to sprint at 45.2 mph (or even 36 mph), you’re doing it wrong (and probably not especially quickly, either).

      • admittedly, my 1500 watts peak doesn’t compare to Nothstein, and yes, he has beaten me in a field sprint. But it’s a poor analogy – Nothstein was a track sprinter who needed to be able to accelerate from 20 mph to 40+ quickly, thus the need for a small gear. And Nothstein met with notably little success on the road. When he sprinted on the road, I doubt very much it was on a 50-14. Secondly, talking about a 9-32 cog set, jeezus the jumps are huge on a block like that. To me, you’d be either over spun or over geared most of the time.

          • true, but with the 1x you are stuck with either a big gear for climbing, or big jumps between gears. The later can be very difficult when you are near your limit in a group – changing by 10 rpm either way might get me spat out.

              • SRAM’s 11-28 has the same gaps between gears as their 11-26, except for the two largest cogs, which are still comfortably close. With an 11-36 on my 1x setup I feel like I never have the right gear when I’m riding hard.

              • I understand what you are saying. But…we cannot do better on those small cogs, 1 tooth increment is as small as it will go there. But that’s not the critical interval – it’s when climbing at the limit on the mid range gears. That’s where a big gear difference could do me in.
                You may be correct about 1X working well, but I still view it as a compromise that I’m not willing to make on my road bike.

        • You make some fair points about match sprinters and their need to accelerate from relatively low speeds. Your comment about 9-and 10-tooth cogs and their huge jumps is also valid. Plus, cogs that small are closer to polygons than circles; they can feel “lumpy” to pedal and are less efficient than 11- and 12-tooth cogs.

          Nothstein has beaten me in field sprints too…I raced against him as a junior on the east coast in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Maybe he beat us in some of the same field sprints. 🙂 But the guy was an Olympic match sprinter, and that kind of specialization pretty much ensures that you’re not well-rounded enough to win pro road races.

          Your comments imply that you’re a Cat 2 or better. I’d argue that turning 120 RPM in a field sprint is pretty common at that level, and a 53/12 should do the trick on the flat. With a tailwind, though…

          There’s no harm in having the 11 (or using it) but only the very fastest truly need it. Seriously, if you’re turning a 53/11 at 120 RPM on the flat, you’re probably doing so professionally.

          Much of my comment was driven by something I hear occasionally from fat master’s racers: “Oh, I can’t use a compact crank. I need my 53/11 for sprints.” They never seem to mention that they’re turning that gear at 85 RPM for 150 meters.

          Back when I was fast—the older I get, the faster I was—the pro/1/2 riders at Somerville turned a 53/13 on the front straight and a 53/12 on the back when the race was really moving. 11-tooth cogs weren’t common then, but even in a flat, fast crit like Somerville, no one was spinning out in a 53/12.

          Very few riders need such tall gears. Myself, I’m very excited about 1X road bikes. I’d love to use a 46t ring and an 11-30 or 11-32 for training. For flat races, I’d switch to an 11-23 cassette and (maybe) a 48t ring in front. I’m just waiting for SRAM to make an Etap rear derailleur with a clutch.

          • The problem with 1x for road (as I see it) is that the cassettes are not suited for road, they are mtb cassettes. The only 12sp cassette available today has 10-12-14-… jumps. At road speeds, where aero consumes the majority of power a jump from 12t to 10t requires 60% more power (assuming you maintain the same cadence). Not acceptable.
            11sp cassettes with 350%+ range have the same jumps, 11-40 xt for example 11-13-15-…

            • I don’t think anyone wants to run a 10-50 Eagle cassette on this frame. Again speaking for myself alone, I’d rather not have the 10-tooth cog but instead use a 12-speed 11-30 cassette with a 46t chainring. That would give me a 270% range (fine for most of my riding) with a top gear slightly larger than a 50/12. For fast, flat crits, a 12-speed 11-23 cassette with a 48-tooth ring would give me 1-tooth jumps for all but the last cog and plenty of top end.

              • If you are fine with 270% range, then 1×11 is a good option right now. The cassettes are available (ultegra 11-32 for example). For 350% range the manufacturers should come up with a “road specific” cassette (11-40).

      • For rolling resistance.
        For aerodynamics…no.
        Be careful when you read all the latest “wider is is faster”. True it ROLLS faster, but it is less aero. Ride fast and that aero penalty outweighs the rolling resistance reduction by a large margin. That said, it may be a small handicap for the other benefits it may provide. Choose what suits you best.

        • That depends on a number of factors that aren’t stated, like the exact profile of the tire, it’s width, the wheel on which it’s mounted, the velocity, the rolling resistance of the tire, and exactly what constitutes “large margin”.

          • The only thing one can really do is keep the same profile and transition to rim, and under those circumstances a thinner tire will always be more aero.
            Obviously thats easier said than done, not to mention there are non-aero downsides to thin tires, which may negate any aero savings.

            • Ultimately, the deciding factor will be an individual’s or team’s cost/benefit analysis, those analyses probably vary as much as preference for saddles does.

              Some wind tunnel test data would be nice, but I don’t expect to see that in the next few issues of VeloNews.

              I wonder what the odds are of the US Congress passing a law that creates and funds a national bicycle performance test lab? I’d pay taxes for such a neutral lab, a lab in which there are wind tunnels, rolling resistance test tracks, and labs replete with custom machined test fixtures, laser linear encoders, and machines that go “beep”.

        • The main factor in aero drag in a rider bike combination is a rider. A bike contributes a small fraction to the overall drag – let’s say 20%. The tires add a fraction of the bikes drag, but not as small as one might think, because the top of the tire is traveling trough air twice as fast as the bike and rider. As the force of air drag squares with speed, the top of the tire is 4x more important than the rest of the bike (or perhaps even 8x P = F*v). Let’s say that tire adds 40% of the bike drag. So 8% of the drag of the whole system. If you increase the frontal area of the tire from 23mm to 28mm, you increase the drag of the tire by 22% and overall drag by 1.7%. If you are capable of producing 500W, wider tires will cost you 8W of additional air drag.
          How much you gain with wider tires with less pressure is up for debate, but to be honest I think it is more than 8W.

          • which is really depend on the shape profile. An big ice-cream cone shape (tire too wide for the rim) is less aero than a Toroidal U shape or modern V shape as Enve and Reynold is using. That said, wide tire is also aero if it mate with equally wide rim. So wide rim in range of 27-31mm make sense for 25c tires which inflate to oversized 27-30mm.

            Check how small the difference in width it need to change outcome of aero-ness.
            https://silca.cc/blogs/journal/part-5-tire-pressure-and-aerodynamics

    • A 1×12 is still more than Eddy Merckx had but hey, keep telling us how you need better gear than he needed to win the Tour!

      • And everyone is rightfully glad we didn’t stop improving bikes after Merckx stopped racing. These stuck in the past people are comical..

    • I rode 44 x 11-36 for ~4000 miles on my road bike this year. I’m going back to 2x. In short, 1x is probably fine for a lot of folks (especially flatlanders), but even if you add a 12th cog, the spacing between cogs is still large no matter how you distribute them (assuming you’re trying to match the range of 2x). For comparison, 2×11 compact with 11-28 has ~16 unique gears. The only systems that rival this are Rohloff and Pinion, but obviously those are prohibitively heavy for many.

      Keep in mind also that the larger the chainring, the bigger the difference between increments in cogs. In other words, even if you have [10]-11-12-13-14-15 in the cassette, the ratios between these gears is 41% bigger with a 48t chainring compared to a 34t chainring (the math: [48/13 – 48/14]/[34/13 – 34/14] = 48/34 = 1.41). This effect is obvious if you’ve ever ridden a normal 2x road bike — the gaps between the cogs feel bigger when you’re in the big ring. For 1x road, you’re always in the big ring! And the inclusion of an extra-tiny 10t cog makes this effect even more pronounced.

      For me at least, one of the reasons I went for 1x in the first place is because shifting a compact crank (with mechanical shifting) is hard. The spacing between compact chainrings is too high, so then you have to make 3-4 recovery shifts in the rear. Some acknowledge this, for others its more subconscious and leads to dreams of the “simplicity” of a 1x drivetrain.

      The other problem with 1x is that often I want to switch to a much smaller gear quickly (e.g. approaching a steep hill). On 2x, you would just switch to the smaller ring. On 1x, you have to give your right shift lever a full 3-click throw (and maybe more), which is more difficult than switching to a smaller chainring.

      I’m excited to try out the new Shimano front derailleurs which are supposedly much easier to shift. In addition, I think 90% of riders would be happier on 46-36 cyclocross cranks or even smaller (42-32). With a 28% ratio between rings instead of the 47% of a compact, they are much easier to shift and reason with, as well as make rear recovery shifts with (1-2 rear clicks to find the next gear instead of 3-4). With a 46t ring, you can still pedal up to 40mph. For those that absolutely need more top end, I think 50-39 could be fairly compelling, since it sports the same chainring ratio (~28%), and you could pair it with an 11-32 SRAM cassette to match the low end of a compact with an 11-28.

  4. WIDE TIRES, no derailer, disc only, and a whole new shape* with a new Name!?!? SO REVOLUTIONARY… said NO ONE EVER.

    *nope, still bike shaped

  5. I’m excited about this approach – wider tires for lower rolling resistance and reduced fatigue, one-by for reduced redundancy and weight (do the math and compare the ratios on a 48×10-32 or 44×9-28 to an 11-25 double before freaking out), and aerodynamics designed to take these things into account.

    Even though they’re a smaller company pushing boundaries, I hope that the price won’t be as close as the Exploro’s to custom steel or ti- but have to think that it will be

      • There are a lot of hills and mountains around where I live, so I would go with a 52/36 crank and an 11-28 cassette. Or possibly an 11-32 cassette. That would be for a regular road bike with light dirt road riding. My current set up is 53/39 with a 12-27.

        I would be interested in knowing the road riding experience of all the people that clamoring for a 1×12 road group. And if they’ve ever actually ridden road bike before.

        • Have YOU ever ridden a 1x setup on the road? Just curious…not trying to mock you or anything. My experience is this: I’ve had 53/36 with 11-28, 50/34 with 11-32, and currently a 44t with 11-42. In the first 5 miles of a short sprint-type ride where I’m fresh as can be, going downhill I can feel like I would prefer a little more gear. Beyond that, there’s no place I wish for my double back. At any given point, I can comfortably cruise 26 mph with a hard effort on rolling terrain and bump that up or down accordingly. Normally, I’ll average 18-21 mph alone for 1-3 hr rides on rolling terrain that yields about 1,000 ft of elevation gain per 10 miles. The jumps in the cassette are bigger, and call me crazy, but it’s actually kind of nice. (deleted) try harder, or shift and spin a little more. I actually find it pretty refreshing to mix it up a bit more than the constant monotony of keeping the “perfect” cadence/rpm/power, whatever. I’m not a cat anything road racer, but I can hang with the A guys at the club ride and I’ll put it in the top 10 of a local Expert MTB race, so I’m not the slowest guy either. I also appreciate simplicity and will admit that if you don’t mind adjusting, working on, and carrying around the extra gear, a double makes the bike more versatile…no doubt about it. But I looooove removing things from my life. I know it sounds trivial, but taking that front derailleur off, then eventually pitching it all together felt really damn good.

        • OK- let’s look at the numbers with a few scenarios:

          * 11-28 11s Ultegra cassette with a 50/36 double has a 354% range with a double and 9% average step. There’s our baseline as it suits most riders very well.

          * 10-28 hypothetical 12s has a 280% range with a 9% average step. Not bad for a lot of rider who don’t live in the mountains- keep the high gear with a 48 split the difference if not spinning out the 50×11 (few ever do).

          * 10-31 hypothetical 12s has a 310% range, slightly improving on your current 53/39×12-27 (306%) with an average step of just under 10% (sounds like a good racer compromise).

          * 10-35 hypothetical 12s has a 350% range, better than a 53/39×11-28 (346%) with an average step of 10.9%- which is about what you see when going from a 19t to a 21t cog.

          These are just numbers thrown together while Mrs. L was in the shower. One could tweak the steps for smaller steps mid-block, distribute them more evenly, or tailor the cogs to make for the ideal shift points.

          But most people are comfortable and efficient within a fairly broad range- when we’re talking about shifting down a gear at a cadence of 80rpm, the differences between the closest and broadest (average) steps here will be almost imperceptible for the vast majority of us: 87rpm vs 89. Your close-ratio 12-27 will take you from a cadence of 80 to 86; the 10-31 from 80-88.

          Sitting down and doing the math has me excited about the possibilities. If you’re a regular Bikerumor reader you know that people regularly find far worse ways to save ~1lb. And most of those cost money rather than save it like singles tend to.

          • Few counter points:
            *re price – as far as mtb goes, 1x is puzzlingly not cheaper than the equivalent 2x system (is puzzlingly a word?)
            *re redundancy – this is a good thing, being able to dump a hand full of gears in an instant, better chainline to boot.
            *re avg step – the steps at the small cogs is what matters, because as explained in another comment, where the aero drag trumps all other drags, the steps must be extra small (drag goes up with equivalent of v^3) if you want to maintain the same power increases with each gear. The step from 10 to 12 will give you 80rpm to 96rpm (not good)
            Personally if somebody would put a gun to my head and insist I go with a 1x system, I’d take a 14-50 cassette and a 62t front ring. No polygon effect and nice close steps: 14-15-17-19-22-25-28-31-35-39-44-50. 357% range and 4.43 top gear

            • Using a 14-50 cassette with a 62t ring would also require me to have a gun to my head. That sounds ridiculous.
              Try riding a single speed for a ride or two. All the obsession over small changes in cadence, ideal gear ratios, redundancy and dumping gears just melts away. Then get back on your multi speed bike and all the extra gears make everything seem sooooo easy.

        • ive a 1×12. range is fine but you gotta choose a little between higher speed and better climbs still.. yet its fine for most things and i live in a place with 25-30% grade climbs (ie serious stuff)
          what you dont get is finely grained shifting, theres a bit of gaps. thats absolutely not an issue for me as a recreational cyclist (which doesnt mean i dont perform just that i dont need to get the best performance) but it would be if you were racing 5hrs for sure.

          that also works out well because pros will go through the troubles of 2x. for me its nice though, 1x is simple and easy to maintain…

    • “… while we suffer…”
      Yeah, more choices, lighter weight, and lower bike prices (vs equivalent 2x) suck. Damn the man.

  6. I’ve been running single ring on my roadie for a couple of years now. 44 or 46 on the front and 42-10 rear. The gear range is the same as my old Dogma. Sure, the jumps are larger but I really never give that a thought. The only one that is sometimes too big is the step from the 12 down to 10. I’d never go back to a double though. The simplicity of a single ring far out-weighs any desire to micro-manage my cadence. I’d agree that this approach is the future for most riders.

  7. Anything smaller than a 56 front chainring and I would get dropped on my local flat rides in the sprint.

    Also I can climb at 7w/kg for an hour or 3 and would snap a chain with those big jumps on the cassette thingy.

    • hmmm, Durianrider…same guy who advocates 12 bananas a day? Ignoring what seems to be baiting by you, are we really at the point where we need to spend $8K on bike you d*ck around with? Or are we accepting that an $8K bike has real functional compromises built into the way it works (1X) for hard core riding? I am not saying that Ted King or whatever stud won’t drop me on a road ride while riding this machine. But road bikes have tight gearing for a reason.
      1X works on mountain bike precisely because the big gear jumps are super appropriate for trail usage, and speed ranges are smaller. I just don’t believe in 1X for road use.

      • Armchair engineering aside, anyone on here ridden the Specialized Allez 1x crit bike? The gearing there work okay? Lots of cross chain drag? I thought those bikes looked awesome, but never pulled the trigger on one.

        • They ditched the 1x last year, and now all of the frames/bikes in the line have a braze on mount for a front der. And it is an awesome riding bike. I have one and love it.

          • Cool. That’s good to know. Haven’t been on aluminum in a long time and kind of want one again. I have to admit though I really only want one because I like the way they look I’d have gotten one of the red hook special editions but they only have them in 49cm or something now. =(

            • Mike – keep your eyes, and the phone line to your local specialized dealer, open. They produce very few of the special edition Allez Sprint frames in each size. The moment you learn that one is going to be released get into the shop and order it up. That will put you in line, and hopefully it works out that you get one when they are allocated.

  8. Who bought into the skinnier tires for less rolling resistance of years ago? Is the wider tire changing science or marketing?

    • Skinnier tires are more aero and lighter. But rolling resistance is higher. Tire/wheel tech allows wider tire footprints at lighter weights, and it improving all the time. Aero tech allows smaller penalties for wider tires (better rim to tire transition being one).

      Like it or not, humans tend to improve things over time as tech and info becomes available to do so. If it weren’t this way, the first road bike would have had perfect geometry and the ideal tire size made of the perfect material to minimize all compromises.

    • Depends. According to an article I read, I think in Road Bike Review, thin, fully inflated tires are faster on smooth surfaces but wider less inflated tires are faster on bumpy surfaces. This, the article speculates, is because bumping the tires on irregular surfaces impedes the speed as well as adds vertical distance to the otherwise horizontal ride, thus slowing the rider’s over-all speed.

  9. Instead of a 10 (or 9) tooth hardest cog, I’d go the other way. 52ish ring, 12t hardest cog, up to a 42t big cog. Derailleur already has the capacity, and you don’t get to those teeny tiny cogs that are so draggy.

    • I can’t say that I’ve been able to do an exact side by side comparison with two bikes, but you can feel more drag in a 10t or 9t cog compared to a 12. The chain really doesn’t like making that tight of a radius. Try a BMX bike with a 9 tooth driver and you’ll feel a difference.

  10. All this 1x whatever crappy cog combo talk just highlights how ridiculous modern cassettes have become. As mentioned in previous comments above, issues like chain wrap in small gears being inefficient, poor cog spacing and weight.
    I’d much rather have a well thought out cassette with balanced jumps in cog teeth and sacrifice overall top speed than to have a giant overwrought hunk of metal on my rear wheel.
    Might as well just use a Rohloff hub instead. It’s got 2 more gears and a better chainline.

    • for i have a 1×12 and used rohloff – the 1×12 is just so much more efficient and lighter (and shifts under load) its not even funny.
      the other points aren’t wrong though, but its really not that bad either.

    • Substitute “1x mountain” and make that same comment 10 years ago. It was wrong then. I’d bet you’re probably at least somewhat wrong now. I bet bikes go to a mix of 1x and 2x.

  11. Hilarious all of you. Take your mind off the power meters and math bs. I ride the crap out of my 1x gravel bike with a cobbled together transmission and have a hell of a good time just being free of the front derailleur. It won’t replace my true road bike but what more could you possibly want for a solo ride or fast Sunday morning coffee run?

  12. I have quite a bit of time on 1x mountain/gravel stuff and have never noticed undue friction on the extremes. Have had 42(44) x 10-42 gearing on the gravel bike for the last 1.5 years and the gear jumps are a little funky at the lower end on the road. Personally would need 13 or 14 speed for me to go single front on the road bike to allow for wide enough gearing with manageable gear jumps.

  13. SRAM will move the XD and/or XDR driver to the road groups very shortly. A 10-34 or 10-36 “road” cassette will be coming.

  14. No one has mentioned cross chain drag with 1x. I can feel this with my 1×10 in the work stand. Much smoother when the chain is straight, as you can maintain with 2 x up front.

  15. They should quote the tire’s percentage of overall frame drag, because I don’t think the wide tires are as bad as people perceive it to be.

    For one, wider tube shapes are more aerodynamic at lower wind speeds which is, admittedly, counter-intuitive. It’s when you start to break the sound barrier that you NEED to sharpen the edges of the wings and fuselage. Gladly, most of us don’t have to worry about that speed regime.

    Also, your body shape and position while riding have a much greater effect on overall drag than any one component on your bicycle has. You would gain much more benefits from riding in a wind tunnel attached to a very sensitive scale, and seeing which positions you can maintain while still producing power. It’s much easier to coast in a ‘superman’ than it is to produce any real power. There are too many cycling myths being perpetuated, and of course, the equipment myth is always one of the biggest, but of course, we all know it’s the usually the rider that wins the race.

    • Wider shapes or blunter shapes? Frontal area is still frontal area and larger tubes will never overcome that (but may be needed for strength to weight…)
      But I agree, at some point your splitting hairs. I won’t win a race no matter what bike I’m on unless I racing someone equally out of shape.

  16. Should be PF386 EVO BB as Vroomen designed iboth frame and BB standard, pictured with an Enduro TorqTite Press Fit bb, I believe?

  17. can anyone give more info regarding the shifters? this must mean that sram have a 12 speed drop bar lever set ready to ship, or 3t have arranged a mod to the current 11 levers to achieve this.

    Seems unlikely that sram have those levers ready for next month and have not shown them at all, or is there some way to make the current levers work.

  18. For such an aero bike there appear to be a d*mn lot of spokes on those wheels. Perhaps some hidden rim brakes and a lower spoke count? I guess this is the case of another marketing department thinking they’d better be on the disc brake bandwagon.

    • 24 front and rear is more or less “standard” for road disc, and 24 rear is extremely common for rim brake rear. No real aero loss there at all. Also, I’d be fairly sure that the team at 3T is not interested in bandwagons. There is almost nothing “me too” about this bike.

    • Likely because disc brakes are the future. A great number of people want ’em on their bikes, and it’s virtually a fait accompli that they’ll be in the pro peloton. As such, people are now incorporating discs into aero bikes. 3T/Open/Vroomen are far from the only ones designing aero bikes with disc brakes.

      Yes, people will retort, “But discs aren’t aero.” That won’t matter when the majority of people (and all of the pro peloton) are on disc brakes. Then what will matter is which aero bikes with disc brakes are the most aero.

  19. I have a 1 x SRAM setup with an 11-36 11 speed on the back, and I’d be thrilled to keep the 11-36 but just make it 12 speed.

  20. I run Force 1x (obviously 11 speed). Does this mean that with the XDR driver a 12 tooth cassette could be used with existing Force 1x 11 speed RD and Shifter and work across 12 gears?

  21. 1x setup is great for mtb but not sure it works for road. The speed range is much greater, and jumps of more than 3 teeth in the back cog are realy annoying.

  22. Let’s be honest, this is a f*cking awesome shape bike frame. It’s hot. Looks nicer than any Cervelo really, it’s like a mix between an S3 and an S5.

    In commercial terms, rich people like discs, american like discs. Now, I would love a 2 ring option, for climbing, for having a cassette with low jumps… 1x still ok though, but… chain too crossed in a bike for the flat… don’t know man.

    Make this 2x and I would eat the dics no problem, but it’s a weird niche. at least carbon clinchers would be fine. Still, I would prefer a non propietary seatpost profile, lower profile rims, a 2x, and this would be an aero climbing bike, you could make it very light.

    1x sram will make a very light road disc bike. This is a hot bike.

  23. I don’t see why 12 speed was mentioned in this article. Is the ‘hinted’ XDR driver the basis for that? It doesn’t seem called for on that basis, although I’d be first in line to get on board.

What do you think?