Dave-
Honestly what is the difference between the Ltd. and an Open U.P.? An aero downtube? Bunch of small refinements since Gerard got to apply lessons he learned from the U.P. to this frame?

Why the 165 cranks? My back of the envelope figgerin' has the radius of a 26" wheel w/2.25" tire within ~2mm of a 650B w/47c tire...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

How big of a 29er MTB tire would fit in there with enough room? Could you run a 29 x 2.0? Looks like there is plenty of room up there but not sure how it would work out. You mentioned needing 650 cranks with wider 26" tires. Are 29ers even an option?

Oh, HELL YES.

Gotta admit, that looks fun.
And we've got plenty o' roads and moderate trails around here to play on.

---

float , hammer , and jog

I am obviously not the frame designer (my only expertise specific to this is that I have a somewhat similar bike with 700C x 2.1" tires), but I doubt that 2" wide 29er tires would work on this frame with any reasonable tire/frame gap. The width of the tire would be fine, but largest point (width-wise) of the tire would be at too large of a diameter, and then the outside diameter of a 700C/29er rim plus a 2" tire would make for an overall diameter that likely would be too close to the frame and/or fork at various points

However, as described, 650B diameter 2" wide tires will be fine.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I can remember reading an interview with Vroomen in which he explained the slack seat angle. While at first glance it appears odd, when you consider that most bikes come equipped with a seat post that has a set-back to it, the combined angle is equivalent to the slack angle Vroomen produced in his Open gravel frame. I'm not surprised that this has carried over to the 3T gravel frame and you can see that the new frame comes equipped with a zero-setback seat post.

...the only thing that I don't like that has been carried over from the Open design is the price tag!

With all due respect, less people need a 72.5 seat angle than have one.
Especially in the smaller sizes.
Everyone I know that has an Ope UP (same 72.5 seat angle)- has a zero offset post AND the saddle slammed all the way forward.
Tires do make a difference for sure, for both traction and cush.
I am not saying this stuff to be funny or mean. I actually ride a ton of gravel and mixed surface rides. I think I have a pretty good handle on what works well for that.

Yes, sweet bike. But it also ticks the "too expensive" box, for me. $3000 (Team) or $4000 (LTD) framsets. I like the frameset-only model, but, once built up, that's going to be in Cervelo C3-C5 range. of $4000-$6000. That's a lot for what would be my 3rd-most-important bike after road and TT.

Really hard value proposition when I can get a bombproof and fast Felt V85 for under $2K. Or if I have to have carbon, a Slate or GT Grade with higher-end spec build for around $4K.

But it's great for a serious full-time gravel guy. Or someone who doesn't blink at $6K bikes.

Saw this, but got myself wondering a little bit... why. I'd like to know more about the 'under the hood' differences in the frames, since this appears to be near identical to the Open Up for a few hundred dollars more. The Open is billed as a pretty boutique frame. Are the aero features what drive the cost? The built up Opens look like pure class - even though aero is everything I'd probably rather been seen on one of those :-)

Same story here.

I could sell all three of my bikes (Aero Road, TT, Carbon HT) and still barely be able to cover the frameset cost. 10:1 this bike wouldn't be faster than any of the three in their disciplines. Maybe if I absolutely couldn't store more than one bike (and 2-3 wheel sets), but storing bikes isn't the problem.

I've been interested in picking up a CX/gravel bike for fun (and crushing Strava segments, let's be honest), but my Strava ego isn't $6k big...

Preach! i just don't get this at all. It's the main reason why I didn't get an U.P.

I ride a TON of gravel and I spent a long time agonising over what bike to get. i bought an sold a couple, too. Eventually i settled on a Slate and i have been really happy. The main reason is that the gravel roads have lots of corrugations, and that 30mm of front travel make a huge difference when you hit patches of bumps at speed that you can't see due to shadows.

The bike looks great otherwise, but you'd have to be talking about really smooth gravel before I would consider it over my Slate.

That stack on the XL is really low though. :( The bike is super appealing but doesn't come close to fitting me.

Where I grew up, in rural Minnesota, I can see how a gravel bike would be really useful. Where I live now, it initially doesn't seem quite as appropriate, although I think it would make a great commuter bike. I've got a 'cross bike sitting in the box waiting to build up that I hope will be my Swiss Army Knife bike - commuting, group rides, cruising around the 'hood with the kids, and cyclocross. I think this could be built to do all of that, too. Gearing choice will be important. Pretty versatile, when you start to look at it.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

This thing looks sweet, but expensive.

I live in Denver and have access to the Highline canal from my house. You can do a 70 miler out/back on gravel with little traffic interruption - great for training, beautiful, and safe.

You don't have to spend a ton for a great gravel rig. I purchased a GT Grade with force hydro and Stans wheels from performance for 2k. Done fast group rides on it with 28c specialized sWorks turbos and ridden mountain bike single track with clement PDX tires.

i find myself riding it more often that I thought I would. Some days you just want a bit more comfort for the long ride than a road bike offers.

I completely agree. I wouldn't even consider dropping this kind of money on a frameset like this or the Open UP. I'm more interested in the evolution and seeing progression of the genre as far as geometry and tire clearance.

I'll wait until Specialized does something similar in aluminum. The only way I'd consider one of these is if I was offered a frameset at cost. Even that would likely be out of my price range though!

I've been very happy with my aluminum Crux over the past 4 seasons where it has served double duty as my 'cross race bike and my gravel race bike.

The Slate doesn't interest me at all - the front suspension is just a boat anchor that won't help you descend faster - at least on any terrain I've uncounted. Kind of a non-starter IMO.

---

_______________________________________________

I have to say, I just don't get it. I've never ridden a bike anywhere where this bike would make sense. To me it's like a slow road bike, or a lousy MTN bike. I guess maybe I need to find some gravel to ride on?


Nick,

Indeed, if you have no where local to go, or no intention to leave the pavement, then a bike like this makes no sense! But then again, millions of people buy SUV's that never leave the pavement either! :)

Now, if you do have easy access to rail-trails, gravel roads and light trails, then a bike like this makes sense. If you live in an area like that and you are a triathlete, and your only bike now, is a full on tri/TT bike, then a bike like this does have a certain appeal and utility. With some swaps of wheels/tires you can go from riding in a Gran Fondo or sportif to gravel road use even some light CX and trail use. Don't get me wrong, this is not the perfect bike for all those uses, but it will get you going and certainly not be the wrong bike for those uses.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

For a fast 32mm tire, I use the Compass Stampede pass extralights. They are very supple, and roll nicely.

---

_______________________________________________

BTW...what's with the blurb about testing at 20 mph instead of the "industry standard" 30mph? Are you guys saying that the flow in each case isn't in the same Reynold's number regime?

That would be odd since that's not the commonly held position in bicycle aero testing. The main purpose of testing at 30mph is to enhance balance "sensitivity" to small changes. Testing at 20 mph would merely put small differences in CdA into the noise of the force measurement. Also, it makes it easier to compare to other tests when results are listed in grams...although, reporting in the proper units of CdA addresses that.

My cynical self sees it as a bit of marketing aimed at folks who don't understand tunnel testing...especially ones who only look at the grams of drag in the charts :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

No kidding. I'm still not sure why this bike and the U.P. have such short front ends for the intended purpopses. A frame with a road bike head tube, road bike chainstay, and road bike wheelbase for riding offroad seems strange to me, but the 3T website clearly say "performance geometry" at the top. Maybe the only people that would be on a bike that pricey need sharp handling and a low front end. Personally, I would add 15-25mm to the head tubes in a hurry. Possibly a little to the chain stays too or make them proportional with sizing? Maybe that's why nobody is paying me to be a frame designer though?

But hot dang does it look nice. Really, really nice with some well though out details.

The frame stack is set so Lefty Oliver fits the head tube. That's low for an XL, so the stem rises more to bring handlebar Y up, closer to what people expect. It still has pretty long-low fit coordinates though, so although Ted King fitted on it, it might not suit everyone.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Not to Damon in particular, but a general comment on stack....


Here is my hypothesis on why so many people think these bikes (3T and Open UP) have stack that is too low. For the past decade or so, having a lot of drop was fashionable. The result is that a lot of people started riding steep effective STA, on frames that were too small by historic standards, in order to get that fashionable looking height difference between the seat and the bar. That is why you see people 6' tall on 54cm frames, when they would have been on 58cm frames prior to the mid 00's.

So now someone thinks their correct size frame is 1 or 2 sizes too small, and they want a taller bike for gravel. What they really need is the larger size, which gives them the stack, and to move the seat back. That opens up the cockpit, and provides the correct spacing, with little to no overlap between knees and elbows. Moving the seat back gets the weight where it needs to be; less on the front wheel to prevent wash-out in corners and diving in soft surfaces (sand). Also, as the seat goes back, it also needs lowered, which effectively raises the bar relative to the rider.

These bikes are designed for fast gravel riding, which means you still need to get low and keep your torso out of the wind. Personally, I find the geometry of these bikes exactly where it needs to be. (I've purchases an Open UP frameset, but an waiting for the parts to arrive to build it up.)

Effectively, these geometries go back to old school classics road bikes of the 90's; and a race like Paris Roubaix is the prototypical "gravel race".

---

2015 USAT Long Course National Champion (M50-54)

Nice shot of Andrei Tchmil, racing his GT ZR bike in Paris-Roubaix 2001. He finished in the top ten that year, apparently first in the second chase group:



Results (1–10)[1]
Cyclist Team Time
1 Servais Knaven (NED) Domo–Farm Frites–Latexco 6h 45' 00"
2 Johan Museeuw (BEL) Domo–Farm Frites–Latexco + 34"
3 Romāns Vainšteins (LAT) Domo–Farm Frites–Latexco + 41"
4 George Hincapie (USA) U.S. Postal Service + 41"
5 Wilfried Peeters (BEL) Domo–Farm Frites–Latexco + 41"
6 Ludo Dierckxsens (BEL) Lampre–Daikin + 41"
7 Steffen Wesemann (GER) Team Telekom + 41"
8 Andrei Tchmil (BEL) Lotto–Adecco + 2' 35"
9 Chris Peers (BEL) Cofidis + 2' 35"
10 Rolf Sørensen (DEN) CSC–Tiscali + 2' 59"

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

I, too am between frame sizes if I base my fit on my road bike.
I can closely match my coordinates with a 140mm stem on a LARGE or a 100 x -17 on an XL.

On the other hand, I've got about 700km on a LARGE with a 120mm stem that puts me ~2cm higher and 2cm shorter than my road bike and I've found it to be exceptionally well mannered in all conditions. I'd love for it to be a bit more stretched out when solo on the road but found that the longer set up is less suited to technical descending off-road.

The balance of a bit shorter and a bit higher than my road set up allows one bike to do both well enough that I'm not going to change anything.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

SuperDave,

I definitely appreciate your contributions and feedback here! I'm thinking we use a fairly similar reach, but you are able to go a lot lower than myself. That's a huge difference in stem length between frames with 12mm difference in reach though, I'm not sure I follow why. I would love to learn the thought/reasoning on that.

For the two minutes it takes to swap a stem, I throw on the one I think will suit the ride the best. 120 for long and mostly non technical, 100 for mostly technical (CX) and a 110 if I ever decide I need an in-between.