Open U.P

Zurichman wrote:Thanks for that reply HollyBoni I have to replace the crank anyways since I would be switching out the Sram 1x Rival to Shimano 2x and thought any weight savings I could get on the crank would help. Any webshops that you could recommend so I could start doing some research. I did see over at GravelCyclist that JOM there took a Raleigh Sport which starting weight was 2 1/2 lbs heavier than my Roker( 22 1/2 versus 20)and got it down to 17 1/2 lbs so maybe that would be worth looking at some of the things he did.

Thanks again
Zman

I'm in Europe so I don't know the US sites well, I usually use http://bike-components.de but everything is in metric and the prices are in €. 😉 

I'd probably make a list about the weight of the stock components and do some research where you can drop the most weight for the least amount of cash.

I can only confirm tho that dropping weight from the wheels and tyres can really transform a bike. 

Zurichman wrote:
I did see over at GravelCyclist that JOM there took a Raleigh Sport which starting weight was 2 1/2 lbs heavier than my Roker( 22 1/2 versus 20)and got it down to 17 1/2 lbs so maybe that would be worth looking at some of the things he did.

Thanks again
Zman

That is what I was gonna tell ya.  That would be better for you than getting a UP!  Still, to match that build, you have to source all those titanium bolts, LoL...

Still - that is a good playbook.  I think Raleigh UK had a race version that was around 17-18lbs out of the box.

I like the aggressive geometry too, and UP was high up on my list - unfortunately high up on the unobtainable section of the list.  

I got a Canyon Inflite which has what I expect are the things I would like about a UP (or exploro).  All of them are way too aggressive for what Zman would want though.    But boy are these bikes agile!  

s0ldats wrote:the UP and exploro, both designed by vroomen are definitely geared more toward hauling ass on dirt and tarmac alike. not so much long haul gravel riding (although i know a few people who use these bikes for long trips, they are in tip top cycling shape to begin with)

the UP geometry is the more 'gravel friendly' of the two, however when compared to other 'gravel specific' models, it's still quite aggressive.

that said, i love aggressive geometry on and off road and love the UP!

ljsmith wrote:
Not only is it dangerous to have too many, but it also shows you chose the wrong frame-its either too small or not the right geometry for your intended use.

Or that I bought the right frame 25 years ago, but I'm not as limber as I used to be, HaHaHa...

ljsmith wrote:Aside from the price, my main concern is the racy geometry. The head tubes are relatively short for a gravel bike so you need a lot of spacers unless you really like a racy position on the bike and the head tube angle is pretty steep. The bike in your pic has a good amount of spacers and still has a lot of saddle to bar drop. The Lynskey and Salsa both have geometry better suited to those of us who arent professional racers. I can’t deny they are light and nice looking, but there is more to a bike than that.

Mostly sound advice in this thread, but one thing on geometry. It's strange to call the UP aggressive and then recommend the Warbird. The 49cm Warbird has actually a 4mm lower stack  than the Small UP, while the 56cm Warbird has 5mm more stack than the UP, so in both cases they are in the same ballpark. Where there is a difference is that we don't make really big frames, we don't make what would be the equivalent of a 59 or 61cm frame. We top out with the XL which is like a 58cm in comparison to most road geometry frames.

Therefore both UP and Warbird are great options if you want to ride your bike in a road position and let the tires take care of the bad surface instead of your position (and then it depends on how bad that surface is if you want the option to fit 2.1" MTB tires or not). If you want your POSITION to change because you ride on a bad surface, then in the case of Salsa the Fargo or Cutthroat would make more sense.

Gerard Vroomen wrote:

Mostly sound advice in this thread, but one thing on geometry. It's strange to call the UP aggressive and then recommend the Warbird. The 49cm Warbird has actually a 4mm lower stack  than the Small UP, while the 56cm Warbird has 5mm more stack than the UP, so in both cases they are in the same ballpark. Where there is a difference is that we don't make really big frames, we don't make what would be the equivalent of a 59 or 61cm frame. We top out with the XL which is like a 58cm in comparison to most road geometry frames.

Therefore both UP and Warbird are great options if you want to ride your bike in a road position and let the tires take care of the bad surface instead of your position (and then it depends on how bad that surface is if you want the option to fit 2.1" MTB tires or not). If you want your POSITION to change because you ride on a bad surface, then in the case of Salsa the Fargo or Cutthroat would make more sense.

I am 5’ 10”. Looking at your geometry chart I would choose the Medium UP. (And your geometry chart states the Medium fits 5’7” to 5’ 11”). The Large UP is bigger than I would want. The stack height of the Medium is 551. I just got a 56cm Warbird with a stack height of 585. That’s a difference of 34, that is not the same ballpark. I currently have a 30mm spacer under my stem. To get the same position on the Medium UP I would need 64mm of spacers. Not only would that look hideous, it’s not a good idea to have that many spacers on a carbon steerer. Even the Large (which as I said is too big for me) the stack height of the Warbird is 5mm more. So I would say it’s pretty aggressive in comparison to the Warbird, at least when doing a real world apples to apples comparison. There’s nothing wrong with an aggressive frame, I would have loved the UP geometry when I was in my 20s. But I’m in my forties now and I’m not interested in being in such a tucked position anymore, at least not on gravel. Just looking at an Open UP makes my hands and neck hurt thinking of what a 100 mile gravel ride would be like riding in that position.

Well, the geo chart height indicator also shows that the Large is 5'10-6'2, so that also includes your height. Maybe you missed that. Just like the Warbird geo chart also says you may fit the 57.5cm frame. Anyway, that rough height indicator is just that. Which frame is the best fit depends in the end on your riding position more than your exact height.

Back to the numbers, the Large UP is 4mm lower and 5mm longer than the 56cm Warbird, so very close (5mm longer, not 6mm as some might think looking at the reach figures due to stack/reach interconnection). The Medium UP is 20mm shorter. So the 56cm is a lot closer to the Large than to the UP, and unless people ride around on a 56cm Warbird with a 70mm stem (then indeed I wouldn't say "hey, why not put a 65mm stem on your UP) but barring an already short stem, this means that people riding a 56cm Warbird fit a Large UP, and usually not a medium.

Gerard Vroomen wrote:Well, the geo chart height indicator also shows that the Large is 5'10-6'2, so that also includes your height. Maybe you missed that. Just like the Warbird geo chart also says you may fit the 57.5cm frame. Anyway, that rough height indicator is just that. Which frame is the best fit depends in the end on your riding position more than your exact height.

Back to the numbers, the Large UP is 4mm lower and 5mm longer than the 56cm Warbird, so very close (5mm longer, not 6mm as some might think looking at the reach figures due to stack/reach interconnection). The Medium UP is 20mm shorter. So the 56cm is a lot closer to the Large than to the UP, and unless people ride around on a 56cm Warbird with a 70mm stem (then indeed I wouldn't say "hey, why not put a 65mm stem on your UP) but barring an already short stem, this means that people riding a 56cm Warbird fit a Large UP, and usually not a medium.

Ive been riding for 30 years, it could be that I know which frame size I would need better than you do. Rather than let you put me on a bigger frame I’ll just go with a frame that actually fits. In reality, with the UP I would want a frame between your Medium and large sizes, but of course it would need more stack height. So when I was looking for a bike, I looked at the UP and quickly crossed it off my list as you really don’t have a bike that fits the way I want. For others with different needs than me it might be perfect. FYI, I use a 90mm Shock Stop Stem on my 56 Warbird. They do not make the Shock Stop in smaller than 90mm, so that’s not going to work for me on your 57cm UP.

The new Warbird comes with slightly shorter stems. Nothing crazy tho. Compard to last years model they slightly increased the top tube length and slackened the head angle to 70.75 degrees on most sizes.

Gerard wrote:Well, the geo chart height indicator also shows that the Large is 5'10-6'2, so that also includes your height. Maybe you missed that. Just like the Warbird geo chart also says you may fit the 57.5cm frame. Anyway, that rough height indicator is just that. Which frame is the best fit depends in the end on your riding position more than your exact height.

Back to the numbers, the Large UP is 4mm lower and 5mm longer than the 56cm Warbird, so very close (5mm longer, not 6mm as some might think looking at the reach figures due to stack/reach interconnection). The Medium UP is 20mm shorter. So the 56cm is a lot closer to the Large than to the UP, and unless people ride around on a 56cm Warbird with a 70mm stem (then indeed I wouldn't say "hey, why not put a 65mm stem on your UP) but barring an already short stem, this means that people riding a 56cm Warbird fit a Large UP, and usually not a medium.

any chance to have a frame with less reach and more stack? for example have a 56R and 56T with 10mm taller stack and 10mm shorter reach, that would be my perfect frame

Always a chance, we're WIDE OPEN to suggestions

Yep, the UP looks kinda low for you.   I'm 5'9" and have a bike with similar Geometry to the UP (medium) That stack is low - even with all the available spacers (30mm on my bike). I'm older than you but the only reason I can get away with such low stack is that I still do a lot of velodrome racing.  Still, at the highest position my bars must be 2'3" lower than my seat.  I've gotten used to it, but it takes a lot of seat time to be comfortable in that position.    

just putting it out there... my next year's frame purchase is going to be an UP.

Gerard wrote:Always a chance, we're WIDE OPEN to suggestions

please release a fork with front rack mount options!!

I took a quick test ride on one of OPEN bikes, and it felt light and quick. If I could ride that long/low geometry for very long, I would be all over that bike. But at my age, with my back, I need something a bit more relaxed.

Gerard wrote:Where there is a difference is that we don't make really big frames, we don't make what would be the equivalent of a 59 or 61cm frame. We top out with the XL which is like a 58cm in comparison to most road geometry frames.

You have a fairly big XL though. Not many 58s have that much reach. My 58 RXCs are nearly a cm shorter reach and stack and are great with a 120 stem.  I would LOVE to find one of your XL Classic Unbeaten Paths in orange and use a 110. You have made some cool updates, but I just haven't gotten over the first orange U.P. that I saw.

dangle wrote:

I just haven't gotten over the first orange U.P. that I saw.

Sorry about that, there are support groups to deal with that though. 

Gerard wrote:

Sorry about that, there are support groups to deal with that though. 

Ebay?