FlashBazbo

After an extended effort lining up my 2018 . . . er, 2019 gravel bike, I ended up with an OPEN new U.P. Initially, I hadn't considered OPEN because of the price. I was also (initially) put off by the relatively short wheelbase compared to other gravel bikes I have ridden (Niner RLT9, Lynskey, Trek Checkpoint, et al.) OPEN only offers their bikes in frameset form -- no complete bikes -- but that's okay with me. I prefer to choose all my components, anyway.

I spec'd the bike with Shimano Ultegra Di2 groupset, FSA Energy Modular 46-30T crankset, Salsa Cowchipper bar, Redshift stem, Brooks C13 saddle, Niner RDO carbon seatpost and, for this review anyway, HED Ardennes + 650b wheels and Terrene Elwood (Tough) 47mm tires. The bike came in and was assembled with about 1 week to spare before the Open Range 200k Gravel Race.

Fit and finish: The OPEN frameset radiates quality. Fit and finish are excellent. The logos are not in the usual places and this may or may not suit your aesthetic sensibilities. (My daughter said it looked as if someone had stolen a bike and painted it to remove all identifying markings.) I'm fine with it, though. It's clean and refreshingly different. Cable and brake hose routing is refined and well executed.

Ride and handling: As for ride, what bike doesn't ride smoothly with 650b x 47mm tires aired to 35 psi? The OPEN is sufficiently stiff to keep everything under control, though, and it accelerates better than any gravel or endurance bike I've ever ridden -- more like a light road racing bike. Open Range included many miles with occasional pits of deep, loose sand and the OPEN handled that as well as any bike probably can. (My skills were the limiting factor.) As I became more acclimated to the sand, the bike tracked through amazingly well. It also did very well in the gypsum hills area, on dirt, and on rough, eroded, rutted open range roads. Even though the wheelbase is short (making the bike a nimble handler), it doesn't sacrifice stability on loose gravel. I was very impressed. I expected to miss the longer wheelbases of my previous gravel bikes. But I don't. I like to steer a gravel bike on loose surfaces and descents by sliding the rear wheel. With the OPEN, I could do that very controllably and without drama.

Tire clearance: With the relatively short wheelbase, I was concerned about tire clearance on a Di2 equipped bike. I need not have worried. The OPEN provides plenty of clearance for both 700 x 40 and 650 x 47 tires with LOTS of mud clearance at those sizes. (Unlike with Trek's Checkpoint) there is ample clearance between tires of those sizes and the Di2 front derailleur. The only clearance issue of any kind . . . you've got to use a 21 ounce or smaller water bottle on the under-downtube water bottle cage. The tire is too close for a 24 ounce.

Those are my impressions in a nutshell. What do I NOT like about the OPEN new U.P.? I don't like that the spacing between the top tube "gas tank" mounting and the stem is different than for the bag I already own. I would kind of like to have a third set of water bottle bosses inside the frame triangle. And, in a perfect world, it would have a T47 threaded bottom bracket rather than a BB386EVO. Other than those three deviations from perfect (that I can certainly live with), I think the bike is just about perfect. I like it a lot. And it will probably also see a lot of paved road duty as a result.

gus6464

Thanks for the review. I did the BWR this past weekend and the OPEN UP was one of the two most common frames I saw. They were everywhere which surprised me considering the price. The other most common frame was the Stigmata which surprised me as well. Also oddly enough I saw 3 Rodeo Labs Traildonkey 3.0s which I think were a team but two of them ended up on the sag wagon halfway with mechanical issues.

chas58

Nice! What color did you get? I would love to ride one sometime. That was my benchmark for a gravel bike, but I ended up with a Canyon. The numbers seem pretty similar on paper (except the Canyon uses a long reach/short stem combo). They ride pretty similar from what you described. Tons of fun to have an agile light gravel bike.

How did it compare to the Niner?

FlashBazbo

I got blue.

My Niner was the original aluminum model. It has been awhile since I rode the Niner, but from memory . . . it seems the Niner was slightly closer to the "more stable" end of the continuum. At the time, the Niner was pretty racy, even with its long wheelbase and chainstays. I liked it a lot. If it had been equipped with thru axles, I MIGHT still own it. (At the DK200, on a steep descent into a river crossing, my rear QR-equipped wheel parted company with the rest of the bike. That motivated me to go to a thru axle equipped bike.) I wouldn't call the RLT9 ponderous, by any means, but the OPEN feels more lively. When I switched from my road bike to the Niner, I knew I was on a gravel bike. With the OPEN, switching from my road bike to the gravel bike isn't as big a change. In part, that may be because the OPEN is a couple pounds lighter than the Niner.

The other difference is ride quality. The aluminum Niner rode fine for the first 100 miles. At some point after that, the cumulative effect of riding a stiff aluminum frame on gravel took its toll. By 150 miles on the Niner, you felt much more beaten up than on the OPEN.

Marcus_Ti

This thread calls for immediate bike pr0n. Get to it.

HarborBandS

I have been drooling over the Open UP as well, but have decided it is out of the budget I have set for myself. It is just a gorgeous bike. I love the minimal styling. We definitely need pics!

I know you didn't like the IsoSpeed de-coupler on your Trek Checkpoint, but how does it compare otherwise in terms of ride and handling? The Checkpoint had previously been noted to have a more nimble "road" type of handling than many more traditional gravel bikes. My only true road bike has a race bike geometry and steep head angle, and the Checkpoint is certainly less nimble than that.

FWIW, I went to a local Trek dealership yesterday that let me test ride a 56cm Checkpoint SL5 for a half hour with my own pedals (second time test riding). I tried and tried to notice any movement while pedaling or any "bounce", and I just couldn't do it. I weigh about 195 lbs and was doing sprints and hills, and couldn't replicate (or perhaps it's just imperceptible to me). Or maybe my weight is more forward on the bike.

gus6464

On dirt? The complaints I have read on the isospeed on the checkpoint are when people get to the dirt which tends to have considerably more bobbing up and down because of the terrain.

HarborBandS

I was limited to the area around the bike shop, so primarily on asphalt residential roads. But I did take it across the manicured grass in a park and over any crack or pothole I could find. Had to keep the bike clean! It may become my bike, since it's an SL5 at the SL5 price with Ultegra shifters and brakes (must have been shipped when the 105 R7020 parts were in short supply).

You'll see the forum pretty divided on this IsoSpeed feature, but most of the criticism I read of the Checkpoint is that the front end is too stiff by comparison to the rear. I honestly do believe that people perceive the flex differently. For me, it's barely noticeable, if at all. But FlashBazbo's unequivocal dislike of the feature has given me pause... It's possible that he is just a much more powerful rider than I am!

FlashBazbo

Those are fair questions. I found the Trek Checkpoint to be at the extremely stable end of the handling continuum. It's the most stable of any road or gravel or CX bike I've ever ridden. As I've mentioned before, I like to steer my bikes on loose gravel and gravel descents using the rear wheel. The Checkpoint just wanted to stay planted. It would track straight and wouldn't let me slide it very readily. (I think most people would probably be pleased with that handling characteristic.) I think the Checkpoint is the perfect bike for a person who might be new to gravel or insecure about sliding a bike around. I also found it relatively heavy feeling. There's a good reason for that -- it's a little on the portly side. All those features in the huge feature set add a little weight here and a little more weight there. It adds up to a few pounds extra, compared to the OPEN.

As for the IsoSpeed -- on my test ride on pavement, I didn't notice it at all. But I didn't hammer it on my test ride. I probably didn't flex it much. On rough roads I actually liked it. It really soaks up the bumps. When I noticed it most was when I was on smooth surfaces and putting a lot of power through the pedals -- using the Checkpoint in a road bike situation. In that situation, where there were few bumps to be soaked up, the "IsoSpeed Bob" was fairly pronounced. And it was obvious whether I was pedaling smooth circles or trying to mash the pedals. Even smooth circles, on a bike, involve push/pull, power/release events. The IsoSpeed is designed to maximize flex. It works. (I didn't like it.)

Wilmingtech

And the HED wheels?

(PS - No pictures = It never happened )

HarborBandS

My "race geometry" road bike has a 73 degree head angle and 55mm trail. The 56 cm Checkpoint has 72.2 degree head angle and 61 mm of trail. The Open UP in a size "L" (57 mm eff head tube) has a 72.5 degree head angle and no published number for trail, but the fork offset looks pretty standard at 50 mm (my roadie is 47mm). So I'd say that's pretty aggressive for a gravel bike... I often see 70.5-72 degree head angles on gravel-specific bikes. I have an older bike with a 70.5 degree head ange, 75 mm of trail, and long chainstays, and it is actually hard to get around corners with it!

I'm only looking at my size (56mm Trek vs. Size "L" Open UP), and the Open UP has 6 mm shorter wheelbase and 5 mm shorter seat stays. Little tweaks here and there, but the result is a more agressive geometry. Not exactly a "crit bike" by any means, but a shade more agressive than the Checkpoint, and the Checkpoint is already on the aggressive side of gravel bikes. Or at least the "roadier" side of gravel bikes.

The geometry comparison changes substantially with different frame sizes, unfortunately.

FlashBazbo

The geometry changes with different frame sizes, plus, there's a lot more to handling than just the fork numbers. (The reason other brands don't publish trail numbers is because trail varies widely depending on the tire sizes -- you can even change it by inflating or deflating your tires -- and gravel bikes see a big variety of tire sizes.) By the fork numbers, the 2019 Salsa Warbird ought to be a sluggish handler -- but it isn't.

By comparison with other brands of the same size, the Checkpoint has a relatively massive bottom bracket drop (76mm vs. 70mm for about everyone else) and a rather lengthy wheelbase. Those give it the super-stable handling characteristics. I think those numbers overcome what looks like relatively sprightly fork geometry. It's got a very stable "back end."

FlashBazbo

The HED wheels do what they're supposed to do. I never notice them. Stiff enough. Light enough. After applying the rim tape, they hold air well. The Terrene Elwoods mounted up easily and they measure out at the specified 47mm width. Do the HEDs flex? I don't know. I never noticed any excessive flex.

HarborBandS

For sure, there are a lot of things that factor in to bike geometry and handling. I did also focus in on chainstay length and wheelbase, as they seem to lengthen a bit on "gravel bikes" vs. the more traditional road bike geometries.

I do believe you may have found the key difference in the Checkpoint, though, with that 76.0 mm bottom bracket drop. That may be the most I've ever seen!

The effect of this really depends on where your center of gravity sits on the bike, and that varies by rider and riding position. The bike may handle very differently for you than for another rider. Heck, it varies for me as I lose weight on my torso over the course of the season.

I've been trying to find a Scott Addict Gravel in my size to test ride anywhere near here, and have struck out so far. But at what point is your gravel bike just a cyclocross bike? The Addict Gravel may be in that zone where marketing has created the bike, since I think it has the same geometry as Scott's CX offering and barely (if any?) increased tire clearance. Is the Open UP also bordering on cyclocross territory, but with larger tire clearance? Maybe that's ideal for many people.

FlashBazbo

I wouldn't think so. Cyclocrossers traditionally have wanted a lot less than a 70mm BB drop -- more like 55mm to 60mm. A high BB helps with pedal clearance on side slopes and barrier clearance for bunny hops. (But some manufacturers do spec a 70mm in their CX bikes. Are they really road/gravel bikes in disguise?)

chas58

I found the checkpoint to react fairly well for a long wheelbase gravel bike (presumably in part because of the head tube angle), but it wasn't as nimble. It seemed to be a good compromise for bikepacking, but not a one bike to do it all (if you need a nimble bike).

The diverge has 85 as I recall. I thought it was deep when it was 75!!!

Keep in mind though, that if you compare a bike with 33mm tires to one with 40mm tires you can drop the BB +7 mm and still have the same BB height (from the ground).

redlude97

A couple of the local fast guys ride Open Ups as their do it all road race/gravel/cyclocross bikes and do well. I'd say its pretty versatile if it can go from dirty kanza to our tight muddy cross races to crits

FlashBazbo

The OPEN waiting for the last 37 mile segment.


Open Range 200k, south of Medicine Lodge, KS.
Yes, back to the OPEN new U.P. . . . Here’s my only photo to date. It’s at the last checkpoint in the Open Range 200k Gravel Race.

chas58

Nice. Pictures help!!!

Garfield Cat

The UP: it started with good engineering along with timing of the perceived demand.

Then the companies "stay small" business model.

fraba

+1
New UP blue, 650B with 47mm offroad, 700C with 25mm for the tarmac. One sweet ride...

The price is high. I hesitated too. But I don't regret it. Not a second, not a penny.

Garfield Cat

Maybe because the price is high, it will continue to stay small compared with the other bike manufacturers.

And maybe that's why there's very little coverage in this forum on the bike. Few have them. Few dealers too.

trailangel

So, a.... how much for the plastic dirtbike again?

Junkbeast

I'm really interested in these too. I've been mostly interested in steel bikes so far but this UP is so intriguing...and I can't find anything negative said about it.

Are they so expensive because of the size of the company or are there real benefits to the manufacturing versus similar carbon frames? $2.9K versus like $1.5K frames is hard for me to rationalize but I'm trying to convince myself.

chas58

As I recall, they have 2-3 versions of the Carbon frame. I'm guessing that the higher modulus is lighter and more responsive?

My problem is that I can't test ride one, and that is too much $$$ to gamble with.

I worry that you can't find anything negative. Everything is a tradeoff. Some bikes are too nimble, some are to stable, some are too racy, some are too upright. It depends on what you are looking for...