Keywords: 27.5,700c,bb92,open,q&a,sram etap

Live stream Q&A replay

Gerard Vroomen - 20-Jan-2017
Wednesday we did a live stream in honour of winning the Design & Innovation Award 2017 for the ONE+. The first live stream went well, the second one unfortunately encountered a little problem as YouTube redirected to a recording of our first live stream, rather than creating a new one. It got fixed after about 15 minutes, but apologies to everybody who may have been caught out by that. I hope we still managed to answer most of your questions.

For those who missed it all, here is the recording of that first live stream:
And also, here is a little video from the Design & Innovation Award test weeks, quite nice:

Comments & Questions

Hi Andy,
Hello from Vail Colorado. Thanks for your time at Interbike. I'm hoping you could confirm for me the correct size for the U.P. for me. To this day I have only seen the small frame with you at dirt demo. My measures: 160cm tall 5'3 125lbs inseam 74cm torso 54cm reach 55cm
Also do you think the One+ could fit me as 26inch tire bike?
Thank You, Deb Benjamin p: 970.376.2608 USA
Post #1 of 7. Posted by Deb Benjamin on 23-Jan-2017 14:42:13 GMT in reply to blog [0<--1392]
Hi Deb, definitely the S is the right size for you with those dimensions. As for the ONE+, you fit the S there as well, either with 27.5" tires or with 26(+)" tires. If you have any further questions on sizing just send me a note using the contact form on the left of this page. Cheers, Gerard.
Post #4 of 7. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 24-Jan-2017 09:49:39 GMT in reply to post #1 [1392<--1397]
Hi Gerard, thanks or your quick reply and confirming size S for both frames. After riding lots of mtn bikes I still prefer the 26wheel size for quicker acceleration, handling and balance. I was one of your original USA Cervelo dealers in Vail CO dating back to the Soloist bikes and I also attended the CO dealer camps. I used to ride the XS R3 frames. I've been watching OPEN from the beginning and viewed the video this week. I'm leaning towards U.P. with SRAM eagle to take advantage of the roads and forest roads.
Post #5 of 7. Posted by Deb Benjamin on 24-Jan-2017 11:14:19 GMT in reply to post #4 [1397<--1398]
Dear Gerard, I'm wondering what you think of the new technique is the use of Graphene in carbon frames. Is this something you're looking in to?
Post #2 of 7. Posted by Jasper on 24-Jan-2017 02:26:13 GMT in reply to blog [0<--1394]
Yes, looked at graphene for the first time maybe 5 years ago. And like many technologies, we monitor them and see which make sense when.

Unfortunately these sorts of developments always follow the same path in the bike industry (and some others as well). Whether it is graphene, nano-technology, Ultra-high mod carbon, the list goes on and on.

1) New material "10x stronger than anything else"
2) Products using the new material come out, they're the same weight or heavier than the previous products
3) People wonder "why is my unobtanium frame not under 100g if it's 10x the strength
4) People learn that the claims are based on the material in isolation in a standard test dimension, not when put into a frame. Or they learn that the way the material is used is simply wrong, or it's not used at all (remember the Ti-embedded carbon forks, where the Ti was just a decal?)

This goes back as far as Titanium frames with their "eternal fatigue life". That also a case where it is true for the material itself, but not for Ti frames because although the material is very good in fatigue, it is very susceptible to stress raisers. So as soon as you weld Ti, you introduce those and that's where the frames brake, the reason why in fatigue testing of frames (as opposed to testing test strips), carbon outperforms Ti handily. And of course even that is not fool-proof, because although a lab test on a frame is better than a lab test on a strip of material, it's still not the same as real-life, where you may crash the frame, have it tip over onto a curb, or any number of other mishaps.

Anyway, this doesn't mean these technologies don't have merit, it means that it's often difficult to get the theoretical benefits to hold up in a final product. And in the bike industry, there's very rapid feature-deflation so even if it can work, it's hard to know if the particular product you look at uses the true technology or just added another snazzy logo.

Post #3 of 7. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 24-Jan-2017 09:47:12 GMT in reply to post #2 [1394<--1396]
For Eagle you would need an Eagle MTB shifter though, you cannot shift that with a road shifter.
Post #6 of 7. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 26-Jan-2017 09:26:30 GMT in reply to blog [0<--1412]
hi andy,
hello from boulder, co. just placed my order this afternoon for a the U.P. at Sports Garage. Can't wait!
Post #7 of 7. Posted by chris on 26-Jan-2017 21:39:58 GMT in reply to blog [0<--1420]