Keywords: 700c,bike of the month

BOTM: ROADIE U.P.P.E.R. - part 3

Andy Kessler - 31-Jan-2018
After the beauty shots of last week here the last piece of information for the ROADIE - U.P.P.E.R.
I think this build was a good source of inspiration for a couple of you. I have seen quite a good number of orders coming in for U.P.P.E.R. frames. That's actually the goal of our BOTM blogs. We built dream bikes- we ride them- we get rid of them and build the next dream bike.

This was actually the first bike I did not build myself. But I think we will feature some more of our friends bikes in the future. So just upload your beauty to our showcase on our website. There is one being built I would love to show in the future: The LEGO-inspired U.P.P.E.R...

Here are the detailed specifications of this lightweight build:

size M
frame Black matte
headset Cane Creek AER series
fork OPEN U-Turn
stem  MCFK, UD finish 110mm
handlebar MCFK, UD finish 400mm
handlebar grip Red
seatpost MCFK, UD finish 27.2mm
saddle Fizik Antares 00 braided
brakes SRAM Force 1 160mm front and rear
shifters SRAM Force 1
crank  SRAM Force 1 170mm,
BB Ceramic Speed BB 386
chainrings SRAM Force 1 42T
front and rear derailleur SRAM Force 1
cassette SRAM Force 10-42
chain SRAM PC 1170
wheel MCFK, UD finish, 35mm, Tune
tire Vittoria Corsa 700x28C
special Tune bottle cage, K-edge computer mount
weight 6.5kg

Comments & Questions

I am not expert about bikes but you always suprise me with your knowledge, nice bike like all yours bikes.
Post #1 of 15. Posted by Andrej Plut on 01-Feb-2018 12:21:36 GMT in reply to blog [0<--10481]
Not my bike, not my business, but I don't understand 1x on a road'll get dropped while spinning at 145RPM in a group ride cruising at 27mph....I actually feel the same about a real-world gravel bike where there are extended road miles to get to the dirt. Other than that, just wow...sweet rig.
Post #2 of 15. Posted by Ryan on 01-Feb-2018 14:35:22 GMT in reply to blog [0<--10485]
Actually, according to the Sheldon Brown calcs are off.
Post #3 of 15. Posted by Ryan on 01-Feb-2018 15:02:28 GMT in reply to post #2 [10485<--10486]
What is the weight of this build? Is eTap compatible with 1x? This would be close to my exact spec - love the clean look of it.
Post #4 of 15. Posted by c3po on 01-Feb-2018 16:04:51 GMT in reply to post #3 [10486<--10488]
6.5kg. eTap does not have a clutch, so it's not designed for 1x unless you have a device that keeps the chain on the front ring.
Post #10 of 15. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 11-Feb-2018 18:08:45 GMT in reply to post #4 [10488<--10502]
Thank you for the update! So no e-shifting for 1x drivetrains? I'm looking for a way (maybe via the stem) to hide all the cables for the svelte look.
Post #11 of 15. Posted by byDesign on 12-Feb-2018 17:29:51 GMT in reply to post #10 [10502<--10505]
You can do a combo of XTR Di2 rear derailleur and DuraAce shifters (see May 2016 BOTM gallery at http//
Post #12 of 15. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 12-Feb-2018 17:50:54 GMT in reply to post #11 [10505<--10506]
Excellent. That seems to be the best option for e/1x. Any word if Sram will be updating their spec for eTap? Thanks for all the good info, Gerard.
Post #13 of 15. Posted by byDesign on 15-Feb-2018 17:36:01 GMT in reply to post #12 [10506<--10507]
Yep, you'll be almost going 50 mph at that point.
Post #9 of 15. Posted by Gerard Vroomen on 11-Feb-2018 18:07:40 GMT in reply to post #3 [10486<--10501]
Your computations are off, have a look here at the link below, that's to a gear calculator that is much easier to wrap your head around. With a 10-42 cassette you have the same range as a compact double in the front and a 11-32 in the back (420 % vs. 428 %). By adjusting the large chain ring, you can match any double chain ring setup with a single chain ring. A 46 tooth chain ring on a 1x corresponds gives you essentially the same top gear as a 50x11 (4.60 vs. 4.55). With a 44T chain ring, you lose a hair on the top (4.40 vs. 4.55) but you get the same low-end gear (1.05 vs. 1.06).

If you do not insist on having such a wide range, it is even easier: if you are running a semi-compact (52/36) and an 11-28 in the rear, you can easily get the same range and gearing, e. g. with one of 3T's 9-32 cassettes or with an 11-40 cassette.

The biggest difference is the gaps in between gears. But it seems to me that if you add a 12th gear, a 9-32 cassette should be perfect for most road riders. And if you need more range (or come from the world of MTB where larger jumps between gears are normal), then you can get a larger cassette.

420 % range:

356 % range:
http://www.ritz...2&RZ= 9,11,12,13,15,17,19,22,25,28,32&UF=2150&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&GR2=DERS&KB2=36,52&RZ2=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF2=2150
Post #6 of 15. Posted by Max on 01-Feb-2018 21:19:07 GMT in reply to post #2 [10485<--10490]
It isn't just the gaps between gears that are a large difference in 1x versus 2x on road/gravel apps. It is also the fact that with 1x you are not only riding with your chain at a much more extreme angle when near the biggest and smallest cogs in the back, but the very fact it is 1x also virtually assures that you will spend a good deal higher % of your riding time in those extreme angle gears near the extreme boundaries of your cassette versus a proper 2x set up where you can spend much more time riding near the center of the cassette as it is meant to be done. There is simply no way to get around those gearing facts. With 1x you are also assured of wearing out chains, the rear cassette, and the single front ring faster than a 2x set up maintained to the same degree of competence. On top of that, almost all sane 1x riders will be forced to use some type of chain catcher in place of the lost front derailleur up front. When you factor in that weight plus the huge MTB type cassette you end up running in the back, and a usually longer chain to wrap that huge MTB cassette the hyped weight savings of a 1x system is almost nonexistent vs. a comparable range 2x set up. Well under 100 grams net if comparing similar grouppo components in almost all instances. You basically lose a front derailleur, gain much larger gaps in your gearing, assure that you will spend much more time riding with your chain at an extreme angle versus 2x, save little to no meaningful weight, and wear your components out faster in large part due to those continuous extreme chain angles and running only 1 ring up front. Sorry, I can see 1x making complete sense for cross racing and even some MTB applications, but for road and gravel type riding it seems like a complete fad/gimmick that provides far more negatives than positives. And the "complexity" argument is nonsensical given how good current 2x systems like di2 have gotten where you essentially set them and forget them.
Post #14 of 15. Posted by Steve Thomas on 25-Feb-2018 08:07:41 GMT in reply to post #6 [10490<--10530]
.... and have you tried?
I have of course 1st time on gravel bike, wher solid milage I did on termac as well.
After one season I have upgraded (or downgraded) all my 2 road bikes to 1x. Canyon Ultimate SLX and Trek Emonda SLR.
I do not understand 2x anymore.
Post #8 of 15. Posted by Alek on 05-Feb-2018 16:15:17 GMT in reply to post #2 [10485<--10492]
Far more extreme chain angles required to be ridden far more often with 1x on the road, much faster wearing out of components with 1x due to thise extreme chain angles, much larger jumps between gears, and almost no serious weight savings. And the complexity argument goes right out the door with a 2x set up like di2 where you set them and forget them. Other than that 1x on a road/gravel bik sounds marvelous. You can have 1x all day long. I'll "suffer" with my much tighter 2x gearing, far better chain angle (think more efficient), much better wear of components, and very minimal weight penalty. LOL
Post #15 of 15. Posted by Steve Thomas on 25-Feb-2018 08:15:02 GMT in reply to post #8 [10492<--10531]
40/10 @ 145 rpm = 48.4mph, @95 it's a respectful 31.7mph :)
Post #5 of 15. Posted by Eddie on 01-Feb-2018 20:23:47 GMT in reply to blog [0<--10489]
Congrats Mr Vroomen. A few more D I A awards.
Post #7 of 15. Posted by Glen on 05-Feb-2018 05:40:58 GMT in reply to blog [0<--10491]