Open Cycles (WI.DE. / U.P.) bike sizing - Do they just downsize?

Does anyone have saddle time on Open’s WI.DE. or U.P. gravel bikes? When comparing the geometry to my Niner RLT, Open’s sizing recommendation seems to downsize the frame.

I’m 6’0 with a 34" cycling inseam.

Open’s sizing chart places me firmly in their Large frame (5’10"-6’3"). If you look at the geometry numbers, a size Large Open is similar to a Niner size 56. But a 56 places me on the fringe of Niner’s recommendation (5’8"-6’0).

I’m currently riding a size 59 RLT which has similar geometry numbers of an XL Open. But Open recommends the XL for a (6’2"-6’8") rider! :dizzy_face:

Compared to Niner, Trek and a few other brands, it seems like Open recommends a smaller bike for the same size rider.

Open WIDE / UP owners: Did you follow Open’s sizing recommendation? Does this mean long stems and setback seatposts?

I am 6’ tall with a 33" inseam. I have a Large UP with zero setback and a 90mm stem for my fit. I have a friend who is also 6’ (I dont know his inseam) also on a Large with a 110 stem and zero setback.

1 Like

I’m between 6’ and 6’1” and ended up going with an XL on my Open UP. While their sizing chart recommended a Large, when I compared the geometry to my 58cm Cervelo R3 (which I had been riding for 2-3 years) It was much closer to the XL of the Open Up. I’m using a zero setback seatpost, 100mm -6 degrees stem, and have 10cm of spacers under the stem. The only thing I don’t like about the XL vs if I had gone with the L is that I don’t have much seatpost showing.

Anyway, when choosing a new bike, I’d always favor going off of the fit (mainly stack and reach) of a current bike you are happy with rather than the fit chart of the manufacturer

1 Like

Just bear in mind the UP and Wi.De are different in geometry. The UP is lower and longer than the Wi.De. I ride a medium Wi.De. Fitting me on an UP would not have been easy - would require a short term and spacers.

All Open’s are designed around zero setback seatposts.

Yup, I’m aware of the slight differences in geometry between the UP and WIDE. I have the same sizing concern with both models. It sounds like Open is pushing for a traditional road fit where you use a long stem and might have some toe overlap. Not a fan of that kind fit.

What did you end up doing here? I’m in the exact same position, deciding between the L and XL with the same stats as you.

After serious consideration, I decided not to go with an Open. :relieved: The bottom bracket they adopted doesn’t allow for a single speed setup. Didn’t want to compromise when the frame cost is premium.

I was attracted to the Open’s light weight, but if I’m honest with myself, I’m not going to be any faster or have any more fun on a bike that’s 5 pounds lighter.

If I was going to order though, it would be an XL. I used to think a smaller bike is more nimble, easier to toss around, lighter etc. But experience has taught me that I enjoy being more centered, feeling like I’m “in” the bike, instead of “on top” of.

I think Open’s recommended sizing is “classic” and not modern for us betweeners.

I just picked up my custom build Open U.P. I am 6”1.25 inches tall. I had a 58cm Trek Checkpoint with a 90mm stem. The Trek always felt a little large for me, although it was comfortable. My Open looks much smaller but it feels comfortable too. It also has a 90mm stem. I do have a bit of toe overlap though. The Open is way my aggressive than my checkpoint. It’s feels like a compact race machine compared to it. I was also sized for an Allied Echo, they recommended a M size with an 80mm stem, and 172.5 crank. I sat on their L size and I immediately knew it was to damn big.