Sep 7, 2002 8:11 PM
|Anyone know the weight of the Trek OCLV fork that would be found one one of this years 5200?
And other impressions, one rider I was talking to cited improvements upon replacing this fork...
|re: Trek Fork...||tao|
Sep 8, 2002 10:39 AM
|384 grams uncut for the 110 fork which is on the 52, 55, and 5900, from
cannondale, compares weights of some "light" bikes.
|re: Trek Fork...||Atombomber|
Sep 8, 2002 8:14 PM
|What improvements? 23km/h faster average speed? If USPS can use the fork, I think it'll be good enough for you.
But if you have money to burn, and want to support the bike industry, get something else.
|re: Trek Fork...||berni|
Sep 8, 2002 11:10 PM
|Is it really 384g? I have a 2001 Trek 5200, and although I haven't weighed the fork, I've weighed almost everything else, which leaves about 450g for the fork.
I think there is a difference in the fork used for the 5200 and the 5900. Maybe the 5900 is 384g, and the 5200 more like 450g.
In any case, I was interested in improving my fork to the Easton EC 90, but I need to weigh my actual one to be sure it makes sense.
|re: Trek Fork...||TrekFurthur|
Sep 9, 2002 6:17 AM
|Trek's got a new fork for '03, berni; yours probably does weigh more.|
Sep 9, 2002 6:02 PM
|What are you improving by getting a new fork?
Use the correct wording. You will be exchanging the fork, but in the process, you MIGHT improve some factor of your bike and/or ride. I've ridden the stock 120 OCLV fork for over 10,000 km and have not had any issues with it.
Get the fork if you want it. Don't try to justify to us any reasons. Support the industry.