|Is it worth upgrading a fork on a 5200??||10kman|
Aug 6, 2003 4:36 AM
|I have a 2001 Trek 5200, in the Pearl White color scheme.
The fork has some dings on it from being transported around, but they are only in the paint, nothing that is actual damage.
I was toying with the idea of upgrading the fork to something newer, maybe an Ouzo Pro or whatever.
Is it worthwhile to do this, or should I just leave it alone? I haven't really been on another bike with a "Aftermarket" fork, so I don't know how they would ride compared to the stock one.
|re: worked for me||Rusty Coggs|
Aug 6, 2003 4:45 AM
|Look HSC3 straight,alot lighter and better riding IMO.|
|What's the stock fork's rake??||10kman|
Aug 6, 2003 5:04 AM
|Do you know what the stock fork's rake is? If I did upgrade the fork, I'd like to get something with close to the exact angle if possible, I like the way the bike handles now and don't want to change that.
I keep searching around the net, I can't find the darn specs anywhere.....
|What's the stock fork's rake??||Rusty Coggs|
Aug 6, 2003 5:36 AM
|2000 trek catalogue says 47mm for sizes 50 thru 54 and 43 mm for 56 thru 62 sizes. I've not been able to tell the difference in a few mm of rake differece between forks.|
Aug 6, 2003 5:49 AM
|Thanks for the information, you have been a blessing!!
Now, if only you could fix my squeaking Look pedals (see my other post below), LOL.....
Aug 6, 2003 6:21 AM
|My 1998 56cm 5500 came with a 43mm rake. I upgraded to the Reynolds Ouzo Pro 43mm rake, big improvement and it took 1/2 pound off of the bike, but my old fork was a quill with steel steerer. Since then I replaced the fork again with an Ouzo Pro 40mm rake, I had an extra after buying my wife a new bike. The reduced rake increased the trail so that the bike has slightly more tendency to continue in a straight line and does not turn quite as quick. I could feel the difference right away but it was a very small change in handling. I'm leaving the 40 rake on the bike but I think the 43 would be better for a crit racer. I prefer the extra stability of the 40mm, but it is only a small difference. The stock Trek OCLV bikes have a relatively steep head tube, less trail, and quick steering.
Reducing the rake will slow the steering down, but 2 mm is not a big change.
|I replaced mine,.,||bicycle268|
Aug 6, 2003 11:11 AM
|I replaced my steel steerer trek fork on my 2000-56cm 5200 with an Ouzo Pro 43mm rake. Much lighter!! Other than the weight I really don't notice THAT much difference in performance but weight alone is a justification (all else remaining the same).|
|What is it worth to you?||Atombomber|
Aug 7, 2003 12:17 PM
|Are you racing and need an extra advantage because you have minimized your weight and maximized your physical fitness completely? Then yes, a lighter more aerodynamic fork will be 'worth' it.
If the fork is still good, and the bike rides fine, it will be 'worth' it to the bicycle industry if you purchase a new fork, just for the sake of purchasing a new fork. I'm sure that you won't notice a huge improvement (or lack) by fitting something quite similar to you bike.
An upgrade is when you aquire (by purchasing or other means) a better quality item than what you had before. Swapping is the better term for what you are asking about, and it all comes down to how you want to spend your money. If it was me, I'd keep the stock fork on the bike and put the money towards a bike trip somewhere, like Tuscany.