|reynolds ouzo pro cross out now||jnichols959|
Jan 23, 2004 11:38 AM
|I spied it on the reynolds site after seeing pics from InterBike last year. Looks like it's close to a quarter pound lighter than the True Temper fork - which is already pretty light.
I saw an old post on this forum suggesting that an all carbon cross fork should be replaced periodically. Does this really make sense? I know that cross is off-road but don't you think that the higher speeds and longer rides of a road bike put some pretty serious stress on the now common all carbon road fork?
These things are generally over engineered to the point that even a heavy user shouldn't see product failure. There's always the statistically small group that see failures regardless of component material - but this is just part of using any component.
Now I'm just wondering who's going to carry them, when and for how much?
|re: reynolds ouzo pro cross out now||blackhat|
Jan 23, 2004 12:46 PM
|looks cool. but, as for your question of product failure and carbon replacement, I've mostly avoided prolonged use of carbon forks on everything after reading an article a german guy brought into the shop I worked at. actually I just looked at the pics and listened to the translation as it was a german cycling mag, but it showed the failure point determined through some sort of controlled testing of about a dozen carbon forks(road), and only one had a respectable real world lifespan, a mizuno alpe d'Huez. the others weren't anywhere close. I don't recall the #'s but the guy was an engineer and seemed to be pretty convinced to the point that he was willing to pay whatever we wanted to get him one, this was in '99 shortly before you could turn to the web for many choices. I tracked one down and installed it for him but have been leary of carbon ever since. Especially if you're inclined to bunnyhop over (or into) barriers.. If I were in a position to systematically replace my fork, Id think otherwise but for now I'll stick with steel.|
|I'm with blackhat||seamus|
Jan 23, 2004 1:10 PM
|Carbon forks are really nice, but I'm with blackhat for similar reasons. I don't worry too much about carbon forks on a road bike, but for cross, most of the steel framebuilders I've dealt with have all told me the same thing: Really good carbon forks are really good for cross racing, but you'd want to replace them every season, especially the really light ones. Now, maybe they're stronger than we all think, but I don't want to find out the hard way, and I use my cross bikes for everything, all year long.|
|notes from an amateur engineer||atpjunkie|
Jan 23, 2004 2:57 PM
|Carbon Forks, especially Carbon with a Carbon Steerer are most vulnerable with increases in spacer stack. most 1" all carbon forks have a max stack height limit of around 3cm, for 1.125 it's slightly higher. the space between top of the headset and stem/bars (where headset spacers go) becomes a fulcrum for wrenching forces (read handlebar torque) at the headset junction. In cx this is additionally exposed to even more rapid torque forces from either 'hits' on rough terrain or as Blackhat states bunnyhopping that a road fork usually escapes. since most cx bikes are undersized (for stand-over) and have a more upright riding position than a roadbike 3cm, or better stack height is common. Add a positive stem angle (which increases torque by moving lever force (you) away from this fulcrum. Add wider bars which does the same and increase the amount of abuse and it's a recipe for failure. Many custom framebuilders like Seven make headtube extensions available to counter this. I run a 1.125 Ouzo Pro on my roadie with no spacers at all and am quite confident it will last me years. I had an Ouzo Comp on a 1" Steerer roadie as I was avoiding the 3 cm rule by using an alloy steer tube. the weight savings is not worth the risk and investment. IMHO. Hopefully Reynolds will make with an alloy steeerer. I think one of the all Carbon cx forks (alpha?) has an Alu insert to counter this as well which may account for it's weight over the Reynolds. So if you have to go all Carbon for cx my suggestion is 1.125" steerer and a headtube extension to limit the risk. Carbon as I've stated before is best suited for muting higher frequency/small amplitude vibration (read: road chatter) and not really designed to 'give' as a form of suspension, Steel or Ti have far better properties for this (Steel being the best but heaviest) function so Carbons only real advantage is weight. The Sibex Ti forks that Gully was using are close in price and weight to most Carbon Forks and IMHO a far better investment for the weight weenie.
hope this helps.
|notes from an amateur engineer||jnichols959|
Jan 23, 2004 4:27 PM
|my weight comparison between the true temper and reynolds was bad - i was comparing the Ti steerer true temper fork to the all carbon reynolds. comparing carbon to carbon it's very, very close.
the sibex ti idea is a good one - as it's about the same cost as an all carbon fork. any idea of the weight for such a thing? though i sound like a weight weenie, i'm really not. i just figure if i can safely save some weight, i'd consider it. i guess this is the real motivation for my asking about opinions on all carbon cross forks.
Jan 24, 2004 7:19 AM
|FYI - Travis Brown is also running the Sibex fork. And I think he is pretty brutal on his gear.|
|weights and measures||atpjunkie|
Jan 26, 2004 9:36 AM
|winwood 680g (24.28 oz) $250 (heavier than the Sibex)
or roughly $10 an ounce
Alpha Q (1.125 Carbon) 520g (18.57 oz) $500
$27 an ounce
(1.125 Car Ti) 570g (20.35 oz) same
Wound Up (1.125 Carb) 532g (19 oz) $449
Sibex (630g) (22.5 oz) $384
$13.50 an ounce
and for comparison
Redline Al (Kenesis I think) 690g $180-$199
Gunnar Steel 728g (28 oz) $200
you can do the rest of the cost analysis but IMHO the Sibex (which will most likely last forever) at between $75 and $100 cheaper (based on Wound Up and Alpha Q) and only 100 g (about 3.5 oz) heavier is a far better investment. Plus I think Ti will be better for smoothing a ride than Carbon in this application. Morati also makes a Ti fork as well.
Jan 26, 2004 9:41 AM
|do a how many $$ saves you how much weight for a real value analysis. Compare Time ATACs, for the weight saved from the basic model to the Carbon Ti the $$ per gram saved is absurd. so the Alpha Q over the Sibex is $116 more expensive to save 110 g. That's a $1.05 a gram. plus fork won't last as long so amortize the investment over five years.........|
Jan 26, 2004 11:47 AM
|Very good points. I know the weight savings per dollar is a good way to quantitatively compare the values. I think that's the type of internal value comparison I do when I compare forks for example.
When I look at what parts I'm going to use to build this bike up I try to keep a good balance between function, value and weight. I've built up really light bikes and they don't really make me significantly faster - training does. At the same time, if I can save weight while staying within my goals of functionality, durability and value, I'll definitely do that.
Thanks everyone for all the feedback.
|Real world experience||flyweight|
Jan 27, 2004 8:36 AM
|I've got several riders on my team who have put a couple of seasons on their Wound-Up forks. These are elite level Junior riders (and juniors are notorious for destroying their gear), some of whom have been to the World's. One guy is a huge hulk of a track racer. So far we've had zero problems with our Wound-Up forks. The Wound-Up has a seriously overbuilt steer tube. The 1 1/8" size actually requires you to use a 1" compression plug because the steer walls are so thick (and include and aluminum sleeve) I wasn't much of a fan of Wound-Up before working on them. Always thought they were too expensive and too heavy compared to other forks. Having worked on them and ridden them I now think they're one of the best forks out there. Pretty much feels like a really good steel fork. Much stiffer and less brake chatter than lightweight carbon and aluminum forks.|
|Real world experience||jnichols959|
Jan 27, 2004 10:16 AM
|Funny you gave this feedback when you did - it's very much appreciated as it's real world feedback that seems to back up the manufacturer's feedback. I sent an email to Advanced Composites yesterday asking them about their fork for my purposes (6'1" 175lb rider doing road and trail riding) and was informed about the aluminum sleeve and reassured that such a fork is well suited to my situation. I know they're interested in making sales but it's also in their best interest to be clear if there is a truly bad match between their product and a rider's intended use.
The gist is that I've decided to go with the Wound Up and your feedback makes me feel even more comfortable with my choice. Now my only question is whether or not I should get it with the disc tabs just in case I end up wanting discs some day. One use for this bike will be bad weather riding (both road and trail) but I'm not interested in getting discs when I build it up (giving Paul cantis a try) and think it would be a pain to do so later (because I'm going with 10 speed campy).
|Real world experience||dlbcx|
Feb 1, 2004 10:33 AM
|Did they have to cut down their pads to remove the wheel? I think Gullickson's bike had this mod, didn't it?|
|Real world experience||flyweight|
Feb 4, 2004 9:33 AM
|Yeah, I had to bust out the Dremel tool. A couple of the kids simply ran the pads backwards. Cutting the pads down doesn't seem to have any major decrease in braking power.|
|Real world experience||jnichols959|
Feb 5, 2004 12:55 PM
|I'm not following the cut down pads to remove the wheel issue. Is this a side effect of the wound up fork design?|| |