|Non-Colnago forks compatible with CT1?||dawgcatchr|
Aug 13, 2003 10:48 AM
|I was interested in putting a 44cm rake Alpha Q sub3 fork on my CT1. I talked with an "offical" Colnago source, who claimed it couldn't be done without screwing up the geometry and handling-that I need to buy a Force or Star fork, as they are the only all-carbon forks that are compatible with Colnago frames. Is this a vain attempt to get me to purchase only an overpriced Colnago fork, or is there something to it? I don't plan on shelling out $500 for a Force unless it is really necessary, and if it is, I will probably forget the whole fork upgrade thing all together.|
Aug 13, 2003 11:03 AM
|I wrecked my Colnago a few years ago and bent the fork. Luckily, I wasn't using a CF fork at the time. Instead of paying up for a Colnago brand fork and waiting a month for delivery, I bought a straightblade CF Time fork. It served me well for the last six years - until my frame cracked. If you buy an aftermarket fork, go for a straightblade fork.|
|straightblade or curved...what is the rake of the colnago fork?||ColnagoFE|
Aug 13, 2003 12:22 PM
|i'd think that would be the most important thing to match.|
|this link says 43 across all sizes||terry b|
Aug 13, 2003 1:30 PM
|43 here too...||SamDC|
Aug 13, 2003 1:53 PM
|From the US distributor of Colnago's:
If indeed it is a 43mm rake, that opens your options to many more forks; Reynold's Ouzo is the first to come to mind.
|Well, it seems that you could replace the fork without||djg|
Aug 13, 2003 1:17 PM
|changing the geometry by finding a fork with the same rake. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure that the rake is on a flash or star fork, although I have a flash on my CT1. I would think that a dealer could tell you the rake if trialtir won't.
As for the handling, I like my Colnago fork and I imagine that nothing else provides IDENTICAL handling (maybe not even another force off the line). On the other hand, there are other good forks out there and if you get the geometry right I'm not sure why one of those wouldn't work fine.
Did you trash the fork that came with your CT1? Seems like you could get the geometry off of that, unless you really destroyed it.
All of this is a long way of saying "beats me, but I don't see why you couldn't do it." I might ask them for a better explanation before buying the story.
|Your CT1 standard geometry. My steel Crystal ...||Live Steam|
Aug 14, 2003 5:57 AM
|came with a fork rake of 42mm. Very odd indeed. I put the Uzo Pro on two years ago and it improved the ride characteristics tremendously. The rake on that fork is 43mm. Not quite as twitchy, no road buzz and more than 1.5lbs lighter. Rides like a peach.
I think a CT1 is my next purchase :O) I have a carbon frame, steel frame and AL frame, but no Ti :O( I just built a CT1 for a friend. It's a beauty.
|purty...here's my Ad-4 MXL with Flash fork||ColnagoFE|
Aug 14, 2003 7:34 AM
|I now want a C-50 (with Star fork and Record natch)! Maybe I can have my wife talked into that by the time I turn 40! (2 yrs!)|
|won't hurt a thing....||C-40|
Aug 14, 2003 1:58 PM
|Changing from a 43mm rake to a 44mm rake won't hurt a thing on a Colnago. The head tube angle is shallow, which creates a lot of trail (slow steering). You could easily go up to a 45mm rake with no problem.
The only other thing that you should compare is the length of the fork from the center of the axle to the top of the crown race. If the length of the new fork is more than a few millimeters shorter, it will steepen the head tube angle and further reduce trail (speeding up the steering). I'll see if I can dig up the lengths.
Aug 15, 2003 4:37 AM
|Checked the length of my Colnago Star fork. It's virtually identical to the 374mm length listed for the Alpha Q. You're good to go with the 44mm rake.|| |