What's a good quality carbon fork?

Thanks for all of the input. I will probably stick to the chrome steel
fork. I would be better off losing a pound or two (or 20) in my gut
before spending the cash to get a new fork. I just am amazed at the
weight of newer bikes that sport the lesser components (but are probably
better now).

The bike rides extremely well. I guess I am just getting Bike hungry
again (after not needing to be for so long).

Thanks again for the input...


NS

"Saltytri" wrote in message
...
Yes, you can go wrong with an Alpha-Q. I bought one from a reliable net
source. It had four visible manufacturing defects:

1. a void in the laminate on the crown

How did you detect this?


2. the metal sleeve for the brake shaft wasn't properly seated

This is normal. The sleeve isn't bonded.

3. the laminate was rough and uneven at the base of the steerer tube where
it
meets the crown - not just a little but visibly ugly

?


4. the metal ring on the steerer that takes the heaset bearing race was
out of
round by several thousanths and the race couldn't be pressed on

True Temper customer service was downright snotty and didn't want to hear
from
me. I admit that one bad fork shouldn't be enough to condemn the whole
company
or the Alpha-Q line. Everyone is entitled to a screwup now and then but
the
true measure of a company is how they react to their mistakes. True
Temper
failed that test. I decided to risk my life to a product that is well
supported. Reynolds has been great to deal with in the past, so I opted
for an
Ouzo Pro. Fortunately, the retailer was good as gold and sent me the Ouzo
in
exchange. YMMV


Your experience is exceptional, and you're claiming some problems that
aren't problems. Why didn't you just stend the fork back and get another?

I've installed quite a few of these forks as well as the Reynolds, and I've
never encountered anything like this.

In article ,
"David L. Johnson" wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:00:17 +0000, NS wrote:

I may be interested in changing forks to a Carbon Fork. I have a 1990 or
89 model (CRMO) Masi Nuova Strada. I am torn between a better ride and/or
a seemingly correct, classic (but HEAVY and chromed) nice ride.

I will always have the fork if I want to go back to original, I know.
Also, the weight saved will probably be substantial (a couple of lbs).

Probably one pound, more or less. Still substantial-seeming, but about
the weight of that extra water bottle.

I feel the power of Fabrizo...

Always with the water bottles. You have to carry the water bottles, you
do not have to carry a steel fork. There is no lightweight substitute
for water.

If you must make fun of water, make fun of the water in your adipose
tissue. Tourist and commuter types like you with your pathetic 20% body
fat give us serious cyclists a bad name.

Carbon fibre fork, weight down to 160 lbs., and shaved legs. I'm going
over to the Fabrizio side....

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

It can change the geometry of the bike. Was thinking of an ouzo pro for my
1990 Paramount http://www.wolfenet.org/gallery/Bikes/IMG_0748 . The guys
at Waterford recommend sticking with the stock fork since that was the way
the frame was designed, and the Reynolds would raise the front end of the
bike about 1/4" which changes all your angles. So I left it and did the
weight savings elsewhere. It's not the 17lbs of my buddies new Ti Lemond,
with DA triple, but I beat him up Torrey Pines hill by over 3 minutes
yesterday, so I don't think bike weight has anything to do with it.
Besides, I love the ride of my Paramount with modern components.


David L. Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:20:25 +0000, KBH wrote:

Forks shouldn't be treated as a component, but part of the frame.

Why?


--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org
gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6 8C71
"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of
course, living in a state of sin."
- John Von Neumann

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:43:56 +0000, Mark Wolfe wrote:

It can change the geometry of the bike. Was thinking of an ouzo pro for
my 1990 Paramount http://www.wolfenet.org/gallery/Bikes/IMG_0748 . The
guys at Waterford recommend sticking with the stock fork since that was
the way the frame was designed, and the Reynolds would raise the front end
of the bike about 1/4" which changes all your angles.

It's one thing to worry about putting a new fork on a 13-year-old bike,
and another to claim that forks are inherent parts of frames in general.
These days, fork heights are standardized, (and are available in only a
few choices of rake) and most frames assume the fork
will be built to that standard. I couldn't put a carbon fork on my 1969
Frejus, either, but that says nothing about frames built in the last 5
years.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
_`\(,_ | that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not
(_)/ (_) | only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public. --Theodore Roosevelt

I would recommend a Kestrel. They have been around the longest, they were
the
first to sell CF forks are upgrades.

AND they have the best warranty!
Steve

"David L. Johnson" wrote in message ...

These days, fork heights are standardized, (and are available in only a
few choices of rake) and most frames assume the fork
will be built to that standard.


Fork heights are NOT standardized these days as you mentioned.

I've measured quite a few forks on the market and have noted the
following:

- Reynolds Ozuo Pro - 374 mm

- Alpha Q forks - 374 mm

- Wound-Up - 365 mm

- Profile BRC - 365 mm

- Look HSC3 - 368 mm

- Columbus Muscle - 365 mm

- Kestral EMS (old version) - 370 mm

- Old lugged crown steel forks - 361 mm to 365 mm (most are 363'ish)


A change of 10 mm of fork length will slacken head tube and seat tube
angles approx. 0.65 degrees and also raise the bottom bracket height
by about 4 mm. Some may like the change but most will not.

Ed

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/forklengths.htm

For a more definitive study of fork lengths and their affect on bike
handling, see Damon Rinard's study. Pay close attention to the last
paragraph in which he states "You can probably tell that I think
worrying about fork length when changing a road fork is usually not
worth it."


(Ed Ness) wrote in message . com...
"David L. Johnson" wrote in message ...

These days, fork heights are standardized, (and are available in only a
few choices of rake) and most frames assume the fork
will be built to that standard.


Fork heights are NOT standardized these days as you mentioned.

I've measured quite a few forks on the market and have noted the
following:

- Reynolds Ozuo Pro - 374 mm

- Alpha Q forks - 374 mm

- Wound-Up - 365 mm

- Profile BRC - 365 mm

- Look HSC3 - 368 mm

- Columbus Muscle - 365 mm

- Kestral EMS (old version) - 370 mm

- Old lugged crown steel forks - 361 mm to 365 mm (most are 363'ish)


A change of 10 mm of fork length will slacken head tube and seat tube
angles approx. 0.65 degrees and also raise the bottom bracket height
by about 4 mm. Some may like the change but most will not.

Ed