Which fork?

I've selected almost every other component for my new Moots, but the fork. I can't seem to make a decision. The builder's first recommendation is the Alpha Q GS10, with a 44-degree rake. His second recommendation was the Reynolds Ouzo Pro with a 45-degree rake. After much stewing last weekend, I decided to go with the Ouzo Pro, mostly because I just like the way it looks over the bladed Alpha Q.

My LBS called yesterday to tell me that Reynolds has stopped production of the current Ouzo Pro. I've heard rumors that they're launching a ndw fork for 2009, but I've seen no concrete information. My LBS can't get it's hands on one. I have found a few online sources but now I've second guessing my original decision.

One of my requests for this bike was that be a bit more responsive than my Bianchi. For that reason, the head tube angle is slightly steeper but the fork rake will affect that, too. The 44-degree rake will theoretically be slightly more stable than the 45. Now whether I would be able to notice the difference is another story. The only other fork I can find that comes in either a 44 or 45-degree rake is Ritchey.

I've finding it very hard to make this decision because it's so very much in the abstract, and I have no point of comparison. Between ride quality, product reliability, and handling, it seems like a crapshoot. The only objective quality I can base my decison is the look of the fork. If that was my only criteria, I'd go with Ritchey, then Reynolds, then Alpha Q. I wish, in the very least, that Reynolds would release some pics/details about their new fork because I do have a couple of months before the frame will be done.

Anyway, my mind's running in circles on this one. If anyone has any advice, please share. Arguably, I should just go with the builder's recommendation. I just wish I liked the look of that fork, especially on my frame a bit more.

Oh, and I'm not opposed to a steel fork. While I'm excited that this bike will be lighter than the Bianchi, it is not my first priority.
Thanks!

I must be hungry. I was thinking fork - salad, dinner, dessert - start on the outside, work your way in. :p

Veronica

What is happening with Reynolds forks is true...the whole line is being re-done, they are much less "after market" friendly (and therefore less friendly as OEM equipment for framebuilders.). In addition they are all being designed primarily for integrated headsets:eek: which means they will look yucky on a sweet frame like a Moots.

The difference between 44mm of rake and 45mm of rake is 1mm. 1mm! If you can feel this in how a bike rides I will give you a fork! That is nothing, imperceptible. Add to it the variations in QC with carbon forks, there is a good chance your 44mm fork will actually be a 45mm, and vice versa. Don't sweat this.

The number your builder pays more attention to when making the frame is called "trail" and it is a derivative of both the fork's rake/offset and the head tube angle. Assuming a head tube angle of around 72.5 degrees, you have a trail number of 59 or 60mm depending on which fork you use and 700 x 23c wheels. That is a great number, and the bike should have great front end handling for any fork in this offset range..

I hope that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lunacycles

What is happening with Reynolds forks is true...the whole line is being re-done, they are much less "after market" friendly (and therefore less friendly as OEM equipment for framebuilders.). In addition they are all being designed primarily for integrated headsets:eek: which means they will look yucky on a sweet frame like a Moots.

The difference between 44mm of rake and 45mm of rake is 1mm. 1mm! If you can feel this in how a bike rides I will give you a fork! That is nothing, imperceptible. Add to it the variations in QC with carbon forks, there is a good chance your 44mm fork will actually be a 45mm, and vice versa. Don't sweat this.

The number your builder pays more attention to when making the frame is called "trail" and it is a derivative of both the fork's rake/offset and the head tube angle. Assuming a head tube angle of around 72.5 degrees, you have a trail number of 59 or 60mm depending on which fork you use and 700 x 23c wheels. That is a great number, and the bike should have great front end handling for any fork in this offset range..

I hope that helps.

---

Thanks, Margo. That is quite helpful. My headtube angle is 72.5, so it's very reassuring to know that either fork rake will result in great handling. I love my Bianchi, but it's a bit TOO stable.

I wish I could picture what the fork will look like once it's on the Moots. I just don't like the look of the Alpha Q on the Moots I've seen on RBR's site. I don't know if it's the crown diameter or the blades or both. I generally like curved forks. Would a steel fork, presumably built to my specifications, be an "out there" choice for a Ti bike? I mentioned that as an option to a friend of mine who owned his own bike shop until recently, and he looked at me like I was nuts (which really irked me). He worships all things carbon, however.

Also, do you happen to know whether Ritchey forks are any good? They aren't as popular as some of the other brands, and I can't find as much about them. I know they had a few quality control issues a couple of years ago, so it does give me some pause.

A few other specs if it helps answer any of my questions: My frame is roughly a 50 cm compact, 700 cc wheels. I like understated, simple design. I'm not overly concerned with stiffness in that I'm light and don't race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

My LBS called yesterday to tell me that Reynolds has stopped production of the current Ouzo Pro.

---

Ruh roh. Guess what fork I'm supposed to be getting ... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica

I must be hungry. I was thinking fork - salad, dinner, dessert - start on the outside, work your way in. :p

Veronica

---

I did too! And then I thought about last night when I ate dinner with only a dessert fork because the others were dirty. :o

Hi Indysteel,

For whatever reason, steel forks and ti frames seem to not happen frequently. It is a good question as to why, really. I think the aesthetics of oversize tigged ti tubing with standard sized steel tubing (and a classic lugged crown) don't work for a lot of bike geeks. I have also noticed guys often have different aesthetic needs in bikes, fwiw, and certain things are mystically taboo (this might be one of them). As far as ride quality, steel would be very nice, and I think complement the ride quality of a ti frame. I build a lot of forks, and you can make a very light steel fork these days that is very comfy and responsive...not as light as light carbon, but certainly close.

Anyway, keep checking around for forks if you pursue carbon. There is a company called Edge Composites that is US-based. A very reputable carbon fiber custom framebuilder buddy of mine recommended I check them out as a replacement for Reynolds (Reynolds was great because they offered 3 different offsets in their 700c forks). I don't think they sell consumer direct, but do some googling and maybe you will find info. I haven't had to make this step yet, but will in a month or two... Wound Up also offers custom offsets, but their forks have that straight leg design that I don't think you are looking for.

As far as Ritchey, I can't say from experience (I use a lot of Ritchey stuff but not their forks yet)...but I have heard a lot of inconsistent things. I like Ritchey aesthetics, personally. I think if you go with them, go WCS...anything less gets consistently bad marks from what I have read.

Good luck!

It just occurred to me a BIG reason steel forks don't go with ti frames...Ti frames' head tubes are oversized, requiring an OS fork steerer (1-1/8"). Almost all road crowns, if not all, are designed for 1" steerers. I think there is a conversion kit out there, but that would be sooo wrong to use on a brand new frame, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lunacycles

Anyway, keep checking around for forks if you pursue carbon. There is a company called Edge Composites that is US-based. A very reputable carbon fiber custom framebuilder buddy of mine recommended I check them out as a replacement for Reynolds (Reynolds was great because they offered 3 different offsets in their 700c forks). I don't think they sell consumer direct, but do some googling and maybe you will find info. I haven't had to make this step yet, but will in a month or two...

---

Indy, I personally know Edge's marketing and distribution guru. She also owns one of the LBS here in town (was also the former marketing dir for Felt) and was just talking about Edge the other day. Let me know if you need me to find some contacts for you.

When I talked to Tom Kellogg about my Spectrum, the thing that most concerned me was the comfort of fork - what vibrations would I feel in my hands. Carbon can be made horribly stiff for us smaller folks. The rake, trail, etc., I left up to the experts.

Ah ya, Margo is right. Steel forks can look just real plain weird on ti frames. You can have the carbon painted if you want to camouflage it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobob

Ruh roh. Guess what fork I'm supposed to be getting ... :rolleyes:

---

To go with what????? A decision has been made?

Glad I'm sitting down.

She let the cat out that she is a getting a Lynskey made. I don't like her anymore, jealousy is weird like that. :p

I knew she was thinking about it. JuniorRacerBoy (jobob know's who that is) was similarly floored when the subject was broached.

Quote:

---

When I talked to Tom Kellogg about my Spectrum, the thing that most concerned me was the comfort of fork - what vibrations would I feel in my hands. Carbon can be made horribly stiff for us smaller folks.

---

This is very true. Unfortunately, it is hard for the consumer to control. But, generally (very generally) speaking, the lighter carbon forks will ride nicer and be less "overbuilt" for lighter people.

Ooooh....that's what I have on my custom Luna- the Reynolds Ouzo Pro.

Margo, am I remembering wrong or did that particular fork would allow for a wider tire than some other carbon forks do? (I have 700x25's) Or maybe it was just that you said if I used a carbon fork I would not be able to fit tires wider than 25's ? Trying to remember that fuzzy detail.... :rolleyes: