Which fork?

[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 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.

[indysteel]

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 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.