# Fancy new part :) Rare too



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Arrived today, had to do some leg work to get one as they are not yet available in the states. I don't think anyone else has one for 06 yet. Came in at 306 un-cut so 16 grams over, cut to 240 it was 289, Much better than the 380 of the stock fork. The look is truly unique, at first I was iffy but I quite like it now, very different. I should be sub 12 with the new tires 





































Hope you all enjoy, I just think it looks so much more skeletal with this fork, I enjoy it. It looks light. I loved the CR1 fork before I got it, wanted one so bad. Once I had it, it lost something, I can't describe it but this fork has some distinction 

K


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Yeah, it has distinction in that it distinctly looks like crap. I don't think someone at Scott was thinking when they spec'd the dimensions of the crown. I think the HSC5 would have looked better, but it's not my bike.


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

*I concur*

Asthetically speaking, the bike would look much better with a fork designed for an integrated headset.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

It IS designed for one . Frankly I don't worry any about opinions, just thought I would share. I enjoy it a lot, the stock fork got very boring after a while. I don't know why, as said earlier I was in love with it prior to purchase. After I got it, it just looked too modular and perfect, this offsets it, I will have a top cap made to blend it a bit.

K


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but ...*

... in the photos it looks like the fork legs bend backwards slightly below the crown before they bend forward to the dropouts. Of course, as long as the fork geometry puts the wheel in axle in the right place, it shouldn't affect handling - and at least it doesn't look as funny as the Pinarello Onda fork:


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

alienator said:


> Yeah, it has distinction in that it distinctly looks like crap.


Yup. That looks absolutely terrible. And people on the WW board we complaining about the headtube-crown junction on the CR1 with a Ritchey WCS fork! For what it's worth, the WCS fork takes no legwork to get, looks great, and actually looks like it was designed for something other than a 1" threaded headset on a steel bike. And to boot, the WCS fork was 312 g uncut with the extra-long brakebolt in place. Even cut to 10.5", it's maybe 8g shy of that albatross.


----------



## Ramjm_2000 (Jan 29, 2005)

*Hate to be negative...*

but I have to agree it's not a fork I would put on that bike. It looks like a circa 1994 carbon fork on a ultra modern rig, somethings it just not right about it. Even if you used an integrated crown adapter (THM??) to improve the looks at the crown the legs look so anorexic, it would still look odd compaire to the muscular look of the frame. How's it ride? Looks pretty noodly  But this is just my opinion, if you like it and you think it's the bee's knees, that more power to ya. Enjoy.

JR


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Just an illusion, this is the only fork designed with the correct geometry for the Scott, I also rather like the stock handeling so no WCS. I also like the look of this better, it looks very skinny which is what I wanted. Keep the opinions coming, I don't really care what anyone thinks, just showing haha. With the custom top cap it will lose that illiusion but still be skinny looking. If anything, the next fork with be a Scapula or Stork.

K


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Correct geometry?*



IUbike said:


> Just an illusion, this is the only fork designed with the correct geometry for the Scott, I also rather like the stock handeling so no WCS.


What's special about the geometry of this fork? It looks to be about the same length as other standard road forks, and the rake doesn't look unusual either.


----------



## Phat&SlowVelo (Nov 27, 2004)

*Sorry Buddy,*

gotta ditto the above, that fork looks like crap on that frame. I'd put the old one back on and pay the weenie weight penalty. But as said above, not my bike. Enjoy.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

I like the fork, regardless of weight 

K


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

*how does it perform?*

yes there are better looking forks I'm sure, but I don't think it looks all that bad. You saved 0.2 lbs over your old fork which will help in attaining your 12 lb goal. The real ? is if you are happy with the feel of the fork and how it performs. Please report back after you've ridden it a while. It doesn't look as rigid as other CF forks I've seen.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Man, the rest of the bike looks muy nice, butt......well, I'll reiterate in piccies. That fork is--that's right--butt ugly.


----------



## split (Mar 22, 2004)

Not quite as ugly as alienator would portray it, but I'd have to agree. You should have stopped at the new seat. I guess we shoudn't flame you too much - this is the weight weenie board and you did drop some significant weight. How's the bike feel sans ~100g in the front end?


----------



## The The (Sep 9, 2002)

IUbike said:


> the stock fork got very boring after a while.


Love the bike, wouldn't mind getting one myself. I'd have to see better shots of that fork to decide if it truly is butt-ugly, but so far things aren't looking good.

Anyhooo -- your old fork got boring? WTF? So in the beginning it took you out every Friday night and always showed you a good time, but now it's stopped doing that and instead lies around at home watching Will & Grace? Yeah, I hear ya. Once they get like that, I ditch 'em too.


----------



## bikeuphill9 (Sep 7, 2005)

IUbike: How do you like your stronglight cranks? What type of bottom bracket are you using?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Cranks are great, I did burn through one of the AC bottom brakets already (warrantied) but that had more to do with the fact that the origibal QBP shipped me was the first version. The new one is much nicer. All in all I am very happy, now just waiting for an Ergomo! The last two weeks have been finals week so I have not even ridden this but once, a bit of a shame!

K


----------



## LBK (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm sorry, but that fork is not for that bike. Also, the Zipp wheels without decals really look dull. Why don't you put some colour on your bike?


----------



## Insight Driver (Jan 27, 2006)

It is very interesting that rather than talking of the merits of the lightness of the fork (oh my God, isn't this the weight weenies thread after all?) the majority of posts are comments on asthetics, like that has anything to do with shaving grams, which is what lightness is all about. I'll bet the people posting how ugly for fork is are foxes that couldn't touch the grapes.:mad2:


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Insight Driver said:


> It is very interesting that rather than talking of the merits of the lightness of the fork (oh my God, isn't this the weight weenies thread after all?) the majority of posts are comments on asthetics, like that has anything to do with shaving grams, which is what lightness is all about. I'll bet the people posting how ugly for fork is are foxes that couldn't touch the grapes.:mad2:


Your bet would prolly be wrong. Take a stroll over to Weight Weenies, and you'll find that not only are people nickle and diming the grams, the're also pretty aware of asthetics, too.

Didn't know the rules forbade discussion of anything other than mass or the force acting on said mass. Thanks for the edification.


----------



## cadence90 (Sep 12, 2004)

I think everybody is being way too harsh here.
Just because 92.2% of the WW "crowd" and 84.3% (+/- 3% MOE) of the RBR (slightly-less-informed) "crowd" thinks this fork is just plain ugly on this frame doesn't validate a d*mn thing.

To parachute Gertrude Stein, a gram is a gram is a gram, nodoubtaboutit.

And if you all would just take a sec or 15 minutes to look at that thread that got bumped for the third time by the OP over on http://www.i'mrationalizinguglyweightsavings.com you'd see what I mean.

Be gentle.

:roll:eyes:


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Who makes the silver tape you are using? It looks very nice on the nude carbon. It would also look nice on my nude 585.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Pretty funny thread haha. 

The tape is Deda "carbon" in silver. My tape of choice for the last year and all I will use until I find something nicer. It has a nice tight feel, is thin, and has just the right amount of "squish" which isn't very much.

K


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

yes, the fork is lame but your mismatched tires have driven me to kill once again


----------



## nenad (May 5, 2004)

Insight Driver said:


> It is very interesting that rather than talking of the merits of the lightness of the fork (oh my God, isn't this the weight weenies thread after all?) the majority of posts are comments on asthetics, like that has anything to do with shaving grams, which is what lightness is all about. I'll bet the people posting how ugly for fork is are foxes that couldn't touch the grapes.:mad2:


OK, so congrats on an extremely light and may I say "butt ugly" (quote Alienator) fork. Is this politically correct ?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Wow still not dead? Tires match now, Tufos . Bike now weighs in at around 12.5lbs with Ergomo powermeter attached 

K


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

1 more vote for very ugly.

Rest of bike is hawt.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

Youre selling it? http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17030

I hope the ugly fork comments werent the cause----its a sweet bike man! really.

j


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

All your fault!

K


----------



## Deoxy (Mar 20, 2006)

Are those stock zipp hubs.?
Could shave a few g's at that point i guess..?


----------



## omniviper (Sep 18, 2004)

alienator said:


> Man, the rest of the bike looks muy nice, butt......well, I'll reiterate in piccies. That fork is--that's right--butt ugly.



OH GOD GET THE PICTURE AWAY! WHere are the mods when you need them! The server hard drives are grinding already!


----------



## Christopherules (Sep 24, 2006)

*Looks good*

It looks fine to me. Does it handle differently now? What do you notice before and after other than the difference in how it looks? Does your bike "feel" lighter? Perhaps more nimble when cornering?


----------

