# Best Carbon Fiber Cyclocross Fork?



## dyg2001

Between the Reynolds Ouzo Pro Cross, Alpha Q CX20, and Easton EC90X, which would you get and why?


----------



## JPHcross

I ride the Easton, have not ridden the others.
The Easton is ridiculously light, but the brake chatter is huge and it is not as compliant as I hoped, but that is the trade off for something so light.


----------



## Unoveloce

*Go for the Reynolds*

Mine resists chatter really well and at 6'4" and 195lbs, that's not easy. Plus it's the coolest looking and really, that's the most important.


----------



## iamandy

the new alpha. i think its the c-20. very slick.


----------



## Mosovich

*I personally think the best fork is...*

an Independent Fabrications Steel fork! Yep, steel! I've had quite a few different carbon forks, and to me, steel is the deal...


----------



## evilbeaver

Alpha-Q. Rock solid!


----------



## g-Bike

Reynolds all the way, I have used steel forks, recently got rid of an Alpha Chatter and have used the Reynolds for 1 season last year and it will never chatter no matter how powerful your brakes are. Buy it and forget it and as for weight they are about the same.


----------



## cerveloguytoronto

The Easton is expensive, but super light, stiff and strong. I rode it last year. Took the stock Ridley Carbon fork with Al. steer off and put that on. Saved 300 grams. I don't find that it chatters very much, and it's still quite comfortable considering how stiff it is.


----------



## peterjones

*How 'bout a Ritchey*

I'm dyin to buy a carbon fork, and would spend the four bills, but the thought of ending up with a bunch of brake chatter kills me. I want to know which carbon fork is going to have the least amount of chatter.


----------



## CDB

peterjones said:


> I'm dyin to buy a carbon fork, and would spend the four bills, but the thought of ending up with a bunch of brake chatter kills me. I want to know which carbon fork is going to have the least amount of chatter.


Are you wanting to know strictly "least amount of chatter" from a carbon fork, or the "least amount of chatter per gram of carbon fork"?

Strictly based on chatter, I'd suggest the Specialized fork that comes stock on the E5 Tricross frames. It has a nice stable Alu crown/steerer, good mud clearance, carbon lower legs, and zertz bands that help dampen those brake vibrations effectively. You might be able to pick one up from a weight weenie who prefers light weight over function. :crazy:


----------



## ecl2k

peterjones said:


> I'm dyin to buy a carbon fork, and would spend the four bills, but the thought of ending up with a bunch of brake chatter kills me. I want to know which carbon fork is going to have the least amount of chatter.


In my opinion, chatter has at least as much to do with the overall synergy of your brake design/brake pad material/rim as it does with your fork material. In all the reviews of carbon cross forks that I've read on various forums, someone complains of chattering no matter what the fork.

I'm a weight weenie and use a 4za python, spooky carbon brakes, aztec2 brake pads, and velocity aerohead rims - all light stuff - and I'm big - and I don't have any brake chatter. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## ecl2k

ps. I set up my brakes like this:










pic from spooky-brakes.nl


----------



## Kraige

*Reynolds review of cyclingnews*

The review of the ouzo pro a year or two ago was pretty stellar on cyclingnews

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/reviews/reynolds_ouzo_pro_cross

although - I like the fact that the new alpha q cx20 has an alu steerer tube. Personally I don't have experience with either - just the stock carbon fork on my fuji cross pro.


----------



## geneseo

*brake chatter*

when I first setup my brakes i didn't toe-in the brake pads. tons of chatter (reynold cx pro). I then toed-in the pads. no more chatter. at all.


----------



## dyg2001

Kraige said:


> The review of the ouzo pro a year or two ago was pretty stellar on cyclingnews
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/reviews/reynolds_ouzo_pro_cross
> 
> although - I like the fact that the new alpha q cx20 has an alu steerer tube. Personally I don't have experience with either - just the stock carbon fork on my fuji cross pro.


Are you sure that the CX20 has an aluminum steerer? I thought all high-end Alpha Q forks had carbon fiber steerers with "carbon rooting." The spec page on their website says the steerer is carbon: http://www.truetemper.com/performance_tubing/spec_forks.asp
Did they change it recently?


----------



## 1234tuba

CX20 has a carbon steerer tube. Great luck with it so far.


----------



## peterjones

*What about rake?*

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but in the related issue of fork replacement, I'd like to have some input as to how important rake is. My current fork has 45 mm of rake, would there be a big difference if I went with a 43 mm or a 47 mm fork?


----------



## ecl2k

peterjones said:


> I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but in the related issue of fork replacement, I'd like to have some input as to how important rake is. My current fork has 45 mm of rake, would there be a big difference if I went with a 43 mm or a 47 mm fork?


For the same head tube angle, a 43 mm rake will be more stable in a straight line but handle a little slower (because the trail will be increased), 45 is in the middle, and 47 mm rake will handle quicker but the bike will be a little twitchier (trail will be decreased). If it were me buying a fork again I would try a 43 mm because increasing trail makes it easier to ride no handed and I haven't done that well in years.

http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html


----------



## Lab Worker

There is an interesting thread on Weight Weenies about fork chatter:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32733

:thumbsup:


----------



## RoadLoad

Does the the absence of Winwood forks in this discussion mean their forks aren't any good, don't chatter, cost less than a month's rent or weight more than a dozen chocolate donuts?


----------



## dyg2001

RoadLoad said:


> Does the the absence of Winwood forks in this discussion mean their forks aren't any good, don't chatter, cost less than a month's rent or weight more than a dozen chocolate donuts?


In my post I asked about Reynolds and Alpha Q because I consider them to be the best carbon fiber forks made by companies based in the USA, and the only reason I would upgrade over my current steel fork is to save weight. I left Ritchey WCS off the list because my friend bought one recently and had insane brake chatter. That could have been due to insufficient brake pad toe-in, however, as others have pointed out above. My friend, who is an engineer who works in the bike industry, was also critical of the overall design of the WCS fork. He said the concave grooves running down the legs could do nothing but make the fork less stiff. As for Winwood, I left it off the list because it is heavier than the others and does not have the same reputation. I've been happy with Reynolds Ouzo Pro and Alpha Q GS10 road forks, but have not seen anybody use a Winwood fork on the road. But if people want to discuss the Ritchey or Winwood forks, or any other carbon fiber cross fork, be my guest.


----------



## Beerman

ECL2K,
I think your math is backwards. A 43 would be twitchier than a 47 rake. As I understand it, that's a measurement of dropout distance, not angle, from a straight line down the head tube. More rake = longer wheelbase = stability


----------



## dyg2001

Beerman said:


> ECL2K,
> I think your math is backwards. A 43 would be twitchier than a 47 rake. As I understand it, that's a measurement of dropout distance, not angle, from a straight line down the head tube. More rake = longer wheelbase = stability


Trail, which is a function of tire diameter, head tube angle, and fork rake (or offset), has a big impact on how a bike handles (more than wheelbase). It is not an easy concept to understand. I find the topic confusing. Jan Heine of Bicycle Quarterly has written extensively about trail and how it affects bike handling, mostly in the context of road and randonneuring bikes. In general, as I understand it, a high-trail bike will take more effort to turn and thus be more stable at high speeds, but not so stable (hard to ride with no hands) at low speeds due to "wheel flop." Most production cyclocross bikes have relatively high trail, around 59-65mm. Motorcycles, which need to be stable at much higher speeds, have high trails by bicycle standards, in the range of 80-100mm or more. 

Why most production cross bikes have more trail than most production road racing bikes is confusing to me. You would think that, compared to a road racing bike, high speed stability would be less necessary, and low speed maneuverability more desirable. According to Jan Heine, fat, low-pressure tires have "pneumatic trail," meaning they are harder to turn. Putting a fat tire on a bike is kind of like adding trail or decreasing fork rake. According to his logic, a bike with fat, low-pressure tires would need less trail (more rake) to handle well compared to a road racer with thin, high-pressure tires. Scroll down on this blog page to read some of Heine's opinions on trail: http://bikebuilding.blogspot.com/2006/08/high-trail-vs-low-trail.html

Here is a handy trail calculator: http://www.kogswell.com/geo.php

Perhaps Zank or e-Richie will chime in and enlighten us on the mystery of trail.


----------



## ecl2k

Beerman said:


> ECL2K,
> I think your math is backwards. A 43 would be twitchier than a 47 rake. As I understand it, that's a measurement of dropout distance, not angle, from a straight line down the head tube. More rake = longer wheelbase = stability


I think you're not understanding. For the same head tube angle, decreasing rake increases trail which is a major determinant in handling. I even tried it on that trail calculator, increasing rake decrease trail. I don't see how increasing wheelbase by a few mm significantly affects handling.


----------



## zank

Lot's of different things working against each other. Longer trail usually means the bike will track a straight line easier. Less trail and the bike will want to initiate a turn easier. But, you can modify head tube angle and rake yielding two bikes with the same trail but different front center distances. Think of front center (or wheelbase if the chainstays are the same length) as the turning radius and the trail as how easily the bike wants to enter the turn. 

You are correct that for a given head tube angle, less rake = more trail, as counter-intuitve as that seems. But the diagram above does a lovely job explaining it.

Oh, and just buy a steel fork.


----------



## gentryp

*Woundup*

I personally would go for a wound up.
theyre sexy, light, and strong, but most importantly sexy.


----------



## ZenNMotion

CDB said:


> Are you wanting to know strictly "least amount of chatter" from a carbon fork, or the "least amount of chatter per gram of carbon fork"?
> 
> Strictly based on chatter, I'd suggest the Specialized fork that comes stock on the E5 Tricross frames. It has a nice stable Alu crown/steerer, good mud clearance, carbon lower legs, and zertz bands that help dampen those brake vibrations effectively. You might be able to pick one up from a weight weenie who prefers light weight over function. :crazy:


You mean like this one? Just sayin'...
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/2009/09/specialized-tri-cross.html


----------



## digby

Ive got a easton right now with trp mags, swiss stop greens and mavic open pro ceramics, its pretty much a formula for ridiculous chatter. Good amount of toe on the pads, cable hanger over the bottom headset cup and its a little scary to see how much the easton fork can oscillate. 

If I had to do it over again I'd probably go with a edge fork, ive read up on it and it seems to be pretty stiff/overbuilt. Ive heard the alpha Q is pretty good as well but ive seen it in person with some pretty low speed oscillations from a guy just slowing down.


----------



## limba

Alpha Q is going out of business.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

I'l love to have one of those Zanconato bleu-ciel belgian CX bikes, but I fear it would cost me more than my X-Night


----------



## l-s-d

limba said:


> Alpha Q is going out of business.


Source?


----------



## limba

I don't have a source. I thought everyone knew. True Temper is shutting down along with Alpha Q. I think that's right????


----------



## mtb_frk

I would like to try the edge composites fork.


----------



## joness

gentryp said:


> I personally would go for a wound up.
> theyre sexy, light, and strong, but most importantly sexy.


I have a Wound Up on one bike and an Alpha Q CX-20 on the other. The Wound Up rides like a jackhammer. I would love to sell the Wound Up and put the money towards another CX-20, but I don't have the additional cash right now. 

Neither has any brake chatter.


----------



## OnTheRivet

limba said:


> I don't have a source. I thought everyone knew. True Temper is shutting down along with Alpha Q. I think that's right????


Nah, just went through chapter 11 and restructuring. I do believe the Alpha Q bike stuff is getting the axe though.


----------



## atpjunkie

*well it would*



Salsa_Lover said:


> I'l love to have one of those Zanconato bleu-ciel belgian CX bikes, but I fear it would cost me more than my X-Night


but it would be worth it
and you wouldn't have to worry about finding the right fit ;0)


----------



## vwvoodoo

...Verified by quite a few OE companies that Alpha-Q isn't selling forks going forward. 
I've been happy with Edge and Wound-Up, and there is a new version of the WCS Ritchey that may take the place of the semi-affordable nice fork like the Alpha-Q. 
I'm also crossing my fingers that Edge will bring in a 2.0 version of their CX fork from Asia like they do with their road forks...it could be in the price range of the Alpha-Q.


----------



## grnbkr

I used an easton cx 90 for most of the season this year, and it was nothing short of dangerous for the 3 months I had it. Throughout the season I was trying my best to get it to break, and as expected, I succeeded. Fortunately I wasn't hurt in the process! (I checked the fork after every race)

After breaking the steerer tube on the easton I got a CX20 and that was 100X better than the easton, I finished up the season on the Alpha Q and plan on putting that fork on my 2nd bike for next year. Next year I am going to spec my main bike with the edge fork, I rode one and there was ZERO chatter, I could have sworn I was dreaming!

Matt


----------



## raceline

*the best period !!*

i have bought 2 of these forks , one to replace my ritchey wcs fork on an 09 conquest pro , and one for my 09 gt type cx to replace the ec-70 , it is a lot lighter than each of the forks, and has less chatter than the ritchey , it weighed in at 460 grams uncut , full carbon steerer , just check out this seller on ebay ,here is the item # 400085644711 , it looks identical to a fork i had on my 2008 trek xo-1 , he sells them for 149.00 a steal of a deal:thumbsup:


----------



## rockdude

Last year, I used a Ti fork, WSC, Alpha CX20 and a Reynolds CX. I like the Reynolds the best, but its not made any more. Alpha CX20 is not made any more. So as far as new, the WSC is pretty good. I have not tried the Edge Cross but their road forks are great. 

FYI- my Black Sheep Ti fork is great for non racing riding, its just not stiff enough for the demands of racing.


----------

