ouzo pro VS wound up carbon/carbon road forks?

I'm considering a fork upgrade on my roadbike... the headset is shot and I have an old threaded
headset/stem on a trek 2300 carbon/AL frame. it would be nice to upgrade, lose a little weight, and
maybe get a more comfy ride all at the same time. I am considering a carbon threadless fork, and
wanted to see what people have to say comparing ouzo pro VS wound up since they have distinctly
different designs with regard to no crown VS AL crown...

The specs I can find list the ouzo pro almost 100gr lighter and slightly less expensive, but the
wound up sales lit is pushing that their AL crown design is stronger. I am wondering how roadies who
may have used both feel about it? Is the ouzo pro "strong enough?" How about LBS who may have seen
returns or failures?

thanx,

Dan

 

In article <[email protected]>, dan baker <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm considering a fork upgrade on my roadbike... the headset is shot and I have an old threaded
>headset/stem on a trek 2300 carbon/AL frame. it would be nice to upgrade, lose a little weight, and
>maybe get a more comfy ride all at the same time. I am considering a carbon threadless fork, and
>wanted to see what people have to say comparing ouzo pro VS wound up since they have distinctly
>different designs with regard to no crown VS AL crown...
>
>The specs I can find list the ouzo pro almost 100gr lighter and slightly less expensive, but the
>wound up sales lit is pushing that their AL crown design is stronger. I am wondering how roadies
>who may have used both feel about it? Is the ouzo pro "strong enough?" How about LBS who may have
>seen returns or failures?

The 1" Ouzo Pro was too flexy for me. I suspect it would be fine in a 1.125" steerer but haven't
ridden that one myself.

If you have a 1" headset I would want a steer tube made of metal, on any fork. I think the
flexibility problem exists primarily right at the crown race where the steer tube enters the
fork crown.

I don't think carbon forks will deliver a significantly more "comfy ride" and if you want comfort
work on fit and larger tires. The weight benefit is significant but the rest is not such a big deal
in my experience.

--Paul

 

[email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:

>The 1" Ouzo Pro was too flexy for me. I suspect it would be fine in a 1.125" steerer but haven't
>ridden that one myself.
>
>If you have a 1" headset I would want a steer tube made of metal, on any fork. I think the
>flexibility problem exists primarily right at the crown race where the steer tube enters the
>fork crown.

If that were really a source of significant flex, I'd be terrified to ride any bonded steer
tube fork.

What kind of flex did you experience anyway? By indicating it was at the crown, it seems to show you
were experiencing some sort of "below the crown" flex. Thing is, the 1-1/8" and 1" forks are going
to be identical below the crown, so I wouldn't expect brake rub to be any different, nor should the
tendency for the fork's blades to flex be any different.

Also, aren't most (all?) 1" carbon fiber steer tubes are made with thicker walled steer tubes, which
should make them as stiff as a fork with a thinner walled 1-1/8" steer tube. I haven't measured a
host of forks to come to this conclusion, but it is hard to imagine that a fork manufacturer would
either overbuild the 1-1/8" steer tube, or underbuild the 1" steer tube by making them the same wall
thickness.

I've never seen anything that makes me think that classic "steer tube flex" is really a significant
issue (other than possibly above the headset on a threadless fork with lots of uncut steer tube).
The lower half of the fork will be much more flexible.

I'd love to see a study done on exactly where flex DOES occur in a fork under a given loading
condition though - and how much the steer tube actually contributes. I'm sure it's more than zero,
but less than "most of it". ;-)

>I don't think carbon forks will deliver a significantly more "comfy ride" and if you want comfort
>work on fit and larger tires. The weight benefit is significant but the rest is not such a big deal
>in my experience.

Agreed! There will be some difference but it may be less than someone would expect after paying that
much money for a new fork, headset and stem!

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

I put an Ouzo Pro on my Serotta CSI two years ago and I am delighted with the result. Least
expensive way to put your steed on a major diet. I think it reduced road "buzz: a little and still
handles precisely. The Reynolds also had the same fork rake as the stock Serotta fork. If you go for
the carbon steerer make sure you select a stem with two rear bolts and observe the spacer
limitations. If you want to leave lots of steerer tube exposed or are queasy about carbon go for the
aluminum steerer and hit that big hole with no fear. Bill Brannon

"dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm considering a fork upgrade on my roadbike... the headset is shot and I have an old threaded
> headset/stem on a trek 2300 carbon/AL frame. it would be nice to upgrade, lose a little weight,
> and maybe get a more comfy ride all at the same time. I am considering a carbon threadless fork,
> and wanted to see what people have to say comparing ouzo pro VS wound up since they have
> distinctly different designs with regard to no crown VS AL crown...
>
> The specs I can find list the ouzo pro almost 100gr lighter and slightly less expensive, but the
> wound up sales lit is pushing that their AL crown design is stronger. I am wondering how roadies
> who may have used both feel about it? Is the ouzo pro "strong enough?" How about LBS who may have
> seen returns or failures?
>
> thanx,
>
> Dan

 

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:
>
> >The 1" Ouzo Pro was too flexy for me. ....
> If that were really a source of significant flex, I'd be terrified to ride any bonded steer
> tube fork.
--------
I'd have to guess that the 1.0 doesnt flex measurable more than the
1.125 in the stem. I would guess that most of the hype surrounding this arguement is just that 1.125
headsets probably take a little more of a beating because of more/larger bearings, and fit
oversize tubes better. I dont really follow the problem anyway since deflection translates into
"shock absorbing" unless its twisting, which doesnt seem mechanically likely on a roadbike.

> I'd love to see a study done on exactly where flex DOES occur in a fork under a given loading
> condition though - and how much the steer tube actually contributes. I'm sure it's more than zero,
> but less than "most of it". ;-)
-----
that WOULD be interesting... I wonder if ouzo or wound-up would consider releasing their FEM/FEA
results or dynamic damping testing as part of their actual sales lit! I hate marketing that says 30%
less of something without giving any units or test conditions to make the statement meaningful. If I
still had access to a lab I'd love to set up some non-partisian head-to-head testing in deflection
and vibration damping.

>
> >I don't think carbon forks will deliver a significantly more "comfy ride" and if you want comfort
> >work on fit and larger tires. The weight benefit is significant but the rest is not such a big
> >deal in my experience.
>
> Agreed! There will be some difference but it may be less than someone would expect after paying
> that much money for a new fork, headset and stem!
>--------------
Actual weight savings is another thing I'd like to know, but have a hard time getting numbers on my
current old equipment. I guess I could take it apart and weigh the whole package, then add up the
weights of the new stuff listed in catalogs.... mmmm, sounds like a homework project. I suppose in
dollars per gram I might get more out of some good drugs.

d

 

read this page: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html

> > I'd love to see a study done on exactly where flex DOES occur in a fork under a given loading
> > condition though - and how much the steer tube actually contributes. I'm sure it's more than
> > zero, but less than "most of it". ;-)
> -----
> that WOULD be interesting... I wonder if ouzo or wound-up would consider releasing their FEM/FEA
> results or dynamic damping testing as part of their actual sales lit! I hate marketing that says
> 30% less of something without giving any units or test conditions to make the statement
> meaningful. If I still had access to a lab I'd love to set up some non-partisian head-to-head
> testing in deflection and vibration damping.

 

[email protected] (dan baker) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...

>> Agreed! There will be some difference but it may be less than someone would expect after paying
>> that much money for a new fork, headset and stem!
>>--------------
>Actual weight savings is another thing I'd like to know, but have a hard time getting numbers on my
>current old equipment. I guess I could take it apart and weigh the whole package, then add up the
>weights of the new stuff listed in catalogs.... mmmm, sounds like a homework project. I suppose in
>dollars per gram I might get more out of some good drugs.

I did some "research" on that, and came to the conclusion that 1" is almost always lighter (unless a
manufacturer lists only a steel steer tube in 1" size, but offers aluminum in 1.125"). This of
course is counter to what many believe... but is undeniable. If you want to build a light bike, you
should use a 1" fork, stem and headset.

I've written some of it up on my website... see:

http://www.habcycles.com/techstuf.html#oneinch

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

Before Reynolds redid their website receintly, they had a nice graph of flex vs. load for a varity
of forks they tested. This graph clearly showed that the 1" Ozuo pro was more flexable than the
1-1/8" version. This is not to say that the 1" version is TOO flexable, this would depend on the
application. In fact, the 1" Ozuo pro fell into the middle of the field, even when compaired to
some 1-1/8" models. It might be worth the effort to email Reynolds and ask them to send you a copy
of the chart.

Also, check the easton web site in the technical section, they have some good information regarding
the strength of both bonded and one piece carbon forks. Good reading for the technically minded.

Ed

 

"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> read this page: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html
>
> > > I'd love to see a study done on exactly where flex DOES occur in a fork under a given loading
> > > condition though
--------------------

cool info.... leave it to Sheldon to document it!. Be nice if some current forks were added to the
chart, I'd be curious to see where the ouzo pro, wound-up, and easton ec-90 fall in there.

D

 

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:
>
>>The 1" Ouzo Pro was too flexy for me. I suspect it would be fine in a 1.125" steerer but haven't
>>ridden that one myself.
>>
>>If you have a 1" headset I would want a steer tube made of metal, on any fork. I think the
>>flexibility problem exists primarily right at the crown race where the steer tube enters the
>>fork crown.
>
>If that were really a source of significant flex, I'd be terrified to ride any bonded steer
>tube fork.
>
>What kind of flex did you experience anyway? By indicating it was at the crown, it seems to show
>you were experiencing some sort of "below the crown" flex.

Well maybe but that's not what I thought I was seeing.

> Thing is, the 1-1/8" and 1" forks are going to be identical below the crown, so I wouldn't expect
> brake rub to be any different, nor should the tendency for the fork's blades to flex be any
> different.

Yes, and I don't think the crown is very flexible, it appeared to me that the flex was at the
bottom of the steer tube and in the blades. Maybe I was wrong and it was really all in the blades
but I can't retry my experiment as I don't have the fork. In any event, I didn't like how much the
fork moved, if I looked down at it in a bumpy downhill corner where there's a lot of pressure on
the fork it was obviously springing forward and back a hell of a lot more than anything I had ever
seen on a bicycle. I did not think much of how it felt or handled in the corners. Couldn't
recommend it to anyone.

>Also, aren't most (all?) 1" carbon fiber steer tubes are made with thicker walled steer tubes,
>which should make them as stiff as a fork with a thinner walled 1-1/8" steer tube.

I don't know, I was just speculating that that larger diameter might not flex that way there. Have
not bought one to try. Instead I bought a steel fork. Even though the steel fork is made of pretty
light tubing, it is still extremely stiff compared to the Ouzo Pro I had. Although I desire
lightness, I think if I try a carbon fork again it will be a Wound Up with a steel steerer, I guess
that is where my comfort level is with this type of product.

--Paul

 

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (dan baker) wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>> Agreed! There will be some difference but it may be less than someone would expect after paying
>>> that much money for a new fork, headset and stem!
>>>--------------
>>Actual weight savings is another thing I'd like to know, but have a hard time getting numbers on
>>my current old equipment. I guess I could take it apart and weigh the whole package, then add up
>>the weights of the new stuff listed in catalogs.... mmmm, sounds like a homework project. I
>>suppose in dollars per gram I might get more out of some good drugs.
>
>I did some "research" on that, and came to the conclusion that 1" is almost always lighter (unless
>a manufacturer lists only a steel steer tube in 1" size, but offers aluminum in 1.125"). This of
>course is counter to what many believe... but is undeniable. If you want to build a light bike, you
>should use a 1" fork, stem and headset.

The 1" head tube in the frame should be a bit lighter as well, no?

 

[email protected] (dan baker) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm considering a fork upgrade on my roadbike... the headset is shot and I have an old threaded
> headset/stem on a trek 2300 carbon/AL frame.

One thing to consider when changing forks is the length change. For example, the Wound-Up is listed
as having a length of 365 mm whereas the Ozuo Pro is 374 mm (as measured by myself). This
difference is significant in my opinion. Please see the following link for some good information
regarding this change.

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

Good luck.

Ed

 

"Ed Ness" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One thing to consider when changing forks is the length change. For example, the Wound-Up is
> listed as having a length of 365 mm whereas the Ozuo Pro is 374 mm (as measured by myself). This
> difference is significant in my opinion.

One of the reasons that I picked the Ouzo for my Serotta a couple years ago was at that time they
were very specific about recommending three carbon forks. Their own F1, the Reynolds and I believe
the Kestrel (not certain about the last one). The recommendation was based on safety and fit. Maybe
Dan should contact the frame manufacturer and see if they have a fork recommendation or if they sell
a carbon fork and whose it is. Bill Brannon

 

[email protected] (Ed Ness) wrote:

>Before Reynolds redid their website receintly, they had a nice graph of flex vs. load for a varity
>of forks they tested. This graph clearly showed that the 1" Ozuo pro was more flexable than the
>1-1/8" version. This is not to say that the 1" version is TOO flexable, this would depend on the
>application. In fact, the 1" Ozuo pro fell into the middle of the field, even when compaired to
>some 1-1/8" models. It might be worth the effort to email Reynolds and ask them to send you a copy
>of the chart.

I wonder about the testing methods though. On the Damon Rinard fork test (hosted on Sheldon's site),
the steer tube was supported 5cm (2") from the fork's crown and loaded. However, I don't think this
really replicates the forces on a steer tube realistically at all. In the real world, the steer tube
is firmly anchored at both ends with only microscopic amounts of freedom to move (basically the
slack in the headset bearings).

If I were to grab my road bike's forks and pull them toward the crank forcefully, I'll be increasing
the loading the rear bearings on the bottom and the upper bearings on the front of the headset.
Movement of the fork's dropouts will only occur if I actually supply enough force to elongate the
front side of the steer tube. While this happens at a microscopic level, it's hard to imagine enough
elongation to translate into visible movement at the dropouts.

Of course, testing a variety of forks in this manner would be a VERY time-consuming process. Each
fork would have to have the identical crown race driven on, and then the fork would have to be
mounted in a "virtual headset" and adjusted.

If I was REALLY curious, I'd simply drill a very small hole in the front of my head tube and insert
a tiny little dowel. I'd honk on the forks and see how much the dowel moved.

Of course if I had THAT much time, I'd be out riding... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I did some "research" on that, and came to the conclusion that 1" is almost always lighter (unless
>>a manufacturer lists only a steel steer tube in 1" size, but offers aluminum in 1.125"). This of
>>course is counter to what many believe... but is undeniable. If you want to build a light bike,
>>you should use a 1" fork, stem and headset.
>
>The 1" head tube in the frame should be a bit lighter as well, no?

Yes it is. About the only way you gain weight with a 1" fork is by choosing a fork that's only
available with a steel steer tube in 1", but comes with an aluminum ST in 1-1/8".

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Ed Ness) wrote:
>
> >Before Reynolds redid their website receintly, they had a nice graph of flex vs. load for a
> >varity of forks they tested. This graph clearly showed that the 1" Ozuo pro was more flexable
> >than the 1-1/8" version. This is not to say that the 1" version is TOO flexable, this would
> >depend on the application. In fact, the 1" Ozuo pro fell into the middle of the field, even when
> >compaired to some 1-1/8" models. It might be worth the effort to email Reynolds and ask them to
> >send you a copy of the chart.
>
> I wonder about the testing methods though.

<rest of post snipped>

I don't wonder about Reynolds' testing methods for stiffness or durability.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

Think some more about the stresses in the fork.

For the test, the top of the fork would be extended and the bottom would be compressed. This would
happen the entire length of the fork, with the highest stresses next to the attachment.

For the fork in your bike the location of extension and compression would be the same. The highest
levels of stress would be near the lower headset race. But from that point down to the dropout the
stresses would be identical.

Movement at the dropout will result from flexing everywhere along the length. But the stresses are
minimal until you are near the headset, hence the pretty shape of forks with significant taper down
to the minimum needed to join the dropout.

To test that region perhaps it would be better to mimic the headset with two points of contact - the
lower race on the back side and a point on the front at a typical length of a headtube. But since
the stresses would be still be maximized at the lower race that would be the area of most interest.
I think Rinard's test does a fair job of comparing fork stiffness except that the point of maximum
flex has been moved 5cm. Most of his forks had steel steerers which also were extra thick in that
region, so the actual flex in the steerer might have been a small part of the total measured flex.

-Bruce

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I wonder about the testing methods though. On the Damon Rinard fork test (hosted on Sheldon's
> site), the steer tube was supported 5cm (2") from the fork's crown and loaded. However, I don't
> think this really replicates the forces on a steer tube realistically at all. In the real world,
> the steer tube is firmly anchored at both ends with only microscopic amounts of freedom to move
> (basically the slack in the headset bearings).
>
> If I were to grab my road bike's forks and pull them toward the crank forcefully, I'll be
> increasing the loading the rear bearings on the bottom and the upper bearings on the front of the
> headset. Movement of the fork's dropouts will only occur if I actually supply enough force to
> elongate the front side of the steer tube. While this happens at a microscopic level, it's hard to
> imagine enough elongation to translate into visible movement at the dropouts.
>
> Of course, testing a variety of forks in this manner would be a VERY time-consuming process. Each
> fork would have to have the identical crown race driven on, and then the fork would have to be
> mounted in a "virtual headset" and adjusted.
>
> If I was REALLY curious, I'd simply drill a very small hole in the front of my head tube and
> insert a tiny little dowel. I'd honk on the forks and see how much the dowel moved.
>
> Of course if I had THAT much time, I'd be out riding... ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

>If you go for the carbon steerer make sure you select a stem with two rear bolts

Not according to a telephone conversation I had with someone at Reynolds. I was told that it is fine
to use a clamp with a single bolt. I've had no problem with a Titec Ti road stem on a 1" Ouzo Pro.

 

"Kraig Willett" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] (Ed Ness) wrote:
>>
>> >Before Reynolds redid their website receintly, they had a nice graph of flex vs. load for a
>> >varity of forks they tested. This graph clearly showed that the 1" Ozuo pro was more flexable
>> >than the 1-1/8" version. This is not to say that the 1" version is TOO flexable, this would
>> >depend on the application. In fact, the 1" Ozuo pro fell into the middle of the field, even when
>> >compaired to some 1-1/8" models. It might be worth the effort to email Reynolds and ask them to
>> >send you a copy of the chart.
>>
>> I wonder about the testing methods though.
>
><rest of post snipped>
>
>I don't wonder about Reynolds' testing methods for stiffness or durability.

Do you have info on the test (according to Ed's post, the test info has been removed from the
website)? Or perhaps it's archived somewhere else - I'd really love to see it.

But I wasn't commenting on Reynold's testing methods anyway. I was just suggesting that Damon
Rinard's testing didn't fully simulate "real world conditions".

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think Rinard's test does a fair job of comparing fork stiffness except that the point of maximum
> flex has been moved 5cm. Most of his forks had steel steerers which also were extra thick in that
> region, so the actual flex in the steerer might have been a small part of the total measured flex.

It may have been a relatively small part of the total flex, but it could also have influenced the
relative outcome of the test (since so many of the forks were so close together in the scatter
chart). At any rate, the real question relative to steer tube stiffness is just how much DOES a
steer tube deflect between the headset bearings?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame