Reynolds 531 v Carbon Fibre Forks



smartie

New Member
Feb 15, 2005
81
0
0
My brother is looking to update his bike a bit and wants to change the forks from Reynolds 531 to a Carbon fibre set he can get his hands on.

Is there any real benefit other than a weight saving?
 
not necessarily.

On the weight thing, some carbon forks can be HEAPS lighter than 531. The average 531 fork (one that's not too ancient) is about 700g, and some all-carbon forks are as low as 300g!! That is a lot for just one component.

What fork is he looking at buying?

The wrong fork could make the bike ride worse, but the right fork may improve handling. I put a cheapish Roselli carbon fork (from John Kennedy) on one of my 531 bikes, and it now handles better, but I tried some other forks that were too stiff.

Generally, I would say that most carbon forks would be less springy than a 531 fork, but they corner better. The carbon forks I have don't have the same bounce and spring as my old steel forks.
 
The weight savings is simply a given. But unless you're already obsessed with shaving every possible gram off your ride in order to save time climbing hills, that really shouldn't be your motivation for doing it. Now, the change in ride quality is definitely worth considering. I've gone from a Cro-Moly fork on my Trek 1000 to a carbon Ouzo Aero Pro, and it completely changed the sensations my hands received from the vibrations. Carbon (somehow) absorbs road vibrations, kind of "muffling" them (it doesn't "eliminate" them) so it doesn't feel like your handlebars are "buzzing" so much. I also have a Trek 5500 with a Look HSC-3 fork, and a Trek Team Time Trial that now has the Ouzo Aero Pro on it, the 1000 has the factory carbon fork (which I understand is a Time Chrono) that came with the TTT bike. I won't ever change from riding a carbon bike. I can get done with riding a 100k, and feel like I could just start riding another. I don't get as fatigued as I did riding the 1000. Hope that helps! - Chip
 

Similar threads