LOOK perfected the monocoque or 'all- carbon' fork way back in the mid-nineties. Everything else - Reynolds, Alpha Q, Time, 101 Taiwanese brands - is just imitation. They're built by hand, each fork comes with a copy of the test data that every fork undergoes after construction; it's 100% in-house production - not parts made in the far-east then put together in the USA or wherever.
In other words, it's the best fork available anywhere. Allways has been, allways will be.
The fork tested by Tour magazine was the HSC1 in 1" version - an eight year old design. The other models tested were all designed years after the HSC1, so built to outperform the HSC1; which to fork manufacturers was regarded as the benchmark. Hardly surprising then, that it was outperformed by the other forks on test. LOOK has since redesigned their forks, the latest version being the HSC4i. It outperforms any other fork on the market.
Perhaps a visit to the LOOK factory would be worhwhile, if only to compare the manufacturing and testing processes of Reynolds and LOOK. A more balanced viewpoint would no doubt result.
While we're on the subject of balance, it's a strange coincidence is it not, that your resume on www.Biketechreview.com states you once worked in the golf industry and reside in the San Diego area. Especially as the link takes the reader to an article about Reynolds, a company with a president who we're informed used to work in the golf industry and resides in the San Diego area!
Don't you just love the camaraderie that cycling buddies bring to the world of unbiased, objective product testing and revue?
For those unfamiliar with the Tour test, the HSC tested didn't come close to matching the durability of a 1" aluminum fork under their test protocol.
Furthermore, your innuendo regarding my relationship with Reynolds is misplaced.
There were plenty of things in the article linked that were critical of the Reynolds operation - why don't you cite those? It was not my intention to support Reynolds in this thread, but rather, point out the history of the Look fork products and provide some additional reading material on one of the major players in the industry. For all I know, Look has fixed the issues it had with its earlier forks - this doesn't change history, though. Do with the information what you will.
So that others may judge my review methodology on its own merits check out:
I don't think you will find many product testers that take the same approach as I.
Sorry, but the other Hard Data on my site will cost you a small subscription fee, or alternatively you can purchase the most recent edition of the US magazine VeloNews (with Van Petegem on the cover) for a presentation of some wind tunnel results that I collected of the most recent aero forks (Oval, True Temper, Reynolds, and the non-aero benchmark 1996 Kestrel EMS).