Why is everybody using Oozo Pro forks?

When I bought my Merlin the standard spec'd fork was the Time Equipe Pro but I notice today that
nearly all high end bikes (sans Colnago) are using these very beefy Oozo Pro forks.

Why is that and what happened with the Time forks?

As the steel streerer tube on my TEP fork has suffered from some nasty corrosion in the past I may
be in need of a new fork shortly. Has the reliability of Carbon Fibre streerer tubes improved now to
make these a worthwhile option? I've like to avoid any potential corrosion issues in the future
after all I did by a Ti frame and all.

 

> When I bought my Merlin the standard spec'd fork was the Time Equipe Pro but I notice today that
> nearly all high end bikes (sans Colnago) are using these very beefy Oozo Pro forks.
>
> Why is that and what happened with the Time forks?

I don't know of any serious problems with Time forks, but I do know of at least one major bicycle
manufacturer that did a lot of tests on various carbon steer-tubed forks, and the Reynolds was the
only one, at that time, that tested well enough to use on their bikes. That was then; I suspect
others are fine now. There's also the issue of "preferred" suppliers vs those that aren't. Not all
suppliers are reliable in terms of delivery promises, but it's my understanding that Reynolds has
been a pretty easy company for bike manufacturers to work with.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

robert-<< When I bought my Merlin the standard spec'd fork was the Time Equipe Pro but I notice
today that nearly all high end bikes (sans Colnago) are using these very beefy Oozo Pro forks.

"Beefy"?

Weigh a few and do you want to sacrifice safety for weight??

The Ouzo Pro is a great fork and what we spec alomng with the Alpha Q-reliable, well made, not
expensive(Colnago Star retails for $1000)

<< Has the reliability of Carbon Fibre streerer tubes improved now to make these a
worthwhile option? I

Carbon fiber steerers have been around for a long time and except for a couple of manufacturers,
have never suffered reliability problems because of the material. Mostly poor manufacturing.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

>The Ouzo Pro is a great fork and what we spec alomng with the Alpha Q-reliable, well made, not
>expensive(

How large a tire will it take? B

(remove clothes to reply)

 

[email protected] (Robert Nicholson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> When I bought my Merlin the standard spec'd fork was the Time Equipe Pro but I notice today that
> nearly all high end bikes (sans Colnago) are using these very beefy Oozo Pro forks.

Not sure what you mean by nearly all high end bikes use Reynolds. My last "informal" tally shows
Mizuno rules. Other "high end" MFG'ers use generic Taiwan made for better margin. Come to think of
it, almost all carbon forks are Taiwan made including my Mizuno's. Not sure why but Mizuno is not
easy to get in the US.

 

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Carbon fiber steerers have been around for a long time and except for a
couple of manufacturers, have never suffered reliability
> problems because of the material. Mostly poor manufacturing.

I'm not usually one to question one of the high and mighty, but I'm not sure I'd characterize carbon
steerers as being around a Long Time". Big wall, welded aluminum frames have been around "long
enough" for the manufacturers to know what works and what doesn't (and about when and how they might
fail). Steel frames have been around a "long time". Carbon fork steerer tubes have been available -
what, since the mid 90's maybe ?, and I'm not sure that time span would qualify as a long term test
run of all the carbon steerers out there. I would even go as far as to say that the juries still out
on carbon frames, in so far as long term longevity, and although the Trek designs seem to be holding
up, I've personally known 2 folks who've had failures at the b-bracket (early models), as well as an
early Kestral with a similar failure.

And let's not forget how surprised Airbus was (or maybe not so surprised) that a carbon vertical
stabilizer separated from an American Airlines plane, as an indicator that much is not yet
understood about the properties of carbon fiber under un-anticipated loads.

Steve Bailey

 

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Carbon fiber steerers have been around for a long time and except for a
couple of manufacturers, have never suffered reliability
> problems because of the material. Mostly poor manufacturing.

I'm not usually one to question one of the high and mighty, but I'm not sure I'd characterize carbon
steerers as being around a Long Time". Big wall, welded aluminum frames have been around "long
enough" for the manufacturers to know what works and what doesn't (and about when and how they might
fail). Steel frames have been around a "long time". Carbon fork steerer tubes have been available -
what, since the mid 90's maybe ?, and I'm not sure that time span would qualify as a long term test
run of all the carbon steerers out there. I would even go as far as to say that the juries still out
on carbon frames, in so far as long term longevity, and although the Trek designs seem to be holding
up, I've personally known 2 folks who've had failures at the b-bracket (early models), as well as an
early Kestral with a similar failure.

And let's not forget how surprised Airbus was (or maybe not so surprised) that a carbon vertical
stabilizer separated from an American Airlines plane, as an indicator that much is not yet
understood about the properties of carbon fiber under un-anticipated loads.

Steve Bailey

 

Sorry 'bout the double post

SB

 

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Carbon fiber steerers have been around for a long time and except for a
couple of manufacturers, have never suffered reliability
> problems because of the material. Mostly poor manufacturing.

I'm not usually one to question one of the high and mighty, but I'm not sure I'd characterize carbon
steerers as being around a Long Time". Big wall, welded aluminum frames have been around "long
enough" for the manufacturers to know what works and what doesn't (and about when and how they might
fail). Steel frames have been around a "long time". Carbon fork steerer tubes have been available -
what, since the mid 90's maybe ?, and I'm not sure that time span would qualify as a long term test
run of all the carbon steerers out there. I would even go as far as to say that the juries still out
on carbon frames, in so far as long term longevity, and although the Trek designs seem to be holding
up, I've personally known 2 folks who've had failures at the b-bracket (early models), as well as an
early Kestral with a similar failure.

And let's not forget how surprised Airbus was (or maybe not so surprised) that a carbon vertical
stabilizer separated from an American Airlines plane, as an indicator that much is not yet
understood about the properties of carbon fiber under un-anticipated loads.

Steve Bailey

 

> And let's not forget how surprised Airbus was (or maybe not so surprised) that a carbon vertical
> stabilizer separated from an American Airlines
plane,
> as an indicator that much is not yet understood about the properties of carbon fiber under
> un-anticipated loads.

But that's the key... un-anticipated scenarios. That can befall *any* material, not just carbon
fiber. As we get more familiar with things and try to push the limits, we'll encounter more such
"un-anticipated" things. Look at early Ti bikes. Generally bomb-proof, because we weren't pushing
the weight limits. Then manufacturers started to get a bit too comfortable, trying to build frames
out of Ti that were practical for other materials (primarily carbon fiber) and lo and behold, frames
failed. Same thing with many ultra-light aluminum frames, even though they've (aluminum frames) been
around for a very long time now.

It's not the material, it's what you do with it. As we seek to build ever-lighter equipment, we'll
encounter "un-anticipated" scenarios. Things that reflect loads that were always there but not
completely understood, because conservative designs kept things in check.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> It's not the material, it's what you do with it. As we seek to build ever-lighter equipment, we'll
> encounter "un-anticipated" scenarios.
Things
> that reflect loads that were always there but not completely understood, because conservative
> designs kept things in check.

Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle shop(s),
as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design engineer for Airbus.

My point was, that as with Airbus, and contrary to Peter's comment, perhaps carbon fiber is not yet
as mature a material for someone to feel comfortable in assuming that carbon steerers have been
around long enough to stop worrying about longevity and failures. Unlike Ti and Aluminum, both of
which have much longer track records in the aerospace industry then does carbon fiber, and which are
materials that are much better understood in terms of how to get maximum use out of, something which
is not yet fully understood with carbon.

Unfortunately, and as commented on in other posts under the title "tensions in a bike frame", it's
the riding public that becomes the guinea pig as to product testing.

SB

 

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> It's not the material, it's what you do with it. As we seek to build ever-lighter equipment, we'll
> encounter "un-anticipated" scenarios.
Things
> that reflect loads that were always there but not completely understood, because conservative
> designs kept things in check.

Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle shop(s),
as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design engineer for Airbus.

My point was, that as with Airbus, and contrary to Peter's comment, perhaps carbon fiber is not yet
as mature a material for someone to feel comfortable in assuming that carbon steerers have been
around long enough to stop worrying about longevity and failures. Unlike Ti and Aluminum, both of
which have much longer track records in the aerospace industry then does carbon fiber, and which are
materials that are much better understood in terms of how to get maximum use out of, something which
is not yet fully understood with carbon.

Unfortunately, and as commented on in other posts under the title "tensions in a bike frame", it's
the riding public that becomes the guinea pig as to product testing.

SB

 

> Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle
> shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
engineer
> for Airbus.

I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how planes stay up in the air (but I
try not to think about that while I'm flying!).

But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to improper design. Was it the
Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because they didn't understand the stresses that would
occur... with an aluminum airframe (with many, many years of experience building aluminum
airframes)?

But getting back to carbon steer tubes, the main problem I see is that you really ought to use a
torque wrench when you're tightening the stem bolts, and how many people do that? Carbon fiber
really doesn't like to be compressed, as has been seen from the number of seatpost failures
(primarily Campagnolo, which finally designed a clamp to try and better deal with the issue). But
rarely is its failure mode catastrophic, thank goodness (Airbus notwithstanding). Carbon fiber
tubes, when pushed beyond their limits, tend to develop star break, with the energy radiating
outward from the point of initial failure in all directions, which slows down crack propagation.
Very thin-walled metal tubes tend to propagate cracks very rapidly comparison.

In the end, TREK chose (and continues to choose) to make their carbon forks with an aluminum steer
tube, because there's an assumption that many users aren't going to be that careful about how much
torque they apply to the stem bolts. That doesn't mean that, if properly used, a carbon steer tube
is dangerous though.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > It's not the material, it's what you do with it. As we seek to build ever-lighter equipment,
> > we'll encounter "un-anticipated" scenarios.
> Things
> > that reflect loads that were always there but not completely understood, because conservative
> > designs kept things in check.
>
> Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle
> shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
engineer
> for Airbus.
>
> My point was, that as with Airbus, and contrary to Peter's comment,
perhaps
> carbon fiber is not yet as mature a material for someone to feel
comfortable
> in assuming that carbon steerers have been around long enough to stop worrying about longevity and
> failures. Unlike Ti and Aluminum, both of which have much longer track records in the aerospace
> industry then does carbon fiber, and which are materials that are much better understood in terms
> of how to get maximum use out of, something which is not yet fully understood with carbon.
>
> Unfortunately, and as commented on in other posts under the title
"tensions
> in a bike frame", it's the riding public that becomes the guinea pig as to product testing.
>
> SB
>

 

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle
>>shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
>
> engineer
>
>>for Airbus.
>
>
> I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how planes stay up in the air (but
> I try not to think about that while I'm flying!).
>
> But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to improper design. Was it the
> Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because they didn't understand the stresses that would
> occur... with an aluminum airframe (with many, many years of experience building aluminum
> airframes)?
>
> But getting back to carbon steer tubes, the main problem I see is that you really ought to use a
> torque wrench when you're tightening the stem bolts, and how many people do that? Carbon fiber
> really doesn't like to be compressed, as has been seen from the number of seatpost failures
> (primarily Campagnolo, which finally designed a clamp to try and better deal with the issue). But
> rarely is its failure mode catastrophic, thank goodness (Airbus notwithstanding).

I am pretty sure that it wasn't the tailfin itself which failed, rather the attachment of the
carbon fibre tailfin to the fuselage of the aircraft. The fin experienced loads significantly
beyond its design limits. Regardless of the material, if you exceed the design limits, you are
going to get a failure.

--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email protected]

 

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a (well regarded) bicycle
>>shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
>
> engineer
>
>>for Airbus.
>
>
> I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how planes stay up in the air (but
> I try not to think about that while I'm flying!).
>
> But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to improper design. Was it the
> Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because they didn't understand the stresses that would
> occur... with an aluminum airframe (with many, many years of experience building aluminum
> airframes)?

That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra (a
highly reliable aircraft).

Mark McMaster [email protected]

 

> That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra (a
> highly reliable aircraft).

I looked it up, and the Lockheed Electra did, in fact, have a problem with its wings falling off
(picky little thing). Apparently the jet-driven propellers created more vibration on take-off than
the wings were designed to take, resulting in two instances of complete wing failure in flight. The
wings were redesigned and upgraded at the then-unbelievable cost to Lockheed of $25 million (how
times change!).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a
(well
> >>regarded) bicycle shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
> >
> > engineer
> >
> >>for Airbus.
> >
> >
> > I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how
planes
> > stay up in the air (but I try not to think about that while I'm
flying!).
> >
> > But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to
improper
> > design. Was it the Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because
they
> > didn't understand the stresses that would occur... with an aluminum
airframe
> > (with many, many years of experience building aluminum airframes)?
>
> That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra (a
> highly reliable aircraft).
>
>
> Mark McMaster [email protected]

 

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra (a
>>highly reliable aircraft).
>
>
> I looked it up, and the Lockheed Electra did, in fact, have a problem with its wings falling off
> (picky little thing). Apparently the jet-driven propellers created more vibration on take-off than
> the wings were designed to take, resulting in two instances of complete wing failure in flight.
> The wings were redesigned and upgraded at the then-unbelievable cost to Lockheed of $25 million
> (how times change!).

Well, the original Lockheed Electras, the model 10s and 12As from the mid to late 1930s had very
good reputations. The later L-188 Electra model which had early problems with the wings didn't enter
service until 1959 - 7 years after the DeHavilland Comet began service, 5 years after the Comets
were grounded after several crashes. (After the problems with the Comet were identified and fixed,
it re-entered service in 1958.)

The investigations of the Comet tragedies brought to light the issues of metal fatigue in
structures, and is generally considered the beginning of the science of fatigue analysis.

http://www.ae.msstate.edu/vlsm/materials/fatigue/fatigue.htm

Mark McMaster [email protected]

>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a
>>>
> (well
>
>>>>regarded) bicycle shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
>>>
>>>engineer
>>>
>>>
>>>>for Airbus.
>>>
>>>
>>>I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how
>>
> planes
>
>>>stay up in the air (but I try not to think about that while I'm
>>
> flying!).
>
>>>But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to
>>
> improper
>
>>>design. Was it the Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because
>>
> they
>
>>>didn't understand the stresses that would occur... with an aluminum
>>
> airframe
>
>>>(with many, many years of experience building aluminum airframes)?
>>
>>That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra (a
>>highly reliable aircraft).
>>
>>
>>Mark McMaster [email protected]
>>
>

 

> Well, the original Lockheed Electras, the model 10s and 12As from the mid to late 1930s had very
> good reputations. The later L-188 Electra model which had early problems with the wings didn't
> enter service until 1959 - 7 years after the DeHavilland Comet began service, 5 years after the
> Comets were grounded after several crashes. (After the problems with the Comet were identified and
> fixed, it re-entered service in 1958.)
>
> The investigations of the Comet tragedies brought to light the issues of metal fatigue in
> structures, and is generally considered the beginning of the science of fatigue analysis.

I think you helped illustrate my point. The L-188 was the plane I was talking about and it, like the
Comet, came many years after the introduction of aluminum in aircraft. To most people, aluminum was
a relatively mature material that they thought they understood quite well. Unfortunately, at least
in the case of the L-188, they clearly didn't understand the forces being exerted on the material...
despite the earlier failures of the Comets.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra
> >>(a highly reliable aircraft).
> >
> >
> > I looked it up, and the Lockheed Electra did, in fact, have a problem
with
> > its wings falling off (picky little thing). Apparently the jet-driven propellers created more
> > vibration on take-off than the wings were
designed
> > to take, resulting in two instances of complete wing failure in flight.
The
> > wings were redesigned and upgraded at the then-unbelievable cost to
Lockheed
> > of $25 million (how times change!).
>
> Well, the original Lockheed Electras, the model 10s and 12As from the mid to late 1930s had very
> good reputations. The later L-188 Electra model which had early problems with the wings didn't
> enter service until 1959 - 7 years after the DeHavilland Comet began service, 5 years after the
> Comets were grounded after several crashes. (After the problems with the Comet were identified and
> fixed, it re-entered service in 1958.)
>
> The investigations of the Comet tragedies brought to light the issues of metal fatigue in
> structures, and is generally considered the beginning of the science of fatigue analysis.
>
> http://www.ae.msstate.edu/vlsm/materials/fatigue/fatigue.htm
>
>
> Mark McMaster [email protected]
>
>
>
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >
> >
> > "Mark McMaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Somehow that sounds MUCH more comforting coming from the owner of a
> >>>
> > (well
> >
> >>>>regarded) bicycle shop(s), as opposed to a sales rep. and/or design
> >>>
> >>>engineer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>for Airbus.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I know, but I can't speak for Airbus... heck, I'm not even sure how
> >>
> > planes
> >
> >>>stay up in the air (but I try not to think about that while I'm
> >>
> > flying!).
> >
> >>>But remember that that was a *single* Airbus that crashed due to
> >>
> > improper
> >
> >>>design. Was it the Lockheed Electra that had multiple crashes because
> >>
> > they
> >
> >>>didn't understand the stresses that would occur... with an aluminum
> >>
> > airframe
> >
> >>>(with many, many years of experience building aluminum airframes)?
> >>
> >>That would be the DeHavilland Comet (the first passenger jet airliner), no the Lockheed Electra
> >>(a highly reliable aircraft).
> >>
> >>
> >>Mark McMaster [email protected]
> >>
> >
> >
>

 

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think you helped illustrate my point. The L-188 was the plane I was talking about and it, like
>the Comet, came many years after the introduction of aluminum in aircraft. To most people, aluminum
>was a relatively mature material that they thought they understood quite well. Unfortunately, at
>least in the case of the L-188, they clearly didn't understand the forces being exerted on the
>material... despite the earlier failures of the Comets.

One of my favorite aluminum aircraft stories involves the venerable
DC3. After they had been in service a while, the maintenance engineers were baffled by little dents
in the aisle's flooring. It looked like someone had spent hours with a little bitty ball peen
hammer, banging little dimples all over the place.

Finally someone did some calculations on the pressure exerted by a woman's spike heels when walking
down the aisle (and in a DC3, you DO walk "down" half the time since it's a tail dragger). Problem
identified (if not exactly "solved").

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

 

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I think you helped illustrate my point. The L-188 was the plane I was talking about and it, like
> >the Comet, came many years after the
introduction
> >of aluminum in aircraft. To most people, aluminum was a relatively
mature
> >material that they thought they understood quite well. Unfortunately, at least in the case of the
> >L-188, they clearly didn't understand the forces being exerted on the material... despite the
> >earlier failures of the
Comets.

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of my favorite aluminum aircraft stories involves the venerable
> DC3. After they had been in service a while, the maintenance engineers were baffled by little
> dents in the aisle's flooring. It looked like someone had spent hours with a little bitty
> ball peen hammer, banging little dimples all over the place.
>
> Finally someone did some calculations on the pressure exerted by a woman's spike heels when
> walking down the aisle (and in a DC3, you DO walk "down" half the time since it's a tail dragger).
> Problem identified (if not exactly "solved").

Mark, the last time I was in a DC-3 the floor was plywood. Is that the normal floor???
--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971