Road Cycling - Would you notice a difference?

I have a lemond alpe d'huez, and it has a really crummy for mounted on a really nice frame. I think the whole fork assembly is like 500-600 grams, way too much for a carbon fork. I was thinking an upgrade after I put 1500 more miles on the odo.

The three contenders are the alpha Q, Easton EC90, and reynolds. However, only reynolds makes their fork in my rake, 45mm. the alpha Q makes theirs in 40 and 44. the EC90 is only in 43mm.

Less rake = slower handling, right? So a 44mm fork might slow the handling a bit, which wouldn't be too bad because my lemond is a very sharp handling bike. do you think it would make it stable, or just sluggish? the easton would be even more extreme...whats the verdict? I know for a fact that I don't want a faster handling bike, but I could deal with a bit more stability...

has anyone tried messing with their fork rake? what were the results?

You probably won't notice a 1mm difference in rake. Going from a 45mm to a 40mm would make some difference. Also, check out the new Bontrager Race X-lite and Race XXX-lite. They are both available in 45mm rake and are awesome forks.

I kinda wanted an all-carbon fork. the bontragers are a good 100g (1/4 pound) heavier then the all carbon ones. I figure that if I'm going expensive, I might as well go all out and get the best.

i'm looking at the ouzo comp fork for my bike. yes, you can notice the difference when handling in the corners, especially with the different geometry used in the lemonds.

i use so much energy coming out of turns because of the handling issue that this should be a no brainer. i like the lateral winding of the carbon fiber in the ouzo pro & comp AND the easton EC90's.

Less rake = slower handling, right? So a 44mm fork might slow the handling a bit, which wouldn't be too bad because my lemond is a very sharp handling bike. do you think it would make it stable, or just sluggish? the easton would be even more extreme...whats the verdict? I know for a fact that I don't want a faster handling bike, but I could deal with a bit more stability...


you've got it backwards. less rake=quicker handling. think about it, a fork with less rake brings the front wheel closer to the frame. and when you move your rear wheel closer to the seat tube it makes the bike snappier around corners...so it should do the same thing if you change the front end. you're basically making the bike's wheelbase shorter, and decreasing the tracking distance between the front wheel and the rear wheel. i have a fork with 0mm of rake on one of my track bikes, and that sucker is so damn twitchy, i can just shift my hips slightly and be across an entire lane of the street, because the bike is THAT responsive...the thing a lot of people don't think about when they go with a fork with less rake is overlap. if you bring the front wheel in closer to the frame, it's also closer to your cranks and therefore, closer to your toes when your pedals are forward. it can make for awkward turning in extreme cases (like my 0 rake fork).

you've got it backwards. less rake=quicker handling. think about it, a fork with less rake brings the front wheel closer to the frame. and when you move your rear wheel closer to the seat tube it makes the bike snappier around corners...so it should do the same thing if you change the front end. you're basically making the bike's wheelbase shorter, and decreasing the tracking distance between the front wheel and the rear wheel. i have a fork with 0mm of rake on one of my track bikes, and that sucker is so damn twitchy, i can just shift my hips slightly and be across an entire lane of the street, because the bike is THAT responsive...the thing a lot of people don't think about when they go with a fork with less rake is overlap. if you bring the front wheel in closer to the frame, it's also closer to your cranks and therefore, closer to your toes when your pedals are forward. it can make for awkward turning in extreme cases (like my 0 rake fork).

I was thinking that too, but then I read that longer rake DECREASES the trail...making for a quicker handling bike. what determines trail, I wonder? Perhaps a diagram anyone?

The Bontrager XXX-lite weights 370, which is on the same lines as Ouzo Pro specially with its compression but installed

yeah, phatman, what you read was right. i got too carried away in that line of thinking. because if you think about what happens when you have a pivot in the midle of something with two wheels, and you turn it, there's practically no difference in where the front wheel is rolling and where the rear wheel is rolling. but such a vehicle would be really hard to handle if you weren't used to it, because when you turned, it would throw the middle out to the sideand throw the whole thing off balance.

think about motorcycles. a chopper with super extended forks cannot corner as well as a sportbike, but they can be more stable going in a straight line. so i think if you want quicker handling on a two wheeled vehicle, you have to comprimise the tracking distance to a point if you're frame is sporty and short, it won't make too much of a difference.

all i know is that when i had the original forks on my bike it cornered like crap, and when i switched to the 0 rake, it made the bike tons more twitchy and a lot more erratic to handle going in a straight line, which would say to me that less rake = quicker, more responsive handling, but not necessarily more stable. is there a of ratio that demonstrates the relationship between fork rake and responsiveness? because right now, it feels like with 0 rake, that input=1 and output=1 as well...obviously if i turn my handlebars 3 degrees, the wheel also turns 3 degrees on any bike, right? ...or am i wrong about that?

to answer the original question, velodemon was correct in the first post. you'll notice more of a difference in handling with bigger changes in rake.

of course handling isn't only determined by fork rake...frame geometry plays a huge roll in it as well (obviously). a frame that has a steeper headtube angle will steer quicker, because the front wheel is closer to the middle of the frame, and also more underneath the rider...oh man...think about those dreadful razor scooters!

Check out http://www.spectrum-cycles.com/612.htm: Tom Kellog’s take on fork rake, head angle, and trail.

The Bontrager XXX-lite weights 370, which is on the same lines as Ouzo Pro specially with its compression but installed
but its a hundred bucks more...

that thing on tom kellog's site made a alot of sense to me. I wonder wondering where you measure trail though. is it the horizontal distance from the middle of the top of the headtube to the front axel? just a wild guess...

alright, I actually stumbled upon the def of trail while on the cannondale site.

If you were to draw a line through the middle of the headtube, and have it intersect with the ground, trail is the distance between that and a vertical line going through the hub axle. therefore, a larger rake would mean a decreased trail...HA! I got it now...

take a look at this link...for all those who wanted to know...look at item "I" http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/geo-14.html

why not try the LOOK forks.. Very light and durable...

I have ridden my bike over deep potholes and 5 pinch flats and 5 tubes later.. The fork is still fine..

the main reason for not looking at looks is that I can't seem to find them anywhere! the only place where I see them is excel sports, and they never have the rake that I want.

check out getawaybikes.com they have ouzo pro integrateds going for 250