Tandem Cycling - Close-Out on Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem 1 1/8" forks

Now that I've secured mine I'll share... (Too hard to pass up).

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=280342814733&Category=56196&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26its%3DI%26otn%3D1

Seller is VERY reputable and well-known frame builder famous for his wild paint jobs.

Not to rain on your parade, but I picked one up on eBay with free shipping for $169.99. Why no one was bidding on that one is beyond me [Oh by the way, from the same seller!].

How does the Reynolds fork compare with the Windser Muddycross fork? They are about the same cost

Not to rain on your parade, but I picked one up on eBay with free shipping for $169.00. Why no one was bidding on that one is beyond me [Oh by the way, from the same seller!].

No worries. I'm still pleased with what I consider a good deal on a fork I really don't need. I suspect the lack of bidders on the first Ouzo tandem fork that you scored is what prompted John to go with a 'Buy it Now' on the other 10 he has tied to the latest auction.

How does the Reynolds fork compare with the Windser Muddycross fork? They are about the same cost

One big difference is the brake mounts, Muddy Cross will accept disc or cantilever, Reynolds will only accept a road caliper.

How does the Reynolds fork compare with the Windser Muddycross fork? They are about the same cost

I'm assuming you mean the Winwood Muddy Cross fork...

They're very different forks is several ways: Rake, brake compatibility, construction, weight...

1. Rake: The original Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem model was designed around Santana's steering geometry and fork specs using 55mm of rake. This particular model that is up for sale on Ebay uses the more common 1 1/8" steerer instead of the 1 1/4" steerer needed for the Santana tandems. Unless your current tandem uses something close to a 55mm rake fork, the Reynolds fork will alter the handling a bit, i.e., a bit less lively. Conversely, the Muddy Cross uses what I think is 45mm of rake; on-par with the tandem forks offered by Alpha Q and Wound-Up spec'd on Co-Motion's racing tandems, Calfees, etc... If you're riding a tandem with 50mm - 55mm of rake, the Winwood will alter the handling a bit, i.e., a bit more lively. [Edit: Did a quick check and you appear to ride a Cannondale which uses a fork with 53mm of rake, so that's your point of reference.]

2. Brakes: The Winwood fork is designed for use with cantilever and/or disc brakes whereas the Reynolds is designed for a compact caliper rim brake.

3. Construction: The Winwood has an aluminum steerer and crown bonded to carbon legs. The Reynolds fork is an all-carbon fork with carbon steerer.

4. Weight: The Winwood fork is about 680g and the Reynolds is about 490g.

FWIW, the Reynolds forks normally sell for about $530 - $560.

The Winwood will accept a much larger tire than the Ouzo, if that matters to the buyer.

No worries. I'm still pleased with what I consider a good deal on a fork I really don't need. .
That is similar to what my wife said. But, at such a great deal I had to get one too. Great seller, was able to send it to my work without any issues.

The Winwood will accept a much larger tire than the Ouzo, if that matters to the buyer.

True... I believe if someone was so inclined they could put a 45mm knobby in there!!


That is similar to what my wife said. But, at such a great deal I had to get one too.

The $169 truly was a steal, but even at $229... that's such a deal for that particular fork.

My only reason for even being interested is that I've always wanted to stick a 55mm rake fork on our road tandems so that I could spend some time quantifying how the shorter steering trail might influence their handling. The Erickson has been sporting a 48mm Alpha Q since '02 and the Calfee has the 44mm Alpha Q, so it should be interesting. Heck, I may even surprise myself.

At one point two years back I thought Bill McCready was going to loan us a Santana fitted with a special headset that enabled you to adjust the effective fork rake for some back-to-back testing of 50mm vs. 55mm off-set. They'd used it for some in-house testing and experimentation where the testers purportedly were unable to tell the difference as to which fork they were using which may well have been true of the 5mm difference. We talked at length about it, he asked for our frame size info but it never came to pass. I think Bill may have gotten caught up in the moment of our discussion just as I did (it happens a lot when we start talking about tandems) and then realized the experiment carried more risk than it did reward once he put his business owner's hat back on. Let it never be said that Bill is not a very smart man.

Anyway, as I said, it will be interesting to see just how different the Calfee behaves when the 44mm Alpha Q fork is switched out for the 55mm Reynolds. Of course, not only will the Reynolds yield less steering trail, it's a much stiffer fork as well. As I said, I may surprise myself.


Great seller, was able to send it to my work without any issues.

For those who don't know the seller (http://www.landsharkbicycles.com), he's yet another great builder & frame painter from whom I'd like to have a frame. I saw my first 'shark' at the Redlands Classic back in 1987 when they were used as the team bikes for the LA Sheriff / Chevrolet pro cycling team.

Wish I could get one for my Santana

Like all Santana tandem forks, the new Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem features a 11/4” steerer. Now that road singles have finally evolved from 1” to 11/8”, can anyone still argue that 11/4” is too big for tandems? Benefits of the larger steerer tube include doubled fatigue resistance for greater safety (when a bicycle fork fatigues, its steerer can break without warning), doubled torsional stiffness for more accurate steering, longer headset life and increased frame integrity (does it make sense to attach a tandem’s larger top and down tubes to a single bike’s head tube?).

Yes, 1-1/4 is too big for my wallet.

Wish I could get one for my Santana

So long as your team doesn't classify itself as super-clydesdale you probably could...

You'd just need to change out your headset for something like a Chris King Devolution (http://chrisking.com/headsets/hds_devo)model that allows folks who really don't need a 1.25 steerer to use a 1.125" fork on their frame. There are less expensive alternatives to the CK that do the same thing. Not a recommendation, by any means... just information.

http://chrisking.com/files/images/headsets/Devo_Red.jpg

I like the 1 1/4 Reynolds on our Santana but don't know any different since it is our first tandem.
Devo headset + bargain fork might be close to what you can get an 1 1/4 reynolds from Santana for? They still list them on their site.

Our combined weight is 250 lbs.
I already have a King 1-1/4 headset and I see that they make a 1-/4 to 1-1/8 conversion kit for $49.
So my total upgrade cost will be $280 plus a new 1-1/8 stem.
Do you think its worth getting rid of the cro mo fork? Will there be a moticeable improvement?

I think the 1-1/4 reynolds fork goes for over $500

Will there be a noticeable improvement?

I will defer to the folks who have ridden Santana tandems with both chromoly and carbon forks.

In general, the 'biggest' change is simply what would be about a 1.3lb reduction in the weight of your current fork / front end of your tandem. It's that reduction in weight and mass associated with what are usually some pretty robust stock chromly tandem forks that yields the lighter-feel at the hands.

We found it to be true when we switched over from a fairly lightweight custom steel fork on our Erickson that weighed about 920 grams to an '02 vintage True Temper Alpha Q X2 that weighed about 500g. I want to say that Santana's OE chromoly fork weighs in around 1,090g and Co-Motion's chromoly folks are more like 1,220g.

Again, I'm not encouraging or recommending. After all, if it ain't broke you ain't fixin' it... you're farkling it!

Our combined weight is 250 lbs.
I already have a King 1-1/4 headset and I see that they make a 1-/4 to 1-1/8 conversion kit for $49.
So my total upgrade cost will be $280 plus a new 1-1/8 stem.
Do you think its worth getting rid of the cro mo fork? Will there be a moticeable improvement?

I would say so. The best improvement I did to my Steelman roadbike was switch out the crmo fork for a Reynolds Ouzo Pro CF with the same rake. Definitely took the edge off alot of vibration etc.

I hear you it ain't broke.
I would porbably go for it, but I am not sure how much longer I am keeping the bike.
Not sure if I would get back my investment selling the bike.
I have dreams of a Calfee or Ruegamer. Can't do it right now because my stoker is recovering from shoulder surgery, I am recovering from overtraining and our bank account is yet to recover from two daughters in college. At least one of them is graduating in a few months.

Hey Tandem Geek, thanks for that info. right now im a bit strapped for cash. the Reynolds fork looks to be a better deal. Right now I'm using avid shorty canti brakes, they work well. I don't know if a compact road brake would have the same stopping power. I see a lot of calfees and carbon tandems use the road brakes.

Hey Tandem Geek, thanks for that info. right now im a bit strapped for cash. the Reynolds fork looks to be a better deal. Right now I'm using avid shorty canti brakes, they work well. I don't know if a compact road brake would have the same stopping power. I see a lot of calfees and carbon tandems use the road brakes.

First of all see jnbrown's post, above; he makes several good points.

Good dual pivot calipers are easily on par with or produce more clamping force than most conventional cantilever brakes. Single pivot, not so much....

Now, linear pull cantilever brakes (aka, V-brakes) are a bit of a different story, particularly when they're mated with travel agent adapters in that they have the ability to produce more clamping force than either conventional cantis or calipers. In some cases, they produce too much clamping force which actually works to the detriment of the V-brakes vis-a-vis fork blade or seat stay deflection and other factors that lead to brake squeal (grip/slip).

FWIW: The benefit of cantilevers for tandems has always been increased clearance for larger tires and mud guards (aka, fenders) which is what made them popular on all but racing tandems.

Anyway, my take on brakes is that so long as you have a robust frame & fork, good quality brakes that are properly set-up and fitted with good brake pads, and a good rim with a clean brake track your biggest limiting factor is rider skill and judgement.

Our combined weight is 250 lbs.
I already have a King 1-1/4 headset and I see that they make a 1-/4 to 1-1/8 conversion kit for $49.
So my total upgrade cost will be $280 plus a new 1-1/8 stem.
Do you think its worth getting rid of the cro mo fork? Will there be a moticeable improvement?

We switched about two years ago. My sovereign is now more confortable to ride that either steel, full carbon, and of course, aluminum singles.

Wish I could get one for my Santana

Like all Santana tandem forks, the new Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem features a 11/4” steerer. Now that road singles have finally evolved from 1” to 11/8”, can anyone still argue that 11/4” is too big for tandems? Benefits of the larger steerer tube include doubled fatigue resistance for greater safety (when a bicycle fork fatigues, its steerer can break without warning), doubled torsional stiffness for more accurate steering, longer headset life and increased frame integrity (does it make sense to attach a tandem’s larger top and down tubes to a single bike’s head tube?).

Yes, 1-1/4 is too big for my wallet.

It's a real close-out. I just received an email that they are no longer making tandem forks of any steerer diameter.

It's a real close-out. I just received an email that they are no longer making tandem forks of any steerer diameter.

Yes indeed.

I figured it was only a matter of WHEN and not IF Reynolds would discontinue at least the tandem models after Santana second-sourced / house-branded its premium grade carbon fork offering and dropped the Reynolds fork as the OE spec on it's Team / Exotic level tandems. I suspect Advanced Composites/Wound-Up and True Temper / Alpha Q have only been able to hang in there with their tandem forks because they still have companies like Co-Motion and most of the boutique builders (Seven, Calfee, Litespeed, etc.) spec'ing them.

IMHO, Reynolds put all its eggs in one basket with Santana and their 55mm rake spec when they made their molds. Unfortunately, all of the other builders were using 45mm or 44mm, making the Reynolds Ouzo Pro far less desireable to the folks looking for the more lively handling bikes and that's where Wound-Up & Alpha Q had already invested their capital. Heck, even Burley ended up souring their carbon forks from True Temper, albeit for a somewhat 'special' CX model with 48mm of rake.

Getting back to the Reynolds forks, my original request to Calfee was to have him tweak the head tube geometry to accommodate the 55mm Reynolds Ouzo Pro vs. the Alpha Q as I thought the larger size of the Reynolds fork crown and upper legs not only looked like a better 'fit' with the Calfee's oversized frame construction, but were also notably more rigid. Craig did not embrace my proposal with any perceptable enthusiasm and strongly suggested we stick with the same Alpha Q X2 we'd been using without issue on our other tandems.

Is this really the tandem specced fork? I've seen pictures of reynolds ouzo and it specifically says tandem on the decal. Here are some pretty pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28639223@N07/3316646761/

I'm thinking of replacing my steel fork on my 1999 cannondale RT1000 with 53mm rake, without changing the handling (I like low speed stability - at least for now). How's the rise of this fork? I heard the Alpha Q fork actually ends up being a little bit lower.

Is this really the tandem specced fork? I've seen pictures of reynolds ouzo and it specifically says tandem on the decal. Here are some pretty pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28639223@N07/3316646761/

Hey, I recognize that picture!!:thumb:

Is this really the tandem specced fork?

The part number and rake specified and shown on the stickers attached to the fork and boxes are correct for the Ouzo Pro Tandem. As for the fork leg decals, who knows what possesses certain manufacturers to do what they do when it comes to graphics. Alpha Q X2s and Reynolds Ouzo Pros used to be very understated in the graphics department, now they have that ubiquitous, currently in-vogue stickers everywhere look. Maybe they just ran out of the tandem stickers as production came to an end and stuck on what they had...


. How's the rise of this fork? I heard the Alpha Q fork actually ends up being a little bit lower.

I'm pretty sure it's 395mm, same as what you'll find on most tandems. The Alpha Q is weird in that it's around 374mm, which is more like a single rider racing bike fork spec. That crown height will work just fine our our Erickson, but may screw up my experiment on the Calfee as it will change the effective head tube angle by a scootch and raise my front bottom bracket / center of gravity, etc...

I think Reynolds got out of the fork business all together.

I think Reynolds got out of the fork business all together.

I'm thinking so too. Darn shame, as I think they were having those made by a composites firm (MacLean Quality Composites) located in Utah at one point.

True... I believe if someone was so inclined they could put a 45mm knobby in there!!
The $169 truly was a steal, but even at $229... that's such a deal for that particular fork.
My only reason for even being interested is that I've always wanted to stick a 55mm rake fork on our road tandems so that I could spend some time quantifying how the shorter steering trail might influence their handling. The Erickson has been sporting a 48mm Alpha Q since '02 and the Calfee has the 44mm Alpha Q, so it should be interesting. Heck, I may even surprise myself.
At one point two years back I thought Bill McCready was going to loan us a Santana fitted with a special headset that enabled you to adjust the effective fork rake for some back-to-back testing of 50mm vs. 55mm off-set. They'd used it for some in-house testing and experimentation where the testers purportedly were unable to tell the difference as to which fork they were using which may well have been true of the 5mm difference. We talked at length about it, he asked for our frame size info but it never came to pass. I think Bill may have gotten caught up in the moment of our discussion just as I did (it happens a lot when we start talking about tandems) and then realized the experiment carried more risk than it did reward once he put his business owner's hat back on. Let it never be said that Bill is not a very smart man.
Anyway, as I said, it will be interesting to see just how different the Calfee behaves when the 44mm Alpha Q fork is switched out for the 55mm Reynolds. Of course, not only will the Reynolds yield less steering trail, it's a much stiffer fork as well. As I said, I may surprise myself.
For those who don't know the seller (http://www.landsharkbicycles.com), he's yet another great builder & frame painter from whom I'd like to have a frame. I saw my first 'shark' at the Redlands Classic back in 1987 when they were used as the team bikes for the LA Sheriff / Chevrolet pro cycling team.

Can you please explain just how that works? I can see a special headset allowing a different head tube angle which indirectly results in different trail, but not with a constant head tube angle. I can also picture an eccentric headset that would effectively change trail, but that would take more space than I think most head tubes have to spare.

Can you please explain just how that works?

No, I can't because....
he asked for our frame size info but it never came to pass.


I was also interested in seeing how it worked as I would have thought it would have been easier to have two nearly identical forks just with different rake. Then again, perhaps it was all just a dream... No, wait. It was an afternoon phone call and he called me.

Tell you what, I've got a couple questions I need to run by Bill so perhaps I'll ring him up and I'll ask about that too. Scott Cycles used an eccentric headset on its downhill bikes but the adjustment band was pretty narrow, i.e., something like +/- 3mm, maybe 4mm, so I suspect it may have been something along those lines as I've just forgotten the details.

Follow-up...

Fork arrived today and, yes, despite the lack of the word 'Tandem' on the fork, it's definitely a tandem fork. Photos below depict the Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem sitting along side a spare True Temper Alpha Q X2 from the front, side and rear. Interestingly enough, both forks weigh nearly the same 480 grams noting that the Alpha Q has a 14g Chris King baseplate installed which probably off-sets the slightly shorter uncut steerer.

There is a sticker on the fork. Just a paper sticker on the steering tube. At least it was on mine. Won't impress anyone except for maybe some of the gremlins inside the headtube. Mine is still sitting in the basement for next years project.

this one hurt. did a search online for 1-1/4" Reynolds Tandem Fork in mid-April and came across a french ebay sale which closed April 7 for a buy-it-now of 66.9 Euro ! 2 were available. I missed it by 1 week. I contacted the seller and he had no others available.

http://cgi.ebay.com.my/FOURCHE-CARBONE-REYNOLDS-OUZO-PRO-TANDEM_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ230318397288

Now that is a deal, too bad it is not a 1 1/8.

Follow-up...

Fork arrived today and, yes, despite the lack of the word 'Tandem' on the fork, it's definitely a tandem fork. Photos below depict the Reynolds Ouzo Pro Tandem sitting along side a spare True Temper Alpha Q X2 from the front, side and rear. Interestingly enough, both forks weigh nearly the same 480 grams noting that the Alpha Q has a 14g Chris King baseplate installed which probably off-sets the slightly shorter uncut steerer.

What did you put the Reynolds fork on and what were the results?

I put one on a Co-Motion Speedster last year and have not seen a big difference in handling but the weight change is.

What did you put the Reynolds fork on and what were the results? I put one on a Co-Motion Speedster last year and have not seen a big difference in handling but the weight change is.

It's cut for our Calfee and has been used interchangeably with the Alpha Q for comparison purposes and possibly for use if we ever do any credit card tours.

As for perceived differences, not as much lateral deflection as the Alpha Q but it also doesn't initiate turns as quickly. It has better straight line stability but also seems to be a bit more harsh. But, then again, the differences in these two forks is pretty significant: The Ouzo Pro has a touring/tandem/Cyclocross drop-out to crown height of 395mm and 55mm of rake, whereas the Alpha Q X2 uses a road-bike like 374mm drop-out to crown height and 44mm of rake.

Unless your Co-Motion had a Wound-Up or Alpha Q fork vs. Co-Motion's steel fork, there's only about a 5mm difference in fork rake (55mm for Ouzo Pro Tandem vs. 50mm for Co-Motion's steel forks) and another 5mm difference in crown height (390mm for Co-Motion vs. 395mm for Ouzo Pro). So I wouldn't expect that the fork alone would change the handling all that much aside from the 1lb weight reduction-related changes.

Bottom Line: There's more to why the different brands of tandems handle the way they do than simply fork rake UNLESS you make a somewhat more significant change in the geometry or fork's deflection characteristics.

TandemGeek,

Thanks for the feedback on the Reynolds fork. Got first good 50 mile ride on the tandem with the new fork and it's great. Could not tell much difference at lower speeds but handling was great at higher speeds with more notible straight line stability at 25 to 45+ mph.

See you at the Tennessee Tandem Rally.

KW

Got first good 50 mile ride on the tandem with the new fork and it's great. Could not tell much difference at lower speeds but handling was great at higher speeds with more notible straight line stability at 25 to 45+ mph.



My understanding of bicycle geometry is that, more rake equals less trail, and ceterus peribus, less trail makes for a quicker turning bike, but less straight line stability.

However, it's also my understanding, and anecdotal experience, that on tandems, the opposite seems to be true, i.e. more rake still equals less trail, but less trail on the tandem ends up with slower handling, i.e. more straight line stability, less twitchy?

How does that work?

How does that work?

I believe it's a combination of the longer wheelbase, increased and somewhat different distribution of rider weight. There are a lot of other factors as well and, again, that includes frame construction.

The Reynolds Ouzo Pro tandem fork on our Santana is approaching its first decade. It probably has 10,000 miles on it plus another 60,000 miles in a fork mount bike rack. Anyone have any idea of the life expectancy of these forks?

TAnyone have any idea of the life expectancy of these forks?

Probably as long as steel... at least for that particular generation of Reynolds Ouzo Pro. But that's just a guess. You'd need to call Steve or Bill and see what the highest mileage 1st Gen Ouzo Pro is.

Even the AME Alpha Q X2's were going 20k miles before they started to de-laminate... and I'd expect the True Temper forks to also have a much, much longer, steel-like service life so long as they aren't crashed or bashed.

The composites group that made the reynolds forks is now owned by Serotta but the same people are still there.
The guy posts on the Serotta forum whenever questions come up.
You might ask there and get a reply from the head guy.
Here is a reply having to do with fork life he posted recently.

From Reynolds:
After considerable testing and thought on the matter we find the question of “fork life” in terms of time to be a tough question to answer. Our fatigue testing would indicate that well built composite forks are far superior to metal forks with cycle counts running hundreds of thousands of cycles rather than tens of thousands. These tests are also run at much higher loads than metal forks can withstand further demonstrating the durability of composite materials. Based simply on fatigue life a well made and properly installed composite fork should last virtually indefinitely if the bike is not crashed or otherwise abused.
Mike Lopez
Reynolds Composites