MassiveD

To me, if I can cut a full pound+ from one item, that's a lot. If I could do that 10 times, I'd be looking at a lot less weight to haul around 1000mi+ on tour. I'm not looking to go super ultra-light, but I'd certainly rather haul around 45lbs than 60.*
*Including bike weight

That is easy to do without going to unobtanium. The logical flaw in your approach is there is nothing stopping you from cutting the other 9 pounds if you can find them. Anyway, it isn't even an interesting problem to get bike/gear weight down to the numbers you suggest. The interesting questions are only where to cut the weight. Forks are the last place to start. Not saying you shouldn't cut it there, it is just the single worst place to cut into the bone, and since none of us actually knows where the bone is, diverging from norms is less sensible there than anywhere else you can list. Partly because of what happens if one fails but also because you can save a lot at a fork. Nobody seriously tries to cut pounds out of their brakes, but it takes discipline to avoid cutting something like a fork, with pounds to spare. It is actually pretty easy to make stupid weight cuts, the hard thing is making sensible ones. Anyone can cross the sahara on tubulars, or some similar stunt, but getting weight out without affecting toughness or efficiency is another mater.

Doug64

I didn't!! Nice Job, especially the attention to detail

saddlesores

not really, they're mostly invisible when bags are mounted. otherwise just get some
pink heat-shrink tubing to make 'em match your fancy-pants moon-unit gizmos.

3speed

I don't carry more than 10-15lbs in the front bags, and I only weigh ~145lbs, so I don't think I'm going to stress a fork beyond it's capabilities.

staehpj1

Not trying to sway anyone one way or the other, but one thing to consider is that in my experience an aluminum fork is more likely to be ruined in a crash that would leave a steel for either OK or able to be bent back to shape. I wouldn't be really paranoid about it, but it is one more factor to consider.

My 1990 Cannondale Crit bike turned U/L tourer has a carbon fork on it because I cracked the aluminum fork in a crash that was minor enough not to taco the wheel. I suspect it was with good reason that Cannondale put steel forks on their aluminum touring bikes when they were still making touring bikes.

staehpj1

That is my thought as well, but I am not one to get too excited over fancy high end components.

Different strokes I guess. Some people get more excited over this stuff, which is great if it makes them happy. Me, not so much. I am kind of at a loss to understand when folks gush over high priced do-dads that cost 10X as much as parts that I already thought were pretty great. To me, good enough is good enough. If someone wants to spring for Chris King or Paul stuff I am fine with that, but I'll pass.

bradtx

Snide answer is to only carry 9-14 lb. in the front panniers.

The only aluminum fork I know of with a mid mount provision is the Cannondale Fatty touring fork and it's made to fit a 700C rim, which doesn't meet your criteria.

I realize that you're striving for the lightest bike to do the job, but realize that what you need to accomplish your goal isn't so clear cut. cyccommute posted that his T1 weighs 28 lb., one pound less than the T800 frame set. My '95 T700 is 26.5 lb, but I didn't measure with my pump and it doesn't have a front low rider. If both his T1 and my T700 we built and equipped exactly the same, the T1 would be lighter. Off hand I would guess that his rear rack, front rack, pump, rear lamp and saddle are heavier than what I have. I also have a '96 T700 that is 1/2 lb. lighter than the '95. The difference may be the tires and two less bottle cages. Maybe because it has integrated shifters, I don't know for sure.

Good luck with your quest.

Brad

bradtx

I think the clamp-on bracket is better because it distributes the clamping force over a wider area. The U-bolt only uses a few degrees of the U-bolt's circumfrence and the flat area of the rack.

Brad

3speed

I think there may be more to this than just the material. I too have crashed several of both aluminum and steel forks. The only one to ever sustain damage was steel. I think that has more to do with the forks themselves than the material. The steel fork was on a race bike. The aluminum forks I've crashed have been MTB and cross forks. The cross fork was on my last tour, and I crashed it twice. Once was just messing around bombing a gravel downhill(I'm a MTBer too...) and the other was while fully loaded. Even loaded, crashing onto pavement, no damage. I wouldn't worry much about damage in a crash due to materials. Either material can be Plenty strong.

Brian25

I do not know the extent that you see yourself touring with an aluminum touring bike and if there would be any attraction to a superlight aluminum frame and fork that can come apart into two sections which allows the bike to fit in a less than oversize box which is an advantage while flying with a bike. I have a patented design that does just that. Brian

cyccommute 

Nope. They are still ug-ly.

And the color is ruby red...not "pink"

cyccommute 

But Cannondale didn't put steel forks on their touring bike...only on some of their touring bikes. The top level Cannondale touring bikes came with aluminum forks.

Capt Overpacker

Someone mentioned Trek's FX non-suspension bikes. Trek also has the CrossRip. While not marketed as a touring bike, it does accept a rear rack and it has lowrider mounts on its carbon-fiber fork: CrossRip - Trek Bicycle

Trek also has a new aluminum touring bike, the 720 Disc, with 11-speed Shimano 105 and carbon fork w/lowrider mounts: 720 Disc - Trek Bicycle

A potential idea is to purchase the fork separately and then add it to an aluminum bicycle of your choice. I bought a CrossRip fork separately because I needed an uncut fork to get my stem setup higher.

Good Luck,

Scott

djb

Capt Overpacker--great name, that got a chuckle out of me.

That new Trek, interesting isnt it, 105 11 speed and that neat dry bag front bag system. My Tricross has a carbon fork with midpt mounts and I've used it with smallish front bags and an old aluminum Blackburn lowrider rack, but have been very careful to keep weight down and to be sensible and not bash the beejesus out of it over bumps and such, not to mention being careful not to overtighten the rack bolts. It does make sense that you have to go light, or for a manufacturer, its prudent for a carbon rack to have not too much weight on it.
Specialized with the Tricross fazed out the carbon fork with mid mounts, they went aluminum probably to avoid any issues, I do remember there was a recall on one years carbon forks on Tricross and other bikes, but realistically that was not a rack mt issue, but a real issue with manufacturing higher up on the fork, and Im sure they just decided to avoid any touring issues and went alu (probably cheaper too)

I see that 720 Disk is still with a double, I still like triples, but hey, we've hashed that over many times on this forum....

that said, its a neat bike, put a light rack on the back, use some Arkel Dry Lites rear bags, those front dry bags, a bar bag and you'd have a nice light touring setup. A 11 speed 11-32 must have fairly good jumps between gears, having used a 11-32 9 speed a lot, you'll have 2 other cogs in there somewhere, a 12-32 would be even better, with 3 additional commonly used cogs in there compared to a 9 sp.

cyccommute 

Close but no cigar, Trek. So many things so wrong with this effort. Loaded touring and "traditional road bike geometry [with] lightning quick handling and speed" aren't combinations that end well.


The dry bag is a neat idea until you break one several years down the line and have to buy replacement parts. I wonder how available they'll be. Will they be as available as the disc brake mounting tab on a 2000 Trek 8000? Will they mate to the bags of a future date or, like the disc brake tab, only work with something that is obsolete?

The rear bags had better be small or the rider have little feet.

fietsbob

Biggest issue with Blackburn's U bolt mid fork mount is people don't get the way they were supposed to Mount, right.

A RTFM , mechanical understanding Problem ..

Brian25

Would you be interested in an aluminum touring bike with a frame that disassembles so the bike can fit in a 26" x 26" x 10" case or box for travel (meets the airlines' sizing for regular, not oversize, luggage)?

I have a patented design that I use to built aluminum travel frames for 26" or 700c.

It's not a good idea to weld a rack mount to a stock aluminum fork (a low-rider rack mount about 6" from the bottom of the fork).

Fork manufacturers will shy away from building aluminum forks with welding in the middle of the blades because it weakens the metal and is a high stress point. A steel fork can be more safely modified.

If you are interested, check out Ravello Bikes (RAVELLO:* We're Travel Compatible - Ravello Travel Bikes).

Capt Overpacker

Hello,

I suspect you're right. The 720 is somewhere between the 520 and an actual racing bike. The angles aren't quite as relaxed as the 520, but they're close. It is a shorter, more rigid bike, though. It may be intended for someone looking to do some light "sport touring" (is there such a thing?) or an S24O. I might have found the 720 appealing if it had been around before I bought my CrossRip. I got the CR as an alternative to my Domane that fits larger tires, has rack and fender mounts, and could serve as a commuter bike if the shorter commute returns.

I don't know if or when I'll catch a touring bug. I haven't camped since I was a kid in the 1970's. However, I do find myself interested in S24O's. Someone in my club is organizing the first I've heard of in our area, to happen in April. He didn't even know it was called an S24O; it was just an idea he had for an "introduction to touring." As a result, I'm shopping for a tent, a sleeping bag, and rear panniers to complement my trunk and handlebar bags. But that's for a separate discussion that I'll start later.

That got me curious enough to check the details of the frame geometry. The 720's 42.6cm chainstay is 2.6cm shorter than the 520 (45cm) and 1cm shorter than my CrossRip (43.5cm); but it's still 1-2cm longer than Trek's racing bikes.

HAHA! Thanks! I earned that name by being the guy who always seems to have what everyone needs when something goes wrong on a ride. I have a little explanation here.

Take Care,

Scott

sculbertson

1998 Klein Navigator

Aluminum frame, mid fork mounts. The 1999/2000 Trek 540 is nearly the same bike.

3speed

Nice. I'll have to look into that one.