Originally Posted by
sstorkel
A 3+ pound difference seems a bit difficult to swallow. Perhaps we should look at some real-world numbers? Surly makes two nearly identical cyclocross bikes: the disc-equipped Straggler and the cantilever-only Cross-Check. From their specs:
Surly Straggler disc-capable fork: 2.5lbs uncut
Surly Cross-Check canti fork: 2.3lbs uncut
Real-world weight weight penalty for a disc-capable fork:
0.2 pounds!
It's good to know your real world is based on promotional material published on a website.
After these recall notices on the Pugsley forks, one wonder if Surly has in fact got the specs right on its other disc forks:
http://surlybikes.com/surlyforkrecall
It would seem that any fork with tapered blades and significant rake seems to be asking for trouble if it has disc brakes mounted to it. The issue really comes down to having a fork that is over-engineered for the additional forces that are applied on the blades that are quite capable of deforming to upset the handling as well as run the risk of breaking.
Have a look at cyclocross bike forks, and you won't see many, if any, with tapered and raked forks. There's a reason for that.
Frankly, now knowing the issues a little more intimately, I wouldn't touch the Straggler fork, and would settle only for a straight-blade unicrown fork with the resultant weight penalty... but not from Surly based on their failure to get it right with the Pugsley forks.
I also understand now the UCI's reluctance to permit disc brakes in road competition until the safety factor has been fully addressed.
Anyway, it seems the OP's eyes have been lured by a cyclocross bike.
The biggest issuse for him now should be fit and how the bike feels when he rides it, along with the gearing. But I suspect they are down the list compared with the lust for disc brakes, carbon fibre, and eyelets.