beanboy99

I'd like to replace the original carbon fork on a 2001 Litespeed Classic. Two questions:

1) I'm going to be using it more recreationally (urban commuting, longer weekend rides, very light touring, etc...) and so stability and comfort are more important than perhaps the bike was intended for. Original offset is 40 and the HTA is 73. Given my usage, should I stick with 40 or something more like 45?
2) What are some well-regarded but affordable carbon fork options that would fit 28c and are comfortable but not too flexy? I don't need disc mounts or rack eyelets.

Thanks for your help!

Litespud

the original spec fork for my 2000 LS Vortex (same HTA) was a Reynolds Ouzo Pro fork Carbon with 43mm rake. After I “garage-doored” the bike I replaced the fork, as a precautionary measure, with a steel Gunnar fork with 45mm rake. No detectable difference in handling (the bike generally handles well and predictably) but obv a weight penalty (1 lb) and a bit more road buzz. I eventually tracked down an uncut NOS Ouzo Pro on eBay ($130 - 1/3 of the original msrp) and the Gunnar went into the parts box. So, look on eBay as an option, and a few mm difference in rake will make no detectable difference
btw I think stability and comfort were exactly what the Classic was made for. Assuming it fits, I can’t think of a better bike for a long day in the saddle 👍

veganbikes

Whisky is the answer (to a lot of different questions) in this case Whisky Parts Co. they make good quality full carbon forks for not a ton of money and I am really happy with mine and may end up on another one. I like the company because I know I will have good support through QBP should I need it but more importantly they have non-tapered forks still and some odd options that many companies have moved on from as technology has changed.

MidTNBrad

I don't know much about them but Wound Up forks were originally spec'ed on some Litespeeds back in the day.

79pmooney

Be aware that more fork offset means less stable handling, not more. More offset means the contact point of the tire is closer to where the line of the steerer and headtube would hit the road. That distance is called "trail". Trail is associated with more stability, so lessening it makes the steering less stable.

merlinextraligh

+1. And 5mm will definitely affect handling.

If you’re happy with the bikes handling now, I’d stay with the same offset. You will add a tiny amount of trail by going from 23mm to 28 mm tires. So the slight addition to trail, and a bigger contact patch likely will give you the feeling of a more stable secure ride.

merlinextraligh

I’d bet 2mm change in offset would be detectable by many. Some people are more sensitive ( or picky) to changes. Other confounders such as the stiffness of the different forks, and possibly different tires, and circumference might obscure some of the difference.

Sy Reene

The current calc says that with 28mm tires a 40mm rake is starting at a value of 63, which seems pretty high. A 45mm raked fork is about 58mm trail while a 43mm offset fork at about 60mm of trail. For touring (any bag weight added to bars?), I thought the recommendation was usually toward lower trail figures.

56-57mm seems to be considered a neutral trail amount on a road bike, so any fork being discussed pretty much is yielding more trail than this.

Sy Reene

Sounds like good advice.
This is probably the correct model for your bike, though I can't speak to the retailer that I linked:
https://mybikeshop.com/products/whis...tte-black.html

beanboy99

Ah that's right. I've seen the diagram so I understand how offset affects trail. So i should probably stick with 40. I like to be able to ride without hands.

beanboy99

Ah, interesting. Can you direct me to more info on the "current calc" you refer to?

EDIT: I've just been going down the rabbit hole on this topic. Thanks!

Sy Reene

Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net

beanboy99

this is great—thanks. So if I go with a higher rake I get shorter trail which gives me quicker handling, but also a longer wheelbase, which gives me slower handling? Isn’t there an offset here? (Pun intended)

in the case of the original LS classic, I guess the relatively low rake was intended to make the bike more suitable for longer rides less than more technical racing. So maybe that’s why the original trail was higher than typical for a racing bike?

Sy Reene

Could be. Also, I would wager that the bike was stock with 23mm tires back then, which would have brought down the trail figure as well vs. the 28mm tires you're going to go with. Anyway, in a nutshell, I'd say if you find a 43mm fork, it would be just fine.