Seemed like as good a thread as any (better than most so far actually) to try my first post.

I think it will be awhile before it matters to me. A new fork is pretty low on my list, and I'd like to see it used by some pro's in key races. Granted they'd probably be riding it because someone paid them to, but it probably doesn't suck if a big name is willing to use it.

Cobb stated on this board in the past that it was no faster than the Reynolds Ouzo Aero pro fork, the Oval is just UCI legal , thats all,





Get a Reynolds

Falls into the "absolutely gotta have right now catagory"since I have too much money to spend and believe that dropping big bucks on all the newest expensive high tech toys will make me faster than if I spent more time training.

It's looking that way Cerveloguy... I concur.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

..but on the other hand Tom, if I had more disposable income I'd probably buy all the latest gollygeewhiz tri stuff just for the fun of it!!

But then maybe not. Its probably better to be a middle of the pack middle aged guy on a fairly decent bike than it is to be middle of the pack middle aged guy on the most expensive high tech bike in the field. At least when I raced my first two years on my old classic steel 12 sp I could always blame my times on the bike!

i love the idea of the oval jetstream. the whole idea of a fork has been make it thin and deep. it makes me happy that someone stepped out of the box and looked at how the fork affected air flow around the wheel. when i get a bike i plan on putting this fork on.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

With all due respect to John Cobb, I say this: I saw it and don't think it's worth the money. Seriously, it is a bloated thing (could be a ship anchor) and I can't see how it would save serious time. Every bloody LBS tries to sell it to me (as they have a boat load of money in it wholesale), and I think to myself "hmmm. weighs more than a Reynolds Ouzo Aero, costs twice as much as many other fine forks out there. I say NOT!!!" I bet I will be able to pick one up on sale in about a year.

According to all of these things you should add, the bike should be two and a half minutes faster before you even start pedalling. My personal opinion is that the position saves the most time, and the other additions just augment. I don't think that you could add it all together. I suspect that it is much like in the beauty industry when all of this SPF crap came out. Use a moisturiser with a 10 SPF, along with 5SPF base makeup and 20 SPF powder- it may average out to be something like a 15 SPF total quotient, not 35 like it looks. Suddenly, it is not quite the cummulative effect like it was suggested.

Major time savings are realised by things like body position and wheels (as they are big things to overcome), but you would have to test all of the things put together to get the big picture. An aero fork would definitely save time over a Wound Up, but how critical is the fork? Would the Cobb fork save time on a round tubed bike with 32 spoke box-section rims? Would it save time on a rider positioned like crap? Would it save time on an otherwise slippery rider/bike combo that has been optimised in every other way? Is the extra weight justified in the time it saves on the flat sections of the race?

I could be wrong and some guy with it on an otherwise conventional bike (round tubes) with a pair of 36 spoke Mavic MA2s (and RX100 hubs that need new bearings) will whip the pants off of me (on my pretty aero Fox) in a TT..oh, yeah. I am not that competitive these days. A kid on a Huffy will kick my ass these days...

Cobb is a good guy. He makes a lot of sense with many of the things he has come out with. But I think there are better ways to spend your money than this fork.

It's up there on my list of must haves right next to a swift kick in the pants. It is pretty damn expensive, and if my BS meter is calibrated correctly, it looks like the time savings quoted are overblown. I'm sure it has some impact, everything does. (Incidently, anybody see when Homer Simpson added "Speed Holes" to the family car??) Sorry, but I'm less and less inclined to take Cobb's word on faith. He is marketing his products, remember??

I saw one at a TT las weekend along with the new Nike aero skinsuit Lance and the Postal guys use.

The Oval fork is 100g heavier, $100 costlier, and no more aero than the Ouzo Pro Aero ... Cobb quoted the aeroness as "the same" as the Ouzo.

The difference is the UCI conformity of the Oval.

Nice to see you back around, Bunnyman. I imagine you have more time on your hands, now that Easter is over, eh? Stick around, we've missed you. (Even if you have to post at o-dark-thirty!)

Oh yes, and as for the Oval fork, I agree that it looks to be too much of an investment for too little return...relative to the other options available. But then, like Tom, it's easy for me to resist the temptation , since they don't make one for my 1" head-tubed Cervelo P2K. They do look pretty cool, I saw one on a bike in T1 at Kona last year...it drew a crowd.

34 seconds faster compared to a standard round legged fork, or 34 seconds compared to the Ouzo Aero Pro?

damn john cobb steal y'alls car ir something? the idea of the fork is not that it itself is more aero but it is made to work by smoothing out the airflow around the front wheel. i have no idea how the tests done on it to compare it to other forks. was put on a bike with a spinning front wheel or just stood up by itself and tested with out the front wheel.

as far as john cobb goes anyone want to tell me the last time he put his name on a worthless piece of crap? or designed anchors? if lance is riding i'm sure that there is something to it.

the bigger reason for me to buy it is that i will pay for an idea. this sounds stupid i know but it is the same reason i have paid a pretty penny for some paintings i used to own. the fork was designed with more than the fork itself in mind. little things that sound stupid out of the tunnel could make a big diffrence inside. ask om d when he finally gets in. he will make changes that they think will make a big diffrence and in the tunnel won't and the tunnel data will have them do things that seem to be a waste of time but will give back major seconds.

as far as price goes we over spend all the time. how many of really need a P3 or a blade? do we really need dura ace or record when chorus or ulgerta will do? i say even 105 and daytona are a bet choice then a lot of us want to say as far as bang for the buck goes.

"when the mind closes it so so hard to open it back up." machael jackson.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

i think like the song says "money for nothing, and your chicks for free" buy good bike shorts and train more t3

another excuse to buy velonews. outstanding!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

thanks for the 411

" Kraig Willet's independent tests reported in the latest Velonews suggest a time savings of 34 seconds over 40k when average speed is 20 mph (32 kph). That's equal to 42 seconds saved per hour of racing, which is comparable to the 55 seconds saved per hour reported on the Oval Concepts website. The remaining 13 seconds you can probably chalk up to differences in what wheel was used, etc."

I will start with saying that I respect Mr. Willet's work, and don't even disagree with him. I only diagree with the fact that he only tested the fork in a piece of PVC pipe, not on a bike with a rider.

I imagine that if on a bike, this fork would end up saving a lot less time. I just don't buy it, period. I will only believe the numbers when it's on a cumulative sort of measurement, like a rider on the fastest frameset with a control fork, then with the Oval. I think real numbers could be given to us, rather than testing a fork with a spinning wheel installed in a piece of PVC pipe. I believe this method of fork testing makes for a lot of hyperbole.

I refuse to buy a fork that could be used as a boat anchor. No, I will not add that to my signature.

Bunnyman writes: I imagine that if on a bike, this fork would end up saving a lot less time.

Could you expand on this. In the article, Kraig measures the drop in axial force from the Kestrel to the aero fork as 0.11-0.17 lbs. From models such as the one at analytic cycling, its possible to calculate the time savings from such a drop in axial force. Are you saying, then, that there is some interaction between the frame-rider system and the fork which would act disproportionately on the standard vs. aero fork. In order for the true time saving of one vs. the other to be less, adding the frame-rider would either have to lower the drag more on the standard fork (than the aero) than when measured without the frame-rider or raise it more on the aero fork (than the standard). I don't see a mechanism for this. I could understand the frame rider affecting the axial force from the fork (though it's a stretch), but I don't see where the effect would depend on the detailed geometry of the fork. I'm with Kraig, adding the frame-rider would add a lot of noise but not change the conclusions.

Tony Geller

until we get the fork in a wind tunnel with a bike and rider i'm taking john's word for it. he has done nothing in the past to show he is a liar.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.