I just got a new P3, but one detail really jumps out at me.
Why do they use that heavy fork with the alloy steerer? The bloody thing weighs nearly 600g! To me, it just screams for replacement by a much lighter all-carbon post like the Ouzo Pro Aero.
Any ideas on why Cervelo went with the alloy post, and any reason why I shouldn’t save nearly 200g by switching?
Switch away. I did after a few years. Best upgrade I ever made to the bike. I did not start with the same fork though, so your situation may be different.
nt
.
I guess I am really wondering why Cervelo went with an alloy tube fork.
I figure that I have laid out $2000+ for a top end frame, and it has this big, heavy fork on it. Somehow it just seems cheesy. I hear great things on the EC90 aero and the Ouzo aero - why couldn’t they have used something comparable?
It’s a big disappointment to lay out all the money just to immediately look about doing an upgrade. I’d rather have gotten the lighter fork at the outset.
I imagine you could have speced it out that way at the bike shop. They will usually substitute components.
From what I heard the Chord fork is not so bad. I haven’t used it, so I don’t know.
That Kinesis fork that they use is STILL one of the fastest forks in the wind tunnel. Why do you think Lance used that boat anchor?
That being said, I understand FULLY how you would want to switch out that fork. Just make sure that all of the specs match up, and you will be fine.
Just think, however: at least it ins’t the steel steerer fork that weighed a LOT more. Even worse: it ain’t the aluminium bladed and crowned, steel steer tube fork of years past. It was a fast fork, however.
It doesn’t say Kinesis any where - it says “Advanced Composites”. Are you sure we have the same fork?
So you’re saying that this is more aero than say an Easton EC90 Aero?
Perhaps they use it because the weight doesn’t make much of a difference, unless you’re climbing the Alps. In a pro race.
Okay- if it ain’t the Kinesis Airfoil fork, it is a near-spitting image. What you have to remember is that more than likely, these forks are manufactured, labeled, relabeled, and probably come from only a handfull of companies based in the Orient, with the exception of a very, very few (like Wound Up, Easton or Reynolds). Some people pay up to 30% or more mark-up on a “name” brand for what is essentially the same Profile or unnamed fork that cost considerably less.
I don’t know if any testing of the Easton EC90 Aero fork is available. It is a pretty new fork.
I know that a Reynolds Ouzo Aero fork is pretty darned slippery. It even was published in Velo News, and tested by our very own Kraig Willet.
If weight doesn’t matter, why do they spend so much money developing lighter components? Is it all consumer driven? (Though the pros seem to demand the lightest products out there for some reason.)
I then have two questions -
If the Ouzo is so aero, why not save the weight and use it?
If a lighter fork is equally aero, why wouldn’t Cervelo use it on their flagship tri frame? Maybe I’m too biased by media hype, but an alloy steerer does seem cheesy on a $2000+ frame. I would expect an all carbon fork to be standard on pritnear any frameset over $1000.
“If weight doesn’t matter, why do they spend so much money developing lighter components?”
That is the $64,000 question. But will answer it after the next one: “Is it all consumer driven? (Though the pros seem to demand the lightest products out there for some reason.)”
It is consumer driven, but it is not necessarily true that the pros demand lighter. Top pros may demand it as they CAN, but the rest are pretty much schmucks like you and I who happen to get paid to ride bicycles. We do our work and go home, ask no questions, and hope our performances are good enough to keep our jobs or get better ones.
Did you know that some pro cyclists in the peloton have bikes that weigh 22lbs?
Many pros, through their wisdom, figured out that lighter is not necessarily better. Lighter parts generally have a potential for higher failure rate (some lighter parts are stronger, however).
Other questions:
Because of one or two things: a) the product manager thought the fork (Reynolds) was priced too high (or couldn’t negotiate a good price) or b) the product manager had followed what the original designers wished for and used that alloy tube fork. If you look on the Cervelo site, they don’t set out for the lightest bikes.
On $2,000 frames a few years back, they used a steel steer tubed fork (whehter it be a Look, Time, Kestrel, or even a Profile). Again, it is probably what the original designers had intended. Remember that some frame builders think that a 1" steer tube needs to be made of steel, not carbon. I would ask the Cervelo tech guy on the website this question.
I’ve got the EC90 fork and it is great in a head wind… However, crosswinds pull me much more now. I didn’t have the same experience with my stock QR carbonaero (which is also made by Kinesis, I believe).
----->Trent
Yes, where is Gerard when we need him? 
First of all, a carbon steerer is a fairly dumb idea. Yes, it’s what everybody wants, but it’s not really the right material to use in most cases for a fork steerer. The weight difference is small (so you save some weight with a lighter steerer, you lose half of it again because of the bigger expander you need). This is especially the case with a 1" steerer. Secondly, aerodynamically these other forks simply cannot touch the Chord. VN’s tests, while not necessarily wrong, tests a bunch of forks that in the eyes of the experts do not represent the best forks out there. I think the Ouzo Pro is a very nicely made fork, one of the nicest, but in our tests it is not as good as the Chord fork. As a benchmark for the fork aerodynamics we use illegal forks like the Hotta or the Lotus, that is what a fork maker should aspire to achieve in aerodynamics. And none of the forks in the VN test reach that.
Gerard.
Gerard, you da man. While I would expect you to defend your company, I also would expect you to know what the hell you’re talking about to. You always seem to be very knowledgeable, and I bought the frameset because your company seems to be the leader in design, aerodynamics, etc.
I was simply surprised to see a alloy tube. Nothing on the site prepared me for that, and yes, my consumer bias says carbon tube = good, alloy tube = cheap. (Or, make that carbon ANYTHING = good!)
Thanks for the explanation. I’d suggest putting it on the site - something like “why do we make the Chord the way we do” or the like. Also, put it in the docs. No, make that SEND SOME DOCS! I got docs for the headset, but for the frameset itself, nada!
So, I will trust you to not lead me wrong here. If I put forth some smokin times this year, you’ll be my hero.
I’ll put it on my list to add the “why the Chord is the Chord” bit to the site. But first I will finally make the “how to get a wheel in and out of a P3 without any grease on your hands” video.
BTW, funny you say “anything carbon = good”, especially in the past 12 months, testing many many carbon frames and parts and seeing what companies are pushing out the door in carbon just because it is hot, I have slowly taken the “almost anything in carbon = bad” approach. The amount of junk is simply unbelievable, we just had a frame from a very well known carbon factory (which makes frames for a dozen high-end companies) that broke after just 5,000 cycles in fatigue. And this is no exception. So here we have a frame from a competitor that retails for $4000 and it breaks at 5,000 cycles, whereas I will bet the farm that any of their steel or Alu frames will last much, much longer. We see test results for competitors’ Alu frames that only last 25,000 to 50,000 cycles, but rarely 5,000. There are bad Alu frames as well, but on average they are much better and there is a much more friendly failure mode than with carbon. TOUR Radmagazin noticed the same thing, they tested a boatload of carbon frames and said that that group of frames represented both the most expensive and some of the worst test groups they have ever had, they were much more impressed with the group of budget frames they tested in the next issue.
Same with forks, we have tested some forks where the stiffness from one for to the next (same model) differs 50%. This means the manufacturer has no control over ply displacement, lay-up or anything. You don’t have issues with that with an Alu fork. Of course this is mostly a concern in the legs, crown and transition to the steerer, not in the steerer itself. For the steerer itself there are other issues, such as crush strength (or unfortunately as in Bjorn’s case, bike mechanic stupidity).
“I’ll put it on my list to add the “why the Chord is the Chord” bit to the site. But first I will finally make the “how to get a wheel in and out of a P3 without any grease on your hands” video.”
I’d really appreciate that video.
its actually really easy, once you learn the trick. (i don’t have a p3, but i had a p2 and now ride a klein with rear facing dropouts)
the easiest way I have found is to shift to your small cog in back, and that makes the world of difference. All you do is pull the wheel back, out of the drops, grab your lower derailler pulley on the outside, so you dont get your hands greasy, and slide the wheel and skewer down and out of the chain…just put it in the small cog, it helps tremendously.
Sounds easy enough. I’ll have to practice more.