Yeah, it has distinction in that it distinctly looks like crap. I don't think someone at Scott was thinking when they spec'd the dimensions of the crown. I think the HSC5 would have looked better, but it's not my bike.
Yup. That looks absolutely terrible. And people on the WW board we complaining about the headtube-crown junction on the CR1 with a Ritchey WCS fork! For what it's worth, the WCS fork takes no legwork to get, looks great, and actually looks like it was designed for something other than a 1" threaded headset on a steel bike. And to boot, the WCS fork was 312 g uncut with the extra-long brakebolt in place. Even cut to 10.5", it's maybe 8g shy of that albatross.alienator said:Yeah, it has distinction in that it distinctly looks like crap.
What's special about the geometry of this fork? It looks to be about the same length as other standard road forks, and the rake doesn't look unusual either.IUbike said:Just an illusion, this is the only fork designed with the correct geometry for the Scott, I also rather like the stock handeling so no WCS.
Love the bike, wouldn't mind getting one myself. I'd have to see better shots of that fork to decide if it truly is butt-ugly, but so far things aren't looking good.IUbike said:the stock fork got very boring after a while.
Your bet would prolly be wrong. Take a stroll over to Weight Weenies, and you'll find that not only are people nickle and diming the grams, the're also pretty aware of asthetics, too.Insight Driver said:It is very interesting that rather than talking of the merits of the lightness of the fork (oh my God, isn't this the weight weenies thread after all?) the majority of posts are comments on asthetics, like that has anything to do with shaving grams, which is what lightness is all about. I'll bet the people posting how ugly for fork is are foxes that couldn't touch the grapes.:mad2: