Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, I'm looking to swap out my current fork which is like 1/2 Carbon half Aluminum for a full Carbon fork. So looking at the options and encountered a few things I am not all that familiar with:

1st} How is different rake going to affect the handling of my bike?

2nd} Would an Aero fork on a bike I use for Club rides, road races and Crits, be not recommended?

Any help would be much appreciated!
 

·
Carbon Fiber = Explode!
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
1) Rake is overrated much like crankarm length.

2) Aero works for crits and such. It's just a different shape of the same material. It's not going to explode... okay maybe it will it's carbon!
 

·
'brifter' is f'ing stupid
Joined
·
15,582 Posts
CleavesF said:
1) Rake is overrated much like crankarm length.

2) Aero works for crits and such. It's just a different shape of the same material. It's not going to explode... okay maybe it will it's carbon!
wow...that sounds like excellent advice. i'm sure that fork manufacturers just offer rake options because they have nothing better to do w/ their time. same with crank arm length, i'm pretty sure everyone from a 5'0" tall woman to a 6'6" guy should all use 175's...or was it 165's? oh well, i'm sure it doesn't matter.
i'm also pretty sure that aero forks are meant for time trials. as long as the fork you're looking at is pretty much the same height from the crown to the axle, and the rake is within a mm or 2 you should be just fine. any more than that and you may notice a slight difference in how the bike handles, but that's usually not a big deal. if you search for 'rake/trail' you should find a good explanation for how it works. generally, steeper head tube angles use less rake or offset, and slacker head tube angles use more rake to acheive the same trail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
I just upgraded

Hi,
I just upgraded my carbon w/ alum. steerer fork to an all carbon fork. It's a Hasa from ebay. $99 bucks incl shipping. Couldn't be happier. The weight difference was 585 vs. 360g (both w/ 200mm steerers). pretty significant.

both forks had the same rake (45mm) and same arm length as far as I could tell so I didn't notice any handling differences. remember more rake means less trail --> more quicker/less stable.

Can't really comment on the aero differences. The new one is a little more "aero" but I can't tell any differences on the road.

Here's a pic of it.
 

·
TheHeadlessThompsonGunner
Joined
·
523 Posts
CleavesF said:
1) Rake is overrated much like crankarm length.
I don't know which part of that pseudophor is the least apt. But if you had ever a) designed a frame or b) fit a bike, you'd know that neither was even remotely true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
I don't know which part of that pseudophor is the least apt. But if you had ever a) designed a frame or b) fit a bike, you'd know that neither was even remotely true.
Crank arm length is kind of overrated. I am 6'4" and switched from 175s to 177.5s and honestly I cannot tell the difference. The guy who fitted me told me I wouldn't be able to tell, but it was probably a good idea just because I'm so big.
 

·
Carbon Fiber = Explode!
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
Applesauce said:
I don't know which part of that pseudophor is the least apt. But if you had ever a) designed a frame or b) fit a bike, you'd know that neither was even remotely true.
Dude, if your bike shop is fitting you by fork rake... there's something wrong...

Honestly, I can't tell the difference between 43 and 45 rake, which I have both. I can tell the difference between 43 and 47, but that's a pretty significant jump analogous to say 165mm to 172.5mm

I would love to hear about rake theories right about now...
 

·
TheHeadlessThompsonGunner
Joined
·
523 Posts
CleavesF said:
Dude, if your bike shop is fitting you by fork rake... there's something wrong...
When you learned to read, dude, did anyone teach you about parallelism? Thus, rake (your post) : frame design (my post) : : crankarm length (your post) : fit (my post).

CleavesF said:
Honestly, I can't tell the difference between 43 and 45 rake, which I have both. I can tell the difference between 43 and 47, but that's a pretty significant jump analogous to say 165mm to 172.5mm

I would love to hear about rake theories right about now...
I don't understand how you're even forming what you're calling analogies regarding crankarm length and trail. Trail is a product of frame design; rake is a component of this, as is head angle, which is, or can and generally should be, a product of fit. The crank arm length a given rider requires or prefers is a product of a number of factors. I don't know how I could draw an analogy between preferring a given crank arm length* and preferring the fork that was or was not envisioned in the design of my frame.

Not really understanding your point, I don't know what to tell you. (Good for you that you can't tell the difference, maybe?) I certainly can't ply you with "rake theories"; build a few framesets, learn what works and what doesn't, and you'll maybe have a better idea of how the parts add up to a whole. My bicycle handles well because the fork and frame were designed to work together; my knees don't hurt (see below) because I use the proper crankarm length for my height and inseam, typical preferred cadence, particularities in my pedal stroke, cleat position, etc. I didn't really want to conflate front-end parameters and crankarm length under the aegis just of fit issues; I just wanted to suggest that it's a little misleading to say, without qualification, that crankarm length and front-end design are "overrated." I don't think anything that contributes to handling or fit could possibly be "overrated," except maybe in the sense that, like weight, again without qualification, it might make you faster or something...

*flyboy50: I agree, crank arm length can be overrated, especially in the sense that it's treated much too formulaically. I'm your height, and the only way I know what crank arm length I prefer is, having (basically) tried them all (170-180), I ended up using the one that doesn't hurt my knees (175, for whatever reason).
 

·
'brifter' is f'ing stupid
Joined
·
15,582 Posts
i completely agree w/ applesauce...whether anyone cares or not can probably be related to a specific fork rake or the fact that i ride 170mm crank arms on the road, but 167.5 on the track.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top