Reynolds ouzo comp

[yashcha]

Do any of you guys have experience with this fork? Would there be a big difference in performance compared to a enve 2.0? I had this lying around, but it is at least ten years old...

[thwart]

Classic carbon fork that is now 10 years old...?

Unsafe.

Send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you. :D

[Black Dog]

I have one that I have put many miles on. Great fork. It now lives on my commuter and still gets used. Aluminum crown and steerer, very solid. The reynolds forks are great.

[Mikej]

Classic carbon fork that is now 10 years old...?

Unsafe.

Send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you. :D

I ran an ouzo pro for 10 years on my lightspeed Tuscany - I'd say it's ok if you are the original owner and took care never crashed or roof racked it. Cat has an indefinite lifespan. Enve fork is several mm shorter a-c.

[soulspinner]

I have one that I have put many miles on. Great fork. It now lives on my commuter and still gets used. Aluminum crown and steerer, very solid. The reynolds forks are great.

+1 Still have a Reynolds fork on a bike and have had 3 of them in the past.

[Mike Lopez]

Do any of you guys have experience with this fork? Would there be a big difference in performance compared to a enve 2.0? I had this lying around, but it is at least ten years old...

As much as I love all my old Reynolds products there's no comparison between the Ouzo comp and the modern Enve products.

The comp series of forks were our price point products and were made in Asia using carbon legs bonded to an aluminum crown with an alloy steerer. Decent forks but not top tier.

The Enve fork is obviously all carbon and is more similar to an Ouzo Pro although their construction methods are somewhat different.

The Reynolds forks are stiffer and a bit heavier if that suits your taste....

[berserk87]

As much as I love all my old Reynolds products there's no comparison between the Ouzo comp and the modern Enve products.

The comp series of forks were our price point products and were made in Asia using carbon legs bonded to an aluminum crown with an alloy steerer. Decent forks but not top tier.

The Enve fork is obviously all carbon and is more similar to an Ouzo Pro although their construction methods are somewhat different.

The Reynolds forks are stiffer and a bit heavier if that suits your taste....

Could you please offer more insight regarding performance and/or ride quality differences?

I had a couple of Ouzo Pro forks when they first came out and I am familiar with them. I am curious about Enve 2.0 forks (but have never ridden one) - so if you are able to expand on performance for each, it would be awesome.

Thanks -

[Black Dog]

BTW, Mike is the guy who designed and built the Ouzo forks and all the Serotta carbon forks. I would take his opinion on this matter as gold.

[Ken Robb]

I had an Ouzo Pro on my Litespeed and I replaced it with an Ouzo Pro because I wanted to use more than 25mm of spacers that were the recommended maximum for the 1" carbon steerer on the Pro. While the Comp w/aluminum steerer weighed a bit more than the all-carbon Pro I couldn't tell any difference in ride between the two.

[yashcha]

Could you please offer more insight regarding performance and/or ride quality differences?

I had a couple of Ouzo Pro forks when they first came out and I am familiar with them. I am curious about Enve 2.0 forks (but have never ridden one) - so if you are able to expand on performance for each, it would be awesome.

Thanks -

This is why I love this place. Where else would you get the designer of the fork chiming in! I am surprised to learn that the reynolds ouzo comp would be stiffer than the enve.

[tigoat]

I would like to be proven wrong with some test data but I don't believe the Ouzo Pro is any stiffer than an ENVE 2.0 based on my personal experience. Perhaps the Ouzo Comp is different than Ouzo Pro? I have had several Ouzo Pro forks long ago and loved them at the time. I remember the first time I rode the ENVE 2.0, the stiffer feel of the front end was felt immediately. With that said, I didn't have a chance to compare them back to back though so I am going by memory here.

[cmbicycles]

This is why I love this place. Where else would you get the designer of the fork chiming in! I am surprised to learn that the reynolds ouzo comp would be stiffer than the enve.
I read it as Mike was saying the Ouzo Pro is stiffer than the Enve 2.0 (perhaps due in part to the extra weight) , the comp perhaps not in the same category.

I've never ridden the enve but have a Serotta F2 on my road bike, which is almost the same as the ouzo pro other than ti dropouts, it rides nicely.

[Mike Lopez]

I would like to be proven wrong with some test data but I don't believe the Ouzo Pro is any stiffer than an ENVE 2.0 based on my personal experience. Perhaps the Ouzo Comp is different than Ouzo Pro? I have had several Ouzo Pro forks long ago and loved them at the time. I remember the first time I rode the ENVE 2.0, the stiffer feel of the front end was felt immediately. With that said, I didn't have a chance to compare them back to back though so I am going by memory here.

When we founded Reynolds Composites back in '98 we began gathering data on all the composite forks (and many steel) we could get our hands on. This was compiled into a database of static stiffness in fore/aft, lateral, and torsional directions as well as fatigue, ultimate load to failure, and impact modes. We spent thousands buying forks only to destroy them within hours to learn about their properties and construction methods. If you ever run into Jim Pfeil ask him about this and he'll tell you that he wore the numbers off his credit card getting me test samples. (Later on we just traded shiny new OP's to get competitors products for comparison)

Here's data on some of the products mentioned. Units are inches and represent the deflection under a 75 pound load. The photo shows a setup where the fork is fixtured in a rigid "head tube" with a headset and preloaded as if it were installed on a bike. The machine plots load/deflection data and generates a stress/strain curve until the point of failure. By taking strain data at the 75# load point on the curve we know the static bending stiffness of the cantilevered beam. If we weren't going to load the part to failure we just hung 75# of weight off the axle and measured the deflection with a dial indicator. This way we could still ride the fork or perform other tests...

Fore/Aft / Lateral

Ouzo Comp 0.102" 0.24"
Ouzo Pro 0.118" 0.28"

F3 6.5 0.13" 0.34"
F3 8.5 0.116" 0.28"
F3 10.5 0.095" 0.23"

Enve 1.0 0.185" 0.302"
Enve 2.0 0.158" 0.29"

As you can see the Comp fork is really stiff even with the same leg layup as the Pro. This is because of the solid aluminum crown and beefy metal steerer tube.

Trying to correlate this data to define performance or feel can be tricky cause we're taking data from a discrete component which forms part of a more complex assembly. Then try to factor in rider weight/style along with wheels, tires, pressure, frame stiffness, etc and we go from objective data to subjective opinion very quickly.

Using the hard data from the mechanical tests along with feedback from a wide variety of test riders we developed our "sweet spot" and then expanded it into a wider range to allow the fitters to select a fork that they felt would best suit their customers.

Clearly the Enve forks fall into a much "softer" range than the Reynolds/Serotta forks did. I'm not sure if this was planned or the result of the "weight wars". In spite of whatever fancy fibers and lay-ups used it was our experience that really light forks were more flexible than we liked and much more importantly the durability goes way down. We chose the path of safety and performance over trying to participate in the weight wars. I'm not saying that the other products are unsafe but we all make our choices eh? For the sake of an ounce or two I'll chose bulletproof every time.

YMMV but that's the data....

[bigbill]

My BLE has an Ouzo Pro and my Argonaut has an ENVE 2.0. The bikes are similar in ride quality. When I got the BLE painted last year I got the previously unpainted stock Ouzo Pro painted to match. I thought about a newer fork but the Reynolds works just fine. I've never felt like a fork held me back.

[tigoat]

Thanks Mike for digging some old test data to post here. Test data are not always mean good data but still are a good point of reference. A static load test is obviously a good simple test but it may not represent the dynamic response of a real world condition. Perhaps a random vibe measurement would be more appropriate for such device? Nonetheless, it is obvious to see the ENVE 2.0 to deflect more than the Ouzo Pro from your load test, the two forks I rode before a few years apart. If they weigh similarly then I am sure the outcome would be different, but that is not the intent of my post. Good insight!

[yashcha]

Thank you Mike for taking the time to looks for this data. I was thinking about getting an ENVE 2.0 because I incorrectly assumed that the Ouzo comp would be a noodle. Now I will ride this fork for next season and hopefully many more to come.


When we founded Reynolds Composites back in '98 we began gathering data on all the composite forks (and many steel) we could get our hands on. This was compiled into a database of static stiffness in fore/aft, lateral, and torsional directions as well as fatigue, ultimate load to failure, and impact modes. We spent thousands buying forks only to destroy them within hours to learn about their properties and construction methods. If you ever run into Jim Pfeil ask him about this and he'll tell you that he wore the numbers off his credit card getting me test samples. (Later on we just traded shiny new OP's to get competitors products for comparison)

Here's data on some of the products mentioned. Units are inches and represent the deflection under a 75 pound load. The photo shows a setup where the fork is fixtured in a rigid "head tube" with a headset and preloaded as if it were installed on a bike. The machine plots load/deflection data and generates a stress/strain curve until the point of failure. By taking strain data at the 75# load point on the curve we know the static bending stiffness of the cantilevered beam. If we weren't going to load the part to failure we just hung 75# of weight off the axle and measured the deflection with a dial indicator. This way we could still ride the fork or perform other tests...

Fore/Aft / Lateral

Ouzo Comp 0.102" 0.24"
Ouzo Pro 0.118" 0.28"

F3 6.5 0.13" 0.34"
F3 8.5 0.116" 0.28"
F3 10.5 0.095" 0.23"

Enve 1.0 0.185" 0.302"
Enve 2.0 0.158" 0.29"

As you can see the Comp fork is really stiff even with the same leg layup as the Pro. This is because of the solid aluminum crown and beefy metal steerer tube.

Trying to correlate this data to define performance or feel can be tricky cause we're taking data from a discrete component which forms part of a more complex assembly. Then try to factor in rider weight/style along with wheels, tires, pressure, frame stiffness, etc and we go from objective data to subjective opinion very quickly.

Using the hard data from the mechanical tests along with feedback from a wide variety of test riders we developed our "sweet spot" and then expanded it into a wider range to allow the fitters to select a fork that they felt would best suit their customers.

Clearly the Enve forks fall into a much "softer" range than the Reynolds/Serotta forks did. I'm not sure if this was planned or the result of the "weight wars". In spite of whatever fancy fibers and lay-ups used it was our experience that really light forks were more flexible than we liked and much more importantly the durability goes way down. We chose the path of safety and performance over trying to participate in the weight wars. I'm not saying that the other products are unsafe but we all make our choices eh? For the sake of an ounce or two I'll chose bulletproof every time.

YMMV but that's the data....

[93legendti]

When we founded Reynolds Composites back in '98 we began gathering data on all the composite forks (and many steel) we could get our hands on. This was compiled into a database of static stiffness in fore/aft, lateral, and torsional directions as well as fatigue, ultimate load to failure, and impact modes. We spent thousands buying forks only to destroy them within hours to learn about their properties and construction methods. If you ever run into Jim Pfeil ask him about this and he'll tell you that he wore the numbers off his credit card getting me test samples. (Later on we just traded shiny new OP's to get competitors products for comparison)

Here's data on some of the products mentioned. Units are inches and represent the deflection under a 75 pound load. The photo shows a setup where the fork is fixtured in a rigid "head tube" with a headset and preloaded as if it were installed on a bike. The machine plots load/deflection data and generates a stress/strain curve until the point of failure. By taking strain data at the 75# load point on the curve we know the static bending stiffness of the cantilevered beam. If we weren't going to load the part to failure we just hung 75# of weight off the axle and measured the deflection with a dial indicator. This way we could still ride the fork or perform other tests...

Fore/Aft / Lateral

Ouzo Comp 0.102" 0.24"
Ouzo Pro 0.118" 0.28"

F3 6.5 0.13" 0.34"
F3 8.5 0.116" 0.28"
F3 10.5 0.095" 0.23"

Enve 1.0 0.185" 0.302"
Enve 2.0 0.158" 0.29"

As you can see the Comp fork is really stiff even with the same leg layup as the Pro. This is because of the solid aluminum crown and beefy metal steerer tube.

Trying to correlate this data to define performance or feel can be tricky cause we're taking data from a discrete component which forms part of a more complex assembly. Then try to factor in rider weight/style along with wheels, tires, pressure, frame stiffness, etc and we go from objective data to subjective opinion very quickly.

Using the hard data from the mechanical tests along with feedback from a wide variety of test riders we developed our "sweet spot" and then expanded it into a wider range to allow the fitters to select a fork that they felt would best suit their customers.

Clearly the Enve forks fall into a much "softer" range than the Reynolds/Serotta forks did. I'm not sure if this was planned or the result of the "weight wars". In spite of whatever fancy fibers and lay-ups used it was our experience that really light forks were more flexible than we liked and much more importantly the durability goes way down. We chose the path of safety and performance over trying to participate in the weight wars. I'm not saying that the other products are unsafe but we all make our choices eh? For the sake of an ouncee or two I'll chose bulletproof every time.

YMMV but that's the data....
Thanks so much for posting, interesting that an Ouzo Pro and a Serotta F3 8.5 are very close. I have a Serotta F3 6.5 on my Ottrott ST, which I love, but I've also always loved the Ouzo Pro, which I have on my Concours.

[thwart]

...I've also always loved the Ouzo Pro, which I have on my Concours.
I've always been impressed in my experience with Ouzo Pro forks as well.

Must be gratifying to have developed one of the undeniable classics among cycling components.

[soulspinner]

I've always been impressed in my experience with Ouzo Pro forks as well.

Must be gratifying to have developed one of the undeniable classics among cycling components.

Thanks Mike. The mags I read say you still make forks and Bill Holland uses them. Can I ask generally how they compare to the forks listed above?

[93legendti]

I've always been impressed in my experience with Ouzo Pro forks as well.

Must be gratifying to have developed one of the undeniable classics among cycling components.

+1.

I've never heard a bad word about an Ouzo Pro.

[tv_vt]

This is just one personal data point, but I thought the Ouzo Pro Comp (300mm steerer tube length) was not too stiff when it was installed on my Fierte IT. Have since replaced it with various other forks. Enve 2.0 is on there now. If I could've found an F3 at the time, I would've gone with that, but Enve is totally fine. Do prefer the ti dropouts on the F3, though.

Here's a question for all: the axle to crown distance varies on these forks. The Serotta and Ouzo forks are around 372mm; the Enve 2.0 is 367mm. Let's say I decide to switch from an Ouzo to Enve fork (on frame built for Ouzo/Serotta fork) - how much will the trail change with the very slight change in front end geometry (frame drops 5mm on front end, steepening HA by a hair)? And vice versa, switching from Enve to Ouzo/Serotta/Holland?

Thanks!

[Keith A]

...

Here's a question for all: the axle to crown distance varies on these forks. The Serotta and Ouzo forks are around 372mm; the Enve 2.0 is 367mm. Let's say I decide to switch from an Ouzo to Enve fork (on frame built for Ouzo/Serotta fork) - how much will the trail change with the very slight change in front end geometry (frame drops 5mm on front end, steepening HA by a hair)? And vice versa, switching from Enve to Ouzo/Serotta/Holland?

Thanks!There are several trail calculators out there, but I couldn't find one that would allow you to input the fork length as one of the variables. BikeCAD might do this, but the latest Java doesn't play nicely with their application and I couldn't get this to run after fiddling with this for a little while.

[Keith A]

I read it as Mike was saying the Ouzo Pro is stiffer than the Enve 2.0 (perhaps due in part to the extra weight) , the comp perhaps not in the same category.

I've never ridden the enve but have a Serotta F2 on my road bike, which is almost the same as the ouzo pro other than ti dropouts, it rides nicely.Maybe Mike could chime in on this one, but I'm pretty sure that the F2 had a different carbon layup compared to the Ouzo Pro. There was also the Serotta O2, but I think this was one was just a rebranded Ouzo Pro.

[tigoat]

If you could hold the head tube angle and fork offset constant somehow then changing the axle to crown (ATC) would have no effect on trail.

If the bike is already built let's say with a 73 degree HTA and offset is the same for both forks, then changing the ATC from 367mm to 372mm will change the trail by about 2mm from 58.3mm to 60.3mm. This ATC change will also slack the HTA to 72.7 degree. In another word, this change shouldn't affect your original intended design too much. This is just my rough estimation, free feel to prove me wrong.

This is just one personal data point, but I thought the Ouzo Pro Comp (300mm steerer tube length) was not too stiff when it was installed on my Fierte IT. Have since replaced it with various other forks. Enve 2.0 is on there now. If I could've found an F3 at the time, I would've gone with that, but Enve is totally fine. Do prefer the ti dropouts on the F3, though.

Here's a question for all: the axle to crown distance varies on these forks. The Serotta and Ouzo forks are around 372mm; the Enve 2.0 is 367mm. Let's say I decide to switch from an Ouzo to Enve fork (on frame built for Ouzo/Serotta fork) - how much will the trail change with the very slight change in front end geometry (frame drops 5mm on front end, steepening HA by a hair)? And vice versa, switching from Enve to Ouzo/Serotta/Holland?

Thanks!

[fa63]

Do any of you guys have experience with this fork? Would there be a big difference in performance compared to a enve 2.0? I had this lying around, but it is at least ten years old...

Unrelated question; which seatpost is that in your original post?

[mistermo]

I have two Reynolds forks. One is the traditional Ouzo Pro, the other is an "Integrated" Ouzo Pro. It looks a little more aero, but apart from aesthetics is there any difference? TIA!

[93legendti]

Maybe Mike could chime in on this one, but I'm pretty sure that the F2 had a different carbon layup compared to the Ouzo Pro. There was also the Serotta O2, but I think this was one was just a rebranded Ouzo Pro.

Not a very detailed response, but I found this:

The F1 was made by General Composites in NY and used a completely different process than the Ouzo series of forks or any of the other F series forks that came after. This fork was a done deal prior to Ben visiting my facility in Poway to discuss future projects.

The quick/dirty approach to an "OE" Serotta fork was to put some different metal bits in an Ouzo Pro, change the lay-up a bit, and call it a Serotta. This covers the O2 & F2.

The next original composite fork shape to be sold by Serotta was the F series of forks. Jay Clark did the industrial design work on the shape and my staff and I at Reynolds cut the tools and made the forks.

Later on the relationship between Reynolds & Serotta became strained for various reasons and they chose to quit doing business with one another. This is right about the time I was ready to leave Reynolds anyway so I joined forces with Serotta.

At this time Ben did in fact buy some used tooling from Reynolds, leased a building that I put my equipment in, hired my staff and I, and we continued to build forks, tubes, and stays for Serotta until the $hit hit the fan. And long after in fact! But they never really bought anything other than some old molds & fixtures.

Funny how stories evolve!

[93legendti]

Found this:


Thanks for all interest!

I'll try to address the questions in order..sort of...

Geoff - The original Ouzo Pro was modeled at 370mm but several years later there was a clearance problem with a particular/popular hub which required a new dropout that also resulted in a longer span of 372mm.

Jeff N - We do fabricate the AE frames in Poway but ship them to NY for finishing.

Happy Camper - The F2 was a special version of the Ouzo Pro with a lay-up tweaked to Ben's liking, 15% stiffer laterally, and titanium hardware. The F3 was a next generation all together in it's shape, lay-up, construction method etc. It's also offered in multiple stiffness/performance levels.

Regarding the "others" that we supply to I'm simply refering to a number of other builders that buy parts from us. We've been offering forks for a couple of years now and have been doing some stays & tubes as well. We don't sell lugs or "frame kits" per se but we do have the capacity to supply some parts.

Regarding the project bike's I've done with Bruce. I met him several years ago when I called him out of the blue and told him how I was going to modify my fork to work with his racks. I hadn't introduced myself and he had no idea who I was and proceeded to to say "Your gonna do WHAT?!!" He was polite but told me I could be entering dangerous ground making modifications to someone else's product. I then realized I should tell him it was my product and we know what we're doing. He was quite relieved, helped me out like I was an old friend, and in fact became a good friend over the following years. We share a number of interests outside of cycling but have had a common interest in styling classic looking bikes and parts using different materials and techniques. For me it's a diversion. When I first began building composite forks the whole point was to make them look different so everyone knew they were zoomy. Now I'm experimenting with classic/retro styling that still results in a zoomy fork but catches the eye for a different reason. It opens up a lot of possibilities but mostly it's fun!

Back to my chores...

[Keith A]

Adam -- Thanks for digging that up. That's about all I ever remember reading regarding the Reynolds/Serotta forks.

[djg21]

After my Litespeed Vortex (with an integrated HS and Ouzo Pro) was destroyed, I had a custom Lynskey built and spec'd it with a Reynolds UL fork. Where did that fit in to the Reynolds line, and how does it compare to the Ouzo? It feels good to me!

The only fork I've ever found problematic was an old Sakae Prism that was OEM on a Merlin frame I owned in the early 90s. It shimmied and was far less than confidence inspiring in corners. I promptly swapped it out for Time fork, which completely changed the bikes handling for the better.

[yashcha]

Unrelated question; which seatpost is that in your original post?

Hello, that is a Bontrager XXX that I stripped down to a matte finish. They are really light, 146 grams, and the seatpost clamping mechanism is really easy to use and solid. Unfortunately there are a ton of fake Bontrager XXX seatposts out there so beware.

[93legendti]

Adam -- Thanks for digging that up. That's about all I ever remember reading regarding the Reynolds/Serotta forks.
You're welcome, Keith.

I could have sworn someone posted more detail, maybe even Dave Kirk, but I couldn't find it.

[fa63]

Hello, that is a Bontrager XXX that I stripped down to a matte finish. They are really light, 146 grams, and the seatpost clamping mechanism is really easy to use and solid. Unfortunately there are a ton of fake Bontrager XXX seatposts out there so beware.
Great, thanks. I might have to hunt one down for myself.