Vintage carbon fork upgarde, yea or nay?

[bobswire]

I have a 1998 Merlin EL that came with a 1" Time Equip threaded carbon fork,has the technology of carbon forks improved enough to make it worthwhile to buy a new one?
Difficult to find 1" fork nowadays and I won't buy one that is worth more than the bike itself so I was thinking the Ritchey Comp 1" threadless. Thoughts?

[Kontact]

I have the same bike, and bought a fairly inexpensive threadless replacement that made getting rid of the EMS worthwhile.

Time made one of the nicest and lightest threaded carbon forks, so while they have improved, you have a good bit of the older tech.

I think the EL is about as good a Ti bike as anything made today, so the question of frame "value" is a tough one. I don't think anything very interesting happened in titanium frame tech since Vandemark designed it, so it may be worth a pricey Serotta 1" fork.

A good balance might be a Wound Up. The carbon steerer 1" is $389:

http://www.aspirevelotech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=AVT&Category_Code=WOUNDUP

[bicycletricycle]

i have had a few of the older times forks.

they work great, unless you feel wobbly on descents or during sprints i would just leave it, i think they look nice on older frames.

[Louis]

I'd change it only if you wanted to save weight.

(Assuming all-CF 1" forks of the correct dimensions are available)

[chismog]

afaik, the big improvements in carbon forks have come with design changes like oversize tapered steerers, that won't work on your frame. I doubt there's any significant improvement in carbon technology that would make a new 1 inch fork different than something like your Time. Your Time has a steel steerer, right? If it's not currently threadless, that is a possible spot to drop some weight with a newer fork. You could also get a fork with a carbon steerer. That said, and just my opinion, but probably best to stick with non-carbon 1 inch steerer (especially on a bigger bike). They simply feel more solid.

As above poster said, the Time was/is a nice fork to begin with, the Equipe was the top model AFAIK, and it matches the vintage of the frame. No need to upgrade if it's still functioning well.

[bobswire]

Appreciate the replies, they pretty much support what I had hoped. Time is a fine fork for my frame and unless there is a structural reason leave well enough alone.
Thanks,
Bob

http://i56.tinypic.com/33waxqx.jpg

[WickedWheels]

I also own the same bike (not my first) and would disagree with everyone above.

1. Safety - carbon anything of that vintage is suspect. In theory, carbon will last indefinitely assuming that it's not stressed passed its yield point (engineers, feel free to correct me on this one), but in practice the bonds between the carbon fork blades and the aluminum dropouts and the steel steerer will give at some point due to oxidation and corrosion. This is one of the reasons the Serotta forks have titanium drop-outs. In my opinion, high-end carbon forks of that vintage should be treated as cheap newer carbon forks and not be ridden for more than a few years.

2. Ride Quality - carbon technology is now 13 years newer and there is technology that will allow a fork to be just as comfortable as your Time, but have better lateral stiffness and improved handling. My bike has an Easton fork on it and it handles great. Time forks in general were not considered the best handling forks and an older Kestrel EMS or a Reynolds Ouzo Pro would be an improved in handling, in my opinion.

3. Looks - that fork looks relatively wimpy... kind of like a fat tubed aluminum bike would look with a steel fork. Again, in my opinion.

4. Weight - A fork like my Easton with a proper threadless stem would drop close to a pound off your bike, without costing you an arm and a leg. Just make sure it's installed properly because care needs to be taken with 1" carbon steerers (in terms of number of spacers and torque on the pinch bolts of the stem).

The bike is somewhat dated compared to what's available today... it does not have a 1 1/8" head tube (or a tapered one) or a PFBB30 bottom bracket shell. However, I think it rides better than most of the bikes on the market today and can be built to be almost as light (within a pound and a half of most newer bikes). I prefer this bike to the 2010 Orbea Orca I was riding previously. I have the opportunity to spend the season on any brand new Orbea/Cannondale/Trek/Felt at no cost and I am still on this Merlin. Love your bike and don't be afraid to put some money into it. Here's mine:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=89494

[happycampyer]

Isn't Serotta now making 1" forks? That would be my first choice as a replacement.

[Kontact]

I also own the same bike (not my first) and would disagree with everyone above.

1. Safety - carbon anything of that vintage is suspect. In theory, carbon will last indefinitely assuming that it's not stressed passed its yield point (engineers, feel free to correct me on this one), but in practice the bonds between the carbon fork blades and the aluminum dropouts and the steel steerer will give at some point due to oxidation and corrosion. This is one of the reasons the Serotta forks have titanium drop-outs. In my opinion, high-end carbon forks of that vintage should be treated as cheap newer carbon forks and not be ridden for more than a few years.


I think modern carbon items are too frequently underbuilt, choosing oversized, thin walled construction over thick, durable walls with impact resistant kevlar layers favored 15 years ago.

Also, bonded steel and aluminum do not corrode. If they are properly shielded from galvanic reaction (usually with fiberglass), the bond won't change. The only danger is getting rust that starts outside the bond creeping, which isn't very likely around the greasy base of a steel steerer.

I see what you're saying, but I think you give the modern stuff too much credit. Aluminum to steel and aluminum to carbon bonded bicycle frames date back the early '80s, and those bikes are still rideable.

[Germany_chris]

I also own the same bike (not my first) and would disagree with everyone above.

1. Safety - carbon anything of that vintage is suspect. In theory, carbon will last indefinitely assuming that it's not stressed passed its yield point (engineers, feel free to correct me on this one), but in practice the bonds between the carbon fork blades and the aluminum dropouts and the steel steerer will give at some point due to oxidation and corrosion. This is one of the reasons the Serotta forks have titanium drop-outs. In my opinion, high-end carbon forks of that vintage should be treated as cheap newer carbon forks and not be ridden for more than a few years.

2. Ride Quality - carbon technology is now 13 years newer and there is technology that will allow a fork to be just as comfortable as your Time, but have better lateral stiffness and improved handling. My bike has an Easton fork on it and it handles great. Time forks in general were not considered the best handling forks and an older Kestrel EMS or a Reynolds Ouzo Pro would be an improved in handling, in my opinion.

3. Looks - that fork looks relatively wimpy... kind of like a fat tubed aluminum bike would look with a steel fork. Again, in my opinion.

4. Weight - A fork like my Easton with a proper threadless stem would drop close to a pound off your bike, without costing you an arm and a leg. Just make sure it's installed properly because care needs to be taken with 1" carbon steerers (in terms of number of spacers and torque on the pinch bolts of the stem).

The bike is somewhat dated compared to what's available today... it does not have a 1 1/8" head tube (or a tapered one) or a PFBB30 bottom bracket shell. However, I think it rides better than most of the bikes on the market today and can be built to be almost as light (within a pound and a half of most newer bikes). I prefer this bike to the 2010 Orbea Orca I was riding previously. I have the opportunity to spend the season on any brand new Orbea/Cannondale/Trek/Felt at no cost and I am still on this Merlin. Love your bike and don't be afraid to put some money into it. Here's mine:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=89494

I'm with him!!

[TimmyB]

What WickedWheels said!

Also, I'd look into getting a wound up fork.

Then again it IS easy to tell other people to spend money. I doubt your fork's going catastrophically fail anytime soon (please don't sue me if it does), but for performance and aesthetics reasons getting a modern 1" threadless could be beneficial.

Goodluck and happy riding :beer:

[firerescuefin]

I also own the same bike (not my first) and would disagree with everyone above.

1. Safety - carbon anything of that vintage is suspect. In theory, carbon will last indefinitely assuming that it's not stressed passed its yield point (engineers, feel free to correct me on this one), but in practice the bonds between the carbon fork blades and the aluminum dropouts and the steel steerer will give at some point due to oxidation and corrosion. This is one of the reasons the Serotta forks have titanium drop-outs. In my opinion, high-end carbon forks of that vintage should be treated as cheap newer carbon forks and not be ridden for more than a few years.

2. Ride Quality - carbon technology is now 13 years newer and there is technology that will allow a fork to be just as comfortable as your Time, but have better lateral stiffness and improved handling. My bike has an Easton fork on it and it handles great. Time forks in general were not considered the best handling forks and an older Kestrel EMS or a Reynolds Ouzo Pro would be an improved in handling, in my opinion.

3. Looks - that fork looks relatively wimpy... kind of like a fat tubed aluminum bike would look with a steel fork. Again, in my opinion.

4. Weight - A fork like my Easton with a proper threadless stem would drop close to a pound off your bike, without costing you an arm and a leg. Just make sure it's installed properly because care needs to be taken with 1" carbon steerers (in terms of number of spacers and torque on the pinch bolts of the stem).

The bike is somewhat dated compared to what's available today... it does not have a 1 1/8" head tube (or a tapered one) or a PFBB30 bottom bracket shell. However, I think it rides better than most of the bikes on the market today and can be built to be almost as light (within a pound and a half of most newer bikes). I prefer this bike to the 2010 Orbea Orca I was riding previously. I have the opportunity to spend the season on any brand new Orbea/Cannondale/Trek/Felt at no cost and I am still on this Merlin. Love your bike and don't be afraid to put some money into it. Here's mine:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=89494


+100.....Carbon tech has changed significantly in 13 years. An EC 90 fork like WW has on his bike would be a significant upgrade from what you have. I made the same switch on a similar Merlin.

[zap]

Performance wise, early Time forks were not very good.

If you can find one, the latest model (I can't remember model #) that Alpha Q made with 1" steerer would be an excellent replacement.

[oldpotatoe]

I have a 1998 Merlin EL that came with a 1" Time Equip threaded carbon fork,has the technology of carbon forks improved enough to make it worthwhile to buy a new one?
Difficult to find 1" fork nowadays and I won't buy one that is worth more than the bike itself so I was thinking the Ritchey Comp 1" threadless. Thoughts?


Good fork, bit not a not different than the one you have(except threadless).

Unless you crashed or something, nothing wrong with the one on there.

[FlashUNC]

I think that fork looks fantastic. Far nicer carbon fork than a lot of the bulbous stuff you see these days.

[eddief]

please attempt to describe in what way the OP might feel a new one to be better? How do you describe "improved" fork performance? Not sure in all my bike experiences have I ever been able to notice fork performance. Thanks.

[cmg]

if you can find a Look HSC 1" get it. Got one off eBay, much better than the Columbus muscle fork it replaced. if i could find another one i'd buy it.

[bobswire]

Food for thought,all. Nice build WickedWheels.
This is all in the mix of why I enjoy this forum and the discussions we have.
I do like the Wound up on my Seven that will soon be sold so who knows? :beer:

[Kontact]

please attempt to describe in what way the OP might feel a new one to be better? How do you describe "improved" fork performance? Not sure in all my bike experiences have I ever been able to notice fork performance. Thanks.
Forks of that era were about the same stiffness as aluminum. The current ones are supposed to be stiffer.

The main reason I changed was to go from a steel steerer and quill stem to much lighter alternatives. At my weight the handling differences were small.

I don't think there is a durability issue.

[19wisconsin64]

i agree with what wicked wheels posted.

my road bike is also titanium, and has an Easton SLX carbon fork.

you should be able to find an Easton 1" in the SL model. If possible, try to find one with ITT (internal-tube-thread).

[zap]

snip

Forks of that era were about the same stiffness as aluminum. The current ones are supposed to be stiffer.



Agreed-stiffness.

I think the first very good all round performance fork (1") was the Alpha Q. I think that was right around the time (late 90's?) Easton purchased the company. Good products since and I think it's unfortunate Alpha Q went away two years ago.

[bobswire]

snip



Agreed-stiffness.

I think the first very good all round performance fork (1") was the Alpha Q. I think that was right around the time (late 90's?) Easton purchased the company. Good products since and I think it's unfortunate Alpha Q went away two years ago.

I emailed them this morning on trying to locate a 1", I've had very good response from them in the past needing an insert for an Alpha Q fork. They mailed me one free of charge.
I found the "technical folks" to be much more helpful than the "sales folks" on True Temper email contacts list.

[chismog]

Interesting comments here.

For sure, an all carbon threadless fork is going to be an upgrade. You'll drop a pound moving to a carbon steerer and threadless setup. Will it ride better than the Time? I would say that is open for debate. imho, this upgrade will primarily affect weight, not ride quality or durability.

If you're interested, I have a NOS Alpha Q Pro 1", all carbon, 42 rake. Steerer has been cut at 265mm (can be cut up to 2cm I think?) and the insert glued, but the fork has never been used or had a brake mounted. $220 shipped. PM if you have questions or want to see pics.

[bobswire]

Interesting comments here.

For sure, an all carbon threadless fork is going to be an upgrade. You'll drop a pound moving to a carbon steerer and threadless setup. Will it ride better than the Time? I would say that is open for debate. imho, this upgrade will primarily affect weight, not ride quality or durability.

If you're interested, I have a NOS Alpha Q Pro 1", all carbon, 42 rake. Steerer has been cut at 265mm (can be cut up to 2cm I think?) and the insert glued, but the fork has never been used or had a brake mounted. $220 shipped. PM if you have questions or want to see pics.

Too bad that is 3cm too long and I don't think I can cut off 3cm on that insert.
Plus I'm waiting to hear from someone regarding the recommended rake which I believe is 4.5?

[bfd]

i agree with what wicked wheels posted.

my road bike is also titanium, and has an Easton SLX carbon fork.

you should be able to find an Easton 1" in the SL model. If possible, try to find one with ITT (internal-tube-thread).


About a year ago, Easton discontinued its 1"SL fork. I was luck enough to pick one up when Excel blew them out at $200.

However, I have an old 1" kestrel EMS fork on my calfee and its a great fork. At some point I'll replace it with the easton, but I'm in no rush. Good Luck!

[Keith A]

I don't have experience with the Wound Up forks, but the nice thing is that they have a number of options for both 1" and 1 1/8" in terms of steerer tube options and fork rakes. Other than Serotta and Wound Up, I don't know of any other manufacture that is making a 1" steerer tube carbon fork.

Edit: Looks like Ritchey still has a 1" fork, but it's their lowest end model with a aluminum steerer tube and it is only available with a 43mm offset.

[bfd]

I don't have experience with the Wound Up forks, but the nice thing is that they have a number of options for both 1" and 1 1/8" in terms of steerer tube options and fork rakes. Other than Serotta and Wound Up, I don't know of any other manufacture that is making a 1" steerer tube carbon fork.

Edit: Looks like Ritchey still has a 1" fork, but it's their lowest end model with a aluminum steerer tube and it is only available with a 43mm offset.

Don't forget Nashbar and Performance with their chinese-made carbon forks:

http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_174979_-1_202630_10000_202347

http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1032950_-1_1596509_1595009_400911

Good Luck!

[biker72]

Practical response:
Never been crashed. Looks fine. Not the lightest apple in the cart but works OK. No reason to upgrade.

Impractical response:
Too old. Newer carbon forks are just better. I'll shave?? grams off the bikes weight. Won't cost THAT much to upgrade. Go for it.

I have what appears to be an almost identical fork on my 91 Paramount. I'm not changing.

[witcombusa]

I have a 1998 Merlin EL that came with a 1" Time Equip threaded carbon fork,has the technology of carbon forks improved enough to make it worthwhile to buy a new one?
Difficult to find 1" fork nowadays and I won't buy one that is worth more than the bike itself so I was thinking the Ritchey Comp 1" threadless. Thoughts?

You consider '98 vintage? :no:

20 years min

Carbon fork an upgrade? Not to me....

[benb]

please attempt to describe in what way the OP might feel a new one to be better? How do you describe "improved" fork performance? Not sure in all my bike experiences have I ever been able to notice fork performance. Thanks.

Things you should easily notice:

- How the bike reacts under hard braking
- How the bike reacts braking on rough road surface, potholes
- How the bike feels while rapidly changing lean angle or transitioning from turning left to turning right
- How the bike feels when leaned over far and you run over rough road surface

It should be extremely noticeable.. way more noticeable then the difference between a steel, Ti, or CF frame IMO. It's just about the first thing I notice on any bike I get on, and the faster & harder I ride the more noticeable it is.. to the point where the bike with the better fork is going to rail corners and the bike with the poorer fork is going to chatter and skip across the road enough to make me want to slow down.

I think there is a world of difference going between something as dramatically different as an all steel fork and the latest tapered carbon stuff.. the tapered carbon forks are serious grin inducers when riding hard. :D I don't think it's just "I can't build a steel fork" that makes lots of steel framebuilders put Edge/Enve forks on their steel frames.

[Keith A]

<snip> I don't think it's just "I can't build a steel fork" that makes lots of steel framebuilders put Edge/Enve forks on their steel frames.Too bad they don't make a 1" fork :(

[WickedWheels]

I think modern carbon items are too frequently underbuilt, choosing oversized, thin walled construction over thick, durable walls with impact resistant kevlar layers favored 15 years ago.

Also, bonded steel and aluminum do not corrode. If they are properly shielded from galvanic reaction (usually with fiberglass), the bond won't change. The only danger is getting rust that starts outside the bond creeping, which isn't very likely around the greasy base of a steel steerer.

I see what you're saying, but I think you give the modern stuff too much credit. Aluminum to steel and aluminum to carbon bonded bicycle frames date back the early '80s, and those bikes are still rideable.

There are a lot of poorly made carbon products out there today and a cyclist who is a true "enthusiast" should take the time to weed those out. Most items sold purely on the basis of "spec", such as weight or price, should be looked at as "suspect".

As for corrosion and galvanic reaction... when done properly most things can last a decent amount of time. After all, Airbus is building carbon fiber planes now. That being said, 13+ years ago things weren't being with as much know-how as they are today. You can't assuming CAD designs and oodles or stress testing on these products. Some had that, sure, but most were slapped together by people who wanted to see if it will work. This is the bike industry, with limited resources and finances, not the airplane industry or the car industry. And in this particular case it is a french-made fork designed to be a performance-enhancing race piece... not an item made for a lifetime of carefree riding and enjoyment. I can't begin to tell you how many old frames I've seen come apart at the joint, some with tragic results. In the real world of cycling old bonds fail. It may be on a frame, or an a handlebar assembled with a "sleeve" or on an old Time fork. Use this stuff with care.

As for rakes... 43 was fairly common. My list of recommended forks would be the following (and would require some searching):

- Serotta F1: heavy, but well made and nice ride characteristics. You may find one hanging around a shop that was cut too short that you could buy well.
- Easton EC90... not popular, but worth searching out because it's light and fairly stiff laterally while being very compliant
- Reynolds Ouzo Pro... industry standard for years. Just keep in mind that Reynolds only recommended 1" of spacers for the 1" fork. Also, take care with finding a stem that minimizes stress on the carbon steerer.
- Kestrel EMS... if you can find a NOS with a ti steerer that would be a gem. Great riding fork.
- Alpha Q/True Temper: nice forks, solid rep
- Wound-up: for a while Seven/Merlin were offering these up for their frames, but I never had a taste for them.
- Look HSC: well made fork that ride well. Just make sure that the headset crown race can sit well on the fork. Some of the later models had issues with that.

If you're hesitant on the upgrade then make this a "hunt" and only search for New Old Stock forks. I wouldn't want any of these used.

Good luck!

[Kontact]

There are a lot of poorly made carbon products out there today and a cyclist who is a true "enthusiast" should take the time to weed those out. Most items sold purely on the basis of "spec", such as weight or price, should be looked at as "suspect".

As for corrosion and galvanic reaction... when done properly most things can last a decent amount of time. After all, Airbus is building carbon fiber planes now. That being said, 13+ years ago things weren't being with as much know-how as they are today. You can't assuming CAD designs and oodles or stress testing on these products. Some had that, sure, but most were slapped together by people who wanted to see if it will work. This is the bike industry, with limited resources and finances, not the airplane industry or the car industry. And in this particular case it is a french-made fork designed to be a performance-enhancing race piece... not an item made for a lifetime of carefree riding and enjoyment. I can't begin to tell you how many old frames I've seen come apart at the joint, some with tragic results. In the real world of cycling old bonds fail. It may be on a frame, or an a handlebar assembled with a "sleeve" or on an old Time fork. Use this stuff with care.


Good luck!
The carbon designers today are standing on the shoulders of the enthusiasts of the '80s and '90s - Trek is still using the basic OCLV design from a digital engineering study (slapped together) in 1991. Sometime in the late '90s the number of carbon fiber frame offerings exploded - suddenly there were 'brilliant composite engineers' raining from the skies. Did they all just graduate from some special program, or did a lot of companies just take what the enthusiasts had been doing and turn it into CAD software?

I think there's a lot of good stuff out there, but then there's Colnagos with fast corroding dropouts and Cannondale advertising limited expected useful lives for their lightest frames. I would be more inclined to trust a '91 Calfee today than I'd trust a 2011 Scott Addict in 2031.

I think the main thing most companies learned was how to use the minimum amount of material, and to eliminate lifetime warranties. The old stuff wasn't crudely built, it was overbuilt.

In contrast, look at the frame weights of carbon bikes from companies like Serotta, Calfee, IF and Seven. Is it that these guys don't know what they're doing, or are they avoiding building sub-1000 gram framesets for a good reason?

There are definitely better forks available today than the old Time. But like my other example, if the chips are down, I might trust the Time over an Easton EC90 SL.

Look, Kestrel, Vitus, TVT, Trek might have been breaking new ground, but they were doing it with relatively conservative designs and established techniques. A lot of what's sold now are bigger departures from other composite industries than the old stuff. I've also seen lots of composite failures - they aren't a thing of the past.

[rickbb]

Data point of one, but I had a Look HSC-1 fork with hidden corrosion at the dropouts fail on me. It resulted in the typical fork failure medical issues so you know where I stand on using an old carbon fork.
I recently bought an early Serotta Ti without a fork and installed a Ritchey Comp 1" fork on it. Fork appears robust without being too muscle-bound but certainly lacks cachet. :rolleyes:

[WickedWheels]

There are definitely better forks available today than the old Time. But like my other example, if the chips are down, I might trust the Time over an Easton EC90 SL.

Look, Kestrel, Vitus, TVT, Trek might have been breaking new ground, but they were doing it with relatively conservative designs and established techniques. A lot of what's sold now are bigger departures from other composite industries than the old stuff. I've also seen lots of composite failures - they aren't a thing of the past.

A 14 year old Time over a 4 year old Easton? That's ludicrous! Never mind the fact that Easton has fantastic quality carbon.

As for the "conservative" approach of Look/Kestrel/Vitus/TVT/Trek... Take a look at the picture. This did not end well for the rider.

These designs were not "conservative". They were very advanced and pushed the envelope, considering the available technology. They were breaking and snapping regularly because they were designed to be race-level equipment. Today the technology exists to make things just as fragile/durable but lighter. Lots of companies chose to use this technology to improve durability and longevity rather than pushing the performance/weight envelope. That's why good research into products is better than inaccurate generalizations used to justify faux-retro-grouchiness.