Quick carbon fork question

Posted on
  • I just picked up a pair of Columbus Minimal 1" forks, in VGC, they look barely ridden. Measuring between the dropouts, the internal measurement is 102mm rather than 100mm. The dropouts also have lawyers tabs fitted.

    I've fitted a wheel and they seem fine, but just thought I'd check, is this normal or am I going to die?

  • Its what the quick release is for

  • Thanks for the reply @dubtap
    Right, I get that. It's just that steel forks I've had (from memory) have been 100mm. But maybe my memory is flawed. Anyway, I'm not going to die, at least from the carbon forks being 102mm. I will of course die at some point, it is the one guarantee in life etc etc

  • I'll measure my forks tonight if you want but I can visually see my quick release compress my fork so definitely more than 2 mm excess here!

  • All good don’t worry. I think all is as should be, cheers

  • Thought I'd ask something here, as it's a quick fork question!

    Basically I want to decrease the space between my front wheel and frame by changing my basic steel fork to a carbon fork. Are all forks pretty much the same length or do they vary slightly?

    I'll be running a standard 700 wheel.

  • You are perhaps confusing length with rake - which you can read about here -
    Depending on the frame, you might find forks with a different rake bring the wheel too close to the frame and you suffer toe overlap. If you remove the old forks they often have the rake engraved on the forks e.g. 43 degrees, so when replacing the forks you could look for carbon forks with the same rake

  • I understand the rake, they are after market forks anyway so happy to experiment a little. While you're here... Can you tell me if the fork is straight does that mean the rake is 0?

  • ....and "increasing the offset will make the steering feel faster while decreasing it will make it slow."

    Is an increased offset a larger rake?

  • Check out the picture.

    If the dropouts sit right at the end of the 'B' line then, yes the rake would be zero.

    Most 'straight' forks are just aesthetically so.

  • Cheers, that helps. Now do you know if they lengths of those forks vary at all or are they a specific standard length?

  • There are a few standard lengths of fork.

    An audax fork is circa 380 AC takes a 32/35 mm tyres with guards, these forks are circa 43/45 rake.

    A gravel fork 400AC takes 42/45 tyres with guards. I assume these are 43/45 rake .

    I think you also get forks designed for road bikes with small tyres which are more like 360mm AC.
    No idea about rake on these.

    These aren't hard and fast rules though so there are always loads of variations.

  • Basically I want to decrease the space between my front wheel and frame

    Why? What are you expecting to achieve?

  • Depending upon what you want to achieve, head angle is also a factor to consider

  • Purely esthetics...

  • Might want to see if a straight bladed fork with a bit of offset gives you the look you want. A shorter wheelbase can feel twitchy and unstable if you’re not used to it, and you’d get toe-verlap as others pointed out.

  • ...and "increasing the offset will make the steering feel faster while decreasing it will make it slow."

    This is a funny one. I often find conflicting evidence all over the interweb.
    I one swapped out my columbus forks with 35mm rake for some Enves with 43mm rake. I expected the steering to be faster but it wasn't; it was VERY slow; compared to what I'd become used to, dangerously slow in fact.
    I guess that even though the columbus had the shorter rake (and higher trail), they also made the wheelbase shorter which contributed to the final findings....
    Went back to the columbus anyhow as that was what I'd designed the frame for in the first place.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview

Quick carbon fork question

Posted by Avatar for ghostface @ghostface