[pahearn]

Hey all:

Last night I found the time to install the Black Ops carbon fork (same as the White Brother's Rock Solid, and a few others) that arrived earlier in the week, and was able to take it for a ~10 mile loop today to check it out. I thought some of you might be interested in my post-ride opinion and a little porn, so here goes.

To be brief, and to be sure, this thing is pretty damned nice. If anyone's read Ryan Rumsey's review of the fork I can completely agree with everything he's mentioned and so I won't rehash that here. Comparing the two forks side-by-side showed very little (IMO trivial) geometry differences (both length A-C and offset), which I was happy about because I was quite content with the stock geometry characteristics. I have yet to put the OEM fork on a scale (because I don't have one!), but needless to say the front end is signifcantly lighter than stock despite the addition of a disc brake up front. On my test ride the light-weight was the first thing to catch my attention, because my first thought was, "Wow, I guess I had too many beers while sizing-up the two forks last night, because the offset feels smaller for sure". It was definitely more responsive but not twitchy. Only after I got back from my ride and held the OEM fork back up to the Black Ops did I re-confirm that the offsets were indeed nearly identical and the extra responsiveness must have been due to the lighter front end. I actually dabbed in a few technical sections I always clean, entirely because of the added responsiveness. After ~5 miles I got used to this new, better behavior and now love how "fast" and tossable the front end feels. And boy is it easy to loft the front end with this thing. IMO opinion it was easy before, but it's just that much lighter. The carbon really does an impressive job in absorbing small, high frequency shock. Having never ridden a carbon fork before I was pleasantly surprised in the amount of absorption without losing the feeling of rigidity, and the frozen tire ruts on the trail today were a perfect testing ground for this. All in all I couldn't be more happy with this fork for the price, and it's performance on the RLMC29er is pretty choice. Man do I hope I can sneek out of the house tomorrow. Without further adu, the pics.

-pete

 

[Drbbt]

Looking...

at these myself. Thanks for the great and helpful review and BTW, the gold bits here and there look great on your Monocog.
Cheers,
Drbbt

 

[philpot]

Where do you get these badboys? My OEM monocog fork is not the greatest piece of manufacturing. Even when true the wheel does not look centred because the fork legs are not symmetrical. A set of these would be nice!

 

[Minjin]

According to this POST, the stock fork weighs in at 1304 grams. Bikeman says 720 grams for the carbon forks, yielding an approximate weight loss of 584 grams or about 1 1/4 pounds.

Personally, I'm not sure I could tell a difference that equates to around 5% of the bicycle's weight or nearly the same as the difference between a full and empty water bottle. And buying a $230 fork for a $450 bike might be a little difficult to wrap my head around.

Thanks for the review though...

 

[pahearn]

philpot:

You can get them from http://www.bikeman.com/

Minjin:

Lifting the entire bike off the ground, me neither. Lifting the front end off the ground -- for sure -- and as I said, the responsiveness and other behaviors of the front end are due at least in part to it's weight. Regardless, my interests in running a carbon fork were not to reap the weight benefits of carbon fiber (you're right, that would be absurd on this frame), but rather the absorbtion characteristics. Yeah it does feel a little funny plunking down change on a relatively low-cost bike, but considering the fact that bicycles are so modular it really doesn't matter since I can move parts over to another frame down the road if I choose to (and if you notice, I have an extra spacer on top of the stem, I did this to maximize the steerer length to keep my future options open with the fork :thumbsup: ). That said, they're inexpensive bikes, not cheap bikes, if that makes any sense.

-pete

 

[nbrennan]

"Inexpensive, not cheap." Thats a good way of putting it. I have a 26" monocog with a ton of nice stuff hanging off it. My original intent was to eventually move the parts over to a gunnar once the frame bent/ broke. Its becoming clear that totaling this frame is pretty much out of the question, and it rides great with steeper angles than most hardtails.

 

[neanderthaler]

first post

inexpensive, not cheap - completely accurate. i picked up my monocog flight 26" from my local shop january 5th, complete with a manitou R-7 100mm fork. i never rode with the rigid fork, so i can't compare the two, however the R-7 feels like it was meant for this bike. i understand that the flight is suspension corrected for a 3" fork, but again, the manitou and the redline go together like . . . well really good! i've always been a compulsive upgrader with o.c.d. and part of singlespeed for me was to control myself and upgrade only as needed, so i took the flight on a 10 day roadtrip to as many trails as i could fit in, to see what might need upgrading, and can report with confidence ... nothing. this bike is definately me. it may not be you, but it is me. if i really nitpicked, i'd say a faster engaging rear hub would be nice, but i can live with this one, for sure. i made sure the redline and me are compatible before being irrational, so now with no reservations i can can clear out my garage. anyone want a full suspension, 27 speed, aluminum, two year old bike for half price? how about a brand new tank of a dirt jump bike? my flight does it all for me. i'll never have my rides "de-railed" again by a de-railer!!! and the magazines were wrong when they told me i needed at least five inches to play.