On One Cycles Carbon Super Light Fork
October 6th, 2006 by Guitar TedTwenty Nine Inches has just recieved a carbon 29″er fork from On One Cycles for review. The fork, dubbed the Carbon Super Light, is disc only with a forged aluminum crown and aluminum drop outs. Look for a full description, and first impression to come soon!
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
wahoo!
Indeed! And a big thanks to you, Brant. I look forward to getting out on this fork and seeing what kind of performance can be had with it.
Look for a pic soon!
You do realize you have the WORLD exclusive on this Mark?
I am not a 29er goon, but I can say that this thing looks well made and is light in the hands!!
man that thing sure is ‘purdy!
Nice looking fork. I was glad to have gotten a look at it yesterday. If the offset works with your frames geometry, it looks to have great potential! Nice work Brant.
Cheers
Brant: No, I guess I didn’t really know that as your e-mail stated that some others were out there being ridden and I didn’t know if any of those were going to be written up anywhere. But if you say so……..
Double thanks!
James Huang should have his now, but you are the first to publish. So you scooped the world
So, does this “super light” fork have rider weight limit?
Axed and answered:
Why are ours better?
* No compromise design - 26in forks have 40mm rake, and the 29ers a “correct” 47mm
* Custom designed hollow forged-and-machined crown, fatigue tested to 159,000 cycles with 60kg fore-aft loading
* Custom CNC’d dropouts with forward angled entry slot, a super tough disc mount
* No weight limit
* No max rotor size
* No problem using them on a roof rack
* 100% carbon legs
Soupboy: ……and later this week I’ll let you know if it actually rides better!
Better than what?
I’d really like one of these if they prove to be husky lad certified.
>Better than what?
Better than anyone elses carbon rigid fork.
Exactamente’! I’ll be riding this fork for a bit and letting you all know my impressions on it. That should be coming up by the end of the week, as far as first impressions go.
Soupboy: I think that you will be glad to know that I am “solidly” in the Clydesdale category, so if there is some deficiency for “husky lads”, it will be revealed by my riding this fork. That said, there is no weight limit, as you discovered by checking out On One’s website. (I weigh about 235-240lbs…..I don’t spend much time on scales!)
Again, for those reading that are curious, go to http://www.on-one.co.uk and check it out.
wow sure looks like the same fork as the bonti. Xlite from Trek just a different name on it. I take a guess their made in the same factory?
I can’t wait for the no holds barred comparo vs. the Bontrager X-Lite. Brutal honestly only por favor.
spininmud: No way are they the same fork. The crowns, dropouts, and even the weave of the outer layer of carbon is totally different. Not to mention the Bonty fork has an inner sleeve of aluminum and a totally different rake. (38mm versus 47mm)
Sure, they look similar at a glance, but I’d be very surprised if these two forks were even from the same factory. It’s possible that they are, (perhaps Brant could chime in with that) but I know that they are definitely NOT the same fork!
Soupboy: Riding has commenced!
They are not made in the same factory. I guess at a glance they look similar (silver crown and dropouts with carbon weave legs), but that’s it really.
Brant, does the tube wall thickness taper from top to bottom, more plies at the top?
No. It’s all the same all the way down. But the way the fork is constructed means it’s more reinforced at the top.
the Bontrager DOES NOT have an internal aluminum sleeve. I think one would have a hard time arguing that one is better than the other. they are essentially the same.
>the Bontrager DOES NOT have an internal aluminum sleeve.
What does ACC mean?
> they are essentially the same.
in that they’re both a 29in wheeled mountain bike fork?
Guess there is only one solution:
When Guitar Ted finishes testing the Bontrager X-Lite, that he goes at it with a hacksaw, and confirms one way or the other ….
funkenstein: ACC stands for AluminumCarbon Composite. Yes, there is an aluminum sleeve inside of the carbon tube. It is there to impart strength and a different ride characteristic than a straight carbon tube would have. It’s not that Bontrager couldn’t have made a purely carbon fork leg, they just think that the ACC construction is superior.
This is not some idea I cooked up by the way, it’s straight from my contact at Fisher. It’s a technique that they also use in seat posts, by the way.
Have a look here -
http://www.bontrager.com/Mountain/Components/Seatposts/5825.php
Seatposts.
ACC stands for “Aluminium Core Construction” - not Carbon Composite.
It’s also noticeable that this ACC isn’t used on the high end post - thats an OCLV tube.
A carbon fork offroad? No thanks…too scary.
OK, my bad. It does indeed have an alu insert. So ’splain me this. How does this equate to the On-One fork being “the best carbon fork in the universe….ever”? fatigue tests don’t tell you anything really. carbon doesn’t fatigue. I bet it would run it even longer than 159k. what really matters are impact and energy tests.
seems to me an alu insert would make the fork more impact resistant.
Hmm so if it has an Aluminum insert is it an Aluminum Fork with a CARBON FIBER looking covering? If that’s the case the carbon fiber is just a Marketing gimmick. I work on F-16s for a living I Know carbon fiber..
I am guessing it’s a 90% carbon, 10% alu kinda thing. The alu is really thin. It’s not just for cosmetics. Pace does the same thing with their forks, but I think they use Ti. this increases the impact and crush (seatpost) resistance.
Bontrager also makes a full aluminum version.
>How does this equate to the On-One fork being “the best carbon fork in the
>universe….ever�?
In my heart thats what I think. Those were my words. I’m half of on-one. I’m sure Pace think the same about theirs, and for their criteria (it is over 125g lighter than ours) I’m sure they’re 100% right too.
> fatigue tests don’t tell you anything really. carbon doesn’t
>fatigue. I bet it would run it even longer than 159k. what really matters are
>impact and energy tests.
You’re quite right there. All we could get to fail on our tests were the aluminium crown. We had several iterations of the crown, moving it from failure at 30,000 to 159,000 cycles. This was for a CNC sample crown, not the forged production crown, which happily, due to grain alignment issues will be significantly stronger.
I do not see any other manufacturers publishing their fatigue test data on their site, but we’d be interested to see it.
>Pace does the same thing with their forks, but I think they use Ti. this
> increases the
>impact and crush (seatpost) resistance.
No.
Pace doesn’t do that at all (not for that reason and not in that way).
Pace has carbon legs with either a ti or chromoly tube inserted into the crown, to bond the legs to.
We use the same construction method.
You press a short steel tube into the crown. You bond the carbon leg to the short steel tube.
Pace did engineer in some alloy mesh into their suspension forks at one time to provide increased crush resistance when we were all running around with cantilever bosses that clamped on. I don’t know if they do that still. I was very close to Pace for a while, when I was a journalist and think they make great stuff.
I am Brant from on-one and I love our stuff.
You’re funkenstein and you seem to be defending Bontrager/Trek very hard. What’s your background?
I had a Race Lite in ‘93 and loved it.
ha, I’m just a crusty old shop rat and long time Bontrager fan/rider. Thanks for all the info, really does look like a nice fork.
Brant,
Very interesting. Would love to see pics of the process, cut-away drawings, etc. Just for curiosity’s sake.
Love your stuff too. Mary, Midge and Inbrer 29er fork…
-M