Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

User avatar
gairym
Posts: 2781
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chamonix, France (but a Yorkshire lad).

Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by gairym » Mon May 11, 2020 3:17 pm

As a Lauf owner/rider/lover I don't mind the aesthetics but I understand why others are offended by their 'unconventional' beauty.

But this has to be the least offensive Lauf setup I've seen (taken from a Josh Ibbett article on bikepacking.com).

Image

Pretty, no?

Landslide
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Landslide » Mon May 11, 2020 3:20 pm

"Pretty" might be stretching it, but (having also seen some IRL) I reckon these painted versions (with the linkage staying dark grey) are an improvement in the aesthetics department.

User avatar
GregMay
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:57 pm
Location: Calderdale
Contact:

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by GregMay » Mon May 11, 2020 3:22 pm

Still looks like he hucked to flat with a mid 90s XC bike.
Image

jameso
Posts: 3693
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Chilterns

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by jameso » Mon May 11, 2020 3:29 pm

Amazing what a bit of colour use can do huh. I agree, they look a lot less obvious like that. Still far from a pretty bike overall imho.. but if I was as fast as Josh I'd be after function more than form.

Lazarus
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Lazarus » Mon May 11, 2020 3:34 pm

I dont understand why anyone cares about aesthetics* its not ike you see much of your bike when you actually ride the thing
i guess if you want to put it on a wall and admire it then there are prettier options

* the red water bottle with green bike offends me more than the forks

jameso
Posts: 3693
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Chilterns

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by jameso » Mon May 11, 2020 4:53 pm

I dont understand why anyone cares about aesthetics*
I think we all do to some extent? I want a bike to ride really well first and foremost but if it can look good too that's a bonus. Some bikes have a style that suits the use, function and form get blurred. Classic/Romantic stuff. Some people obsess over this, some don't see it and others sort of care and sort of don't, it's all good :smile:

tbh I don't mind the V2 Lauf, it's not that bad. It's simple and kind of elegant in what it does. I mean, it's no classic .. but plenty of more commonly accepted things/frames/forks etc offend my tastes more. I can't see the form without the function so the Lauf scores higher than it might do if judging it purely on visuals. An overly-long suspension corrected rigid fork has me gagging every time though :grin: Yet a Jones truss or an old Vincent girder fork .. beautiful. Great thing about aesthetics - no-one's right : )

User avatar
PaulE
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:05 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by PaulE » Mon May 11, 2020 9:26 pm

GregMay wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 3:22 pm
Still looks like he hucked to flat with a mid 90s XC bike.
I remember doing that to a set of triple butted project 2 forks, riding my old cinder cone off a loading dock...

Having said that, the more I see Lauf forks on gravel bikes, the more I want a set and that photo does nothing to stop this want.
Image

Lazarus
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Lazarus » Mon May 11, 2020 9:38 pm

I think we all do to some extent?
Pfft I have owned an orange 5

Yes you are right [ its not like you would purposely make an ugly one] but i would not take aesthetics over performance and there is no real alternative to a Lauf [ at that weight ]

User avatar
GregMay
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:57 pm
Location: Calderdale
Contact:

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by GregMay » Tue May 12, 2020 8:55 am

Lazarus wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 9:38 pm
but i would not take aesthetics over performance [ at that weight ]
So why buy an Orange 5? Utterly bland performance.
Image

Blackhound
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Blackhound » Tue May 12, 2020 9:03 am

When I was getting a handbuilt frame a few years ago and had decided to go with Lauf forks my builder got hold of the RAL colour of the blue version and integrated it onto the frame panel as a contrast.

Image20160313_131440 by blackhound59, on Flickr
Image

benp1
Posts: 3353
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:36 pm
Location: North London

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by benp1 » Tue May 12, 2020 10:05 am

Blackhound wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:03 am
When I was getting a handbuilt frame a few years ago and had decided to go with Lauf forks my builder got hold of the RAL colour of the blue version and integrated it onto the frame panel as a contrast.

Image20160313_131440 by blackhound59, on Flickr
Kevin, I'm worried about those slides on the back than the fork :lol:

Lazarus
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Lazarus » Tue May 12, 2020 10:27 am

So why buy an Orange 5? Utterly bland performance.
its gone all STW and its a quite a few years late to have this debate

User avatar
FLV
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Northern Edge of the Peak - Mostly

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by FLV » Tue May 12, 2020 10:46 am

I kind of appreciate the idea behind the Lauf forks, low unsprung mass, efficient use of materials, no serviceable parts etc. However, the bit that puts me off isn't the looks any more (got used to it I guess) its the fact that there is no adjustable rates on them.

For instance, I have a good 30+ kg of body mass on top of some people on here and the stated spring rates are for Regular (over 65 kg / 143 lbs) or Light (under 70 kg / 154 lbs).

I'd like to know the nominal and the range the spring is expected to perform at / within.

If we guessed at 80kg nominal, 20% either way takes you into 64kg lower (meaning you select the light spring) and 96kg upper. With about 39% seeing the forks stated limit.
Add bikepacking gear which can be rather a lot if we suggest carrying 3L of water and a 3 days of food you can see 15 to 20kg, I wonder how it performs given these variations

If we then take that the spring rate is progressive, there has to be a trade of point where the lighter end and heavier end see less small bump compliance due to not activating the spring efficiently or sitting at sag past the shallow curve and into the progression ramp.

Overthinking? Maybe, I definitely need a graph though.

User avatar
ScotRoutes
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am
Location: Cairngorms
Contact:

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by ScotRoutes » Tue May 12, 2020 10:51 am

Am I the only that thinks they're simply too expensive then?

The gravel ones don't look too bad. The painted ones hide some of the challenging aesthetics.

Lazarus
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Lazarus » Tue May 12, 2020 11:20 am

what aspect of cycling do you consider to be good value for money ?
I stop at chains :wink:

That said a decent rigid carbon fork is £ 3-400 so its £3-400 for the spring attachment bit which does seem steep . I assume its to do with economies of scale and relatively high research costs v sales

User avatar
ScotRoutes
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am
Location: Cairngorms
Contact:

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by ScotRoutes » Tue May 12, 2020 11:29 am

Oh, I'm not accusing them of profiteering. They simply don't meet my personal cost:effectiveness preference.

I paid £200 for my Van Nicholas carbon fork and blanched at that. The carbon fork for my Pact cost half that.

boxelder
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:05 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by boxelder » Tue May 12, 2020 11:46 am

Aesthetics aside those Lauf Grit bikes are a hoot to ride - very quick and surprisingly capable over 'man size gravel' (or even Icelandic ground glass/volcanic ash sand).

Blackhound
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Blackhound » Tue May 12, 2020 1:22 pm

BenP1 - by 'slides' do you mean sandals? It ws an 8 week trip to NZ (this pic on Haast Pass) plus Marin County and Reno NV so I nnededmore than my cycling shoes. Anyway they make the forks look good ;-)

I got them at a good price through my bike builder, lot cheaper than I was expecting but still harldy a bargain. I decided I would keep the bike a long time and with the Tour Aotearoa around the corner (at that time) and a possible return to the Tour Divide plus other stuff decided to take the hit. At my age decided I couldn't take my cash to heaven so put it in the skiing (spending kids inheritance) column of my balance sheet.
Image

pistonbroke
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:39 am
Location: Southern Cataluña

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by pistonbroke » Tue May 12, 2020 3:52 pm

Aesthetics and cost aside, how do they actually perform regarding damping? The early criticism of them seemed to centre on the lack of rebound damping making fast riding on roughish tracks akin to going down a flight of stairs on a space hopper. Was this based on experience and if it was, how have they solved it?

User avatar
In Reverse
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by In Reverse » Tue May 12, 2020 5:25 pm

You're not supposed to ride them like you would a telescopic fork Duncan - you ride them like a rigid but enjoy the comfort and additional speed they bring.

It has to be a very particular type of terrain for them to get into a proper resonant bounce that can throw you off your line, but it does happen on occasion.

I'm a big fan. I think they look great too. :cool:

User avatar
In Reverse
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by In Reverse » Tue May 12, 2020 5:31 pm

FLV wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 10:46 am
Overthinking? Maybe, I definitely need a graph though.
I'm somewhere between 90 and 95kg Dave and am on my second pair of regulars. I don't notice a massive amount of sag and they're superb for small bumps and vibration.

User avatar
JohnClimber
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by JohnClimber » Tue May 12, 2020 5:42 pm

Aesthetics aren't a problem for the rider

I can't see them, sod what you can see, I don't care :wink:

Image

Image

voodoo_simon
Posts: 2867
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by voodoo_simon » Tue May 12, 2020 6:15 pm

Google Trust Performance Shout, more niche than a niche Lauf
Attachments
B6F494E1-7F02-48FE-8D69-4FA00CC707EA.jpeg
B6F494E1-7F02-48FE-8D69-4FA00CC707EA.jpeg (189.78 KiB) Viewed 774 times

User avatar
ScotRoutes
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am
Location: Cairngorms
Contact:

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by ScotRoutes » Tue May 12, 2020 6:17 pm

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Lazarus
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:49 am

Re: Still worthy of the puking gnome???

Post by Lazarus » Tue May 12, 2020 6:27 pm

and it looks terrible as well :wink:

Post Reply