Look HSC Fork Fatigue

Jeff said:

What's the lifetime of a carbon fork? I have a first generation Look
HSC carbon fork. I think the warranty from Look was 2 years. My LBS
told me before they wouldn't use any carbon fork more than 10 years.
I'm on my 9th year now. The fork flexes a lot by design but seems to
be holding up well. Should I be worried or be planning an upgrade? A
visual inspection of the fork shows no cracking but I don't think
this means that much.

No, it doesn't, nor does the mindless advice of your bike shop. Where did they
get the 10 years?

If you do have cracks you can see, you should retire the fork immediately. The
big concern is cracks you can't see, from crashes, etc. So you should retire
the fork if you crash too. Otherwise -- it's most likely fine, practically
forever.

BTW, I have one of those forks too, and it isn't flexy at all. In fact it's
quite stiff.

Matt O.

Jeff said:

What's the lifetime of a carbon fork? I have a first generation Look HSC
carbon fork. I think the warranty from Look was 2 years. My LBS told me
before they wouldn't use any carbon fork more than 10 years. I'm on my 9th
year now. The fork flexes a lot by design but seems to be holding up well.
Should I be worried or be planning an upgrade? A visual inspection of the
fork shows no cracking but I don't think this means that much.

unfortunately, there's no hard & fast rule on this stuff unless you want
to spend a /lot/ of money on aerospace-type certifications. i'd do the
squeeze test periodically & if it was still silent & undamaged, keep
riding. that said, periodic replacement, & not just for forks, /is/
prudent.

jim beam said:

unfortunately, there's no hard & fast rule on this stuff unless you

want

Quoted message said:

to spend a /lot/ of money on aerospace-type certifications. i'd do

the

Quoted message said:

squeeze test periodically & if it was still silent & undamaged, keep
riding. that said, periodic replacement, & not just for forks, /is/
prudent.

No, its imprudent for the vast majority of things on a bike. After
many hundreds and thousands of miles on a piece of equipment, you know
it works and will not fail you. But when you put on new equipment, you
have to test it. It has not shown itself to be defect free. The
majority of my bike part failures occur with new parts. Not old
reliable parts.

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

unfortunately, there's no hard & fast rule on this stuff unless you

want

Quoted message said:

to spend a /lot/ of money on aerospace-type certifications. i'd do

the

Quoted message said:

squeeze test periodically & if it was still silent & undamaged, keep
riding. that said, periodic replacement, & not just for forks, /is/
prudent.

No, its imprudent for the vast majority of things on a bike. After
many hundreds and thousands of miles on a piece of equipment, you know
it works and will not fail you. But when you put on new equipment, you
have to test it. It has not shown itself to be defect free. The
majority of my bike part failures occur with new parts. Not old
reliable parts.

metal fatigue is not present in new components & can be present in old
ones. unless you have access to the testing equipment necessary to
determine whether [for example] the aluminum brake levers, brake
calipers, handlebars, stems, cranks, seat posts, etc. of your bikes are
/not/ fatigued, then periodic replacement /is/ prudent.

despite the fact that many complain endlessly about feeling ripped off
when recommended to buy new componentry, they complain a lot more if
they end up having to reallocate their kids' college funds to their own
facial reconstructive surgery. sure, you can take the risk, but is it
worth it?