I do. :D

Just installed this new Columbus fork 2 days ago. It replaces the OEM Columbus Link which IMHO is a fine piece as well. The Muscle has the same geometry, (good!) but is about 6 oz. lighter (actual measured weights). It's a looker too, though the current picture doesn't show it off very well.

Wanted to brag on my man Nessism for striking the deal that we did. Kudos also to RBR pals juanmoretime, terry b, santosjep, and brewster for their opinions, ideas, and good-natured debates.

Picture & Component List (http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=464&nocache=1)

No mileage on it yet, but soon when the nasty whether clears.

That came out nice!

Enjoy your new Bionic upgrade ...... tanananananannananann.

Joe

Hey we almost have the same bike! :p

Thanks gents.

Nice rig, VG. Dig the :cool: purple-y Vred's! When my black 25c tezza's are shot, I might get some TC's in yellow 25c, now that I finally found someone who sells them. How do you like the '03 Zondas? I'm pretty satisfied with mine on this frame.

Hi Joe-Zeppy! terry! The short ride I was able to take today felt good on this unit. Less harsh than many forks I've ridden, but certainly not a noodle.

It's all good.
.
.

It took a while to get used to the zondas. I also have neutrons which are much quicker, but I have gotten to like the zondas this year actually..they were a great deal at cbike

Nice bike, enjoy your ride.

I just saw a Raleigh Al and carbon bike at the Chicago Bike Show Saturday, WOW that bike looks real, real nice.

It took a while to get used to the zondas. I also have neutrons which are much quicker, but I have gotten to like the zondas this year actually..they were a great deal at cbike

I'm surprised you say that, because I've weighed these and the rear is 916 gm, only about 20 gm. more than a Nucleon/Neutron tubular rear, (according to weightweenies.com). I never got the chance to properly weigh my old Nucleon's but they didn't feel much quicker overall, except the rear did on the initial wind-up, and then probably because they were tubulars with the lower weight of the tires helping too. The Nukes were a tad better at climbs of course, (less outside RW) but the way I ride - the Z's take a tad less effort staying up to speed on most sections (slight flywheel effect). So the pros & cons of either wheelset balance out I think.

In this case, I guess Our Mileage Did Vary. ;)

I've got a Super Muscle fork on a modern lugged steel frame. It's hard to compare with my other bike (Calfee), but I think the Muscle has a more substantial and slightly stiffer feel than Kestrel EMS fork from about 3 years ago.

Can anyone make comparisons between Muscle and other forks.

I've got about 1500 miles on the fork with no problems, but I heard rumors about manufacturing concerns - no recall from Columbus as the number of reported field problems was not too substantially greater than other carbon manufacturers.

Dig the :cool: purple-y Vred's! .
.


They look exactly like Pro Races?

They look exactly like Pro Races?

You're exactly right, 'sweep. At first glance they reminded me of some older Vred's, but with a closer look I see they are Mich's.

Duh! :o

I've got a Super Muscle fork on a modern lugged steel frame. It's hard to compare with my other bike (Calfee), but I think the Muscle has a more substantial and slightly stiffer feel than Kestrel EMS fork from about 3 years ago.

Can anyone make comparisons between Muscle and other forks.

I've got about 1500 miles on the fork with no problems, but I heard rumors about manufacturing concerns - no recall from Columbus as the number of reported field problems was not too substantially greater than other carbon manufacturers.

SC -

Where are you getting this info from, about "reported field problems" with the Muscle or Super Muscle? Or is this the usual internet rumor mill grinding again? Not saying it isn't true, I just want to see the sources.

I can't speak to the longevity/reliablilty issue yet, obviously because mine is a recent install. One thing I can say is from a shop in UK, I got a response about 2 months ago where they told me that Columbus replied to them about a question I had. Italy said the rated rider weight limit for the Carve monocoque is 100 kg./220 lb., and the Muscle is 90 kg./198 lb., and they didn't say whether that includes the total weight with kit or not. So interpret that in whatever way you may.

I didn't ask about the Super, because I'm in the 200 lb. range. Of course, their Al-crowned/steerer forks Carve, Link, & Tusk can be assumed to have higher rated weight limits.

I can compare this Muscle to my most recent previous forks, the Columbus Link and The Wound Up Road. The Link was OEM on my current frame, an '03 Raleigh Professional made of Columbus Zona Megatube steel. The Link is about 6 oz. heavier (actual measured weight), and was a fair amount harder on the bumps and hits than the Muscle, probably mostly due to the Al crown and steerer. Handling is quicker and more intuitive with the Muscle than the Link.

The Wound Up was on the other hand stiffer than either of the Columbus units, and especially on the bigger hits it transmitted greater shocks to the wrists than any fork I've yet ridden. Its one saving grace was that it handled very well, quite snappy on quick flicks to dodge road hazards, in a paceline, and on fast downhills. I'd like the WU for a crit bike or maybe fast group rides, but not for an everyday mileage bike.

SC - Where are you getting this info from, about "reported field problems" with the Muscle or Super Muscle? Or is this the usual internet rumor mill grinding again? Not saying it isn't true, I just want to see the sources.


I own one and have 1500+ miles with zero problems. I can't show you a source, but the guy who built my last frame said he had been talking with the person he buys Columbus tubing from and there had been issues with the fork. I seem to remember him saying that production had been stopped (this was back in 2003) while reported failures were being investigated. Having had to replace other carbon forks in the past, I asked the builder to see if there was going to be a recall on the fork and 2 weeks later he said "No Recall, the failure rate has been consistent with other carbon forks." End of story. I asked the question about failures with Muscle forks on another bike forum more than a year ago and got zero replies, so I assume there is NO problem. I think it is a good product and aesthetically very nice.

I own one and have 1500+ miles with zero problems. I can't show you a source, but the guy who built my last frame said he had been talking with the person he buys Columbus tubing from and there had been issues with the fork. I seem to remember him saying that production had been stopped (this was back in 2003) while reported failures were being investigated. Having had to replace other carbon forks in the past, I asked the builder to see if there was going to be a recall on the fork and 2 weeks later he said "No Recall, the failure rate has been consistent with other carbon forks." End of story. I asked the question about failures with Muscle forks on another bike forum more than a year ago and got zero replies, so I assume there is NO problem. I think it is a good product and aesthetically very nice.

I think some bad press came from a labratory fatique test performed by a German magazine (can't remember the name). Reportedly, the 1" version, which has quite a bit less meat in the crown to steerer area compared to the 1-1/8" version, started to become more flexable as cycles developed in the test. As I recall, the Muscle was not unique in this respect.

I've been riding a 1" Muscle fork for about 5000 miles on one of my bikes and haven't noticed any increase in flexing. Frankly, I really like the fork and consider it as good as any in the market.

I think some bad press came from a labratory fatique test performed by a German magazine (can't remember the name). Reportedly, the 1" version, which has quite a bit less meat in the crown to steerer area compared to the 1-1/8" version, started to become more flexable as cycles developed in the test. As I recall, the Muscle was not unique in this respect.

I've been riding a 1" Muscle fork for about 5000 miles on one of my bikes and haven't noticed any increase in flexing. Frankly, I really like the fork and consider it as good as any in the market.

That's the same stuff I had seen Ed, but I didn't give it much creedence. I imagine some of that report/test result was taken out of context by a few Chicken Little's and blown out of proportion. As SC said, I think it's a good product. If not, I wouldn't have bought it from you or keep it on my rig.



I own one and have 1500+ miles with zero problems....

As I mentioned in my initial post, I had asked 4 or 5 members here what their experiences had been with the Muscle, and I didn't hear a single beef from any of them, (well, one likes straight forks better overall for his own reasons but no particular gripes inherent to the Columbus units, and he's owned both the Carve & Muscle.)

You have the Super, right? Not knowing what your weight is, 1500 miles is a fairly good mileage to form at least some judgment on the reliability question, so if it's going strong up to now I would think it's going to be OK.

I realize I am jumping in rather late here, but here is another data point. I have about 7500 miles on my 2003 Super Muscle. I'm a 195# sprinter, and I think this fork is just about as good as any that I have ridden. The list includes Kestrel, Alpha-Q and Look. It is relatively compliant, though less so than the Alpha-Q. I think the Q was probably a bit more laterally stable in hard corners, but the forks are on different frames with different stems and bars, so a truly objective comparison is difficult at best. Even the finish is holding up well. Seems like an all around winner to me.