Enve 1.0 and 2.0 fork - Is there a difference?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Quickdraw
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South of the Republic of Boulder.

by Quickdraw

Is there any real difference between the Enve 1.0 and the 2.0 fork?

I am trying to figure out if it is worth the extra money for the "upgrade." The particular manufacturer that I was looking at charges a $200 up-charge for the 1.0, though Enve seems to only price them at about a $100 difference.

Enve lists the 1.0 fork as being 295 grams with a 300mm steerer tube. The 2.0 fork is listed as 350 grams with a 350 mm steerer tube.

So at least some of the weight difference between the two forks is in the shorter steerer tube. I thought I had heard somewhere that the 2.0 also had a more robust steerer tube, but that may be false. Is there any difference outside of the steerer tube (i.e. fork crown, legs or dropouts)? Does the difference translate into a different ride quality?

When I spoke to someone at Enve about the differences between the forks, they mentioned a different lay-up schedule, but wouldn't really elaborate (or I could not get them to elaborate). The other differences they talked about were not very concrete either. To my eyes the two forks look identical. Talking about layup schedules is almost like talking about religion; you really have take their word for it on most levels.

So my dilemma is this: The frame I am looking at has a 140 mm head tube. The fork would be cut to somewhere in the neighborhood of 200mm with headset, stem and a spacer or two. If the weight savings is in the steerer tube, wouldn’t you have just cut off a large chunk of the weight savings? Yes... No...?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



d1234
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:39 pm

by d1234

Layup is so complex. It's no wonder it's hard to get details. But there can be real differences. Often the layup is different between different models that share the same mold. So of course they look the same.

There's an interesting article about this on Cervelo's web site:
http://cervelo.com/en_us/news-blog/article/the-myth-of-modulus/2939/
Especailly some of the comments and answers.

If Enve hadn't made the steerer tubes 50mm different it would have been more clear cut.

voodoojar
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:50 pm

by voodoojar

at 180mm it's about 35grams difference. I have both the 2.0 is 290 grams @ 180mm and the 1.0 is 254grams @ 180mm.

UpFromOne
Posts: 1181
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Olympic Nat'l Park, WA

by UpFromOne

I currently have both forks. I have the 2.0 in my 11 lb. fixie, and the 1.0 in my Storck road bike.
Both are equally responsive and feel incredible. The 1.0 rides lighter (as it is), but is still stiff. The 1.0 has a much
thinner steerer tube wall thickness, such that I dared not overtighten the plug. The 2.0, even at its light weight, is simply bulletproof.

User avatar
elviento
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry
Contact:

by elviento

On the manufacturing side, dropping 10% of weight can cost 20% or possibly 50% more, depending on where you begin. Sometimes, pushing the limits means much higher reject rate, potential risk of frame/park failure and litigation, one would have to command a premium to make up. In certain cases, manufacturers just wander into the "stupid light" territory. I doubt ENVE is one that would go that far. So you are probably just looking at 30-35g difference and performance would be similar.

On the consumer side, the weight and perceived prestige of having the very best (e.g, I know many who would never go below Super Record,) can be worth even more.

Ultimately it's a matter of how much it's worth to YOU.

One approach might be, for a $3K+ frame, you should just get the 1.0, if a more economical frame, then 2.0. Problem solved!
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal

bricky21
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

UpFromOne wrote:The 1.0 has a much
thinner steerer tube wall thickness, such that I dared not overtighten the plug. The 2.0, even at its light weight, is simply bulletproof.


How is the steerer tube on the 2.0? I have a 1.0, and think that the steerer tube is too thin... the thing deforms noticeably with minimal tightening of the stem bolts, but it does ride nice, and is equally stiff as a Ritchey WCS which was the same weight, but with a more robust steerer tube.

UpFromOne
Posts: 1181
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Olympic Nat'l Park, WA

by UpFromOne

Looks like the 2.0 is almost twice as thick as the 1.0.
I only had a slight bulging of the 1.0 steerer, but that UD carbon is awfully hard to break. As long as you have the feel for when the stem is secure, you're good. But I wouldn't want to crank down on the stem bolts for sure.

OP asked about any "real" difference, and I'd have to say that because the forks ride pretty much the same, the difference is the steerer thickness where obviously most of the weight was cut.

2011
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:15 pm

by 2011

Most people over-tighten stem bolts on the steerer tube anyway. There is NO need to have those bolts so tight that they start to deform your steerer tube! The top cap of course needs to be snugged down so the headset is tight, but unless you crash (which will *f##k* up your fork/bars and probably frame anyway) your bars are not going to just randomly turn on the steerer if they are tightened to even close to torque specs.

Anyway, I have both a 1.0 and 2.0. They ride the same, and unless you're a total weenie trying to pinch every gram, the 2.0 is still one of the lightest forks on the market in that price range. I much prefer the extra strength of the 2.0 rather than saving a few grams on a area that takes a lot of stress and force.

I also ride the Track fork, which is even thicker than the 2.0. It's only about 30-40 grams heavier, but is even more rock solid of a ride.

bricky21
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

2011 wrote:Most people over-tighten stem bolts on the steerer tube anyway. There is NO need to have those bolts so tight that they start to deform your steerer tube!


The problem is that the 1.0 deforms before the stem bolts are tight enough to securely hold the stem unless you use the heavy plug that Enve supplies.

Quickdraw
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South of the Republic of Boulder.

by Quickdraw

Thanks for all the responses.

2011 wrote:I much prefer the extra strength of the 2.0 rather than saving a few grams on a area that takes a lot of stress and force.


That was what I was thinking as well. After cutting the steerer tube, the 1.0 would probably only save 35 grams over the 2.0, but would be $150-200 more expensive, ride basically the same, and have a more fragile steerer tube. I am not a hard-core weight weenie, so the weight savings doesn't tip the scale for me in favor of the 1.0.

bricky21
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

Quickdraw wrote:That was what I was thinking as well. After cutting the steerer tube, the 1.0 would probably only save 35 grams over the 2.0, but would be $150-200 more expensive, ride basically the same, and have a more fragile steerer tube. I am not a hard-core weight weenie, so the weight savings doesn't tip the scale for me in favor of the 1.0.


I don't think I'd call the steerer tube on the 1.0 fragile...it's just flexable wich is probably why it holds up so well for being so thin :noidea: . I agree the 2.0 is probably a better buy unless you really want to save the 35 grams :thumbup:

User avatar
2ndgen
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:18 pm

by 2ndgen

Uncut?

About 50g and 1.0 made in Utah while 2.0 is made in Asia.
2.0 is supposed to be better for heavier riders (200lbs+),
but I haven't had any problems with my cut 1.0.

Is it worth the price difference? To me, yes.
But, full disclosure, I got my 1.0 for 2.0 pricing.

bricky21
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

2ndgen wrote:1.0 made in Utah while 2.0 is made in Asia.


I contacted Enve(Edge at the time) some time ago (2009)about whether or not the 1.0 was made in the U.S., and they said it was produced overseas, and that only their rims where made in the U.S..

User avatar
2ndgen
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:18 pm

by 2ndgen

bricky21 wrote:
2ndgen wrote:1.0 made in Utah while 2.0 is made in Asia.


I contacted Enve(Edge at the time) some time ago (2009)about whether or not the 1.0 was made in the U.S., and they said it was produced overseas, and that only their rims where made in the U.S..


Not denying what you were told, but I saw another post very close to your's only it stated the opposite...

This summer one of the Edge guys told me that the differences are that the 1.0 is lighter and made in Utah,
while the 2.0 is heavier and made overseas. At 150 pounds he assured me stiffness wouldn't be an issue with either model.

http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/edge-fork-1-0-vs-2-0-a-11161.html#post143081

I even remember magazine articles that stated that it was made in Utah.

Up until 2010, Fairwheel said that they were still being made in the USA.
http://fairwheelbikes.com/enve-10-road-fork-p-3663.html
Last edited by 2ndgen on Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
2ndgen
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:18 pm

by 2ndgen

If anyone's interested in a 1.0, Enve has them on their site at only $513.,
but there's some sort of "Dark Deal" where they have a 43 listed for only $300.! :shock:
http://www.enve.com/forks/1.0/darkdeals.aspx
Someone better jump on that (Asian-made or not!)!

Image

Post Reply