Home > Bike Types > Gravel Bikes

Cinq Adventure & Touring carbon forks load up cargo mounts & internal dynamo routing

10 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Ready to load up your ride and get out of town? For longer adventures, you may be considering options like increased storage and dynamo lighting. If so, you also might want to consider the new carbon forks from Cinq.

Cinq Adventure & Touring carbon forks load up cargo mounts & internal dynamo routing

Offered in two flavors, the Cinq Adventure fork is designed to fit up to 27.5 x 3″ or 29 x 3″ tires. Suspension corrected, the fork has an axle to crown length of 495mm and a 51mm offset along with a 1.5 to 1.125″ tapered steerer. A 15 x 110mm Boost thru axle keeps the wheel in place, while 160mm post mounts include replaceable hardware to easily repair damaged threads.

That concept continues to the three pack mounts on each fork leg which use what Cinq calls their CSA or Carbon-Steel Attachment System. Instead of bonding threaded inserts into the fork, the mounts have a steel insert that goes all the way through the fork leg. This is said to increase the cargo carrying capabilities while allowing you to replace the threads if they’re damaged in the future.

You’ll also find fender mounts, and internal dynamo wire routing which leads up to center hole through the crown which can be used to mount fender or a light, or both. While the dynamo routing is internal to protect the wire, the brake cable routing is external for ease of installation. Weighing in at 860g with the axle, the fork sells for €590.

Specifications:
  • Steerer Tube: Tapered 1.5” – 1 1/8”
  • Length (A/C height): 495mm at 51mm offset
  • Axle: 15mm x 110mm boost
  • Eyelets: Bikepacking and lowrider eyelets
  • Mounts: Lighting, fender, brake (native post-mount 160mm)
  • Electrical: Internal wiring cable routing for light and power supply
  • Tire clearance:  27.5×3″or 29×3″ tires
  • Weight: 770g w/o hardware, 860g w/hardware
  • Hardware: Includes axle and bolts/barrels

Cinq Adventure & Touring carbon forks load up cargo mounts & internal dynamo routing

The Cinq Touring fork is very similar, but designed around 27.5 x 2.2″ or 700c x 50mm tires. Built with a 400mm axle to crown measurement and 47mm offset, the fork uses a 15 x 100mm thru axle and straight 1 1/8″ steerer.

With those exceptions, when it comes to the mounting hardware, the Touring fork uses the same system as the Adventure fork with the same specifications. Weighing in at 640g with the axle, the fork sells for the same €590.

Both are available now and ship world wide – except to the U.S. That is due to the fact that these are rebranded CoLab forks from the folks at Cycle Monkey. The same forks are available in the U.S. as CoLab models, plus there is an additional tapered version of the 700c fork available. Cycle Monkey points out that the forks are rated for tandem/loaded touring with the ability to use 203mm rotors which sets them apart from most 700c forks.

Specifications:
  • Steerer Tube: Straight 1-1/8”
  • Length (A/C height): 400mm at 47mm offset
  • Axle: 15mm x 100mm
  • Eyelets: Bikepacking and lowrider eyelets
  • Mounts: Lighting, fender, brake (native post-mount 160mm)
  • Electrical: Internal wiring cable routing for light and power supply
  • Tire clearance:  700x50mm
  • Weight: 550g w/o hardware, 640g w/hardware
  • Hardware: Includes axle and bolts/barrels

cinq.de

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe
Joe
4 years ago

860g. All the failure mode and cost of carbon at the weight of a good custom steel fork.

JBikes
JBikes
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe

Steel forks can suffer from fatigue and nobody will convince me it is any different in failure when in use…both bad. Maybe you get lucky and see a crack form prior, but I think that is getting lucky.
At the same weight, I’d trust the strength of the CF fork not to crack over the steel, sans impact damage.

Now, I have no idea what is going on in the crown area for these. Generally speaking I avoid alloy steerers like the plague given issues with bond and corrosion at a critical junction.

blahblahblah
blahblahblah
4 years ago
Reply to  JBikes

“All the failure mode” serious? if you’re breaking carbon forks you may want to review your riding style/ability/lack of common sense, btw aluminum fails very similar better ditch your stem cranks handlebar etc etc, while where at it lets talk carbon in planes…..

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  blahblahblah

Yes, all the failure mode. It’s not about riding style. It’s realistic use plus manufacturing, QC and what happens when faults reveal themselves and aeroplanes have very different QC and QA to bike parts. Like, other end of the scale in every way kind of different.
If you must have minimal weight for a race bike, sure, carbon has good form. For a loaded touring type of bike I don’t see the justification vs the negatives.

i
i
4 years ago
Reply to  blahblahblah

I really get a kick out of carbon conspiracy theorists like Joe, talking as if carbon is some new, unproven technology and he has unique knowledge of how dangerous it is.
As if I don’t have a carbon fork from 2001 with easily 100k miles on it. As if that’s unusual. As if almost everyone who rides doesn’t have at least one carbon fork. But hey, he saw some pictures of a broken fork so each of the millions of forks out there still going strong must be on borrowed time.

Last ‘study’ I read on frame failures found that steel frames break more than any other material; because they were trying to compete on weight with less dense materials.
I guarantee your custom fork has not gone through anywhere near the QC that a reputable carbon fork has.

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  i

With respect, your comments are about fatigue and no-one is questioning a sound QC-pass carbon item’s likely fatigue life. Longer than welded metals. And I repeat, I expect Cinq’s fork is one of the good ones, my comment on mode of failure is about the material and use rather than the brand.

As to your guarantee. The manufacture and QC process for each is very different. How many carbon fork recalls have there been in the bike industry in recent years?

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  JBikes

I should say, expect these are as good as anything else in the same material. Cinq are a legit company. Even so, steel fatigue cracks develop slowly with plenty of visible warnings. Carbon may not fatigue much but lamination damage, compromised steerers etc often mean more sudden failures. It’s all been seen before and the pro-cons argument has been done before.
These things do look to be built pretty solid so may well be very tough – hence the comment, at that point carbon has few advantages. One advantage is that it’ll look right with an oversize head tube in place of a taper-steerer sus fork.

Fred Gravelly
Fred Gravelly
4 years ago
Reply to  JBikes

JBikes I feel you, im confident in CF now a days, but for that weight & price you could go though 3, 4…. maybe 5 steel forks

dylan
dylan
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe

640g with mounting hardware for the touring fork with shorter A/C height. Can you really get a comparable (i.e. including rack & fender mounts, disc brake mounts, tidy dynamo routing) steel fork at the same weight?

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  dylan

Not at the same weight but I’d take 100-200g gain as 750-850g is realistic if not the common aftermarket steel fork weight. The lower cost too, in a material I’d be happier using for touring and load-carrying. That’s just my take on it though. If they sell loads to those who want to save that bit of weight then all good.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.