Why do you chose a Steel fork over a well fab'd Carbon fork

[Smiley]

I don't get it , I know it's nostalgic to have a well made lugged steel bike, with a balanced look of a lugged steel fork but can't we agree that Carbon forks have replaced steel in this area of design where there is no dispute to the merits of carbon over Titanium , Aluminum or carbon steel in fork manufacturing. It seems to me with the abundance of really well made carbon forks from Reynolds, Serotta, Easton, True Temper, Wound Up and others that this is one area that carbon has all other beat hands down. I know that for a really consistant ride I chose to go the route of a F3 fork for my new bike cause its lighter , built for my weight and riding ( yes I like the fact that they have Three lay ups to chose from ) and lastly I did ask around and the overwhelming majority told me to go carbon. Its really not my intent to start a fight rather a debate as to why you'd go the way of a steel fork with the advancements that carbon has made in the last 10 years in fork designs.

[dauwhe]

I have two problems with carbon forks:

[1] Very few are made for "long reach" sidepulls and fenders
[2] I don't know of any carbon fork that would work with a front rack (randonneur-sytle)

Perhaps both of these are symptoms of the larger issue--in general, carbon forks are made as a product in their own right, not as an integral part of the bicycle frame itself. With steel, the framebuilder can design the fork as part of the frame. It seems like the other way around with carbon--since the forks are very similar (many are available in only one rake), you need to design the frame to match the pre-existing fork.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this (Serotta for example seems to have lots of options with carbon forks), and I'm sure carbon forks suit most riders. But I would have a hard time finding a carbon fork that would suit my bikes and riding as well as steel does.

Dave Cramer
Brattleboro, Vermont

[scrooge]

I have a CF fork on my bike, but have been thinking about this as I dream about a "next" bike.
I might think about steel because it gives a few more options--it seems difficult to find a CF fork that allows for wider tire clearance, rack/fender mounts etc. Also, I think that if I got a lugged steel bike (which I dream about getting), a steel fork just looks right. Of course, none of that really answers the question about ride characteristics, which I know nothing about...

[saab2000]

My first ever bike with a carbon fork was finished last year. It is my Merckx, which had a Look HSC3 fork. I was stunned and dismayed at the mushiness and lack of crisp feel on the first ride. It has since been replaced with by a Reynolds Ouzo Pro, which is significantly better.

I have never been a believer that weight is the number 1 priority on a bike. Carbon forks provide, IMHO, ONLY lighter weight. There are no other reasons to have one, IYAM.

Steel forks can be built to the precise rake needed. They are matched in height to the frame. They are stiff. They can be built with a 1" headset, meaning offsetting some of the weight gain of the steel fork is offset by the lighter headset and smaller diameter headtube. I know it is splitting hairs.

Anyway, I have seen enough photos of broken carbon forks to still hold a deep mistrust of them, even though I know have two bikes with carbon forks.

I don't think a carbon fork rides any better than a good steel fork. They are just a bit lighter.

FWIW, Colnago had steel-forked C-40s winning big races long after carbon forks had become pretty common.

[Big Dan]

Balance baby............. :cool:

[Tailwinds]

I haven't tried a carbon fork on this bike, but this handmade steel fork was made specifically for MY frame -- as part of the complete package. Besides, it "sings" to me.

[JasonF]

I haven't tried a carbon fork on this bike, but this handmade steel fork was made specifically for MY frame -- as part of the complete package. Besides, it "sings" to me.


With that picture, 'nuff said.

[Fixed]

carbon fork = ugly
steel fork =pretty
i.m.h.o.
cheers

bro steel fork only on steel lugged bike
imho

[Tailwinds]

We have another winner (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=carbon+fork&word2=steel+fork) imho. :fight:

[dave thompson]

Smiley, I would say that if you're getting a custom bike and if the builder can make a good fork, why not get a custom fork? A steel fork can be custom made for you exactly as a steel bike can be made custom for you.

Plus some types of bikes esthetically demand a steel fork. Lugged steel is the best example.

[OldDog]

but can't we agree that Carbon forks have replaced steel in this area of design where there is no dispute to the merits of carbon over Titanium , Aluminum or carbon steel in fork manufacturing. .


Where's your data to support your claim? As one who has not had the opportunity to try all the various carbon forks available over the years let alone all the different designs of steel forks, how could I compare? And if I did, it would only be my opinion. We can only agree to the merits of carbon in this application if there is hard test data to prove the point.

I have two lugged steel bikes I absolutly love, a Sachs and an Eddy MXL. Two steel forks whose materials and design are night and day. These steel forks were designed for the frame. I have a ti bike with a carbon fork. Both steel bikes ride nicer and smoother with less road vibes through the bars, than my ti/carbon.

Visually, a tigged bike can get away with a carbon fork, I like 'em painted. But lugged bikes should have a lugged fork. Otherwise what's the point of going lugged?

Atmo and I'm sticking to it!

[eddief]

over hundreds of miles and climbing some big mountains, I did not give a crap about the nice Kogswell steel fork. More than many, I appreciate the aethetics of a properly designed steel bike. I even appreciate the springy, solid feel of the steel forks on my Rambouillet and my Sequoia and my Kogswell for that matter. But in Spain I would have loved it if my Kogswell was a pound lighter. The Kogswell now has a Kestrel EMS installed and I am checking out the feel of this steel bike with this carbon fork.

In the end, if you have more than one bike then you have the luxury of experimenting with different looks and ride characteristics. If you only have one bike, then the choice becomes a bit more daunting.

If you ask your question related to your new travel bike, and it will be a primarily smooth road cruiser and you will get to lug it in a suitcase, then I'd probably choose a carbon fork for weight saving purposes. Maybe you should get it with both a steel and a carbon fork so you can have the best of both worlds.

[flydhest]

Smiley,
While riding the CSi this weekend, I was thinking the exact opposite. My first CSi had a carbon fork. The steel one is so great, I started wondering and trying to remember why one would want a carbon fork. The F1 was a great fork, no doubt about that, but my steel fork on my CSi is at least as good. The weight penalties--for whatever they are worth--are minimal between the F1 and the steel fork. Sure, now there's a bit more difference with the F3, but I don't reckon it matters.

Steel is as real as it ever was. I love my Alpha Q on my Legend, but I don't think it's hands down better than the steel one. That is the lighter of my two road bikes, but better? Not clear.

[saab2000]

When I bought my Anvil with S&S Couplers I specified a steel fork very specifically because I knew that packing it and unpacking it would likely expose the carbon to banging and scratching. I never for 1 second regretted getting a steel fork for that ride.

[vaxn8r]

Where's your data to support your claim? As one who has not had the opportunity to try all the various carbon forks available over the years let alone all the different designs of steel forks, how could I compare? And if I did, it would only be my opinion. We can only agree to the merits of carbon in this application if there is hard test data to prove the point.

I have two lugged steel bikes I absolutly love, a Sachs and an Eddy MXL. Two steel forks whose materials and design are night and day. These steel forks were designed for the frame. I have a ti bike with a carbon fork. Both steel bikes ride nicer and smoother with less road vibes through the bars, than my ti/carbon.

Visually, a tigged bike can get away with a carbon fork, I like 'em painted. But lugged bikes should have a lugged fork. Otherwise what's the point of going lugged?

Atmo and I'm sticking to it!
Looking for "hard data" but you failed to tell us which ti bike and which CF fork. I mean, I can poke fun of my 1992 Litespeed with kinesis AL fork too. But it ain't nearly the bike of my '02 Legend with Ouzo Pro. Similarly, I don't think it fair to assume all steel forks work like a Sachs or even a Merkx?

Tom Kellog has a great round up of CF forks on his site. Pretty good read.

[e-RICHIE]

I don't get it , I know it's nostalgic to have a well made lugged steel bike, with a balanced look of a lugged steel fork but can't we agree that Carbon forks have replaced steel in this area of design where there is no dispute to the merits of carbon over Titanium , Aluminum or carbon steel in fork manufacturing. It seems to me with the abundance of really well made carbon forks from Reynolds, Serotta, Easton, True Temper, Wound Up and others that this is one area that carbon has all other beat hands down. I know that for a really consistant ride I chose to go the route of a F3 fork for my new bike cause its lighter , built for my weight and riding ( yes I like the fact that they have Three lay ups to chose from ) and lastly I did ask around and the overwhelming majority told me to go carbon. Its really not my intent to start a fight rather a debate as to why you'd go the way of a steel fork with the advancements that carbon has made in the last 10 years in fork designs.


generally speaking, CF is popular and ubiquitious (wrt forks)
because it allows for ease of manufacturing, profitabilty, and
acceptance via the 'buzz' level. the key word here is manufacturing.
forks have become a commodity. if you can accept this, there's
no reason not to use CF as a material. imo, when a maker chooses
to buy forks from a supplier, he's essentially hung out the white
flag inferring that he's conceded to market pressures.

[fiamme red]

generally speaking, CF is popular and ubiquitious (wrt forks) because it allows for ease of manufacturing, profitabilty, and acceptance via the 'buzz' level. the key word here is manufacturing. forks have become a commodity. if you can accept this, there's no reason not to use CF as a material. imo, when a maker chooses to buy forks from a supplier, he's essentially hung out the white flag inferring that he's conceded to market pressures.dear richie-issimo
URAGOD™

[PanTerra]

I haven't tried a carbon fork on this bike, but this handmade steel fork was made specifically for MY frame -- as part of the complete package. Besides, it "sings" to me.

Wow, that fork would go great on my CSi.

[flydhest]

Wow, that fork would go great on my CSi.

PanTerra, that's why I have a steel fork on my CSi :D

[Johny]

Wow, that fork would go great on my CSi.

$375 with a free JB paint job.

[Argos]

I like Carbon.

That said, I think when I order my steel geared 'cross bike later this season, it will come with no fork. I will take the Carbon Alpha-Q off my SS/Fixie cross bike and order a Steel fork for it.

I like steel too.

CDA Cross... Mmmm...

[Fixed]

bro i'm with you argos it depends on the bike i.m.h.o.
cheers

[Dr. Doofus]

rake n trail

but, that's only a custom consideration

if it was designed for a 43mm rake, you're sorta stuck

[dbrk]

Nearly everything has been said but I am, of course, partial to the steel. Starting with carbon forks that only come in a handful of rakes and with limited tire clearance means that the frame is designed around the fork options. This is, of course, backwards or, at least, inadequate to the whole. Of course, you can start with fixed rake options and work around them but that is another version of waving the white flag.

As for the ride, I have never ridden a carbon fork superior to the steel made by the finest builders.

To each his/her own!! Ride what you love!

dbrk

[Smiley]

Serotta rakes are 41, 43, 47 and 50 mm . They have three lay up's 6.5 , 8.5 and 10.0 . If you can't fine tune around that then there is something wrong . Also this F3 will take a roly poly too :)

[cpg]

All very true but only if you want to paint yourself in the short reach brake 700C box. Why do that? There are so many other options opened up by well you guessed it a steel fork. Actually the material isn't relevant. It's the fact the builder can actually make the fork to the desired length and offset. Aesthetics are the frosting on the cake. To me, limiting ones choices to only carbon forks is like limiting one to the missionary position. Yawn.

Curt

[vaxn8r]

...As for the ride, I have never ridden a carbon fork superior to the steel made by the finest builders...



dbrk
That's what I was driving at.

The steel builders we all know and respect still make their own. Vanilla, Sachs, Kirk, Della Santa, Davidson, Co-Mo....

[OldDog]

Looking for "hard data" but you failed to tell us which ti bike and which CF fork. I mean, I can poke fun of my 1992 Litespeed with kinesis AL fork too. But it ain't nearly the bike of my '02 Legend with Ouzo Pro. Similarly, I don't think it fair to assume all steel forks work like a Sachs or even a Merkx?

Tom Kellog has a great round up of CF forks on his site. Pretty good read.


Vax - your right as I did, intentionally, leave out the brand of ti bike and fork. Since we are talking forks, I will say what I have is a Time Millinium of 1999 vintage. The MXl is a '98 and the Sachs a 2002. So period wise all are in the ballpark. I mention the names of the steel bikes as they come as a set, unlike <most> other materials where the carbon fork comes as a separate component.

When I ask for "hard data" I am looking for some sort of test results to support Smileys statement "that Carbon forks have replaced steel in this area of design where there is no dispute to the merits of carbon". That is a broad statement, I believe is based on opinion. Granted, an opinion of a much more experinced cyclist than myself. I respect Smiley's experience however my experience tells me different, based on the examples I give.

[dirtdigger88]

for me-

my bike is lugged steel it is only locigal for the fork to be the same-

in addition- the ability to run cantis AND select the rake needed- yes serotta's forks come in all kinds of rakes- but none with the option to run cantis- or am I wrong-

oh and sure you can use Rolly Pollys with a carbon fork- but can you with fenders- how about a cross tire and fenders

sure if I were to order an Ottrott Im sure I would put a carbon fork on it- but unless I win the lottery sometime soon- I just dont see that happening-

the steel fork on my Kirk is in all reality the first quality steel fork Ive ever ridden- but IMHO- it one of the finest riding forks Ive ever used- granted my experience is not that of many of you- but I still have ridden some nice forks in my day

Jason

[Len J]

Serotta rakes are 41, 43, 47 and 50 mm . They have three lay up's 6.5 , 8.5 and 10.0 . If you can't fine tune around that then there is something wrong . Also this F3 will take a roly poly too :)

I've never ridden a carbon fork that rides as sweet as a good steel fork matched to a frame by a good builder.

It's all part of the package tho......I wouldn't put a steel fork on an Ottrott, but match it with good steel, I'll take a steel fork.

Len

[Smiley]

When I ask for "hard data" I am looking for some sort of test results to support Smileys statement "that Carbon forks have replaced steel in this area of design where there is no dispute to the merits of carbon". That is a broad statement, I believe is based on opinion. Granted, an opinion of a much more experinced cyclist than myself. I respect Smiley's experience however my experience tells me different, based on the examples I give.[/QUOTE]


I am saying WHY does a master builder like Pegoretti then not build his own forks to augment the ride qualities of his frames. Just don't throw out all Carbon forks as being NOT up to snuff , As we speak the industry is building new Cross Carbon forks with spacing for fenders and rack mounts , See Easton EC 90 X as an example. I said nuthing wrong with steel but why not be like Dario and supply quality Carbon .

by the way I have a really nice Steel fork on my Co-MO tandem that I was NOT interested in swapping out for Carbon at the time since there were not many forks back then I was interested in Today maybe another story. I'll also add my Kogswell fork is also of very good quality but nothing like a Sachs or a Goodrich fork. Enjoying the debate , Smiley

[fiamme red]

Smiley asked: "Why do you chose a Steel fork over a well fab'd Carbon fork?"

Because steel is real. Trite, but it's in your sig.

[Big Dan]

Dario will build a steel fork if you want to.
It's falls under custom category and also there is a nominal fee involved....... :p

[Smiley]

Smiley asked: "Why do you chose a Steel fork over a well fab'd Carbon fork?"

Because steel is real. Trite, but it's in your sig.
By the way I am looking at my new Steel Uniscasi and its much much nicer in real life . Now need to get this built up and ridden with the F3 carbon fork :)

[Climb01742]

smiley, the question you asked is like throwing meat to wolves. the "steel is real" fans will jump on it. while the carbon fans will sit quietly, safely, on the sidelines. it's not a fray worth getting into...it will only produce heat, no light.

[dbrk]

smiley, the question you asked is like throwing meat to wolves. the "steel is real" fans will jump on it. while the carbon fans will sit quietly, safely, on the sidelines. it's not a fray worth getting into...it will only produce heat, no light.

Heck, Climb, I could stand some HEAT. It's gonna snow tomorrow out here! Not much and not worth a lick but still...And next we can ask if Shimano or Campaganolo works better with a carbon fork! Think of the fun! Think of the thread drift! Think of how we might cause a ruckuss!! Gotta love this place. Friends ripping into friends and there is always Sandy to remind us to behave like we _are_ friends. 'Cause we are.

dbrk

[72gmc]

I prefer steel forks just because I do. On top of the versatility benefits already mentioned, I get what I perceive to be a stronger/smoother/more aesthetically pleasing bicycle when it has a steel fork. I've tried carbon forks and, well, eh. Chrome or painted, there's something about a steel fork that makes a bike right to me.

[chrisroph]

There is a place for both. My ti, carbon and Al bikes get carbon. My steel bikes get steel. The steel forks match the ride of the steel frames nicely and it would be a shame to not ride a steel fork made for a specific steel frame on that frame. The ONLY disadvantage of a steel fork is weight.

[OldDog]

Smiley - in your last post #31 you are quoting me however your post does not seem to relate? What am I missing?

I never said all carbon forks are not up to snuff, just relating my own experience. I cannot comment on Dario's products other than maybe to refer back to e-richies post, Dario's hung out his white flag, except the Lugiano?

I think if you blindfolded most of us here on the forum for a test ride we could not tell the difference between good carbon vs. good steel forks. Then there are those few who could tell the difference in the effect various brands of tire valve caps have on ride quality :D

[OldDog]

Heck, Climb, I could stand some HEAT. It's gonna snow tomorrow out here! Not much and not worth a lick but still...And next we can ask if Shimano or Campaganolo works better with a carbon fork! Think of the fun! Think of the thread drift! Think of how we might cause a ruckuss!! Gotta love this place. Friends ripping into friends and there is always Sandy to remind us to behave like we _are_ friends. 'Cause we are.

dbrk


Silly dbrk - everyone knows Campy works best with a steel fork :rolleyes:

[e-RICHIE]

<snipped>: As we speak the industry is building new Cross Carbon forks with spacing for fenders and rack mounts<cut>


well there you have it. it's all tied to the industry, and i do
not say that in a disparaging way. the only way these cats
survive is to breed efficiency. heck - i defy anyone here with
a stock portfolio to show that they invest in any corporation
that is not lean, efficient, profitable, and responsible. but i
digress. bicycle companies choosing CF or pre-fabbed parts
in order to make their own are simply living life as part of
the food chain. if they don't go with the market tide, they'll
soon vaporize. i'm reminded of this little nugget attributed
to phillipe dufour who said,
"...everything is designed to be made on a machine."
the quote* is perhaps taken out of context to support my
opinion, but that opinion stands; the industry chooses
what it has to in order to survive, and the copycats and
pretenders and those next in line copy from the top down
in the hopes that they too can all ride out the trend.
hey - thanks for atmo.



*the entire text lives here:
http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000476650

[stevep]

not all carbon forks are the same. some are better and more expensive.
not all steel forks are the same. some are better and more expensive.
funny coincidence that.

[Ken Robb]

I've said this before: all of my steel forks have ridden very well. Some of my carbon forks have and some have been scary-flexy. No problems w/any Reynolds or F1 other than limited clearance for tires bigger than nominal 700x25mm. The Alph Q Cross fork on my Hampsten rides like a dream and sccepts 700x37mm tires. No provision for fenders/racks however.
I think it looks fine on this fat-tubes ti bike.

On my classic lugged bikes I prefer the look of a lugged steel fork although the Profile Design AC1 on my Waterford RS11 rides very well and takes 700x28mm tires!! Fat tire lovers take note.

I think a fairly skinny-tubed steel fork would look wrong on a fat-tubed modern-looking racy bike.

[e-RICHIE]

not all carbon forks are the same. some are better and more expensive.
not all steel forks are the same. some are better and more expensive.
funny coincidence that.


trust me...
this thread may never have been about only
premium grade cf forks, but it was never about
inexpensive steel forks. even back in the day,
inexpensive steel forks were, well - they sucked.

[Smiley]

Not picking on you or anybody else Olddog , just wanted to see where the bias was. I know that for me the certainty of what an F3 fork was going to feel and ride like made me certain that that was my ticket. I can't say with 100 % certainty that I'd like steel forks for all occassions. Thats to say that you'd need a crow bar to get my Co-Mo steel fork away from me. The Kogswell fork I won't fight you over though :)

[CNote]

I am saying WHY does a master builder like Pegoretti then not build his own forks to augment the ride qualities of his frames.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=190482&postcount=2

[CNote]

the carbon fans will sit quietly, safely, on the sidelines.

Why? What's the threat?

[Fixed]

bro I would bet MOST bros have bikes with both kinds of forks .when you race which bike do you take ? i have broken 2 carbon forks and one carbon frame on race bikes . my new bike is a rocket that said i'm waiting for it to explode . I hope it doesn't though . I never think this with steel.
cheers

[Climb01742]

Why? What's the threat?

to voice pro-carbon sentiments often brings out a less than charming or charitable side of steel fans, IMO. why go there?

[e-RICHIE]

to voice pro-carbon sentiments often brings out a less than charming or charitable side of steel fans, IMO. why go there?


i think this debate is always inane without qualifiers.
cf is a material. a fork is a thing. there are reasons
that some things are made with some materials. all
too often, those reasons have to do with money, or with
the market - and both of which are hard to seperate from
each other, no?

at the highest level, quality=quality. but for nearly all
off-the-shelf stuff, a compromise exists somewhere.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=190966&postcount=44

[Climb01742]

i think this debate is always inane without qualifiers.
cf is a material. a fork is a thing. there are reasons
that some things are made with some materials. all
too often, those reasons have to do with money, or with
the market - and both of which are hard to seperate from
each other, no?

at the highest level, quality=quality. but for nearly all
off-the-shelf stuff, a compromise exists somewhere.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=190966&postcount=44

there is the "thing" (in this case, forks.) and then there is the debate that surrounds the "thing". i find that often the debate takes on a life of it's own that has not so much to do with the "thing" being debated. steel vs carbon often seems to trigger ancillary debates and feelings, IMO. that was my point; i have nothing intelligent to add to a debate about forks, because as you often, rightly, point out: a bike is a whole; i can't discern for sure, always, if a sensation is due to the fork or to something else.

[palincss]

to voice pro-carbon sentiments often brings out a less than charming or charitable side of steel fans, IMO. why go there?

This thread didn't begin with "pro-carbon sentiments," but rather with the blanket assertion that this was a settled question, without any doubt left as to the conclusion. That's been amply disproven, ATMO.

Sure, there are pro's to carbon forks, and some of them have been pointed out (although, curiously, not the selling point that put carbon forks on the map: 'less "road buzz"' - I guess we've learned that was just marketing hype). And there are cons, and some of them have been pointed out, too (although perhaps the worst, that they don't crash at all well, hasn't yet been voiced).

What's most curious to me is the comparison between the position Kogswell takes, that "the fork is the frame" and that of most industry practice today, that the fork is an aftermarket accessory of no more significance than a water bottle cage.

[vaxn8r]

Sometimes I like carbon fiber forks and sometimes I don't.

:)

[e-RICHIE]

there is the "thing" (in this case, forks.) and then there is the debate that surrounds the "thing". i find that often the debate takes on a life of it's own that has not so much to do with the "thing" being debated. steel vs carbon often seems to trigger ancillary debates and feelings, IMO. that was my point; i have nothing intelligent to add to a debate about forks, because as you often, rightly, point out: a bike is a whole; i can't discern for sure, always, if a sensation is due to the fork or to something else.


the thing with me is that i try to follow the thread
to the letter of the law, and respond accordingly.
(well - unless jerk and doof meet me for happy hour).

when smiley first wondered aloud:
"...why you'd go the way of a steel fork with the
advancements that carbon has made in the last 10
years in fork designs."
i kinda felt that it's an emotional issue from the very
beginning. to wit, i think i summed it up well by infer-
ing that one shouldn't broadstroke the issue without
knowing all the details that led him to believe that
cf, had in fact, made these suggested advancements.
imo there is cf good and there is cf cheap. the same holds
true with anything made for a market. again, imo, this
issue is not about the thing - it never is. it's about the
standards set for the thing by the thing makers and
marketers, as well as the bounderies set by the consumers
who buy into this. it's all inseperable. that's why we have
light conversations about it.

[Wayne77]

I entered this thread a boy and left it as a man..

I love this place!!

:beer: :D :beer:



well there you have it. it's all tied to the industry, and i do
not say that in a disparaging way. the only way these cats
survive is to breed efficiency. heck - i defy anyone here with
a stock portfolio to show that they invest in any corporation
that is not lean, efficient, profitable, and responsible. but i
digress. bicycle companies choosing CF or pre-fabbed parts
in order to make their own are simply living life as part of
the food chain. if they don't go with the market tide, they'll
soon vaporize. i'm reminded of this little nugget attributed
to phillipe dufour who said,
"...everything is designed to be made on a machine."
the quote* is perhaps taken out of context to support my
opinion, but that opinion stands; the industry chooses
what it has to in order to survive, and the copycats and
pretenders and those next in line copy from the top down
in the hopes that they too can all ride out the trend.
hey - thanks for atmo.



*the entire text lives here:
http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000476650

[manet]

We have another winner (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=carbon+fork&word2=steel+fork) imho. :fight:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=carbon+fork&word2=south+fork

[Dr. Doofus]

doof just ate his salad with a CF fork

the old wood ones are better

[e-RICHIE]

I entered this thread a boy and left it as a man..

I love this place!!

:beer: :D :beer:



make it your world, wayne.

[stevep]

fixed.
you say that you have broken 2 carbon forks and one frame.
crashes? failure?
jra?

[manet]

bro I would bet MOST bros have bikes with both kinds of forks .when you race which bike do you take ? i have broken 2 carbon forks and one carbon frame on race bikes . my new bike is a rocket that said i'm waiting for it to explode . I hope it doesn't though . I never think this with steel.
cheers

always my thoughts when using trojans

[stevep]

related question for e-ritchie. i always thought it was harder to build a good fork than a frame.
any thoughts on this?
i will pay you $.02 a word.... 20 word limit.

[e-RICHIE]

related question for e-ritchie. i always thought it was harder to build a good fork than a frame.
any thoughts on this?
i will pay you $.02 a word.... 20 word limit.



you think about this stuff?

[manet]

my alpha Q is cool wid my spectrum Ti.
goes with that race look-soul-thingy that
dangled by another thread.

what would look way cooler would
be a Ti fork _ continuity. steel frames
ALWAYS look better with steel forks.
carbon ALWAYS look better with
steel, oh sorry, carbon... why
should a Ti frame be any different
(that's not a question).

[stevep]

after reading 100 comments on forks..,.
i owe you $.10.
ring it up.

[stevep]

ti forks are no good. they are either:
too heavy
or too springy

ng

e-ritchie owes me $.28

[Grant McLean]

generally speaking, CF is popular and ubiquitious (wrt forks)
because it allows for ease of manufacturing, profitabilty, and
acceptance via the 'buzz' level. the key word here is manufacturing.
forks have become a commodity. if you can accept this, there's
no reason not to use CF as a material. imo, when a maker chooses
to buy forks from a supplier, he's essentially hung out the white
flag inferring that he's conceded to market pressures.

I've always thought that a "frame" includes a fork. Given the level of
integration necessary between the frame the fork for a bicycle to ride
really well, I have always been skeptical of frames that don't include
a fork. Thinking of all the bikes i've owned in the 20+ years... only
1 bike didn't come with a fork the same brand as the frame.

I think I just want to buy bikes from people who also think that the
fork _is_ the frame. The same goes for seatstays....

-g

[e-RICHIE]

ti forks are no good. they are either:
too heavy
or too springy

ng

e-ritchie owes me $.28


there's no t in richie and
there's no t in pootchie

no sale

[Smiley]

OK , Richie and all , Can you guys tell me if their exsists any lousy Steel forks that you've seen on bikes , not your own but by others . If so then I also heard that building of a very good steel fork is not an easy task but takes a master to really make one right. After all its like a tuning fork if its done wrong its wrong. Carbone Fibre is if done right is much better from a reapeatability standpoint of more right ones built then wrong ones coming off a mold. Your comments please.

[Samster]

... debate as to why you'd go the way of a steel fork with the advancements that carbon has made in the last 10 years in fork designs.

Isn't it just an extra degree of freedom?

Trail=stability
Shallow HT angle=more trail
More rake=less trail
Steep HT angle=less trail
Less rake=more trail

So if you're making a bike for a short person, you'd want to push rake with a shallow head angle if you're trying to give toe clearance w/ the front wheel while maintaining a targeted range of trail. Harder to do with a fixed rake CF fork. Similarly, if you're trying to keep wheelbase reasonable on a large frame, you have to use a steep HT angle which would be best served with by low rake fork... again, tough with a fixed set of CF options. I imagine in the mid-range of frame sizes, this is a non-issue.

[Grant McLean]

there's no t in richie and
there's no t in pootchie


don't tell tinkerbell..

[e-RICHIE]

OK , Richie and all , Can you guys tell me if their exsists any lousy Steel forks that you've seen on bikes , not your own but by others . If so then I also heard that building of a very good steel fork is not an easy task but takes a master to really make one right. After all its like a tuning fork if its done wrong its wrong. Carbone Fibre is if done right is much better from a reapeatability standpoint of more right ones built then wrong ones coming off a mold. Your comments please.



there are "millions" of lousy steel forks.
good steel forks more likely represent a technique
than technology. cf forks, otoh, more likely repre-
sent a technology. that's not to suggest it's "bad";
my point remains that it has been embraced, even
co-opted, because it yields higher profits for industry
than does "hand-work", which is what it replaced.

i don't think i can say any more succinctly than this:
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=190940&postcount=41

do folks want to have good products for less money, and
more choices too? well - it's the technology that allows
that to occur.

[manet]

ti forks are no good. they are either:
too heavy
or too springy

ng

e-ritchie owes me $.28

well so we knew THAT. my comment
was about the look _ you know, the
plaids fighting the stripes, the spots
sucker punching the bias.
WWCCD?

[Fixed]

fixed.
you say that you have broken 2 carbon forks and one frame.
crashes? failure?
jra? sad but two forks one was f1 serotta crack up from the drop out the other a cheap fork . after a year my trek 5500 cracked at the chain- stay near the b.b. my caad 7 i have now i like i just hope it stays together .. my wife would like me to get 2 years out of it . cheers

[CNote]

I've always thought that a "frame" includes a fork. Given the level of
integration necessary between the frame the fork for a bicycle to ride
really well, I have always been skeptical of frames that don't include
a fork.

My follow-up to this is that a frame and fork does not necessarily make a "frameset." Regardless of whether the fork was built by the same company, was it built with a particular frame geometry in mind (a SINGLE frame geo, NOT a LINE-UP of frame geometries)?


related question for e-ritchie. i always thought it was harder to build a good fork than a frame.
any thoughts on this?
i will pay you $.02 a word.... 20 word limit.

I bet it's harder to build a good frame for a predetermined fork geo. For example, and with relevance to Grant's post above, LeMond uses the same fork (45 mm rake) from size 49 up to 61. The fork is a Bontrager, which is made by the same folks as the frame (It's a Bontrager with "LeMond" decals. Same thing. Does this meet your criterion, Grant?) . The HTA on these bikes ranges from 71.25 up to 74. You can imagine how much the trail numbers vary. The 61 cm comes out at like 49 mm of trail. That's low, no matter how you manipulate other figures. I've owned a 61 in this geometry and it handles, well, weird. Apparently the longer wheelbase is supposed to make up for this irregularly low trail figure. Uh-uh. In my mind this does not constitute a "frameset," even though the frame and fork are the same brand. The fork is simply supposed to fit a wide array of geometries, but it does not.

[Grant McLean]

I bet it's harder to build a good frame for a predetermined fork geo. For example, and with relevance to Grant's post above, LeMond uses the same fork (45 mm rake) from size 49 up to 61. The fork is a Bontrager, which is made by the same folks as the frame (It's a Bontrager with "LeMond" decals. Same thing. Does this meet your criterion, Grant?) . The HTA on these bikes ranges from 71.25 up to 74. You can imagine how much the trail numbers vary. The 61 cm comes out at like 49 mm of trail. That's low, no matter how you manipulate other figures. I've owned a 61 in this geometry and it handles, well, weird. Apparently the longer wheelbase is supposed to make up for this irregularly low trail figure. Uh-uh. In my mind this does not constitute a "frameset," even though the frame and fork are the same brand. The fork is simply supposed to fit a wide array of geometries, but it does not.

All sizes of Colnago C50's have a 43mm fork too. This doesn't make any
sense either. It's a mystery. Before everyone jumps up and says it's
done to save money... then why do they offer a frame in 14 sizes?
Obviously the product managers either don't care, or think the end user
doesn't care. Or both. Or something else. Fortunately, for some, there
are some geo's and sizes that work with a 43mm fork, just not all.

-g

[e-RICHIE]

All sizes of Colnago C50's have a 43mm fork too. This doesn't make any
sense either. It's a mystery. Before everyone jumps up and says it's
done to save money...

when they went to straight blades in '91, it
was to save money. oh - it was marketed
as 'eeeeez better', but it really was a move
to increase in efficiency in - get this - steel
fork making. ya' can't make this stuff up.

[Grant McLean]

when they went to straight blades in '91, it
was to save money. oh - it was marketed
as 'eeeeez better', but it really was a move
to increase in efficiency in - get this - steel
fork making. ya' can't make this stuff up.


sure, in '91 I can believe they were trying to cut costs.
The road market was taking it in the teeth. Is it too
much to ask that a $5000.00 frame/fork have more
than 1 rake across all sizes?

How can specialzed spec 4 different fork rakes on a
bike that's less than $800 retail !

-g

[e-RICHIE]

sure, in '91 I can believe they were trying to cut costs.



isn't that linked to the entire thread -
when is cutting costs not an issue in manufacturing?
how can you seperate the thing from the thing meister?

[Grant McLean]

isn't that linked to the entire thread -
when is cutting costs not an issue in manufacturing?
how can you seperate the thing from the thing meister?

When? when you are at the bone, and won't cut any more:



http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?dest=9999999997&product_id=4698938&sourceid=1500000000000002375470

or when you reach $199 retail

[William]

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/images-signs/fork.gif

Ok, I just got up and haven't had enough coffee to sit down and go through this whole thread. Maybe later...


I can answer this question real fast: The best fork material is whatever you enjoy riding. Period. Who cares if the manufacturers are moving to cf forks? It's a lot easier to blow off a bunch in a mold then it is to braze a steel fork. Does that make them better? Naaaah. Lighter? In many instances yes, but by how much? Again, you'd be better off worrying about losing a pound off your midsection then the diff between a CF or Steel fork. "Yeah but the pros ride em". So, the pros ride a lot of things their sponsors throw at them. I'm not saying they would be on steel if they had a choice, just that it's not always the best measure of what's "good and right" in the bike world.

I can't speak for you flyweights out there, but for us big boy bell curve specials, You need a beefier CF fork to get away from the mush. That results in less weight difference tween the two. At my strength to weight ratio, steel has a much better feel. Admittedly the Skunkbird currently has a beefy CF fork on it, but it will be going back to a good steel fork in the near future. Why, because I want to, and that brings us full circle back to the start of my post.


William


http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/dglawrence/2005/05/26/fork.png

[Sandy]

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/images-signs/fork.gif

Ok, I just got up and haven't had enough coffee to sit down and go through this whole thread. Maybe later...


I can answer this question real fast: The best fork material is whatever you enjoy riding. Period. Who cares if the manufacturers are moving to cf forks? It's a lot easier to blow off a bunch in a mold then it is to braze a steel fork. Does that make them better? Naaaah. Lighter? In many instances yes, but by how much? Again, you'd be better off worrying about losing a pound off your midsection then the diff between a CF or Steel fork. "Yeah but the pros ride em". So, the pros ride a lot of things their sponsors throw at them. I'm not saying they would be on steel if they had a choice, just that it's not always the best measure of what's "good and right" in the bike world.

I can't speak for you flyweights out there, but for us big boy bell curve specials, You need a beefier CF fork to get away from the mush. That results in less weight difference tween the two. At my strength to weight ratio, steel has a much better feel. Admittedly the Skunkbird currently has a beefy CF fork on it, but it will be going back to a good steel fork in the near future. Why, because I want to, and that brings us full circle back to the start of my post.


William


http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/dglawrence/2005/05/26/fork.png

Love too. But I want a bigger fork first. :) :)


Spoon-fed Sandy

[Grant McLean]

[IMG] It's a lot easier to blow off a bunch in a mold then it is to braze a steel fork.
William


Wha? Define "easier".
If you are prepared to invest millions of dollars in molds, testing machines,
prototypes, material suppliers, computer design equipement, become an
expert in scheduling carbon layup, getting certification in adhesive use ...
sure , by that definition it's "easy" to make carbon forks.

Steel forks? Call Kirk for some parts, and rent some tanks, and get a block
of wood to bend the tubes. The skill of brazing is childsplay compared to
designing the layup schedule for carbon. Just because the carbon fork may
arrive to you in a box, doesn't mean it just magically popped out of a mold!!
It's all about volume and production investment.
I have a few hobby builder friends who have built a few dozen forks...
anyone here make their own carbon forks?

-g

[e-RICHIE]

Wha? Define "easier".
If you are prepared to invest millions of dollars in molds, testing machines,
prototypes, material suppliers, computer design equipement, become an
expert in scheduling carbon layup, getting certification in adhesive use ...
sure , by that definition it's "easy" to make carbon forks.
they - "they" - do this because the expense ultimately
replaces the one component that is not available: a skilled
work force, one that it would take to make as many superbly
built, fine things, as is needed to satisfy the market "they" created.
Steel forks? Call Kirk for some parts, and rent some tanks, and get a block of wood to bend the tubes. The skill of brazing is childsplay compared to designing the layup schedule for carbon. Just because the carbon fork may arrive to you in a box, doesn't mean it just magically popped out of a mold!!
i have a full day of play planned after breaky.
It's all about volume and production investment.
I have a few hobby builder friends who have built a few dozen forks...
anyone here make their own carbon forks?
apple ibooks to molteni oranges.

[William]

Wha? Define "easier".
If you are prepared to invest millions of dollars in molds, testing machines,
prototypes, material suppliers, computer design equipement, become an
expert in scheduling carbon layup, getting certification in adhesive use ...
sure , by that definition it's "easy" to make carbon forks.

Steel forks? Call Kirk for some parts, and rent some tanks, and get a block
of wood to bend the tubes. The skill of brazing is childsplay compared to
designing the layup schedule for carbon. Just because the carbon fork may
arrive to you in a box, doesn't mean it just magically popped out of a mold!!
It's all about volume and production investment.
I have a few hobby builder friends who have built a few dozen forks...
anyone here make their own carbon forks?

-g


I was referring to post tooling. Dave, Ben, Zanc, and "e" don't run out and by a brazing torch, tanks, hoses, jigs, etc... every time they build up a fork. As such, the big mfr's who spend the $$ to tool up for CF don't do it either so what's the point. If we are comparing forks, we are comparing forks.

"Pumping them out" or "blowing them out" are just terms. I could say Zanc is "pumping out the forks" if he's on a roll and being efficient. Just as I can say some CF fork mfr is "blowing them out of molds" and being efficient.

So to your point, post tooling $$$, can a big CF fork mfr pump out forks faster then a brazer going through all the steps to put out a quality steel fork? Just curious.


William

[Grant McLean]

[QUOTE=e-RICHIE]they - "they" - do this because the expense ultimately
replaces the one component that is not available: a skilled
work force, one that it would take to make as many superbly
built, fine things, as is needed to satisfy the market "they" created.
[QUOTE]


Maybe yes, maybe no. If Colnago buys a CF fork from Asia, all they've done
is substitute one skilled work force with another. The Carbon work force
has it's own highly skilled requirements. One is not "easier" than the other,
each has it's own set of challenges, and costs involved.

None of it means anything. What is important is control. If Colnago just slaps
any fork on the front becuse they believe it's a bolt-on commodity whose
design isn't intregral to the performance of their product, "they" have an
inferior product. If "they" choose to outsource the manufacturing to experts
in the field, their product can be better. Kinda like JB painting your frames.

-g

[e-RICHIE]

they - "they" - do this because the expense ultimately
replaces the one component that is not available: a skilled
work force, one that it would take to make as many superbly
built, fine things, as is needed to satisfy the market "they" created.



Maybe yes, maybe no. If Colnago buys a CF fork from Asia, all they've done
is substitute one skilled work force with another. The Carbon work force
has it's own highly skilled requirements. One is not "easier" than the other,
each has it's own set of challenges, and costs involved.

None of it means anything. What is important is control. If Colnago just slaps
any fork on the front becuse they believe it's a bolt-on commodity whose
design isn't intregral to the performance of their product, "they" have an
inferior product. If "they" choose to outsource the manufacturing to experts
in the field, their product can be better. Kinda like JB painting your frames.
.
-g

i believe "business" dictates where the parts and vendors
are chosen from. if colnago and its ilk could still profit from
locally made products, made in the same way and of the same
materials (albeit with a 2006 quality) they would. but since
they can't, they bid it out to the subcontractors who complement
them the best. again, it's less about quality, or made-by-hand,
and more about efficiency. and, once again, i have no issues
with any of it. i simply see the timeline that got us all here
differently than most.

[djg]

All sizes of Colnago C50's have a 43mm fork too. This doesn't make any
sense either. It's a mystery. Before everyone jumps up and says it's
done to save money... then why do they offer a frame in 14 sizes?
Obviously the product managers either don't care, or think the end user
doesn't care. Or both. Or something else. Fortunately, for some, there
are some geo's and sizes that work with a 43mm fork, just not all.

-g

But ... but, my Colnago fork seems just fine to me (more honestly, really much better than fine). Maybe it's just right for my size, which is in the middle sorta (as I ride a "56" Nag, which is sorta like a 54 or so for c-c baseline folks).

[Brian Smith]

How can specialzed spec 4 different fork rakes on a
bike that's less than $800 retail !

-g


Hee hee....
Nobody's evil or lying or stretching the truth on purpose, but....

these models have forks that purportedly vary in rake by 2mm.
Suppose the accepted tolerance for offset is 2mm, or even be very picky and say 1mm....what it there were only one model produced that aimed at the middle of that 2mm range of error....

Does anybody know of a Specialized retailer, and this is certainly not to pick on Specialized retailers at all, who has a fork offset measurement device more accurate to 1mm?

What harm would come of the scenario in this devil's advocate of a thought experiment?

I love to geek out about bicycle geometry details, but I think maybe this talk is sometimes drifting away from reality when it gets into these measurements. It reminds me of bottom bracket drop. Has anybody tried to verify a production frame's drop measurement to within 2mm?

I'm with E-R, I aspire to stick close to the original threadster's intent when applicable. With Sir Smilester it certainly is so. Smiley, here's one thing that you might not be considering: some folks who build steel forks for the frames they design and build choose to go even further than 50mm of offset, some even about 55mm. When they do that, it rarely costs them any more than the 43mm fork. There's no reason it can't be done in carbon as well, but you do have the monetary factor in there. You've gotta give kudos to Serotta (if I say so) for fronting the expense for such a wide array of available choices in forks, but overall this should really, imo be nearly subliminal to most customers. Overall, it gives the designers the abilty to make the needed choices to make the bicycle ride nicely and/or as requested as well as handle well. The person at the company who specs parts off the inventory lists of other fork manufacturers does not have that same level of ability.
Also: Simley, the F3 iterations are 6.5, 8.5, 10.5 layups and you can find among those offsets of 40,43,47, and 52mm, not 50 as you mentioned, sorry to pick a nit.

[Sandy]

Sir Smithster,

I am rather surprised that you referred to Smiley as Sir Smilester. If you look cleary at "Sir" and "Smilester" you will see that both words start with S, as in Serotta Sandy. Many years back I was granted, by an act of Congress, the sole right to control all S words in the USA. One must apply for permission to use S words, in particular strings of S words.

In the future, please make application, using government form SS23482JK.

I will now allow this thread to focus on the discussion and debate on carbon forks. I apologize for any inconvenience to this thread, but a man has to do what a man has to do.


Sir Sandyster Serotta Sandy

[Brian Smith]

Sir Smithster,

I am rather surprised that you referred to Smiley as Sir Smilester. If you look cleary at "Sir" and "Smilester" you will see that both words start with S, as in Serotta Sandy. Many years back I was granted, by an act of Congress, the sole right to control all S words in the USA. One must apply for permission to use S words, in particular strings of S words.

In the future, please make application, using government form SS23482JK.

Sir Sandyster Serotta Sandy

I'm writing my congressfolk....
Ample Alliterative Apologies,
Bemused Brian

[beungood]

Love too. But I want a bigger fork first. :) :)


Spoon-fed Sandy

Do it from behind a cage..

[Martin Manning]

All sizes of Colnago C50's have a 43mm fork too. This doesn't make any
sense either. It's a mystery. Before everyone jumps up and says it's
done to save money... then why do they offer a frame in 14 sizes?
Obviously the product managers either don't care, or think the end user
doesn't care. Or both. Or something else. Fortunately, for some, there
are some geo's and sizes that work with a 43mm fork, just not all.

-g

There is a theory that says trail should vary with the size and mass of the rider if it is desired to maintain the same control sensitivity and stability. A larger rider, positioned higher, is inherently more stable than a smaller, lower mass and so should require less trail.

Why a company would choose to incur the high tooling cost of offering so many sizes, and then spec only one fork rake is inded a good question. It is interesting that Colnago chooses not to specify trail, or even provide head tube angle in their geometry charts. Yet, they provide the offset... Merckx gives even less information about his frames. This is probably no accident.

MPM

Added by edit; head angle and trail for C50's by seat tube cc length.

ST HTA T
490 71.6 65.9
500 71.3 67.3
510 71.3 67.4
520 71.5 66.5
530 71.7 64.8
540 71.9 63.8
550 71.9 63.7
560 72.5 60.3
570 73 57.0
571 73.3 55.0
582 73.4 54.5
582 73.4 54.5
582 73.4 54.5
590 73.5 53.9
600 73.5 54.0