1" Fork - Carbon vs. Steel

[beeemmjay]

Very unfamiliar with steel forks.
I've always run a carbon fork, whether on a steel or carbon road bike.
I'm in the very preliminary stages of planning a new rig; it will be steel, and I'm contemplating a steel fork.
Any thoughts out there - pros/cons?

[FlashUNC]

Get a steel fork.

[Ken Robb]

I think my good steel forks have ridden as well as my good carbon forks. They did weigh a bit more but I weighed as much as 215 lbs. so that didn't bother me. My steel forks all had more tire clearance that my carbon forks except for the carbon cross fork with canti studs that came on my Hampsten by MOOTS.

I also love the look of lugged steel bikes and a lugged steel fork looks "right" on those bikes.

[beeemmjay]

I'm definitely leaning towards a steel fork - the look, and from what I understand, feel are great!
I'm not so fussed about tire clearance.
I guess there are still options to investigate - rake, straight vs. curved blades.
When all said and done, I don't think that weight will be such a big issue.

[tumbler]

I like a nice steel fork, especially on a steel bike that isn't an all out race machine.

[redir]

Steel forks do indeed ride real nice but they come at a weight penalty. If I was getting a custom steel bike I'd get a steel fork to go with it.

[SBash]

If you're going with a steel frame, a nice steel fork all the way! A very good steel fork with the right rake for the frame will track as good or better than any carbon fork in my experience.

[bicycletricycle]

steel road forks ride great and should be experienced.

[raven]

For what it's worth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvLswIWTmmI
vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orapDwtG0P4

1" carbon forks are quite rare these days and there isn't much selection in terms of rake, span, tire clearance, etc. A steel fork, especially custom, can accommodate these shortcomings.

[Blown Reek]

Why, if you're having a new bike made, would you choose a 1" head tube? If you decide that you don't like the feel/look/weight of a steel fork, your choices are very limited.

[EricEstlund]

Opt for the fork the frame was designed for. If you are having it built from the ground up, chat with the designer to assess your tastes and needs.

Steel forks and carbon forks will often have different a-t-c numbers (carbon forks are often, but not always, thicker in the crown and taller a-t-c).

[MattTuck]

For what it's worth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvLswIWTmmI
vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orapDwtG0P4

1" carbon forks are quite rare these days and there isn't much selection in terms of rake, span, tire clearance, etc. A steel fork, especially custom, can accommodate these shortcomings.

Unless your riding frequently involves slamming into walls head on, how is that test relevant?

A force applied at 90 degrees relative to the force the fork is designed to support... seems like it doesn't translate to the real world.

[WayneJ]

If the steel frame has oversized tubes and is tig welded, a carbon fork looks okay and functions fine.

If the frame is lugged and has reasonable diameter tubes, I'd go with a steel fork with a nice curve (just for looks).

I do like the way a steel fork absorbs road vibrations, etc. Some carbon forks can be a bit stiff for my tastes, but I'm old and change slowly.

[downtube]

I have a 1" carbon fork on my Colnago C40 and a 1" steel for on my Della Santa. The Della feels way smoother to me, the fork really dampens the road vibrations better. That being said my Colnago is 11 years old so I am sure technology has improved.
chuck

[Mike Lopez]

Unless your riding frequently involves slamming into walls head on, how is that test relevant?

A force applied at 90 degrees relative to the force the fork is designed to support... seems like it doesn't translate to the real world.

Keep in mind that I don't develop the industry standard tests. I just make certain that my products meet or exceed them. Reminds me of a quote from the Mitutoyo equipment catalog. "Without data it's just an opinion"

To address your direct question most of the tests have very little to do with every day riding. If we used real world loads and constraints it would take years and a huge sample of parts to develop any data. An good example would be the CEN14781 BB pedal force test. A suspect frame may take a few years to fail under normal cycling loads but this test tears them apart in a few days if there are any issues with design, materials, or workmanship. This is why the tests are called "accelerated" fatigue tests. We need to develop data quickly so we can change things before they get to market and hurt someone. Shortcuts at this point in the design cycle lead to injuries and recalls. All bad juju.

Here's a link to a more recent video showing a couple of the CEN tests. This is a project I'm working on with my friends at Holland cycles...Click on the pic to start the video...

http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a8fda79b59ca25f76fc86599b&id=ed6f5adc50

[Pastashop]

" Here's a link to a more recent video showing a couple of the CEN tests. This is a project I'm working on with my friends at Holland cycles...Click on the pic to start the video...


http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a8fda79b59ca25f76fc86599b&id=ed6f5adc50"

Without knowing the exact forces involved in that test, but assuming comparable forces to pedaling, 100,000 cycles is roughly equivalent to 10-20 hours of strenuous climbing. In other words, that test is looking at a relatively small fraction of the normal usage life of a bike frame.

Accelerated testing normally involves a combination of higher strains, stresses, humidity and temperatures than those encountered in normal use.

What's important for carbon structures (like bikes) is mitigating the nicks from rocks and such, which can concentrate stress and result in premature, catastrophic failure. But for weight-competitive frames, say relative to steel, tube wall thickness for carbon can be much larger, hence more tolerant of these nicks / gouges / etc.

The fork test videos are neat for one type of impact, but miss some important aspects of design for a specific failure mode. To wit, I'd rather my fork got bent in a frontal impact than the top and down tubes of a nice steel frame ($$-$$$ vs $$$-$$$$ repair or replacement cost). Keep in mind also that the fork mounted in a bike frame flexes quite a bit inside the steerer tube, which those isolated fork tests don't get at.

As for the smoothness vs harshness of steel vs carbon forks... It's mostly from the high frequency sound transmission through the material. Bond a bit of rubber to the tubes and you can make even a harsh Cannondale seem like a plush ride, provided you get the wheelbase reasonably long. (That's what they have to do -- rubber dampers + mass --to the new Al-bodied Ford F-150s to keep them from feeling like a beer can on wheels.)

[Mike Lopez]

" Here's a link to a more recent video showing a couple of the CEN tests. This is a project I'm working on with my friends at Holland cycles...Click on the pic to start the video...


http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a8fda79b59ca25f76fc86599b&id=ed6f5adc50"

Without knowing the exact forces involved in that test, but assuming comparable forces to pedaling, 100,000 cycles is roughly equivalent to 10-20 hours of strenuous climbing. In other words, that test is looking at a relatively small fraction of the normal usage life of a bike frame.

Accelerated testing normally involves a combination of higher strains, stresses, humidity and temperatures than those encountered in normal use.

What's important for carbon structures (like bikes) is mitigating the nicks from rocks and such, which can concentrate stress and result in premature, catastrophic failure. But for weight-competitive frames, say relative to steel, tube wall thickness for carbon can be much larger, hence more tolerant of these nicks / gouges / etc.

The fork test videos are neat for one type of impact, but miss some important aspects of design for a specific failure mode. To wit, I'd rather my fork got bent in a frontal impact than the top and down tubes of a nice steel frame ($$-$$$ vs $$$-$$$$ repair or replacement cost). Keep in mind also that the fork mounted in a bike frame flexes quite a bit inside the steerer tube, which those isolated fork tests don't get at.

As for the smoothness vs harshness of steel vs carbon forks... It's mostly from the high frequency sound transmission through the material. Bond a bit of rubber to the tubes and you can make even a harsh Cannondale seem like a plush ride, provided you get the wheelbase reasonably long. (That's what they have to do -- rubber dampers + mass --to the new Al-bodied Ford F-150s to keep them from feeling like a beer can on wheels.)

The standard I mentioned is available on the web. To paraphrase the two tests in the video one is a front end push/pull at 150 pounds fully reversed. The BB pedal force test is 250 pounds with no degree of freedom on the front end and the rear end on an articulating rod end. Both 100k cycles.

Neither test represents what happens in the real world in a given number of pedal strokes but they do rip crappy frames apart very quickly. Well built frames can last through numerous repeats of the test. You can agree with it or not but test standards are a good thing for keeping people safe.

As a side note. Some may think these tests aren't perfect but they do provide a data point. Whether it's ASTM or any of the other organizing groups a lot of work goes into these standards and it can take years for the groups to come to consensus on how the tests should be done. When I started testing bike parts way back when the standards were all based on steel and some of them were over 50 years old. These tests had to be evaluated and modified to adapt them to new materials with different characteristics and failure modes than steel. I've learned a lot watching these standards evolve over the years and I've seen how difficult it is to get the groups to agree on test methods.

Pick it apart but we're just trying to keep people safe.

[paredown]

I'm a fan of both--for different reasons of course. I have an older EL-OS Italian frame with a steel fork--first I had ridden much for a while, and I had forgotten how precise and unmuted it feels. My joke was if you rode over a dime you could tell whether it was heads or tails.

And I am still in the 1" world. My fantasy would be to get a custom built with one of each. Use the same headset on both, and you would have a swappable fork.

In my case the steel fork would be to better accommodate a pannier set up that I could use for light touring.

If it turns out you never use one or the other, you can always sell the unused one.

[oldpotatoe]

Very unfamiliar with steel forks.
I've always run a carbon fork, whether on a steel or carbon road bike.
I'm in the very preliminary stages of planning a new rig; it will be steel, and I'm contemplating a steel fork.
Any thoughts out there - pros/cons?

IMHO, the only 'advantage' to a carbon fork is that it's lighter. I had a consistent issue with my hands going numb on my Moots, solved with a steel fork made by Waterford. Being the ultimate bike shop owner, guy came in looking for a 1 1/8 inch steel fork, sold him mine off the Moots..put a Ritchey Comp on there..same dimensions, numb hands..have another steel fork coming from Waterford.

[Peter P.]

In a 1" diameter, a steel steerer will be stiffer because steel is a denser material. It's one reason why carbon steerers evolved to the 1 1/8" standard because apparently the flex was perceptible at 1".

If you go to a 1 1/8" steerer for your frame then I'd say a carbon fork would be okay. At the 1" standard, stick with steel.

[Wakatel_Luum]

I have a 1" LOOK HSC on my steel Olmo Superlight...smooth as butter but I prefer the look and durability of steel forks..

[dgauthier]

In a 1" diameter, a steel steerer will be stiffer because steel is a denser material. It's one reason why carbon steerers evolved to the 1 1/8" standard because apparently the flex was perceptible at 1".

If you go to a 1 1/8" steerer for your frame then I'd say a carbon fork would be okay. At the 1" standard, stick with steel.

Exactly correct. The 1 1/8" standard was created specifically for carbon forks.

I recall reading the original designers of carbon forks wanted to create a bicycle fork that was lighter than steel, cheaper to manufacture than steel, but *rode as good as steel*. With a steel fork there is a small weight penalty, but in terms of ride quality and durability there is no downside. I'd go for a steel fork on a custom steel bike in a heartbeat.

[Mark McM]

In a 1" diameter, a steel steerer will be stiffer because steel is a denser material. It's one reason why carbon steerers evolved to the 1 1/8" standard because apparently the flex was perceptible at 1".

Actually, just the opposite is true - carbon fiber has a higher specific modulus (basically, stiffness per unit mass) than steel. A carbon fiber tube of the same mass as a steel tube will be stiffer. Bike designers take advantage of this by using less mass of carbon fiber to achieve the same stiffness.

[Mark McM]

Exactly correct. The 1 1/8" standard was created specifically for carbon forks.

Not quite. The 1 1/8" standard was first used for mountain bikes, which at the time primarily had steel steerers. 1 1/8" steel steerers were originally available as both threaded and threadless, although threaded 1 1/8" steerers soon disappeared as threadless steerers became more popular. The next step in the 1 1/8" evolution was to replace steel steerers on MTBs with aluminum. A few years after the 1 1/8" steerer was introduced in MTBs, it started to become adopted for road bikes - again, originally with steel or aluminum steerers. It took a few more years before carbon steerers to become popular, and as it was right in the middle of the 1" to 1 1/8" transition, carbon steerers were made in both 1" and 1 1/8".

The only steerer/headset standard that can be said to have been created specifically for carbon is the tapered steerer.

[cnighbor1]

1" Fork - Carbon vs. Steel
big ? is what is the intended used of the new rig
If just fast day use that CF fine
If touring or heavy use for commuting etc that go with steel

[rwsaunders]

I have a newer steel bike with a 1.125" carbon fork and an older steel bike with a 1.0" steel threaded fork. I can't really tell the difference regarding the performance of the fork but I like the look of the steel fork better...how's that for empirical data?

If I were building a new steel frame, I'd perhaps go with a 1.125" diameter threadless steel fork for more stem and handlebar options, but I could be convinced to go with a custom stem as well.

[marciero]

Actually, just the opposite is true - carbon fiber has a higher specific modulus (basically, stiffness per unit mass) than steel. A carbon fiber tube of the same mass as a steel tube will be stiffer. Bike designers take advantage of this by using less mass of carbon fiber to achieve the same stiffness.

My understanding is that the stiffness of carbon frame tubes and forks is highly dependent on the lay-up; how the fibers are oriented. Due to that and other factors, stiffness will depend on how the load is applied. The 1" carbon steer tube on my colnago force fork does not seem torsionally stiff at alll. Holding the front wheel between your legs you can easily turn the handlebars through a wider arc than on my other bikes. I think I can feel the effect of that when riding over irregularities in the road while cornering. Unfortunately I lost the original precisa steel fork for this bike, a tecnos, in a move.

[Mark McM]

My understanding is that the stiffness of carbon frame tubes and forks is highly dependent on the lay-up; how the fibers are oriented. Due to that and other factors, stiffness will depend on how the load is applied. The 1" carbon steer tube on my colnago force fork does not seem torsionally stiff at alll. Holding the front wheel between your legs you can easily turn the handlebars through a wider arc than on my other bikes. I think I can feel the effect of that when riding over irregularities in the road while cornering. Unfortunately I lost the original precisa steel fork for this bike, a tecnos, in a move.

My original comments were in regard to the assertion that a steel steerer would be stiffer because steel is denser (which is not necessarily the case).

Yes, carbon stiffness will be dependent on lay-up and fiber orientations. However, your test is not particularly good for separating out the torsional stiffness of the steerer alone, because there are too many other variables in the system. In additional to steerer flex, you will see the affects of flex in the wheel, the fork legs, the fork crown, the stem, and the handlebars. Even the length of the steerer will affect the torsion stiffness (a longer steerer will flex more, all else being the same).

[Mike Lopez]

The topic of lay-ups and fiber orientations was mentioned but not the modulus of the materials used.

The fibers we use range from 33msi to 60msi or greater depending on what we're trying to achieve. This gives us a lot of room to dial things in.

Steel is roughly 30msi all day. Need more properties...use more of it. Want more torsion but not more bending? Tough with steel but simple with composites.

Hey..Composites are not for everything or everybody but properly used give a great range of options & tuneability.

[tv_vt]

If it's going to be an all-new rig, I'd just go with a 1-1/8" headtube and get an Enve fork (if you don't plan to run larger tires than 28) or a Seven 5e medium reach fork if you're planning on a Strada Bianca type of bike. I like the look of painted Enve 2.0 forks on steel frames. Some Zonconato frames come to mind, or Hampsten.

[maxcolumbus]

I have a tig welded Hampsten frame with an Enve carbon fork, and a lugged Savine with a steel MAX fork. Each bike has it's own ride characteristics.
The HampCo is a bit more nimble and obviously lighter.
The Savine feels a bit more planted but still has a nice, racey feel to it.
They both handle 28mm tires.
For me welds - carbon
lugs - steel.
Go with your gut. Good luck!

[fogrider]

I had a ron cooper frame but did not have the matching fork. I found a carbon fork and also found a steel fork and had both repainted. I built up the frame with the carbon fork and am on the hunt for a campy fork race to try the steel fork. I've had steel forks on other bikes and have preferred the steel forks for short rides but prefer the carbon forks for longer rides. I'll give it another go...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/72776081@N03/

[beeemmjay]

Seems like either choice is a good choice. I'm running carbon on my current steel frame, I think giving steel a try on my (hopefully next) steel frame is the way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beeemmjay]

Looking around, I've found info. on Columbus fork blades and crowns, not much on Reynolds. Any feelings out there for how to tackle choosing a steel fork/crown combo? The specifics rake, bend vs straight blade, etc. seem as much personal as performance when evaluating options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robbos]

When I replaced the aluminum steerer carbon fork on my Cervelo, there was no measureable difference in weight. My custom steel fork made by Marinoni weighs 550 grams. I've noticed that it soaks up the big nasty bumps far better than the Columbus Carve (also 1'') on my Ti bike. That said, the carbon soaks up the small vibrations better. And where the carbon shines is lateral stiffness- all the carbon forks I've ridden are much stiffer when you are diving into the corners at high speed. So for me, steel equals greater comfort on crappy roads, greater durability, and prettier than crabon on the right bike. Carbon can shave a few grams, is great for soaking up the small vibrations and bumps, is generally stiffer and more responsive when you are pushing it into the turns, but it can in certain instances be less durable. But as we all know, there are just so many variables to take into account. Tube type, carbon layup, tire and wheel choice, rider weight, etc. I swapped out the boat anchor of a steel fork on my Marinoni touring bike for an easton EC90 cross fork, thus shaving 600 grams (!) and getting a much more comfortable ride. But I adore my steel fork on my Cervelo.
There are my two cents.

[beeemmjay]

sounds as though for a lighter weight rider (I might max. out at 145lbs) it's really coming down to 'feel it to believe it'.
i think the verdict is in.