Advantage of carbon vs. steel fork blades

[Mike Krueger]

Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber blades
vs. quality steel forks.
Thank you.

 

[C]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Krueger <[email protected]> wrote:
>Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber blades
>vs. quality steel forks.

Weight is the main issue. A metal fork with metal steerer is
noticably heavier than a carbon fork with carbon steerer.

One advantage of steel forks is that they can have braze-on mounts
for fenders or racks. They may also be less resistant to damage in
certain kinds of crashes.

 

[Dave Thompson]

C wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike Krueger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>> other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber
>> blades vs. quality steel forks.
>
> Weight is the main issue. A metal fork with metal steerer is
> noticably heavier than a carbon fork with carbon steerer.
>
> One advantage of steel forks is that they can have braze-on mounts
> for fenders or racks. They may also be less resistant to damage in
> certain kinds of crashes.
Some riders, me, like the way a steel fork feels as opposed to a carbon
fork. It also depends on the application too.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

C wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,

> Mike Krueger <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>> other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber
>> blades vs. quality steel forks.
>
> Weight is the main issue. A metal fork with metal steerer is
> noticably heavier than a carbon fork with carbon steerer.

Yes. Also, carbon forks are mass produced these days, so you may get more bang
for your buck in terms of weight and stiffness.

> One advantage of steel forks is that they can have braze-on mounts
> for fenders or racks.

Carbon forks are available now with these features too.

> They may also be less resistant to damage in
> certain kinds of crashes.

Perhaps, but the real issue is that steel "wears its heart on its sleeve" with
respect to damage. If it isn't bent or visibly cracked it's probably OK, unless
there's a manufacturing defect. Also, steel can often be safely bent back to
shape. Carbon, OTOH, may not show serious damage at all. It could be cracked
internally with no way of telling. So a carbon fork which has suffered a
serious crash should probably be retired. Riding a carbon fork with unknown
history is probably unwise.

Matt O.

 

[Werehatrack]

On 14 Feb 2005 10:59:38 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]> may
have said:

>Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber blades
>vs. quality steel forks.

Some riders say that they can feel a difference in the amount of
vibration that comes through, but on the ones that I've ridden, with
one exception, I couldn't tell that there was any difference in that
area. One bike I rode had a carbon fork of the very flexy persuasion
whose tendency to deflect on bumps was pronounced enough to see. I
quickly decided that I didn't want this one.


--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:24:47 -0500, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]>
may have said:

>C wrote:
>> One advantage of steel forks is that they can have braze-on mounts
>> for fenders or racks.
>
>Carbon forks are available now with these features too.

They can't be added afterwards if they're not already present on a
carbon fork. With steel, that's still an option.

>> They may also be less resistant to damage in
>> certain kinds of crashes.
>
>Perhaps, but the real issue is that steel "wears its heart on its sleeve" with
>respect to damage. If it isn't bent or visibly cracked it's probably OK, unless
>there's a manufacturing defect. Also, steel can often be safely bent back to
>shape. Carbon, OTOH, may not show serious damage at all. It could be cracked
>internally with no way of telling. So a carbon fork which has suffered a
>serious crash should probably be retired. Riding a carbon fork with unknown
>history is probably unwise.

True, and a good reason not to buy one used unless you're *really*
sure of the integrity of the source.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Werehatrack wrote:

>> C wrote:
>>> One advantage of steel forks is that they can have braze-on mounts
>>> for fenders or racks.

>> Carbon forks are available now with these features too.

> They can't be added afterwards if they're not already present on a
> carbon fork. With steel, that's still an option.

Well, they probably could be added (glue), but no one does this. In either case
it makes no sense, as it would be easier and cheaper to just replace the fork
with one that has this stuff.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Werehatrack wrote:

> On 14 Feb 2005 10:59:38 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]> may
> have said:
>
>> Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>> other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber
>> blades vs. quality steel forks.
>
> Some riders say that they can feel a difference in the amount of
> vibration that comes through, but on the ones that I've ridden, with
> one exception, I couldn't tell that there was any difference in that
> area. One bike I rode had a carbon fork of the very flexy persuasion
> whose tendency to deflect on bumps was pronounced enough to see. I
> quickly decided that I didn't want this one.

Actually a lot of lightweight steel forks do this. I don't think it matters
much, but some forks flex back and forth annoyingly under braking. Carbon forks
are generally stiffer. Lateral stiffness may be an issue too. This is why
carbon forks are often considered more precise-handling. However, lightweight
steel forks often come with lightweight, flexy frames. Noticeable flex may be a
product of the whole system.

Damon Rinard flex tested a bunch of frames and forks. The results are posted on
Sheldon Brown's site:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html

Matt O.

 

[Mike Krueger]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I don't think it matters
> much, but some forks flex back and forth annoyingly under braking.
Carbon forks
> are generally stiffer. Lateral stiffness may be an issue too. This
is why
> carbon forks are often considered more precise-handling.
>
> Damon Rinard flex tested a bunch of frames and forks. The results
are posted on
> Sheldon Brown's site:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html

Matt,
I'm confused. The results of Mr. Rinard's fork stiffness test
contradict your assertion that carbon forks are generally stiffer than
steel forks. Wouldn't that imply that steel forks are conceivably more
precise-handling?
I contacted Calfee Design to ask which carbon fork they currently
supply with their top-quality carbon frames. I was told something
interesting. Of the popular available carbon forks, only the Easton
meets their standards for precise alignment. Others, including the
Alpha Q and the Ouzo Pro, have been coming from the factories out of
kilter, and are being rejected and sent back.
At least with a steel fork, if the fork tips are misaligned, you can
bend it back.

 

[Paul Kopit]

On 14 Feb 2005 10:59:38 -0800, "Mike Krueger" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
>other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber blades
>vs. quality steel forks.
>Thank you.

None. I'd prefer a threadless fork over a threaded one but that
really wouldn't make a big ride difference.

 

[Ron Abramson]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:08:59 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:


> Actually a lot of lightweight steel forks do this. I don't think it
> matters much, but some forks flex back and forth annoyingly under
> braking. Carbon forks are generally stiffer. Lateral stiffness may be
> an issue too. This is why carbon forks are often considered more
> precise-handling. However, lightweight steel forks often come with
> lightweight, flexy frames. Noticeable flex may be a product of the
> whole system.
>
> Damon Rinard flex tested a bunch of frames and forks. The results are
> posted on Sheldon Brown's site:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html
>
> Matt O.

I recently tried a set of cross tires on an old road bike with a steel
fork and caliper brakes. Had 3mm of clearance at rest, but the tire would
hit the bottom of the caliper on any bump. I was surprised at seeing
visible flex like this, but I see that the amount of flex I observed is
comparable to what is reported in the Rinard article. Steel forks flex a
lot.

 

[jim beam]

Mike Krueger wrote:
> Asking those with experience riding both, what are the advantages,
> other than lighter weight, of road forks made with carbon-fiber blades
> vs. quality steel forks.
> Thank you.
>
i've ridden both, and have owned no less than 6 carbon forks. if you
get a good one, they're great. if you have a 1" frame, use a fork with
a steel steerer - the aluminum & carbon steerers flex too much imo & can
easily give an unfavorable impression of what is otherwise a useful
technology.

advantages are weight [slim with a steel steerer, but still handy] and
ride quality - they definitely take some of the buzz out of rough pavement.

 

[Velo Psycho]

I've got a reynolds ouzo fork on one of my bikes and a Gios steel fork
on the other.

I like the ride of both, but I had to get used to the reynolds flexing
so much over some larger road bumps -- not too large either, just the
imperfections in curb cuts. I get a whack from the wheel hitting the
caliper on the carbon. The steel does no such thing.

 

[jim beam]

Velo Psycho wrote:
> I've got a reynolds ouzo fork on one of my bikes and a Gios steel fork
> on the other.
>
> I like the ride of both, but I had to get used to the reynolds flexing
> so much over some larger road bumps -- not too large either, just the
> imperfections in curb cuts. I get a whack from the wheel hitting the
> caliper on the carbon. The steel does no such thing.
>
yeah, i can't stand those reynolds ouzo's - unbelievably noodly. my
bike was practically unridable with it on. ended up with a cheap $99
carbon fork with steel steerer & it rides great!

 

[Jay Beattie]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1108607786.27ada47a413836fcce4af84aa96c9d57@teranews...
> Velo Psycho wrote:
> > I've got a reynolds ouzo fork on one of my bikes and a Gios
steel fork
> > on the other.
> >
> > I like the ride of both, but I had to get used to the
reynolds flexing
> > so much over some larger road bumps -- not too large either,
just the
> > imperfections in curb cuts. I get a whack from the wheel
hitting the
> > caliper on the carbon. The steel does no such thing.
> >
> yeah, i can't stand those reynolds ouzo's - unbelievably
noodly. my
> bike was practically unridable with it on. ended up with a
cheap $99
> carbon fork with steel steerer & it rides great!

What did you end up buying. I need a cheap new fork. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Marvin]

Properly laid up carbon fibre can be made to be compliant in one
direction and rigid in another, which means CF forks are engineered to
take out the road buzz whilst still being torsionally stiff - this does
mean they're quite compliant vertically, so the issues with tyre
clearance that have been mentioned already might come into play. From
the forks I've ridden there is a small but definite advantage in weight
and road buzz transmitted through the bars, and although handling is
incredibly subjective I for one prefer the ride of carbon fibre. The
cost difference isn't too bad these days either, the big big thing that
worries me is hidden damage and the potential for a *very* big failure.
When carbon fibre breaks it doesn't do it by halves.

Yes, I live on the side of the Atlantic where we use words like "tyre"
and "fibre"

 

[jim beam]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1108607786.27ada47a413836fcce4af84aa96c9d57@teranews...
>
>>Velo Psycho wrote:
>>
>>>I've got a reynolds ouzo fork on one of my bikes and a Gios
>
> steel fork
>
>>>on the other.
>>>
>>>I like the ride of both, but I had to get used to the
>
> reynolds flexing
>
>>>so much over some larger road bumps -- not too large either,
>
> just the
>
>>>imperfections in curb cuts. I get a whack from the wheel
>
> hitting the
>
>>>caliper on the carbon. The steel does no such thing.
>>>
>>
>>yeah, i can't stand those reynolds ouzo's - unbelievably
>
> noodly. my
>
>>bike was practically unridable with it on. ended up with a
>
> cheap $99
>
>>carbon fork with steel steerer & it rides great!
>
>
> What did you end up buying. I need a cheap new fork. -- Jay
> Beattie.
>
i got a $99 merlin from excel sports, 1" steel steerer for one bike, a
$60 1" steel no-name from chucks bikes for a steel bianchi & at a swap
meet, an old 1" steel steerer look from a marin for my nashbar "framé".
the look's the best of that bunch.

of the rejects, the bad ones were the kestrels. i've tried 3, all of
which have failed the squeeze test. the reynolds ouzo's, as above, were
noodles. my best one i have came with my bianchi ev3. it's all carbon,
1.125" and handles superb. minimal flex.