In message <
[email protected]>, russell pinder
<
[email protected]> writes
>
>"Steve McGinty" <stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:52:44 -0000, "Smudger" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Forks.
>> >
>> >Steel, aluminium or carbon fibre?
>> >
>> >
>> >Steel - proven and comfortable(ish).
>> >
>> Alu - light and strong (and I've seen what happens when carbon forks break!)
>
>Carbon - light and strong and great vibration damping. (Alu forks break too).
>
>F1 cars, world record breaking racing yachts and the like use carbon fibre for a reason - it's the
>best trade off between weight and strength.
>
And racing bikes.....
for such uses then the lightness etc. of carbon fibre is a real benefit. For many cyclists it isn't.
There is a bit on this in the latest CTC rag (about availability of carbon forks suitable for
touring) Chris Juden's argument against them for this sort of use is not so much with the carbon
fibre itself, but with the glued joints between the carbon and metal components, typically at the
fork crown. these can go without any warning
--
Chris French, Leeds