[TommyL]

I am in the process of (in my head at least) figuring out what I want for a custom steel bike. Apologies in advance for peppering this forum over the next few months+.

The question I've been looking at recently is carbon vs steel fork. Is a steel fork going to be just as comfortable over the long haul? Does a carbon fork really dampen the road that much? Will the carbon be as reliable in the long term? Lastly, can a carbon fork work with a fronk rack (carrying a Berthoud type bag)?

For the last question, something like this: http://cohobicycles.com/cohobicycles/Randonneuse.html

Thanks, everybody! I'm just getting into the whole long distance cycling thing, and could use all the help I can get!

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[TommyL]

One more question: I'll be commuting on this bike long distances as well; it will be out in all kinds of weather. Any problem with CF in that respect?

[bobbycorno]

The main issue I have w/CF forks and custom frames is that you're pretty much restricted to one fork rake: 43mm, and forget about fenders. The only advantage I've found w/CF over steel forks is weight - steel is probably 1/4 to 1/2 lb heavier. Could be more than that. Don't have any hard numbers handy.

But if you're getting a rando bike, and want to use a big front bag, you'll want reduced-trail steering geometry, which means WAY more than 43mm of rake, and fenders are a good thing to have, even if the weather doesn't always suck quite as bad as it did on the ORR 600k last year (10 solid hours of heavy rain on day 1, and showers on day 2). All of that pretty much makes CF forks a non-starter in my book.

YMMV, of course.

Scott P
Bend, OR
RUSA 3481

[mattm]

i'd go with the steel fork, which is what i'm riding now (not a custom bike, an older miyata 312). and since you're getting a custom job done you could get a fork with two sets of eyelets (for fenders, and rack separately), and of course clearance for full fenders. (fenders are a must out here in the PNW)

you probably could get a front rack on a CF fork using p-clamps (they sell these at velo orange btw), but i'd just go with all-steel since your frame is anyway.

and i have a notion that a steel fork would do better in a crash than a CF fork, but i could be totally wrong on that one, just a gut feeling..

[MIN]

Carbon is stiffer and lighter. 1/2 of the big steel builders use carbon forks. Food for thought. I'm ferrophile #1, but carbon fork are better, imo.

[Bacciagalupe]

As far as I can tell, few carbon forks have bosses for front racks. The only one I know of is the cf fork on the Jamis Aurora Elite, which is kind of a sporty touring bike.

In terms of reliability, as far as I can tell it's about the same. Any impact that would ruin a CF fork would almost certainly make a steel fork unreliable as well.

That said, I'd opt for steel if you're going to use a front rack. I just think that in this case, steel widens your options.

[TommyL]

Fenders, of course! That's definitely a deal breaker. I don't know how I forgot, but the question of clearance never entered my head. If no carbon forks come with clearance for full fenders, then steel is the only optiton for me. Are there carbon forks with plenty of clearance for full fenders? Thanks,

Tommy

[john hawrylak]

Carbon forks seem to be designed for speed versus more general riding, i.e., no bosses, limited fender space, limited rake, no eyelets. Therefore, a steel fork seems to better a choice for long distance riding.

[KnoxBreezer]

There are at least a few carbon forks that have fender clearance, and some that even have eyelets for fenders. The IRD 57 Mosaic Carbon (http://www.interlocracing.com/forks.html) comes to mind. I think Wound Up (http://www.woundupcomposites.com/road_fork.html) has a new touring fork with eyelets.

Your major problem is finding something that will let you mount a front rack. Most people seem to prefer rack mounted front bags, so the bag has a lower center of gravity... but I know at least a few riders who use small handlebar bags without a front rack, like an Arkel (http://www.arkel-od.com/panniers/sm_hb_bag/overview.asp?fl=1&site=) or similar and it doesn't seem to worry or bother them at all.

I'm a big steel fan too, but if you want a carbon fork I think you'll be fine, so long as you can make the sacrifice of not having a rack mounted front bag. Carbon probably absorbs as much road noise as using slightly larger tires and a steel fork, so you can make up for it by running 28s or 32s with w/ steel fork and you probably wouldn't notice a difference. My experience is limited, I ride a steel fork on my steel rando bike with 32s, but have an aluminum tandem on 25s with an Alpha Q carbon fork.

[rtruectoc]

i just put a carbon fork on my salsa casseroll. it replaced the steel fork that was damaged when i was hit by a car. i used a bontrager fork that is made for the trek pilot. it retains the same geometry and allows for my long reach calipers. it has eyelets for fenders and plenty of clearance.

i prefer the ride. more shock absorption, yet stiffer. these can be had for $70 from wheel and sprocket. weight with uncut steer tube is 560 grams

[swc7916]

My Rodriquez Rainier has a carbon-fiber fork, standard-reach brakes and plenty of room for fenders. R+E also makes a touring bike with a steel fork with 26" wheels (actually, it's a tandem fork) that has plenty of braze-ons and room for fenders. See www.rodcycle.com