spry

I just dont get it.Carbon ,Kevlar,Polyester resin to me doesnt make a $500 bike worth $5000.I have owned windsurf boards,and other carbon or Kevlar products,but these items were larger panel products used primarily for watercraft.When they chipped we patched the immediatly to awoid spydering cracks.How can bike axles be supported on 4 -1 inch carbon forks a be considered safe with the cracking and chipping factor inherent in these products.Is it all about saving a few grams?

Previous posts(cracked carbon forks), here have led me to ask these questions.Has anyone experienced sudden failure of cromoly,steel,alum.?Enlighten me please,for I feel like a round peg in a square bicycle industry.

moxfyre

Carbon fiber is very high-zoot. If your bike isn't sufficiently high-zoot, it's practically impossible to enjoy riding it.

But seriously... I don't really get the point of carbon everything except for saving a small amount of weight. I have ridden with a carbon fork though and it has a nice feel to it, as well as being much lighter than a steel fork (about 600-700 grams lighter than my steel fork I'd say!). Carbon forks often have aluminum fork ends and aluminum steer tubes, but not always.

Wogster

All frame materials have issues, steel that is kept dry and sealed, will last forever, however few steel frames are finished on the inside, and if a steel frame is left in a damp area like a garage, it could rust from the inside, and you might not realise that the paint is all that is holding you up. A steel bike could be treated with a rust inhibitor on the inside, but I don't think many bike makers do so.

Aluminum will not rust, it will oxidize but will not rust, but doesn't like flexing, and can flex to failure, which has been proven with aircraft. The average guy who digs the bike out a couple of times a year, will never flex a frame to failure although some of the 10,000 mile a year touring and car-free riders might, if the rest of the bike lasts that long.

Titanium doesn't suffer from rust or flexing problems, but it's expensive, and it is hard to work with for manufacturers, so nobody really uses it much these days. I expect though, in 5-10 years it will make a come back, probably when someone figures a way to make it cheaper and easier to work with.

CF doesn't rust, and it's easy to work with, doesn't have flexing issues (that we know about, anyway), but it;s fragile compared to metal. For racing bikes, it's a good way to go, for a commiuter or tourer much less so, seems to be making it's way into MTB's and that I think will create issues.

bigbossman 

Also, I don't recall seeing many carbon forks until aluminum frames became popular. Because of it's dampening properties, CF forks helped to tame the relatively harsh (compared to steel) ride of the alloy bikes. So you started seeing alloy bukes with CF forks, and then CF stays at a higher price point.

operator

Nice troll.

San Rensho 

I agree. Steel makes sense for the forks that are so critical to the safety of a bike. Makes sense to make seat posts, seats, and maybe bars made from carbon or unobtanium since they are not critical, But I'm not paying $1000 extra for a few grams weight savings.

gruppo

If the goal is to have a very light bike then an all carbon fork would be part of the build kit (There's a good after market selection starting around $400). Besides a significant weight savings (As much as a pound under a steel fork with chromed crown), carbon forks have good vertical dampening qualities and minimal twist. However the evidence suggests they should be replaced after a hard crash, even if there's no noticeable damage. But I must admit I and others have not done this every time, and so far so good? In my experience, carbon forks (and stays) improve the ride quality of aluminum frames on long rides. I've noticed little or no improvement over a quality steel fork on a good steel frame. I don't know anyone, including me, who's using a steel fork on a ti frame. In the long run, there's still a good argument for using a high quality steel frame and fork as the foundation for your dream bike - and you can easily build it up in the 17 to 18 pound range if weight is an issue. So, if using a carbon fork causes fear and loathing, and having a 15 pound bike isn't the goal, then a steel fork is a more-than-worthy alternative.

bigbossman 

**********?

spry

Yes,I do want to be zoot!Carbon is out but I have mt eye on some glitter streamers for my drop bars and Elvis style,white sequined bike shorts and jersey.Wait till the other middle-aged roadies in Ohio get a gander at them.heehaw!!!!!!

catatonic

Thing is there is good carbon and bad carbon. I have a carbon fork that looks outright flimsy (Easton EC30), but in reality it's tank-like. Very stiff, strong, and a modest weight.

I am a CF believer, but I understand that it's not necessary...my current roadbike is mostly aluminum.

moxfyre

Still riding your Trek 1100? Mine is still goin' strong!