jamesdak 

First off I'm not trying to start another argument about one material better than the other. I just want to state what I'm seeing hear from others on their experiences.

I've been riding a variety of bikes since last year but my main route is consistent and over some really bad, cracked chipseal roads. I've got several bikes with CF forks, steel framed, CF, framed and even the Lynskey Ti framed one. On the rough sections I have to ride with a loose grip and just let the handlebars bounce around in my hands from the jolts on the rough stuff. Typical for this one really bad section and I'm just used to it. It does make me back off a bit as the control is just not there.

But with both the Giordanas I notice a "compliance" with the old school steel forks that I just don't have with my CF forks. One that same rough road there's no real hard kickback like I've been used to for years with all my other bikes. It's more of a floating action, I can maintain a solid grip and keep the power on.

Have we given up something with modern setups and the CF forks in our quest for lightness? Or maybe the CF forks on all my bikes just aren't as good (and road surface forgiving) as the best CF forks?

I'm also not noticing any increased road buzz in the steel vs CF forks.

I'm honestly thinking a compliant old school steel fork coupled with the very forgiving rear end on the Lynskey would be about the ultimate ride.

I'm curious if other old timers that ride the various forks see the same thing in terms of the steel forks. Or maybe it's just some of that Italian magic, LOL!

Oh, and on a side note, the straight tubed steel fork on my Kona Jake the Snake may actually be my harshest one.

Lascauxcaveman 

A good data point. The amount of rake, the curve vs the tubing wall thickness of the steel fork legs, the head tube angle of the frame, etc., are all going to be major players in this equation.

So it's never a question of simply Carbon vs. Steel.

crank_addict

Unless one has acquired a frame with a replacement fork or sans, I wouldn't change anything. Rather focus first on the wheel and tires. Then make the call on a fork. Likely more of trial and error, no genius bike engineer will have the perfect answer.

RobbieTunes

I've stated here a couple of times, probably on Ironman threads, that I've tried carbon fiber forks on steel bikes, with no improvement whatsoever. I'll be glad to list my trial and error, but basically what I found is what jamesdak found: the steel seems to be better.

-On several steel bikes, I tried swapping the steel forks for carbon and went back to the steel.
--3 Ironman bikes-went back to the Tange 1 fork from nashbar/Performance carbon fork, Cannondale Slice carbon fork.
--1 PDG Series 3 Paramount-went back to the Tange fork (Prestige) from a nashbar/Performance carbon fork.

-On at least two aluminum bikes, I tried swapping carbon in for steel:
--Cannondale R700, was successful, but I still didn't like the bike. The Litespeed carbon fork was a bit better.
--Centurion Facet, went back to the steel fork. It was a harsh ride no matter what, switched back.

-On a C&V carbon bike that was very noodly, I swapped the aluminum fork for a Cannondale Slice, and it was significantly better.
--(the non-USA model the next year had a much better aluminum fork, to which I can attest, as I now own one of those)

All in all, for me, it came to this conclusion: Whomever engineered the nicer steel forks knew more than I and did it better than I could, so I left well enough alone. Whomever thought the aluminum fork on an Ironman Carbon was any kind of a performance feature was out of his/her mind. The Cannondale rode like plywood either way, as did the Centurion Facet.

I am about to (probably) swap a steel fork from a C&V aluminum-tubed frameset out, for a Kestrel EMS carbon fork/alloy steerer. It's a very light frame for its (1987) age, and I probably will build it as a light climber. I'll weigh the differences (figuratively and literally) and go with what I like better. That is, if the steerer is long enough.

Wildwood 

Just look at the forks over the rough spot in the road - my guess = you can see the difference. That was my experience between two different steel forks that had different curvature profiles, haven't checked it lately, as 95% of my rides are smooth pavement, chipseal, or packed dirt. Almost never on rough or broken pavement where it might count. The chipseal does feel different with an SLX or 531 fork when compared to carbon. Both reduce the buzz but in a dissimilar way. Probably also in the threadless vs threaded headset, tires/wheels, handlebars/tape/gloves, etc.

ambro

I built up a steel cyclocross bike with a Ritchie carbon fork - because I had one from an older race bike. It was fine - but finally, I decided to put the OEM steel fork back on to settle the same questions you are having. And you know what - steel rules. The ride was noticibly better. Granted, the bike is 3/4 lbs heavier but so what? I got a steel bike because of the ride quality and the steel fork enhances my overall experience. Handling is better too and no fork chatter. I'm very glad I went back to Steel!

Vintage Raleigh

My 2015 plastic Bianchi Sempre Pro was great at absorbing bumps and keeping both wheels firmly planted. I hit a pot hole halfway down a hill and thought I was going to launch but it just absorbed it and kept going. Your experiences with plastic fork and steel frame maybe isn't a good combo?

RobbieTunes

Apples vs. Oranges, me thinks.

bbattle

Are your tire sizes and pressures all the same?

I've got a steel Pinarello with steel fork, steel Gardin with aluminum fork, steel Bianchi with steel fork, and carbon Trek with carbon fork. I really don't notice that big of a difference between any of them. I do feel I get less "buzz" from the road from all of these over my old Aluminum Orbea with carbon fork but now we've gone full circle with the frame/fork materials and gotten nowhere. The Trek is a Domane while the Orbea was a racing frame; ten years of carbon technology plus geometry are the reasons why the Trek makes me feel a bit less beat up from a day out in the country. But I'm not about to go switching forks around my frames to see what's what. So I guess I'll never know for sure. or care to.

I enjoy riding my bicycles as they are. If I didn't, I'd sell them and get ones I did like.

jamesdak 

Well actually I'm running GP 4000s in various flavors on all the bikes except one. 700 x 25 and as we know they run large a lot of time. The GP 4000 s II are sa big as 27.5mm on the Lyskey. I run them at 80/90 front/rear. But the one Giordana is running Gran Prix classics in 700 x 25c and these measure true to life so I actually run them about 10 psi higher. Same with the older set of Gp 4000S reflective on the other Giordana. They too measured under 25mm so I've been running them at 90/100. Which adds to my observation because I would expect a harsher ride at the higher psi if anything. In fact I'm just waiting for a new set of GP 4000 s II to arrive and they'll be going on the Giordana Superleggero along with some latex tubes. Same as I'm running on the Lynskey and the Lemond. Then with a drop in air pressure I expect it to ride even nicer.

I actually test rode a Domane over this same route last fall really, really wanting to like it. But the reality was the old 2003 Lemond was better in terms of comfort. I even went so far as to swap tires and saddle on to it the day I rented it. It was more comfortable than my Trek and Scott CF bikes though.

I totally agree with you on comfort. At the end of the day that's all that matters to me.

I do want to note that all my bikes are configured as they came from the "factory". I haven't swapped any forks. I did upgrade the fork spec on the Lynskey and had to "settle" for a lesser steel for on the Superleggero.

catgita

The nice thing about a steel fork is you can look at it and the tubing spec and pretty much know how it will ride. There is no way to know that when it comes to carbon. When I purchased my first carbon fork, Easton cyclocross, the add copy and the general hype at the time said it would have the "smooth ride of carbon". On the contrary, it is the only fork I have ever ridden that was so harsh it made my eyes water with pain. I still use this fork on one of my bikes, but it now rides on 38mm Compass tires, which makes such a stiff ride pretty much irrelavent.

On the other hand, of the half dozen aluminum forks I have ridden extensively, the ride and/or handling sucked. I don't discount the possibility of a good AL fork, but life is too short.

fietsbob

Old steel forks with the J bend at the tip were that way because the roads were rougher then.

Italians went in for the large radius bend and it became fashionable, as it still is.

Vintage Raleigh

Yes my results from a single bike is not significant enough to give a true indication.
The thought was as a unit the plastic frame and fork worked effectively as would a steel frame and fork, I have no idea though.

bradtx

jamesdak, I've had steel, aluminum, and carbon forks on bikes with very similar frames (Cannondale 2.8 and CAAD3) and except for one of the carbon forks, the ride was very similar. The tires were all 23 mm Continental Grand Prix and GP3000. The steel forks are on an early SR and a later 3.0 Cannondale.

The one exception was an early Cannondale carbon fork that looked very much like the old Answer forks which was comfortable, but a bit slow with steering input...just felt a micro second behind initial input. Who knows if that fork wouldn't be perfect on a steel or Ti framed bike.

Brad

easyupbug 

James,
I experimented with two bikes, a Pinarello Asolo w/ Dolmen tubes/fork and a custom Jenson Columbus EL w/supplied carbon fork. Can't compare the two bikes due to wheel/tire/weight/etc. differences but on the Asolo I failed to notice much change with the Jenson or a LeMond Zurich fork. On the Jenson the buzz on bad roads was clearly less noticeable with the Dolmen tube fork than the stock fork. Probably silly but even tried the Jenson with added weight and found the same thing.

upthywazzoo 

I had a good experience with a Dengfu chinese carbon fork that I used in a titanium frame build. For being an "aero" fork, it still had decent give--not as much as the fork on my Trek 770, but then again I've never felt as though the 770 was all that confident around corners either.

Wildwood 

[QUOTE=upthywazzoo[/QUOTE]

Washington State graduate?

John E

There is also the safety issue. Certain steel forks, such as the infamous Viscount "fork of death, with its quick-disconnect steerer tube," have had characteristic failure modes, but most are remarkably durable. Carbon forks are safe only if one inspects them frequently for scratches which can quickly turn into stress risers and ultimately dangerous points of abrupt failure.

Salubrious

I used to run a 90s TI frame as a sort of test bed. I still have the frame if anyone is interested (Titus road frame, 56cm seat tube).

I ran it with a Tange fork and it was kinda whippy. The carbon fork was better but rough. I had a Reynolds 953 fork built and that had the steel ride without the whippy. So I rode that.

Finally I had a 953 frame built up and moved the fork to that build and its been great. However, I started with composite handlebars (carbon on the flats, alloy on the drops) but switched to a heavier set of Nittos, which have a better ride also. The carbon in those first set of bars was making my hands tingle.

I see this in other sports too- where the quest for performance overtakes the creature needs of comfort and ease of use. Ultimately (especially as we age) the comforts needed by the creature win out as they mean a person can stay on the bike longer. Performance is fine as long as it does not interfere with fun!

RobbieTunes

I agree.

old's'cool

This is an important point. If you think about the fork as a combination of a beam that flexes in bending load, and a column that is in the process of elastic buckling in compression load, the J bend can add a great deal to the overall compliance.
Taken to an extreme, the recent fad for straight fork blades completely eliminates the buckling compliance. And I daresay, in this case, the vast majority of the compliance is taking place via bending/twisting in the crown and/or bending in the bottom several mm of the steerer.

You could do an experiment with a cargo winch. Make a fixture where the bike can be stood up with the front wheel on a scale, with attachment points on the floor for the winch. Throw the webbing over the stem, and set up a camera on a tripod to capture the shape of the fork as you add load via the winch. It should be possible by overlapping semi-transparent photographs to see where the fork is flexing as load is added. You could then repeat the experiment with different forks to see the differences in where the flex occurs, and the function of vertical displacement vs normal load on the front wheel.
My guess is that even the more traditional forks will exhibit the most flex near the upper part of the fork and in the crown and steerer, and this will be accompanied by marked forward displacement of the axle. But it would be interesting to see the difference in displacement vs load coefficient for different materials and designs.

jamesdak 

LOL, I'm not sure I agree with the "then" point. Our roads in this valley are pretty bad still. Sort of outrageous since our tiny (but prime) piece of the county all got an over 100% increase in our property taxes recently. Despite this our roads continue to deteriorate. I think it's almost to the point of criminal when a contractor can chipseal a road and make it even worse that what it was yet that seems common practice here. Hence why I love the old bikes and their compliance.

gugie 

Uh, don't know about you, but where I live, here are plenty of rought roads to ride on in my hood. Face it, the infrastructure in the US is going downhill. There's nothing sexy and sellable in an election for someone who says they'll fix the potholes - building new roads is where the votes are.

fietsbob

Start showing up at your city council meetings. Speak.

jamesdak 

OMG, if only that really worked nowdays. Reality is that money talks, developers and realtors own the local counsels. Still need to get the old Peugeot sorted out and then give it a ride on those same rough roads.