Yeah they exist, and as such are about 4 -6 times more expensive, for really know known net performance increase overall.

- Any serious one, you are not netting the weight savings you would expect from experience with the more common racing versions in carbon.

- You shouldn't really notice much difference in the ride. Of course in metal forks there is a wide range of signatures, but carbon should be somewhere in that mix. People try to make out carbon is a better ride, or steel, neither is true, and on a touring bike with fatter tires, and front bags the difference is less.

- After harvesting the weight savings, I can't think of a single other advantage to carbon, and a lot of disadvantages. It makes no sense to me. I know of tons of products where carbon is the bees knees, and actually makes whole worlds possible. In cycling it is not that big a deal. In some sports the product is either worlds better, or was not even possible without carbon. I just mention it because I am totally pro carbon where it works.


Here is the one I would be tempted by:

Carbon Forks

2/3rd down trekking fork

Columbus Tusk Trekking Fork

Nashbar Carbon Cyclocross Fork

It doesn't have the rack mounts but there are a lot of ways around that problem. Heavier though.

The carbon version saves about 1 pound, but that is over the steel Cyclo fork which is terribly heavy. I don't see the touring fork for sale any more. Surly says their LHT fork is 1050, and while the Nash carbon is 870, and the columbus is 740. Not really enough saving to take a face plant for.