I think aluminum as a fork material is under-rated. Three choices are a 400g carbon fork with carbon steerer, a 600g bonded aluminum one and a 900g (Tange) steel. Kinesis aluminum forks have a great reputation. Almost the lightness of carbon, much cheaper, and in my opinion, safer.
as far as dampening any road vibration that I may be worried about, gel gloves, gel handlebar tape and relaxing my body will take care of that.

My carbon bike is pushing 17 years old without a spot of rust or corrosion too.

I've got no problem with it as long as the producer has decent QC going. IMHO aluminum is kinda under-rated on bicycles in general. I've ridden a lot of great aluminum bikes.



This is why they have a barrier coat on the parts. And they don't degrade nearly as quickly as a lot of people seem to think- my bikes have spent the majority of their time near the ocean and have had a lot of salt spray on them over the years. Doesn't really matter what the material used in the frame/fork is if you take care of your stuff to begin with.

I agree with the others who said there's nothing special about the 3 year landmark. CF forks sometimes last for decades.

Then again, since CF forks are more likely than steel to be terminally damaged/fail even when new, 3 years of use surely isn't doing anything good for their reliability.


Save a pound and ride carbon... just make sure you have a good dental plan! :thumb:

Aren't the carbon parts coated with some sort of sealer? Mine seems to be and I assumed it was to protect the carbon


Do you have a reference for this? I've been curious if there is data to support or dispute this, as I have read it more than a few times on BF but have never seen any reference.
TIA

I have yet to see anyone post anything more than anecdotal evidence for this that doesn't also apply to steel and aluminum.


You could probably find some aeronautical engineering papers for that, but the environments/applications are different enough that I'm not sure how valuable they would be for cyclists.

My position remains this: in a society as litigious as this, with as many CF forks as have been sold in the last 35 years, if they were In Any Way a hazard

A.) They would not be on the market and

B.) We would be seeing commercials for lawyers starting class action suits for people hurt riding bikes with CF forks ("Were you or a loved one hurt or killed while riding a bicycle equipped with a fatally unsafe carbon fiber fork the bicycle industry Knew was a hazard? If so call Dewey, Cheatham and Howe to find out how you can get the compensation You Deserve!")

When a carbon-fiber fork fails, its manufacturer offers $1 million to the victim and quietly recalls all similar forks.

http://www.salient-news.com/wp-conte...rk-Failing.pdf
The guy is set to retire and sail a yacht now.
Giant Bicycle is voluntarily recalling about 2,400 Giant bicycle forks. These carbon-fiber forks were sold on 2001-model Giant TCR Team, TCR 0, TCR 1, TCR 2 and OCR 1 bicycles and framesets (an unassembled frame and fork). Warning: These forks can break during use causing riders to lose control, fall and get seriously injured! If you have one of these bicycles, stop riding it immediately!
--

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Name of Product: Wolf SL Carbon Fiber Bicycle Forks
Units: About 5,800
Importer: Cervélo SA, of Switzerland
Manufacturer: True Temper Composite Material Products Co. Ltd, of Guangzhou, China
Hazard: The forks steerer can break during normal use, causing the rider to lose control, fall and suffer serious injuries.
Incidents/Injuries: Cervelo has received 12 reports of forks cracking or breaking, resulting in one consumer suffering a broken wrist and another suffering minor abrasions.
Description: The recalled forks have a clear coating over black painted carbon fiber, with the words "Wolf Superlite" and related logo just below the crown on each fork leg, and the letters "SL" on each leg above the fork blade dropouts. There is a True Temper CRT™ logo on the inside of both fork legs. The recalled forks could have been included on the following bicycle models: R3, R3 SL, Soloist Carbon, Soloist Carbon SL, and certain P3 Carbon framesets and complete bicycles.

https://www.cpsc.gov/~/link/1c697a9f...49e45695ce.jpg

Carbon forks are not safe, and now steel forks aren't either. What to do?

Marin recalling about 470 mountain bikes over rigid fork concerns | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

I think in both cases it's not the material, it's the design that's unsafe.

They're all mass produced. There's bound to be QC failures at some point.

A bent fork is nothing new. It's semi-dangerous, but the damage is highly visible.

It's funny I was reading some where that Colnago told one of it's customers that carbon fiber frames should be replaced every two years. I thought that was crazy.LOL

Okay .... that's one case in 35 years. Where are the rest?

By the way ... if all this was so "quiet," why were you so easily able to find the info and even a photo of the recalled product?

If this had happened lots of times ...you should easily be able to present lots of examples.

Get to work

(I had a Takata airbag.)

Fair enough. Here's what some in the industry have said:


"The cycling industry isn't doing enough to prevent fork steerer failures.
That’s the opinion of a man who would know: Cervélo co-founder Phil White, whose company suffered a large fork recall in 2008 following fork failures that resulted in multiple crashes and injuries.
Cervélo is not alone in that sorry episode.
The cycling industry has seen a rash of fork steerer-related problems in the last few years, from nearly every major brand sold in North America. Big brands with big test labs have experienced consumer injuries and expensive recalls that the manufacturers say resulted from a mix of engineering and manufacturing flaws."

The Retrogrouch: Carbon Forks - No Way


I'll admit that the risk of catastrophic CF fork failure is likely small. But failure could be deadly, or worse. There is worse.

It is not possible for CF and steel to both fail catastrophically at exactly the same rate. One or the other has to be higher. It doesn't take much research to figure out which one that is.

Okay first of all, that is fork steerer issues ... what sort? Bonded aluminum/carbon? Carbon only? And in every case, there has been a recall ... just like the auto industry does it. I don’t hear people saying we shouldn’t drive cars, despite all the fatal accidents which have prompted recalls.

Also,.. I see a couple things from 2008 (Giant and Cervelo.) Giant recalled what ... a few thousand forks?

And also please list the multiple injuries. Catastrophic failure on any sort of scale must have left a trail of injuries, right?

Or ... this is a Retrogrouch position ... people who for whatever irrational cause Fear CF or hate CF .... despite its THIRTY-PLUS-YEAR HISTORY as a bicycle material ... who look for every chance to attack CF.

I’d say this gentleman has pretty much solved all the problems associated with CF in frames anf forks ...

I'd want a proper inspection from someone with this level of expertise, otherwise its a bit of a gamble IMO.

My Ti frame cracked before any problems with carbon fork. After 15yrs and 60-70k miles plus a number of yrs on fluid trainer during off season.

A quick googling revealed these cases. You can google more.

Cyclist died after carbon forks separated, Coroner rules - Cycling Weekly
REI Loses Liability Case for Defective Fork | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2013/Sp...Hazard/#Remedy

It's very difficult to find slim and beautiful cars nowadays because new cars have to be super beefy and heavy to pass all government regulations.

A fork manufacturer recalls a carbon fork and makes it beefier and heavier.

Here is a modern bike with a carbon fork. It looks super beefy and ugly.
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.co...p51-630-80.jpg

Here is an outdated super heavy bike.
https://www.steel-vintage.com/media/...icycle-1_6.jpg

Okay ... four incidents. And one was, again, bonding of Al steerer to CF fork. So .. I guess all-CF forks are safe.

Again, I point to the auto industry. Recalls will happen. Factories screw up. For every "CF Death Fork!" anecdote there are a couple people who have had frames crack ... Metal frames. I guess we need to stop building metal bikes.

Whatever. As has been said twice already, you are free to let your life be bounded by whatever you fear. I look at a few failures around the world in a few decades and realize that 40,000 people die driving every year and people are afraid of bicycles asploding.

Feel free NOT to by CF products. Problem solved.

And now you want to force everyone in the world to share your aesthetic sense?

Dude, go live your life and cower in fear when CF forks are nearby. People like what they like and ride what they ride.

Look at my bike list.

Two Al frames with CF forks, one Al frame with steel fork, one all-steel bike, one all CF bike. One MTB with aluminum frame, steel suspension fork, and CF swing-arm.

How is it that I am still alive? And how is it that I like them all?

Simply this: I am not you. I don't have to fear what you fear or like what you like.

if you cannot grasp and accept that your problems run way deeper than CF forks on bicycles.

I just point out that a "light" carbon bike looks much heavier than a "heavy" steel racing bike.
Why can't they make carbon bikes with smaller tubes? They can't - they have to make them oversized and heavy due to reliability issues.

That's my personal aesthetic view.

No way. I read on Bike Forums that Ti is indestructible and carbon forks are only good for three years.

Good cherry-pick from that article.


Here's another from Look:

There is no limitation because carbon has a natural flexibility. It can be used a hundred years while maintaining the same stiffness.


I'd say both are misleading out of context

Same is true of steel and titanium, if you don't exceed the fatigue limit it will never fatigue.

Aluminum will, and it will get stress fractures and fail. There is not an fatigue limit, any deformation makes permeant damage.

How old is my carbon fork on my Sirrus?

Let's see - 12 years old, so far!

My 2007 Trek road bike has carbon forks, a lot of miles and no problems.

Yes and no. The resins used are epoxy not plastic. I used to work at a CF manufacturer and we put no service life on CF components. Remember the newer airliners are over 50% CF and fly well over 100,000 flights before they get replaced by newer technology. CF doesn't fatigue with use like AL or steel. The biggest drawback is that damage caused by impacts may not be visible. That may be why they recommend a service life, assuming forks over X years old have likely been dropped or been in a crash at some point. UV will degrade CF over time so an intact paint job is important.

I would judge by impacts, not years or miles. If treated well a CF fork will outlive any of us.

You must have like the 2003 edition or something. Modern carbon forks will last a really long time if the bike doesn't get picked up and thrown across the room with severe regularity. I mean... they sell full carbon mountain bikes for crying out loud, kind of can't believe this is still a myth.

By the way, carbon does not have a fatigue limit. That is a property of metals due to their crystal structure. Carbon has a stress limit to the point of catastrophic failure, but fatigue - that won't happen.

There is no good way to inspect carbon without cutting it up or making it fail.