So I posted a thread about 2 weeks ago looking for a good beginner road bike. I got several great responses. I've narrowed my search down to 2 bikes. Trek 1.1 or Giant defy 5.

They appear to be the same with the exception being that the Trek has a carbon fork. It's a $100 difference. Is it worth the extra money to have a carbon fork?

I've ridden both.

The Trek is a slightly nicer bike. The giant is fine, the Alu fork just adds to the weight and isn't that uncomfortable. Ride both and see which one feels nicest to you. You shouldn't base your decision on specs!

if they are the same comfort level, does the fork make any noticeable difference to a noob?

Theoretically, a carbon fork will absorb more road vibration, making it more comfortable on your hands / arms when you ride on rough pavement.

Aluminum on the other hand is a very stiff material, but will not dampen that much, so you feel all the bumps and cracks in the road more.

Will you notice a real difference? I don't know. But there must be a reason why many manufacturers use carbon forks on entry level bikes, even when the entire rest of the bike has no carbon on it.

Also, my old 30yr old full aluminum Cannondale STILL has a steel fork, because steel absorbs more vibration than aluminum. So manufacturers seem to have shied away from using aluminum forks for decades. If that tells you something...

For a noob: doesnt matter if you are a noob or an experienced rider. Everyone feels comfort.
Personally, all things being equal, I would definitely go for the bike with the carbon fork. I would spend $100 extra on it probably. That being said, the general fit of the bike is more important for comfort, so make sure the bike fits you properly first.

based on what I'm looking at, the bikes specs appear to be very similar. Would you agree with this? Giant contend 3 and trek 1.1. Any further help would be appreciated.

The new Contend 3 is cheaper than the Defy 5, so I think you should be looking at that one, they have the same specs.

Apart form the carbon fork, other thing worth considering is the cassette. The Giant has an 11-32 and the Trek an 11-28. If you will be hitting some big hills, then you'll probably appreciate the lower gearing of the Giant, but if you ride on mostly flat terrain, then the closer spaced gearing of the Trek would be better. These are items you can change in the future, so don't sweat it, but it is worth considering.

Beyond that, I'd say choose the one you like most. If you like them both equally, I'd go for the cheaper option.

Off-topic: The new 1.2 looks pretty good with the new Sora groupset.

Yes the specs look very similar, same groupset (Shimano Claris). The main differences are the forks and the wheels (dont know which wheels are better).

This article might shed some light on entry level road bikes. They are testing the Trek 1.2 and Defy 3, which are each one step above the ones you are looking at:

Best road bikes under $1000 - BikeRadar USA

This article seems to like the Giant bike better.

Honestly, the bikes are probably very very similar. So the BEST advice is really: TEST ride both of them, and see which one is more comfortable to you. Do yourself a favor, because bike fit is more important than specs.

Can we please rename this thread to "Fork of Death"?

From what I hear, the Giant Defy has a better frame, but the Contend ... unless it is the SL, not so much.

Really, only riding will tell you which You like.

I am not sure that you would be able to tell the difference between the forks on a short test ride. I like the Giant better but would recommend going with the Trek, IF, you can afford the extra $100. I think that the Carbon fork is worth the difference over time.

Yep; it's called marketing...

75% of the benefit of carbon on a bike is the fork, 25% are the seat stays but this is rare. There is virtually no benefit of carbon over metal anywhere else on a bike.

Over time you will appreciate the carbon fork.

This is absurd. CF yields benefits in stiffness/comfort balance everywhere on the bike.

That is the position of people that don't understand bike frames. The benefit of carbon is limited to the two contacts points of road and rider, hands and rear end. Carbon is superior for those two frame parts but after that has no benefit over metal.

The fork is the most important, the seat stays are a nice option if you can find it on a non-custom bike.

What do you mean no benefit? Carbon fiber reinforced polymer has a better stiffness and strength to weight ratio than metals, so it can be the same strength while being lighter. Or stronger for the same weight.

So basically the whole bike is lighter for it, which is a benefit over metal. In terms of shock absorption, you are probably right, the fork is the most important for that aspect.