I'm bringing this up because of a long conversation I had with the staff at my LBS. They were telling me that with the advances in engineering, material physics and design, carbon forks are a legitimate choice for touring bikes. (Note: As long as they are specifically designed for touring, i.e., have braze ons and the right geometry and structural properties. And note: by touring I mean self-containing camping-touring with 4 panniers and/or a Bob trailer, say, across Canada or the US, but not off-road or expedition touring in S-E Asia.)

Based on what I was told, it seems that weight-wise there's no difference, because a carbon touring fork will approach 500-600 grams. The difference is in the comfort provided, i.e., the dampening of small shocks and jolts, and the reduction in road vibration. Apparently longevity is not an issue with carbon forks, collisions or serious crashes aside, as a lot of carbon forks have a lifetime warranty. Obviously one downside is that you can't get a carbon fork repaired by a local handy at welding.

Comments on the suitability of carbon forks for touring? Has anyone done any touring on a carbon fork? If not, why not? Again, assume there are braze ons for a front rack, and that the geometry is right. So what's the problem? Longstanding biases?

I have carbon forks on my new Fuji World. It's standard on that bike. It even has inserts for mounting the front racks. To be honest, I wasn't going out of my way to get carbon forks. In my case it just happens to come with them. As for ride quality, I there is so many differences between this bike and my previous bike that, whilst the ride feels different, I can't say what influence the carbon forks have. I'm off touring in France in June/July with full panniers so they'll geta bit of a workout then. Originally I was thinking about changing the forks, but after looking at them I don't think I will. They are quite different to the carbon forks you see on road bikes. I will be giving them a test run before I go. So far I've done 1,500km on it but none with panniers. My concern is that they are as yet unproven for touring, so it's hard to RECOMMEND them. As for repairability, I'm not sure how useful that is with forks, perhaps someone else can comment. Most fork failures I've seen would defy repair!

A lot of forks are damaged by frontal collision (like mine was). The forks collapse in, and if you are lucky, they absorb all the energy, leaving the frame undamged.
If the forks are stronger then the head-tube will collapse inward.
With bent steel forks, you can do a roadside repair, using a drain grating, which will get you home.
Carbon forks fail catastrophicaly, ie they work, or break in half. They my be made so strong, that your frame will bend instead. You may be able to do a field repair using epoxy and carbon material.
Carbon is also quite soft, so hard objects can damage the surface.

Its a tough call, but I would like to try carbon touring forks, just for fun.

Thanks Nomad for your info. You'll have to get back to after your summer travels, to let us know how everything held up!

Re: carbon forks, it's amazing how big cyclocross or audax riding has become. I see that an awful lot of cyclocross bikes have carbon forks.

Still, I'm surprised that there haven't been more responses from tourers with carbon forks.

Maybe you haven't received more replies from tourers using carbon forks because there aren't so many of them yet?

I would rather wait for the long term reliability of these items -in many tough environments- to be established before changing from something I know to be safe, reliable and durable. It's still fairly recent advances in the technology that have made this discussion feasible.........

Thanks. Right you are. There are probably just a handful of people in N. America touring around on carbon forks. And yet -- as I said above -- you'd be hard pressed to find a cyclo-cross bike without carbon forks!

I agree that the technological advances are recent. I've spoken to two bike-makers and they are totally convinced that the testing done on carbon has revealed it to be resilient and tough, within limits (i.e., collision). Some of these repetitive stress tests have subjected carbon to 50,000 plus repetitions. But what do tourers say? I'm still hoping for replies!

hi,
I have a couple of years experience with with carbon fork.It's a winwood on a cannondale touring frame,which has a carbon seatpost too,fsa.My last configuration featured 32 top touring tyres wich did fantastic on gravel roads.A couple of months ago I arrived from a 1050 km trip from Cusco to Arica,with altitudes up to 4400 mts,temperatures under 15 c.and 400kms of unpaved roads!Both components did superbly!This frame was never so confortable and the bike performed perfectly.With a blackburn expedition rack and back panniers only,loaded with 15/20 kilos depending on food and water.Self sustained with tent and sleeping bag.With 15 k is perhaps the limit for light touring.Any way...I don't know If I would use this fork for a world tour.But so far it is a great feature on my touring bike.36 spoke rims and suited tyres are essential for good handling,stability,confort and durability.

As an engineer I just dont see the reason for carbon forks on a steel bike. Proper made steel forks will absorb shock and vibrations as well or better than any fancy carbon fiber fork. Carbon fiber as a construction material is inherently stiff. The stiffness and rideability of a fork can be designed for any of the common materials used. I suspect that most of the carbon fork introduction on current bikes is just a sales pitch to make the bike seem more high-tech, therefore better. Remember the bike industry needs to sell bikes to survive and give the buyer a reason to buy a new bike when they may still have a perfectly good older one. Few people can wear a touring bike out, so they will have it for years. How many people ride a bike 10,000 to 20,000 miles?

My steel touring bike, hand-built by Hugh Black of True North Cycles has a carbon fork. It was one of many options he offered; I really did not give the matter much thought. I think I chose a carbon fork because it was less expensive than having a steel fork built.

I have taken the bike on two major tours this summer and last, with my luggage hanging off the rear rack. So far, zero problems with the fork. The bike rides beautifully, both with and without loaded panniers.

My old Trek 620 with conti top-touring 2000 tires rides like my grandfather's Cadillac. If a carbon fork weighs about the same as the steel fork, why bother?

You can make carbon to flex, because it has such high modulous it will be strong enough even when also flexible. Bike forks though, give me the feeling of being too large in section to allow that unless the fork was built so light it would be fragile. A lot of products made of carbon haven't started out all that successfuly, but eventualy they get it right, so maybe they can come up with an option that works. So far I have yet to see ANY carbon touring bikes. SPecialized sells a cross touring bike, but it's geometry is not what I would want.

My local bike shop showed me a hub that has .5". or 1" of suspenssion built right in the fork. That would seem a lot more effective. Combined with a seat post spring, or sprung seat.

If one was touring with a trailer and no bags, it would seem one could try just about any kind of frame one cared to.

Hi, I was thinking of doing just that, touring with a bike built for road racing (because it's all I've got) and a trailer behind me pulling all of my stuff, possibly a bob-yak or the like. I've yet to really get into touring so I don't know the consequences of my actions... do you have any ideas? I was thinking of doing a trans-north america type tour. Any suggestions/warnings? Thanks!

05 Fuji World, carbon touring fork, no problems yet. I do agree that in the event of a crash, a steel fork might be repairable enough to get you down the road and the possibility of repair/replacement, not so with a carbon fork. But I figure if I get into something that trashes my fork like that, I probably won't be able to effect a roadside repair from my comfy ambulance bed anyway. ;-)

I toured for three weeks in Europe with carbon forks and I wouldn't do it again. I spent most of my time throwing myself in between them and every other object they were in danger of coming in contact with or hovering over them ... just in case something came close to them.

I had been told that if I nicked them, that would be the end of the road. Well, believe me, when you tour, you run a much high risk of nicking your forks than if you just ride around the block or in your local Time Trial. Bicycles are loaded into baggage cars of trains and busses without a second thought to their condition. Bicycles fall against trees when you are trying to load your panniers onto them. Even if you do manage to stand beside your bicycle on a train, people with heavy suitcases will come in and bang those suitcases against your bicycle. Machak bears the scars of many such occurrances.

Then there's the thing about installing a front rack ... I couldn't with mine! That meant that all the weight of my load went on the back of the bicycle which is the wrong setup. Even if there had been eyelettes, I had also been told that it would be extremely dangerous to put a front rack on because of the direction of force.

I changed my forks out to steel ... a decision I have not regretted.


....... especially after seeing the damage to a fellow cyclist's face after his carbon forks failed on him on a steep descent .....

Lots of people I know ride their bicycles that much and more. I've had Machak for 2.5 years now and have put 22,000 miles on him already ... with many more to come, I hope. But he certainly isn't worn out after so few miles ... if all goes well, he could have 10 times that much before he retires.

Really? Any idea why the fork failed? Were there any warning signs?

There were no warning signs whatsoever AND he didn't have anything attached to them either - no racks, no lights, nothing. Also the road he was descending on was newly paved so it was very smooth.

He was just descending ... and they folded on him. I saw one of the forks after the accident too ... looked just like my carbon seatpost did when it failed.

I've got an OLD carbon fork on my bike. It still works great (and is VERY comfortable) even with HEAVY loads. I think the early carbon forks were "overengineered" because the properties and wear characteristics of the carbon material weren't well known.

I think current carbon forks (those NOT designed for loaded touring) are now MUCH lighter but don't have the safety factor of mine.

As to comfort, I find my carbon fork one of the most comfortable I've ever ridden. Good luck!

I will probably be attacked as a carbon-hater, but it has a tendency to fail catastrophically when you least expect it. Carbon tests as very strong in the lab, and I am sure people will protest that their carbon bike (fork, seatpost,etc.) is covered by warranty -all that means is that you might get a new one if it fails-it doesn't mean it won't fail.

I had a new carbon fibre ski pole shatter on me one day. I have never had a metal ski pole break.

True, but it isn't likely unless you're running the "ultra-light" stuff that has no safety margin. The same argument can (and is) made against aluminum, but aluminum frames have proven reliable - PROVIDED that they are designed with a safety margin.

You can buy an ultra-light anything for a bike that is likely to fail catastrophically if overstressed. Carbon fiber and aluminum do fail more radically than steel or titanium, but the failure is caused by overstress - not by the material properties themselves. If you buy parts with a safety margin (as opposed to the lightest parts you can find), I think that the likelihood of catastrophic failure is low, regardless of material.

Far Horizon
your points are well taken re: safety margins.
Over building Al bikes to get the safety marginresults in a very stiff unforgiving ride. Its not inherent in the aluminum its just the way its built. Although aluminum does not have the fatigue strength of stee l- that is inherent in the material.

Carbon fibre - I just don't trust it. Too many weird unexplained catastrophic failures for me. (like my expensive brand new ski pole)

No arguments from me, skookum - I don't trust carbon fiber either UNLESS I'm sure that a significant safety margin has been incorporated in the design. Since most current carbon parts and frames are made for light weight, I don't buy them.

Skookum, I dont know what kind of poles you were using but high end racing poles are generally not designed with a huge amount of margin for error as a break in the pole is not going to send your face to the ground. In general, I don't think a ski pole is a good analogy to a fork because they are very different applications of the material. I also have experience with carbon poles breaking and they most often break due to chips in high stress areas. Carbon forks often have a layer of resin coating the fibers, preventing chips to the structural parts of the fork, as well as being thicker in the first place than ski poles. I do hear your perspective though, but I don't feel that a total distrust of the material is necessary.

I think Machka's point is the main issue- a touring bike gets lots of use and knocked around however inadvertantly. A chip that occurs when you are miles from home (or replacement) has the capacity for disaster. and do you really want to replace your fork after every nick?

Amazing that all those cyclocross bikes with carbon forks haven't killed all of their riders with the abuse those bikes take.

I seem to recall similar debate when Cannondale had the nerve to introduce an aluminum touring bike, which I believe is one of the most used touring bikes on the road today.

Of course, I did buy a spare fork for my Fuji...nothing wrong with hedging one's bets.