To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...

On 10/17/2012 01:05 PM, thirty-six wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:56 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:

On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the "standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.

You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

No. Slightest bit of damp in a bouncy corner and the rider will still
down their shoulder more times than good. For full effect use bald
treaded tyres and radial spoking (phased alternately to the moon) and
crank 'em up for all they're worth. A 23mm wired-on tyre may be
suitable in 99% of circumstances, but how many corners does that
criterium have? If you desire a 23mm section, do your racing on
tubulars and make sure you don't skimp on the glue.


You didn't really answer my question. I get that you don't like the
standard tires on road bikes but given that someone is actually using
them, don't you think that CF forks improve the ride?

It seems that most people working at the LBSs around here think that CF
forks and stays do exactly that.

"Duane Hébert" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the
"standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so
more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but
what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.


You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

Duane Hébert,
It depends on the details of each fork.
Kerry.

On 10/17/2012 02:19 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
"Duane Hébert" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the
"standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so
more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but
what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.


You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

Duane Hébert,
It depends on the details of each fork.

Sure. But one of the details is the material. But when I was shopping
for my road bike that ended up being a CF frame, I went to a good number
of shops. And most were pushing aluminum frames with carbon forks and
stays on the lower end bikes. And the argument was always that they
were more comfortable.

I test drove a few but with different bikes it's hard to compare a
specific difference. I just assumed that the LBS guys were not all full
of ****.

On Oct 17, 11:44*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:19 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:









"Duane H bert" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the
"standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so
more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but
what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.

You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

Duane H bert,
It depends on the details of each fork.

Sure. *But one of the details is the material. But when I was shopping
for my road bike that ended up being a CF frame, I went to a good number
of shops. *And most were pushing aluminum frames with carbon forks and
stays on the lower end bikes. *And the argument was always that they
were more comfortable.

I test drove a few but with different bikes it's hard to compare a
specific difference. *I just assumed that the LBS guys were not all full
of ****.

I don't think carbon is inherently more comfortable than steel or
aluminum, notwithstanding the hype. I have had stiff CF forks that
transmitted no more or less road shock than equivalently stiff steel
forks. Maybe they dampened some high frequency vibration, but it was
nothing I noticed. What I notice is stiffness and weight, which is
where CF easily beats steel. Over-all comfort comes from geometry,
saddle, tires, etc., etc. My over-built aluminum cross bike (with
pepperoni aluminum forks) is very comfortable because it is totally
dialed in for me. As an aside, I changed out the tires for a little
fatter rubber this morning, and the commute felt like slow-mo replay.
Going from ProRaces to a wire bead Conti is really noticeable.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/17/2012 04:03 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:44 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:19 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:









"Duane H bert" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the
"standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so
more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but
what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.

You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

Duane H bert,
It depends on the details of each fork.

Sure. But one of the details is the material. But when I was shopping
for my road bike that ended up being a CF frame, I went to a good number
of shops. And most were pushing aluminum frames with carbon forks and
stays on the lower end bikes. And the argument was always that they
were more comfortable.

I test drove a few but with different bikes it's hard to compare a
specific difference. I just assumed that the LBS guys were not all full
of ****.

I don't think carbon is inherently more comfortable than steel or
aluminum, notwithstanding the hype. I have had stiff CF forks that
transmitted no more or less road shock than equivalently stiff steel
forks. Maybe they dampened some high frequency vibration, but it was
nothing I noticed. What I notice is stiffness and weight, which is
where CF easily beats steel. Over-all comfort comes from geometry,
saddle, tires, etc., etc. My over-built aluminum cross bike (with
pepperoni aluminum forks) is very comfortable because it is totally
dialed in for me. As an aside, I changed out the tires for a little
fatter rubber this morning, and the commute felt like slow-mo replay.
Going from ProRaces to a wire bead Conti is really noticeable.

I wouldn't expect CF to be softer riding than steel but maybe softer
than AL. Good fit is the best solution for sure.

I kept the same tires but changed wheels g that have a wider rim
allowing me to put less air. Comfort wise, it's pretty noticeable as
well. Better cornering too.

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:03:09 PM UTC-7, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:44*am, Duane Hébert wrote: On 10/17/2012 02:19 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote: "Duane H bert" wrote in message ... On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote: On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote: I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the "standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so more.. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim? Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort, large tires and cockpit details are far more important. You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires? Duane H bert, It depends on the details of each fork. Sure. *But one of the details is the material. But when I was shopping for my road bike that ended up being a CF frame, I went to a good number of shops. *And most were pushing aluminum frames with carbon forks and stays on the lower end bikes. *And the argument was always that they were more comfortable. I test drove a few but with different bikes it's hard to compare a specific difference. *I just assumed that the LBS guys were not all full of ****. I don't think carbon is inherently more comfortable than steel or aluminum, notwithstanding the hype. I have had stiff CF forks that transmitted no more or less road shock than equivalently stiff steel forks. Maybe they dampened some high frequency vibration, but it was nothing I noticed. What I notice is stiffness and weight, which is where CF easily beats steel. Over-all comfort comes from geometry, saddle, tires, etc., etc. My over-built aluminum cross bike (with pepperoni aluminum forks) is very comfortable because it is totally dialed in for me. As an aside, I changed out the tires for a little fatter rubber this morning, and the commute felt like slow-mo replay.. Going from ProRaces to a wire bead Conti is really noticeable. -- Jay Beattie.

I agree with this assessment. I found a "fatter" (wider) tire made more of a difference in comfort. I like 700x25 tires pumped up to 85-90psi. It provide me with loads of comfort with no perceptible loss of performance - which is basically nil as I'm pretty slow

I too ride ProRace tires and a good alternative I found were the cheaper Michelin Lithion. In 700x25, these tires roll well and feel just as fast! They also seem more durable (knock on wood!) Finally, the price is 1/3 what a Prorace sells for these days. Something to consider. Good Luck!

On 18/10/12 07:12, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 04:03 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:44 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:19 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:









"Duane H bert" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to
get the
"standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so
more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher
roads, but
what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a
carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.

You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

Duane H bert,
It depends on the details of each fork.

Sure. But one of the details is the material. But when I was shopping
for my road bike that ended up being a CF frame, I went to a good number
of shops. And most were pushing aluminum frames with carbon forks and
stays on the lower end bikes. And the argument was always that they
were more comfortable.

I test drove a few but with different bikes it's hard to compare a
specific difference. I just assumed that the LBS guys were not all full
of ****.

I don't think carbon is inherently more comfortable than steel or
aluminum, notwithstanding the hype. I have had stiff CF forks that
transmitted no more or less road shock than equivalently stiff steel
forks. Maybe they dampened some high frequency vibration, but it was
nothing I noticed. What I notice is stiffness and weight, which is
where CF easily beats steel. Over-all comfort comes from geometry,
saddle, tires, etc., etc. My over-built aluminum cross bike (with
pepperoni aluminum forks) is very comfortable because it is totally
dialed in for me. As an aside, I changed out the tires for a little
fatter rubber this morning, and the commute felt like slow-mo replay.
Going from ProRaces to a wire bead Conti is really noticeable.

I wouldn't expect CF to be softer riding than steel but maybe softer
than AL. Good fit is the best solution for sure.


As usual, it depends. A straight steel fork with heavy blades will
likely be quite hard. Light and nicely curved and tapered steel forks
will likely soak up the bumps a little easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

Al has a ****ty fatigue life. This results in over designed parts in
high stress areas, which leads to increased rigidity and a harsh ride.

500 million load cycles. How many kilometres of road does that
represent? On rough roads, there might be 50 loading cycles per metre?
That's 10,000,000 metres, or 10,000 kilometres. Youch!

For CFRP, defining a fatigue limit is fuzzy as there are many design and
manufacturing variables, but the fatigue limit can be very good,
provided good engineering and manufacturing processes are used.

--
JS

On 10/17/2012 10:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering
whether to get the "standard" model or the same model
with a carbon fork for $100 or so more. It's supposed to
make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but what
are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****.
Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing
and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.


You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable
than an aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x
23c tires?

I don't.
They are probably both adequately strong and of the same
geometry as far as handling but I bet you could not tell
them apart if similarly painted.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Oct 17, 6:47*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 01:05 PM, thirty-six wrote:









On Oct 17, 4:56 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:

On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the "standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.

You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

No. Slightest bit of damp in a bouncy corner and the rider will still
down their shoulder more times than good. *For full effect use bald
treaded tyres and radial spoking (phased alternately to the moon) and
crank 'em up for all they're worth. * A 23mm wired-on tyre may be
suitable in 99% of circumstances, but how many corners does that
criterium have? *If you desire a 23mm section, do your racing on
tubulars and make sure you don't skimp on the glue.

You didn't really answer my question. *I get that you don't like the
standard tires on road bikes but given that someone is actually using
them, don't you think that CF forks improve the ride?

It seems that most people working at the LBSs around here think that CF
forks and stays do exactly that.


I don't want to hear what people think about such things, I want to
know. I've told you what I know.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:56:11 -0400, Duane Hébert
wrote:

On 10/17/2012 10:17 AM, landotter wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:05 pm, piscesboy wrote:
I'm considering getting a road bike and considering whether to get the "standard" model or the same model with a carbon fork for $100 or so more. It's supposed to make for a more stable ride on rougher roads, but what are your conclusions/reviews/recommendations on this claim?

Did the bike shop make this claim? Because it's bull****. Get a carbon
fork if it comes with a bike you like, or if you're racing and it'll
help you drop some grams. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. For comfort,
large tires and cockpit details are far more important.


You don't think that a carbon fork would be more comfortable than an
aluminum fork on the same frame with 125 psi 700 x 23c tires?

I can't say for the aluminum but certainly my Giant TCR2 with a carbon
fork and 300C 23 tires (or smaller) didn't feel any different, at
least nothing that could be attributed to the fork, then a light steel
bike road bike with the usual curved steel fork.

So if there is a difference it is not memorable enough that one can
notice it riding the same route on different days.
--
Cheers,
John B.