# Carbon vs Steel fork & what makes a smooth bike?



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

Apologize for the long ramble. Any feedback would be welcome.

What makes a road bike feel smooth? Is it the frame material? I'm looking for a smooth ride over a racy feel. My bike has a carbon/carbon fork/frame, my friend's a steel/steel fork/frame. I no longer like my bike. Should I be looking for a steel/steel fork/frame only? Would a nicer carbon fork paired with a steel frame be smooth enough? Carbon disk fork is likely, but I worry it might not feel as supple as I would like...

I'm using disk brakes. Does that make everything less comfortable? I'm not worried about weight so much, though I do long descents sometimes.

*Tires:*
I intend to continue using Compass tires in the 35 to 42mm range at 50/60 psi, so that is the only thing I will not change. Don't even try to dissuade me you old skoolers.

*Background:*
I have a carbon Giant Fastroad. It is way too small and has odd geo for me mainly due to getting the wrong size. It's been mad to fit, though I'm planning on getting a different bike. I have Compass 35mm tires on the stock wheels. The bike rides pretty good for the most part, and I'm using about 50/60 psi in the tires (all my friends think that's too low, but I think they are stuck in their ways). 

I borrowed a friends bike which is a steel Waterford with a steel Salsa fork. He has I think 32mm Gatorskin tires and I have 60psi in them. This bike is SOOO smooth over the little bumps compared to my carbon Fastroad. What makes it feel so much different? My Fastroad hits little bumps and feels and sounds harsh and plasticy. The Waterford feel great. The Waterford is at least a few pounds heavier.


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

It's not necessarily what i's made from, it's how it's designed and then made. The Big One Inch and Accutrax forks, both steel, renowned for being stiff, same with frames. The how, not the what...


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> My Fastroad hits little bumps and feels and sounds harsh and plasticy.


The Giant feels harsh and plasticy because it IS built of plastic. Well, not exactly but you get the idea.

The rage word is carbon and it's touted as being better (re:faster) because it's easy to build it stiff, and everybody equates stiff with better/faster.

A frame is supposed to be like a spring and that spring can absorb some of that road buzz. But carbon fiber doesn't resonate like a spring (think: guitar string). It's essentially dead. Designed properly it can mute out the road buzz but in my experience it just feels dead and plasticy.

You already discovered the Waterford feels wonderful. And Waterford can build a bike just like you want. Buy a Waterford.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Not sure but I think, yes, disk brakes do make a difference. Disk brakes put more stress on the fork so it needs to be beefed up and stiffened accordingly which I'd think could compromise how it deals with road shock and vibration.

I think steel or Ti would be your best bet if made by a competent builder who takes your weight ect into consideration (Waterford would definitely be an example). We could debate what 'could' be done with carbon but the fact is mostly that making a smooth bike as compared to what custom steel or ti can achieve isn't being done off the rack with carbon. And custom carbon gets really pricey and someone who does't care about weight gets nothing in return for the extra price.

your current tire choice is great considering what you want. Don't know your body weight but 50/60 PSI might actually be a little high for 35-42 mm tires. It's certainly not too low unless you get too many pinch flats. Try a little lower. I'm 145 pounds and use 33mm tires for cross, trails and that sort of stuff. 60 is a little to much IMO for me with 33mm tires. With you using bigger I think you could definitely go lower unless your body weight and roads would mean too many pinch flats.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Like Jay says about disk brakes. 

Disk brake forks are made stiffer to handle the stress produced by an axle mounted brake. Also, I think that finding a carbon fork designed for comfort is a tough call because of the "stiffness is better" rhetoric driving the market.

And as far as tire pressure, I pump my Compass Baby Shoe Pass tires to 45psi and that is on the high side. But then they're good for maybe two months before needing topping off.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I agree with velodog. I think you may be using too much pressure. Unless you have very narrow rims and/or weigh over 200 , I would suggest dropping the pressure 10psi to start with.


velodog said:


> Like Jay says about disk brakes.
> 
> Disk brake forks are made stiffer to handle the stress produced by an axle mounted brake. Also, I think that finding a carbon fork designed for comfort is a tough call because of the "stiffness is better" rhetoric driving the market.
> 
> And as far as tire pressure, I pump my Compass Baby Shoe Pass tires to 45psi and that is on the high side. But then they're good for maybe two months before needing topping off.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> Disk brake forks are made stiffer to handle the stress produced by an axle mounted brake. Also, I think that finding a carbon fork designed for comfort is a tough call because of the "stiffness is better" rhetoric driving the market.


What is interesting is that many of today's CroMo bikes have a carbon fork. This seems counter intuitive to me. If there were only one place I could have compliance, I would choose the front end. 

Though at the end of the day, it's tires that make the most difference when it comes to compliance.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> What is interesting is that many of today's CroMo bikes have a carbon fork. This seems counter intuitive to me. If there were only one place I could have compliance, I would choose the front end.
> 
> Though at the end of the day, it's tires that make the most difference when it comes to compliance.


I think that carbon forks boil down to two things Like I mentioned earlier, "stiffness is better". Most of the "modern" steel bikes being made are being touted for their stiffness, not compliance. Oversized tubes, often shaped to optimize stiffness, made to work with stiff carbon forks. Also, with what little I know about frame building, it seems like making a steel fork is probably the most labor intensive part of building a steel bike. So outsource that stiff fork that everyone wants anyway.

And yes, while tires make the biggest difference, a compliant fork brings a lot to the table. I've got an old Miyata that I used to ride a bunch that I've ridden with and without a Blackburn low rider pannier mount, and the fork is definitely stiffer with the low rider mounted. The mount attaches to the fork at the dropouts and midway up the fork leg, above the curve of the blade, not allowing the fork it's ability to flex. The low riders are awful handy, but I wouldn't want to ride with them mounted all the time. They're easy enough to mount and remove, 'specially on a fork with brazed on mounts, that there's no need to leave them on when not needed.

Anyway, riding with the low rider and without showed me how much comfort a fork can bring to the table.


----------



## dirt farmer (Jun 7, 2016)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> *Background:*
> I have a carbon Giant Fastroad. It is way too small and has odd geo for me mainly due to getting the wrong size.


My money is on this.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

velodog said:


> I think that carbon forks boil down to two things Like I mentioned earlier, "stiffness is better". Most of the "modern" steel bikes being made are being touted for their stiffness, not compliance. Oversized tubes, often shaped to optimize stiffness, made to work with stiff carbon forks. Also, with what little I know about frame building, it seems like making a steel fork is probably the most labor intensive part of building a steel bike. So outsource that stiff fork that everyone wants anyway.


I think weight is also a big factor in what sells too. Despite choosing steel for the frame and taking the extra weight in the frame people see the gram difference in the fork and go with the lighter carbon option.

I'm not sure about cost but I'm pretty sure you'd be right that just slapping on a mass produced carbon fork would be cheaper and easier for the builder.
When I was looking at custom steel the carbon fork cost more but in that case it was Enve or similar. But when talking off the shelf mass produced steel they don't use forks like that generally and I'd imagine whatever they get by the truck load from Asia would be a lot cheaper.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I think weight is also a big factor in what sells too. Despite choosing steel for the frame and taking the extra weight in the frame people see the gram difference in the fork and go with the lighter carbon option.
> 
> I'm not sure about cost but I'm pretty sure you'd be right that just slapping on a mass produced carbon fork would be cheaper and easier for the builder.
> When I was looking at custom steel the carbon fork cost more but in that case it was Enve or similar. But when talking off the shelf mass produced steel they don't use forks like that generally and I'd imagine whatever they get by the truck load from Asia would be a lot cheaper.


Yeah, I'm sure that you're right about weight playing a big part also.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Here's the deal: by the selective use of layup patterns carbon forks can be laterally stiff (so that tracking through a corner is consistent and predictable) while allowing for vertical flex which provides comfort. This combination is extremely difficult to produce in steel. Are all carbon forks made this way? No... some manufacturers are just producing them as cheaply as possible, but the good ones work extremely well.


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

Lombard said:


> What is interesting is that many of today's CroMo bikes have a carbon fork. This seems counter intuitive to me. If there were only one place I could have compliance, I would choose the front end.
> 
> Though at the end of the day, it's tires that make the most difference when it comes to compliance.


I think pairing carbon forks and steel frames is a marketing thing. It's an attempt to sell old-school tech with modern tech. Personally, I don't mind carbon forks on steel frames, but most of the time, they look terrible. The worst offenders are thick Reynolds Ouzo forks or straight bladed aero forks on standard diameter steel frames <vomit>. I have seen Enve 1.0 forks on a standard diameter English frame and it looked good. 

As people have mentioned, the geo of the frame has more to do with comfort than the frame material, and the wheel set and tires even more so. I experimented with my road frame (steel frame and fork) that takes 26" wheels. The best balance of comfort and responsiveness I got was riding 650c x 23mm at the front and 26" x 1.1 (28mm) in the rear.


----------



## jimb100 (Jul 11, 2016)

Smoothness has more to do with the design, build quality and material quality than anything else besides tire pressure.

I have two bikes and I ride them equally as often.

I have a Madone 5.2 all carbon with Mavic Equipe S wheels and a Lemond Buenos Aires with Rolf Vector Comp wheels and a carbon fork.

Both run 25mm tires and I run about 95 in front and 100 in back.

The Trek has a Bontrager Blade bars on an 80 mm stem and the Lemond has 3T ergo flat top bars on an 80mm FSA stem. Both have Selle SMP saddles.

Riding, they feel exactly the same, in terms of smoothness. Handling is very similar. Acceleration is very similar. 

My point is this, two quality bikes, one carbon and one steel will have very similar characteristics when set up in the same way.

To say you are going to get a better ride switching from a carbon bike to a steel bike may work and may not. But it won't be because one is carbon and one is steel.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

My experience may be a bit different. To me there is a difference in the feel of a steel, or carbon bike. This true regardless of the fork.

When I bought my Waterford several years ago, I asked about the difference. Between the steel and carbon choices DAve at Waterford answered "about two pounds". His opinion was that there was no difference between the two. I bought the carbon

This year the bike was replaced under a crash replacement built with the same plans as the original. Waterford offer, or suggests two carbon forks and their steel. At least one the carbon forks was more expensive than steel. I went with the steel. Any diffence between the bike with carbon vs. steel is too close for me to tell., but the steel looks better to me

My opinion is that the frame material has an effect on how road noise is transmitted, but design determines nandling The fork makes little difference It should also be mentioned that not all steel forks feel alike, the same applies to carbon


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/rinard_forktest.html


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

frame/fork can only do a limited amt of buzz-elimination. Riding an endurance bike vs a crit bike of similar geometry and tires (yeah I know they wont be same geo, but bear with me) after a 1/4 hour on each you'd swear they were the same thing. It's why so much more emphasis is placed on tires for comfort. And also probably why Specialized gave up on making their endurance frames mushy, and just put actual suspension in place in the seat post and stem to make a real difference. 

Heck if a Giant TCR is a bit harsh for those 200km rides, throw on a CaneCreek seat post, some 28c tires and 2nd layer of bar tape = transformed in a few minutes work and less need for a quiver of bikes.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Herbie said:


> My opinion is that the frame material has an effect on how road noise is transmitted,


That's probably how best to describe the difference between carbon and steel when there's this perceived "smoothness". The frame is like a guitar string, and a carbon guitar string would not resonate anywhere near as long as a steel string. Therefore it seems it would damp road noise, giving a perceived smoother ride.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> Here's the deal: by the selective use of layup patterns carbon forks can be laterally stiff (so that tracking through a corner is consistent and predictable) while allowing for vertical flex which provides comfort. This combination is extremely difficult to produce in steel. Are all carbon forks made this way? No... some manufacturers are just producing them as cheaply as possible, but the good ones work extremely well.


Here's how they did it in the old days. The crown is very stiff laterally but compliant vertically. On a steel frame the ride is superb.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Here's how they did it in the old days. The crown is very stiff laterally but compliant vertically. On a steel frame the ride is superb.


Still plenty of builders doing it this way. Not only good to ride, but good to look at too.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Here's how they did it in the old days. The crown is very stiff laterally but compliant vertically. On a steel frame the ride is superb.


I've had bikes made with Reynolds 531 and bikes made with Columbus SL. They were great bikes in their day - and still nice to ride (I still have the 531 touring frame), but they did not and do not offer as nice of a ride as does my 2013 Trek Domane. Sometimes technology does improve the breed...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> I've had bikes made with Reynolds 531 and bikes made with Columbus SL. They were great bikes in their day - and still nice to ride (I still have the 531 touring frame), but they did not and do not offer as nice of a ride as does my 2013 Trek Domane. Sometimes technology does improve the breed...


Sure, but we're talking about different animals. If rider wants a steel fork for a standard butted tubing steel frame, a flat fork crown is a very effective, simple solution to softening road buzz, but you still have a very responsive bike with a feel for the road that carbon "deadens."

IMHO, steel forks work better than carbon with steel frames. Why make the front end dead when the advantage of steel is its springy modulus of elasticity? 

The fully sloping crowns popular in the 80s gave up much of that nice absorption quality. They transfer shocks right into the head tube and you'd start to feel it on a long ride. The semi sloping crowns were a compromise, but they still didn't have the vertical compliance of the flat ones. 

And that fork ain't gonna break any time soon. Pegoretti, DeRosa, and a few others still make a model with a flat crown. They're ideal for "endurance" bikes, with a history that goes back further than butted tubing. I think the main reason builders went to sloping crowns and later did away with crowns altogether was aesthetics, to look modern.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Tachycardic said:


> I think pairing carbon forks and steel frames is a marketing thing.<vomit>


</vomit>It may also have something to do with more bikes going to disc brake. In that case, stiffer may be a necessity due to the tremendous forces on the front hub.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Herbie said:


> My experience may be a bit different. To me there is a difference in the feel of a steel, or carbon bike. This true regardless of the fork.
> 
> When I bought my Waterford several years ago, I asked about the difference. Between the steel and carbon choices DAve at Waterford answered "about two pounds". His opinion was that there was no difference between the two. I bought the carbon
> 
> ...


I have a Ritchey Logic steel bike with a carbon fork. Ritchey doesn't sell it with a steel fork. I'm glad I have a carbon fork because the bike would be too heavy otherwise. 2 pounds is a lot, considering that steel frames weigh more than carbon frames do as well. The biggest difference between the ride of the Ritchey and my old Madone 5.2 is due to the tire width. 25 on the Ritchey vs. 23 on the Trek.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Tachycardic said:


> I think pairing carbon forks and steel frames is a marketing thing. It's an attempt to sell old-school tech with modern tech. Personally, I don't mind carbon forks on steel frames, but most of the time, they look terrible. The worst offenders are thick Reynolds Ouzo forks or straight bladed aero forks on standard diameter steel frames <vomit>. I have seen Enve 1.0 forks on a standard diameter English frame and it looked good.
> 
> As people have mentioned, the geo of the frame has more to do with comfort than the frame material, and the wheel set and tires even more so. I experimented with my road frame (steel frame and fork) that takes 26" wheels. The best balance of comfort and responsiveness I got was riding 650c x 23mm at the front and 26" x 1.1 (28mm) in the rear.


All 5 of my steel bikes have had steel forks. I just wouldn't even consider a plastic fork. That is from a aesthetics point of view, I don't have a performance concern with carbon. However, I don't see any aftermarket forks touted as being "comfortable" or "compliant"; its always about being stiff


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

DaveG said:


> All 5 of my steel bikes have had steel forks. I just wouldn't even consider a plastic fork. That is from a aesthetics point of view, I don't have a performance concern with carbon. However, I don't see any aftermarket forks touted as being "comfortable" or "compliant"; its always about being stiff


I stuck a carbon fork on my De Rosa once. Yikes, what the hell was I thinking.

I guess it rode OK, but it sure did ugly up the bike. It ended up back in the box somewhere in the basement.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Sure, but we're talking about different animals. If rider wants a steel fork for a standard butted tubing steel frame, a flat fork crown is a very effective, simple solution to softening road buzz, but you still have a very responsive bike with a feel for the road that carbon "deadens."
> 
> IMHO, steel forks work better than carbon with steel frames. Why make the front end dead when the advantage of steel is its springy modulus of elasticity?
> 
> ...


In 1980 a buddy of mine rear-ended a pickup truck he wasn't expecting to stop when it did. His fork blades popped right out of the (flat) crown - it was a Reynolds 531 frame and fork that used silver brazing (everything done the right way, no?). The funny thing was that his front wheel wasn't even knocked out of true. 

The moral of the story is that anything can fail. No material is immune to failure.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"However, I don't see any aftermarket forks touted as being "comfortable" or "compliant"; its always about being "stiff"

They are marketed to racers, right? Which adjective is more likely to catch the attention of the aspiring bike racer?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bradkay said:


> In 1980 a buddy of mine rear-ended a pickup truck he wasn't expecting to stop when it did. His fork blades popped right out of the (flat) crown - it was a Reynolds 531 frame and fork that used silver brazing (everything done the right way, no?). The funny thing was that his front wheel wasn't even knocked out of true.
> 
> The moral of the story is that anything can fail. No material is immune to failure.


Very interesting. 

Well, flat crowns may have to handle more flex induced from the blades than fully sloping or no crowns, and therefore more prone to breaking in a crash. Sloping crowns were introduced to make the front end stiffer all the way around.

But the blades on your friend's bike were obviously not brazed sufficiently to the crown. Silver braze melts at a low temperature, so as not to cook the tubes and take away their springyness. In this case, it must not have been hot enough to heat that massive flat crown enough to fuze with the silver compound, if I may speculate. I've seen chain stays popped out of BB lugs, and a seat tube popped out of the BB lug due to incomplete braze coverage.

If the join is properly brazed, it will be so much stronger than the fork blades, that in a crash the fork will bend below the lug. The join will survive intact. I've seen this many times. True, no material is immune from failure, but it would fail at the weakest point between the lug and dropouts.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

bradkay said:


> In 1980 a buddy of mine rear-ended a pickup truck he wasn't expecting to stop when it did. His fork blades popped right out of the (flat) crown - it was a Reynolds 531 frame and fork that used silver brazing (everything done the right way, no?). The funny thing was that his front wheel wasn't even knocked out of true.
> 
> *The moral of the story is that anything can fail. No material is immune to failure*.


This is true, but this sounds more like a mechanical failure than a material failure. The fork bades popping out of the crown sounds like a poor job of brazing, like Fredrico said, incomplete fill of the brazing material.


----------



## WheelNut2 (Jul 21, 2014)

The only problem I see with your request for smoothness is the disk brakes. The fork needs to be strengthened from the drop outs and up about 10-15cm, which reduces the amount of flex in the fork and thus makes it ride more harsh. Caliper or canti's will allow for more flex along the fork blades and provide a smoother ride. Now, it is indeed possible that a carbon fork could be made to provide a smooth ride and be strong enough for disks, but the difficult thing will be finding such a fork as there isn't much in the way of hard data or comparisons out there. Your options become even more limited when you want to clear large tires.

Also, it should be noted that from what I have read building a steel fork below approximately 900g (EDIT: This is wrong see post by DaveG below) is very difficult and possibly dangerous. Most steel forks are going to be between 900-1100g (EDIT: these numbers are wrong. Could be be 600g-1200g) depending on the size and type of braze-ons. There are lots of carbon forks in the 350-400g range, so this is an area where some big weight savings can be had. This is probably the main reason you see steel bikes with carbon forks. Plus the fork usually doesn't need to be customized as much as the frame, so using an off the shelf design is possible even with custom frame geometry.

So, in conclusion I must say that if you love the way your friend's Waterford rides you should get one of those. It's a known quantity and you can talk with the builder to further refine the bike or select the correct materials for what you are looking for. Sure the Waterford might cost more than an off the shelf bike from a big name, but it should also last a lifetime.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

WheelNut2 said:


> Also, it should be noted that from what I have read building a steel fork below approximately 900g is very difficult and possibly dangerous. Most steel forks are going to be between 900-1100g depending on the size and type of braze-ons.
> 
> .


WheelNut, I am not sure where you pulled that weight data from but here's my data points from my steel bike forks
Coppi Genius 653g
Colnago Master 600g
Torelli Brianza 737g

That is certainly far more that a plastic fork but no where near your numbers


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

velodog said:


> I stuck a carbon fork on my De Rosa once. Yikes, what the hell was I thinking.
> 
> I guess it rode OK, but it sure did ugly up the bike. It ended up back in the box somewhere in the basement.


On a De Rosa! My God, Man! You are lucky the whole thing didn't explode on you


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DaveG said:


> WheelNut, I am not sure where you pulled that weight data from but here's my data points from my steel bike forks
> Coppi Genius 653g
> Colnago Master 600g
> Torelli Brianza 737g
> ...


Yep. You don't even notice the weight difference once rolling. The sense of connection to the road is superior. Why give that up for a few grams lighter weight? ut:


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. You don't even notice the weight difference once rolling. The sense of connection to the road is superior. Why give that up for a few grams lighter weight? ut:



Because right now, lightweight sells much better than a nice road feel.


----------



## WheelNut2 (Jul 21, 2014)

DaveG said:


> WheelNut, I am not sure where you pulled that weight data from but here's my data points from my steel bike forks
> Coppi Genius 653g
> Colnago Master 600g
> Torelli Brianza 737g
> ...


I just pulled them from memory of some post on some forum somewhere, so not a very good source. Thank you for posting some real numbers! Really quite helpful. My only data points are from the Surly forks I have on two of my bikes, which are between 1000g and 1100g.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

DaveG said:


> On a De Rosa! My God, Man! You are lucky the whole thing didn't explode on you


Yeah, I know.

I was raised Catholic so once I removed the fork I decided to confess my sin to a priest. Just my luck to get an Italian priest who really clobbered me with quite the penance. Probably deserved it though.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

velodog said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> I was raised Catholic so once I removed the fork I decided to confess my sin to a priest. Just my luck to get an Italian priest who really clobbered me with quite the penance. Probably deserved it though.


Well, as long as you've learned your lesson


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> IMHO, steel forks work better than carbon with steel frames. Why make the front end dead when the advantage of steel is its springy modulus of elasticity?


The fork and frame serve different functions. The frame sees the stresses from pedaling and carries the rider's weight, the fork is responsible for steering, braking, and roadholding, and is not nearly as close to a space frame structure as the frame is. In most instances i can't build a steel fork that will function as well as wisely-selected carbon one, so i only build forks when there isn't an appropriate carbon option on the market.

Regardless, a fork/frameset designed holistically is the best route.

My steel forks always seem to come in at ~750g, and weight is not a huge factor in design. (i'm an amateur framebuilder with a handful of frames under my belt)




Regarding the OP, geometry and tire selection is much MUCH more important than frame material or anything else.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

velodog said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> I was raised Catholic so once I removed the fork I decided to confess my sin to a priest. Just my luck to get an Italian priest who really clobbered me with quite the penance. Probably deserved it though.



Let me guess... you had to wash the bike in Holy Water and say 700 Hail Mary(s). 

He would have let you off easier if you had started the confession with "I believe in Tullio the father, Valentino the son and the Holy Spoke".


----------



## jimb100 (Jul 11, 2016)

bubble said:


> The fork and frame serve different functions. The frame sees the stresses from pedaling and carries the rider's weight, the fork is responsible for steering, braking, and roadholding, and is not nearly as close to a space frame structure as the frame is. In most instances i can't build a steel fork that will function as well as wisely-selected carbon one, so i only build forks when there isn't an appropriate carbon option on the market.
> 
> Regardless, a fork/frameset designed holistically is the best route.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I've had steel bikes with steel forks and now have my Lemond with a carbon fork and my all carbon Madone.

If you like your steel fork, good for you. To say its superior because you like it better, well, you can have your own opinion but that doesn't make it a fact.

And I agree, tire and tire pressure has a bigger influence on front end 'feel' than fork material.


----------

