# Why no full-carbon Bonty forks?



## lennon2666 (Jul 17, 2009)

I've been looking at the new Madones, and I notice that it requires a 6-series build to get a full-carbon fork. What gives? Virtually every other big name bike brand delivers their newest ~$2k bikes with full carbon forks. I understand a full carbon fork isn't everything, but it can certainly contribute to a more pleasant ride.

Thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2009)

My guess would be trying to hit a price point with the bikes.


----------



## WaCougMBS (Aug 24, 2009)

*Carbon*

It looks to me like all of their 2010 Madones have a carbon fork - are you talking about the steereer or something? My 2010 4.7 has a carbon fork, so I would have to guess all of the other 4, 5 and 6 series would as well...


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2009)

WaCougMBS said:


> It looks to me like all of their 2010 Madones have a carbon fork - are you talking about the steereer or something? My 2010 4.7 has a carbon fork, so I would have to guess all of the other 4, 5 and 6 series would as well...



Yes, I believe the OP is referring to the steerer. It looks to me like everything below the 6 series comes with an alloy steerer.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Keeping cost down to be competitive? It appears to me that Trek tends to be one of the more expensive companies to buy from already? That was a big issue that I had when I was shopping around. The 5s all had an alloy steerer. For around $4,000, I would've expected a carbon steerer. It actually sounds like Trek is trying to attract larger powerhouse riders like myself (6'3", 215 lbs) to these rigs. I've been told many times by different shops that I shouldn't ride a fork with a carbon steerer. That was alienating me from most high end bikes. Trek is attracting the Clydesdale riders with this idea. A lot of them are buying so Trek can't be wrong. Still I would rather get the full carbon and swap it out myself. For the cash they are asking, they should at least be on par with the others in the fork department. Better yet, they should drop their prices.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2009)

terbennett said:


> A lot of them are buying so Trek can't be wrong.


Ah, yes they can.


There is no reason a larger rider can't find a suitable carbon steerer to ride, especially with today's larger headtubes.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

kytyree said:


> Ah, yes they can.
> 
> 
> There is no reason a larger rider can't find a suitable carbon steerer to ride, especially with today's larger headtubes.


I would like you to tell a 280 lbs cyclists that. Yes, there are alot of cyclists that are Clydesdales (over 200 lbs) and Uber-clydes (300+ lbs). Heck, tell an LBS that. Shops are always telling me that they don't recommend a carbon steerer tube at my weight. Suitable? Some carbon components aren't suitable to heavier riders. You must not be on the heavier side of 200 lbs or you would understand that durability outweighs lightweight for a Clydesdale. Visit some Clydesdale forums and you'll see what I mean. I have to agree with bike shops on this one. After my experience with carbon components and the fact I have had to swap out most of my carbon components (ie. FSA carbon crank, carbon handle bars, full carbon handlebars) due to creaking tells me that Trek can't be wrong on their decision. You'll usually find a not-so- light set of strong built wheels on a Clydes' bike. As I stated in my previous post, I don't agree with it either, but finally higher end bike that a gives us larger riders one less thing to worry about. BTW a Clydesdale can be just as quick as a lighter rider. We just dish out more watts to accomplish the same task. More watts= more stress on components.


----------



## lennon2666 (Jul 17, 2009)

Not to be crass, but I don't know if Trek wants to be the brand that sells the "if you weigh 250+ lbs, our bikes are for you." And if Trek can develop a full carbon bike that can sustain an unusually heavy rider, there's no reason they can't produce a fork to match it.

Sub-200-pound riders shouldn't have to accommodate the heavies. They should have options that are great for them. Just as clydes should have options.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Sub-200-pound riders shouldn't have to accommodate the heavies. They should have options that are great for them. Just as clydes should have options.[/QUOTE]

First off, I don't believe that I should have to accomodate lightweights either. Road cycling is geared toward lightweights- leaving bigger riders to feel alienated. What you fail to understand is that they are in the market for the masses- not just lightweight riders. They are right in their formula because it is working for them. You may disagree but the fact remains that Treks sell themselves. I'm not even near 250 lbs but I see their strategy- well, at least I think I do. Madone 5s are the volume bike- like the Camry is to Toyota or the Taurus was to Ford. It has to appeal to the masses. That's where the money's at. Lightweights might complain but they are still buying. That's exactly what Trek wants. Details? The bike is still a nice rig. could it be made better? Yes, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that people are complaining but still buying. So why change it? BTW, if you really are concerned with weight the 6s are available.


----------

