# Steel frame riders, steel or carbon fork?



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

I have been curious about this for a while. I see a lot of steel bikes with carbon forks. What is the deal with this? What are the different characteristics of each? Which do you ride on your steel rig?


----------



## OperaLover (Jan 20, 2002)

*Use both*

Steel forks on lugged steel 3Rensho Katana, Colnago Tecnos, and tig-welded Surly Cross-check. Carbon fork (and seat stays) on tig-welded Pinarello Opera. 

Steel forks just feel nice on a steel frame, and aesthetically lugged steel looks better with a matching steel fork (my subjective preference). Carbon is lighter and also produces a nice ride. Steel forks seem to resonate over the bumps, while carbon absorbs them. Much of it really matters on who built the fork and not the material. 

My $.02.


----------



## superjohnny (May 16, 2006)

I ride a steel fork on my steel bike because I can't afford a carbon fork. Simple enough I guess. Carbon does a better job of absorbing road vibration than steel and it is also considerably lighter. You will notice more steel forks on cyclo-cross bikes though because that rigidity is nice to have off-road.


----------



## tazdag (Apr 9, 2002)

Carbon fork, which is what the builder specced. The smooth lines of the filet brazing is matched by the smooth fork crown


----------



## bikerboy337 (Jan 28, 2004)

*Both work for me...*

for my surly pacer i've got the standard surly fork with it... for my ted wojcik steel frame, ive got a ritchey full carbon... the carbon is much stiffer and a lot lighter, but the surly is a little more "comfortable" on long rides... i really feel the surly fork soaks up a ton of vibration... it is a heavy steel fork thouhg, i think its about 2 pounds... paired with the frame its over 6 lbs... weight is the only downside i see with the steel fork... i love the ride, but on my wojcik i needed it lighter...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*on my steels*

I have steel. I did put a CF on my wife's Tecnos but am thinking of swapping back to the steel


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Carbon on both. 
No difference in "feel".


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> I have steel. I did put a CF on my wife's Tecnos but am thinking of swapping back to the steel


Why are you thinking of switching back?


----------



## caterham (Nov 7, 2005)

Given the choice, I prefer the more intimate and direct road feedback that a good quality cast crown fork provides ( fwiw,I dislike the ride of unicrown forks ).However,my current ride came with a 1-1/8" threadless steerer designed for a carbon fork , so that's what I'm riding on.The carbon fork's fine I guess, but eventually I'll investigate the possibilities of having a custom steel fork made up for it.


----------



## cat4rider (Nov 10, 2006)

Columbus Carve Carbon. Feels solid and reduces the already light weight of my Strong custom blend....plus it's a little racier than Steel. 
Chromed steel on the Torpado, original fork and rides nicely.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*cause neither myself nor my wife*



shades9323 said:


> Why are you thinking of switching back?


are weight weenies. Steel forks feel real nice and a the nice steel Nag fork that came with the Tecnos is dead sexy, even though I had a Reynolds Ouzo Pro Custom painted (matching red crown fading to CF) which is quite nice as well


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

On my bike I run a steel fork for several reasons, most importantly I run disc brakes and there are no "Road" specific carbon forks that have disc brake tabs. There are some cyclocross forks out there but that would screw up the geometry of the bike.

However, I've ridden carbon forks before and the only real advantage is lighter weight. If I had a carbon fork, it would likely take a pound or more off of my bike.

If I had a lugged frame, I'd definately go with a lugged steel fork (regardless). If it's a tig welded frame or a brazed frame, then either would work depending on what you wanted the bike for and if light weight was a big concern.


----------



## Fivethumbs (Jul 26, 2005)

I've never ridden a carbon fork so I don't know what if anything I am missing. I like the looks and feel of steel forks and for me it gives additional peace of mind. I'm riding a lugged steel bike made with Dedacciai 12.5 COM tubing so obviously weight was not an issue and a lugged steel fork seemed the obvious choice. If I were to buy a custom tigged Strong I probably would get a carbon fork.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

We have 7 lugged steel bikes, each has a lugged steel fork. Also our Ti tandem has a steel unicrown fork.

Got no plastic forks.

MB1
Luggite


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I use both cf and steel on my otherwise all steel bikes. There is a weight savings, but other than that I agree with Grumpy. I can't really tell any difference in feel.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

I have a custom steel lugged frame and fork. The fork is part of the builder's concept of his design of the bike. I could have had him design the bike for a CF fork and saved a lb. I have no idea if it would feet different than the steel fork. I had an incident in which I bent the steet fork. Schneider was amazed that I trashed the fork. I was able to ride home on it and he made me a new one. If it had been a CF fork I suspect I would have had to call the wife for a ride home. Not knocking CF, but pointing out the steel although trashed, got me home.


----------



## bsaunder (Oct 27, 2004)

granted this was when talking specifically about my steel cross/road frame that Carl is building up for me - but in our discussions his comments were - carbon will absorb the small vibrations better including road buzz, the steel will absorb larger vibrations better. Since 90% of the mileage and time my new bike will see will be commuting on black top. I went with the carbon for my frame (winwood muddy cross), if it was going to be used primarily off pavement, then I would have gone steel. 
Again, this may have been advise purely for my application though...


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

I've never swallowed the Steel Is Real koolaid, so I'm fine with a CF fork. It/they work just as well as any steel fork, and as stated by others, the difference in ride is nothing worth mentioning.


----------



## BluesDawg (Mar 1, 2005)

If there is no difference and steel forks cost less, who is drinking the koolaid?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*4 Steel frames.......*



shades9323 said:


> I have been curious about this for a while. I see a lot of steel bikes with carbon forks. What is the deal with this? What are the different characteristics of each? Which do you ride on your steel rig?


4 steel forks.

Why would you ever go with Carbon?

Len


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

My steel bikes are true to the intention of the builder. My Pegoretti BLE has a carbon fork, my MX Leader has a steel fork, and my Gunnar has a steel fork. If Pegoretti produced a steel fork for my BLE, I would probably use it. Part of the issue is 1" versus 1 1/8" for steel steerers. An oversized steel fork is not that common. Some builders make them, Brent Steelman comes to mind. I did use a Reynolds Ouzo Pro on my Merckx for a year, but it didn't feel the same as the boat anchor MAX fork that came with the frame. There are places to save weight, but IMHO a reasonable frame/fork is not first on the list.


----------



## Dereck (Jan 31, 2005)

Wifey and I have Gunnar Sports with steel frames/forks - superb rides, very comfortable - she's not into rushing around. For all that, my Sport's only inadequacies at speed are down to me 

OTOH, and to my eternal shame, my English built Bob Jackson has a CF fork. While it's hard to compare apples to oranges - I'm sorry, but I don't think it matters a hill of beans between the Gunnar and the BJ. I only got the CF fork because I'd ordered the BJ with a 1-1/8" steerer and found out they didn't have any more steel fork crowns. Should have got them to swap it for a 1" steerer and a steel fork, but didn't.

Steel forks never seemed to slow Eddy down in his day, and I don't think many of us could sling a bike forwards as well as he did...

Regards
Dereck
Who might buy an entirely CF frameset this winter...


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

MB1 said:


> We have 7 lugged steel bikes, each has a lugged steel fork. Also our Ti tandem has a steel unicrown fork.
> 
> Got no plastic forks.
> 
> ...


or plastic bikes. :thumbsup:


----------



## ox_rider (Sep 6, 2006)

I have a Gunnar Roadie with a 1.125" steel fork and love the way it handles and it looks great too. https://gunnarbikes.com/board/gunnargallery/1176503300.jpg


----------



## KillerQuads (Jul 22, 2002)

I installed a Performance brand carbon fork on my Bianchi Pista single speed. It was a worthwhile upgrade. It was very affordable and good quality. It has an aero blade design. The 1" size I needed has a chromoly steerer, but I figured it would be unbreakable, simple to cut down to size, and I would not have to "baby it" when torquing the stem bolt. It is lots lighter than the original fork. The slightly extra rake makes this ex-track bike less twitchy. It does indeed absorb some road vibration making it a more comfortable long distance bike, yet does not sacrifice road feel or directness. I just had to order a new crown race that matched my headset, directly from FSA. 

I think it looks good as it matches the modern look of the aero spoked front wheel, aero brake lever, and black stem/bar combo. I would not put a carbon fork on my 1988 Paramount though. That would be too weird.










P.S. That is a Lizard Skins headset seal on the lower headset race, not part of the new fork.


----------



## towerscum (Mar 3, 2006)

*not all is lost*



Dereck said:


> Wifey and I have Gunnar Sports with steel frames/forks - superb rides, very comfortable - she's not into rushing around. For all that, my Sport's only inadequacies at speed are down to me
> 
> OTOH, and to my eternal shame, my English built Bob Jackson has a CF fork. While it's hard to compare apples to oranges - I'm sorry, but I don't think it matters a hill of beans between the Gunnar and the BJ. I only got the CF fork because I'd ordered the BJ with a 1-1/8" steerer and found out they didn't have any more steel fork crowns. Should have got them to swap it for a 1" steerer and a steel fork, but didn't.
> 
> ...


 Waterford has 1 1/8 fork crowns. Maybe they can build you a fork.

towerscum


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

nmnmnmn


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

shades9323 said:


> I have been curious about this for a while. I see a lot of steel bikes with carbon forks. What is the deal with this? What are the different characteristics of each? Which do you ride on your steel rig?


I have 7 steel bikes, 6 with CF forks and 1 with steel.

Len asked above "why would anyone use carbon?" well, I think it's a matter of aesthetics. I don't think any of Len's bikes would look particularly nice with a CF fork and I don't think most of mine would look good with steel. Of the bikes I own, the only one that would look better with steel is my sole lugged frame. Everything else would look like silly.

From my vantage point, the only true benefit from CF is weight - generally about 1 pound less. I don't particularly care about weight and so it boils down to looks. Retro frames - steel. Modern frames - CF. Performance seems to be about the same.

The one steel fork I ride was a compromise - I wanted 35 tires on it and I could not find a CF fork with the clearance other than a cyclocross specific. And since the project was a trifle and therefore had a budget, I went steel.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Nice bikes.


----------



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

> I have been curious about this for a while. I see a lot of steel bikes with carbon forks. What is the deal with this? What are the different characteristics of each? Which do you ride on your steel rig?<!-- / message -->


I have exactly one steel bike with a c/f fork, I have other bikes but only one c/f fork. When the c/f fork begins to shows signs of deterioration due to use or age or abuse or neglect or accident it will be replaced with a steel fork.

Ride what you like, ride what works for you, ride what you trust.


----------



## jon davies (Dec 13, 2006)

i say carbon forks for the braking. I cant see any advantage of steel in this part of the bike, except perhaps for aesthetics if you have painted lugs or something


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

For braking? What do you mean?


----------



## Fivethumbs (Jul 26, 2005)

Haven't you heard?! Carbon forks are world reknowned for their braking! Really, you must get out more...


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Weight savings is the only advantage that carbon offers over steel.

Different forks (steel or carbon) will feel differently based on their design. I currently run an True Temper Alpha Q Sub 3 on my steel frame (due ot the weight savings), and I like the fork, but it's harsher/stiffer than either the carbon Mizuno that's on my alnuminum bike, or the steel fork that was on my previous steel frame. Carbon and steel can both be used to make forks that work how you want, but the carbon fork is likely going to be lighter.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

jon davies said:


> i say carbon forks for the braking. I cant see any advantage of steel in this part of the bike, except perhaps for aesthetics if you have painted lugs or something


No way. Carbon forks accelerate way better than they brake!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*any of you CF guys*

have an uncut 1" unthreaded fork ya ain't using lemme know


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

I've got two steel bikes (Merckx and DeBernardi) with chrome steel forks, and a ti bike (Merckx) with a carbon fork w/ steel steerer tube. I used to own a steel Gios with steel fork as well as an aluminum Bianchi with carbon fork. My 2 cents is that carbon forks are the most over-rated bicycle component. The most uncomfortable bike I've owned was the Bianchi, which transmitted every bit of road vibration to my hands, carbon fork and all. The smoothest riding was the Gios, which had the nicest fork I have ridden. My Merckx steel fork, in comparison, is much stiffer. My ti Merckx actually has a Serotta carbon fork with steel steerer, and it also very comfortable -- but not more so than my old Gios. I doubt if my Serotta fork is much lighter than my steel forks due to its steel steerer tube, but it is nice riding -- probably due to the steel steerer!


----------



## Lawrencer2003 (Nov 26, 2006)

I went with a steel fork on my custom Waterford. They build a beautiful lugged fork. Just did not seem right with carbon.


----------



## jon davies (Dec 13, 2006)

All i can say its that when i first rode with Carbon Forks (about 10 years ago) the thing that amazed me most abolut the ride was how smooth the braking was. I am no expert and have no idea why! Sorry!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Clearly........*



jon davies said:


> All i can say its that when i first rode with Carbon Forks (about 10 years ago) the thing that amazed me most abolut the ride was how smooth the braking was. I am no expert and have no idea why! Sorry!


you were riding some pretty crappy steel forks then.

Len


----------



## rdolson (Sep 2, 2003)

I have three steel road bikes. An '82 Bianchi Columbus Tre Tubi, all Campy including Omega V Tubular rims, A '03 LeMond 853 Alpe with Ouzo Pro, Mavic Cosmos Clinchers. An '06 Colnago Master XL with Carbon Street, Mavic SL3 Tubulars..

I think that while many bikes will have a different "Feel" it's not just the fork, but the entire frame/fork/wheel package. Those are the three most influential and fundamental systems in a bike (duh) and riding completely different bikes with all their differences, it would be ill advised to attempt to gain insight into the realative pros and cons of the effect of different forks based on anything other than a direct swap out on the same frame, keeping with designed geometry (rake must remain the same) and doing back to back comparisons.

The closest I was able to come to that is when I swapped out the stock Bontrager carbon fork on the LeMond for the Ouzo Pro. The difference was startling! If you are going to go carbon, it pays to get GOOD carbon! The ride smoothed out, felt stiffer while sprinting, and gave a plushness that the old straight bladed carbon could not come close to matching.

When putting the Colnago together, I went with the carbon "Street" fork. I'm not a big weight weenie and the strength and added durability of the only marginally heavier fork seemed like a nice tradeoff. The ride is nicely plush and contributes to the bike's "All day long" ridability.

The best "Ride" by far is the '82 Bianchi. It has a buttery smoothness and rock steady handling at ANY speed (my max on this bike was 59.8mph through sweeping turns) that are the signs of a true thouroughbred pedigree. But due to my (and it's) age and it's severely limited gear range, it only goes out for laid back cruising with sneakers and shorts with casual riders. The Bianchi is what I use as a benchmark for how I like a bike to ride and fit.


----------



## Welshboy (Jan 14, 2002)

I had one steel frame that had a carbon fork and it was OK but aesthetically I prefer steel for matching the proportions of my skinny tubed frames and also matching the frame colour! My latest ride has an oversize and ovalised 853 frame with a 1.1/8" steel fork that is really heavy but has a superb ride quality.


----------



## Welshboy (Jan 14, 2002)

Apologies for the picture size. Same picture on another forum was OK but this is seriously large.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

I have three steel road bikes - a '72 Paramount (Reynolds 531), an '87 Paramount (Columbus SL/SP mix), and an '07 Waterford (Reynolds 953 with Reynolds 531 fork). 

They've all got steel forks. Carbon just wouldn't look right on any of them and I'm not a weight weenie.


----------

