|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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 ****. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
To carbon fork or not to carbon fork...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: NEW 2006 Raleigh full carbon Team frame w/NEW Ritchey carbon fork | [email protected] | Marketplace | 1 | November 27th 06 12:09 AM |
Bianchi Axis 49cm frame w/Al fork and Carbon fork FS | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | July 7th 06 04:47 PM |
Wound-up carbon/carbon fork, 1" threaded 7 1/4 inch steerer $75 | RobInfo | Marketplace | 0 | September 28th 05 10:41 PM |
FA: 2003 GIANT TCR 0 CARBON FRAME, CARBON FORK, CARBON CAGES AND COMPUTER | Phil, Squid-in-Training | Marketplace | 0 | January 21st 05 03:07 PM |
Orbea Lobular Carbon frame/Zeus FCM carbon fork/integrated headset | Jonathan Page | Marketplace | 0 | August 8th 04 08:49 PM |