Carbon vs Steel Fork

Help me ladies. Ever since my bike friday was stolen I've been plucking down $200 in airline fees to take a trip. Recently I picked up a never been built 2003 reynolds 853 steel terry isis for a song on ebay. I plan to install S and S couplers and build it up as a travel bike. However, I ran into a snag finding a suitable fork. Its a 24" front wheel, so my two choices are waiting for Georgena's new order of carbon forks to arrive early next year, or have the frame builder that is going to install the couplers make me a custom steel fork. He told me the weight difference will only be ~4 ounces. While I was planning to go with carbon, since the idea is to have a go fast bike that travels rather than touring bike, does it make more sense to go with steel since I could get it done sooner and stop paying airline fees, and that steel is more robust for traveling? Is carbon really make for a smoother ride? Would I notice a 4 ounce weight difference? To me, my titanium Isis with carbon fork is just as comfy as my all steel classic, but the ti isis weighs less and has a racier geometry, so feels racier to ride. Steel is Real, right?

Four ounces is the equivalent of 1/2 cup or so of water.

So, if you pee before you ride, it'll be like riding carbon? :D

Steel is real and steel is ready, I'd go with steel. (but I like steel, so take my advice with a grain of salt.)

Steel forks are more stable and corner and descend better than carbon. Yup, I'm a carbon sl#t just like the next girl -- got em on almost all my bikes. But I believe in the value of steel. And the weight is just about nothing. Some folks will tell you that carbon will dampen road noise, but a good steel fork will do just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velogirl

Steel forks are more stable and corner and descend better than carbon. Yup, I'm a carbon sl#t just like the next girl -- got em on almost all my bikes. But I believe in the value of steel. And the weight is just about nothing. Some folks will tell you that carbon will dampen road noise, but a good steel fork will do just fine.

---

Wow, I have never heard that. How do you know this velogirl? Everything I read said that carbon would dampen road shock better than steel. Regarding weight, what the frame builder told me was that sure, some carbon forks are gonna be a lot lighter than some steel forks, but since I am comparing a stock carbon fork with aluminum steerer to his custom steel fork, the weight difference is small. I forgot to ask him though, that if a carbon fork has an aluminum steerer, what does a steel one have, steel or aluminum, cuz I know aluminum can be harsh. I unerstand why folks put a carbon fork on an aluminum bike, but am not sure then why they are so popular on steel bikes.

Another question, while I am not building this to be a 'touring bike' but it might nice to have the versatility to carry stuff if the need arises. This bike does have eyelets for a rear rack, and obviously if I went steel on the fork I could have it built with eyelets too. But, it takes side pull not canti brakes. Do you know if I can put med or long reach sidepulls on to use wider tires, or is that something that the frame has to have been built to handle (they are usually built up with a standard ultegra kit)? I have no interest in fenders. I guess I can just see if the wheel/tire from my touring bike physically fits in the frame as a first step. I am also curious about the frame geometry. My touring bike has a 73 STA, 71.5 HTA while this bike has a 73 STA and 72 HTA. Would that make it less stable if I wanted to use it for occasional touring?

Seems like most of the carbon forks I was reading about a while ago had steel steerers.

My aluminum bike has a steel fork. (and my steel bike has a steel fork:D )

I rode an all-carbon road bike, and honestly I felt more road vibration than I did on the steel bikes I was testing. But that puppy was SO LIGHT.

Edit: I don't know much about geometry, but it seems that half a degree difference in an angle wouldn't make a huge change. If you think it will mess you up, could you ask your fork-builder to build a smidge more trail into your new fork?

how much does a custom steel fork cost??
A friend of ours went to the bike expo (sorry, i forget the name of it) last week.
he gave a report to our bike club and all he could talk about was the new carbon stuff.

steel is real. In 20 years, which bikes will people be buying? will our carbon ones even still be around?

I was in a prestigious bike shop a couple months ago trying to get a fork replacement. I went in wanting steel and 3 or 4 sales persons ganged up on me and talked me into getting carbon (which incidentally is really hard to put fenders on) and so I'll never know!

would steel have been better? i was told that it would be really hard on my hands. but who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

I forgot to ask him though, that if a carbon fork has an aluminum steerer, what does a steel one have, steel or aluminum, cuz I know aluminum can be harsh.

---

A steel fork would have a steel steerer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

Another question, while I am not building this to be a 'touring bike' but it might nice to have the versatility to carry stuff if the need arises. This bike does have eyelets for a rear rack, and obviously if I went steel on the fork I could have it built with eyelets too. But, it takes side pull not canti brakes. Do you know if I can put med or long reach sidepulls on to use wider tires, or is that something that the frame has to have been built to handle (they are usually built up with a standard ultegra kit)? I have no interest in fenders. I guess I can just see if the wheel/tire from my touring bike physically fits in the frame as a first step. I am also curious about the frame geometry. My touring bike has a 73 STA, 71.5 HTA while this bike has a 73 STA and 72 HTA. Would that make it less stable if I wanted to use it for occasional touring?

---

Why not get your steel fork built with rack eyelets and enough clearance for touring tires and maybe canti bosses? Assuming the rear touring tire also has enough clearance. I'm a believer in front panniers and balancing the bike front/rear even if you're not carrying all that much. It helps with the handling. Your frame builder can help you get the geometry right for your needs. Wheelbase, fork rake, HTA, trail all work together.

Thnaks these are all great suggestions. What I have been struggling with is that I want a bike that does it all since this will be my only travel bike. Sure, most of the time I just wanna go somewhere, and do loops of fast riding from a central location, but other times I may want to tour. What I still don't understand, is how I might expect these 2 frames to handle with a load, given that one bike was built for touring (classic) and one for racing (isis). My 19" terry isis has a 73 degree STA, 72 degree HTA, 16.7" chainstay and 38.2" wheelbase while my 17.5" terry classic has a 73 degree STA, 71.5 degree HTA, 16.9" chainstay and 38.2" wheelbase. Both bakes have the same trail, cuz while Isis has a fork rake of 1.9" Classic has a fork rake of 2). The other big difference is the classic has cantilver brakes so accepts fenders and wider tires. What I don't get is whether Classic is more suitable for touring becasue of the cantilver brakes, fenders and wider tire features, or the subtle difference in frame geomety. What I know from riding the 2 bikes I have (I already have a ti isis with carbon fork, and I just bought a steel isis frame to build as a travel bike) is that the classic feels more sluggish than the isis, even when outfitted with identical wheels/tires. Is that cuz it weighs more (my classic is much heavier than the new steel isis or old ti isis by several 3-4 lb) or the frame geometry. Cuz if its just the weight, then I really like the idea of having the new fork built to accept a front rack an cantilever brakes, obviously with the 1.9" right rake to give the right trail for the 72 degree STA. If I think this bike could REPLACE my classic which is rusting, I could just transfer the cantilever brakes from her as well as all the other parts). But if I am still gonna need a real touring bike, I don't wanna do that. I did check and could fit a wheel with a 32 wide touring tire in the new isis frame, but there wouldn't be much room to mount side pull brakes but my cantis would fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

Thnaks these are all great suggestions. What I have been struggling with is that I want a bike that does it all since this will be my only travel bike. Sure, most of the time I just wanna go somewhere, and do loops of fast riding from a central location, but other times I may want to tour. What I still don't understand, is how I might expect these 2 frames to handle with a load, given that one bike was built for touring (classic) and one for racing (isis). My 19" terry isis has a 73 degree STA, 72 degree HTA, 16.7" chainstay and 38.2" wheelbase while my 17.5" terry classic has a 73 degree STA, 71.5 degree HTA, 16.9" chainstay and 38.2" wheelbase. Both bakes have the same trail, cuz while Isis has a fork rake of 1.9" Classic has a fork rake of 2). The other big difference is the classic has cantilver brakes so accepts fenders and wider tires. What I don't get is whether Classic is more suitable for touring becasue of the cantilver brakes, fenders and wider tire features, or the subtle difference in frame geomety. What I know from riding the 2 bikes I have (I already have a ti isis with carbon fork, and I just bought a steel isis frame to build as a travel bike) is that the classic feels more sluggish than the isis, even when outfitted with identical wheels/tires. Is that cuz it weighs more (my classic is much heavier than the new steel isis or old ti isis by several 3-4 lb) or the frame geometry. Cuz if its just the weight, then I really like the idea of having the new fork built to accept a front rack an cantilever brakes, obviously with the 1.9" right rake to give the right trail for the 72 degree STA. If I think this bike could REPLACE my classic which is rusting, I could just transfer the cantilever brakes from her as well as all the other parts). But if I am still gonna need a real touring bike, I don't wanna do that. I did check and could fit a wheel with a 32 wide touring tire in the new isis frame, but there wouldn't be much room to mount side pull brakes but my cantis would fit.

---

I believe that steering feel depends entirely on trail, so 72 STA + 1.9 rake and 71.5 STA + 2.0 rake would give identical handling. And both bikes have identical wheelbases (but slightly different chainstay length) which is important for loaded touring. Is the bottom bracket height the same? So it looks like differences in the feel of your classic and isis could be due to both weight and frame material (tubing stiffness) but not geometry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DebW

I believe that steering feel depends entirely on trail, so 72 STA + 1.9 rake and 71.5 STA + 2.0 rake would give identical handling. And both bikes have identical wheelbases (but slightly different chainstay length) which is important for loaded touring. Is the bottom bracket height the same? So it looks like differences in the feel of your classic and isis could be due to both weight and frame material (tubing stiffness) but not geometry.

---

The bottom bracket height on Isis is 10.3 and Classic 10.4, which I consider vitually identical. Please clarify why the slight difference in chainstay length is important for loaded touring. Is it just to be sure that my feet can clear rear pannier bags, cuz Isis comes with rear rack stays and I have never had a problem with that, or would it have a significant effect on bike stability under load. The reason I am asking, is that while probably 90% of the time what I plan to do with my traveling Isis is fly in somewhere, and then go on fast group/solo rides, if I do not have to give up anything, it seems having her be capable of loaded touring (by loaded touring I don't mean tents and sleeping bags though) is a plus. Also, I was just planning a trip to Santa Barbara, and thought of riding to Solvang but then read that touring tires are recommended since a few parts of the ride are off road, so again having her be capable of something like this would also be nice. The other advantage of knowing this bike could do loaded touring is that it would let me let go of my classic, which is rusting but has brand new parts I could use for the build.

I also realize that she will still be steel, albeit light steel, and together with the s/s couplers weigh more than my racier ti bike. Therefore, building her up as more of a general use travel bike may make the most sense. That was how I used my bike friday. I bought a pocket rocket pro which was more of a racing model, but I still would use it for touring on packed dirt by putting on a rear rack and 1.35" wide tires. So it seems like if I build this same flexibility into my new travel Isis, its only gonna be a plus.

Another question, do you think center pull canitlivers or long reach side pull breaks are best? I know I should be discussing this with the frame builder, but since he is just retrofititng my bike with couplers and doing the fork, he doesn't seem interested in being real chatty about it all, I presume relative to a customer for whom he is building a complete bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

The bottom bracket height on Isis is 10.3 and Classic 10.4, which I consider vitually identical. Please clarify why the slight difference in chainstay length is important for loaded touring. Is it just to be sure that my feet can clear rear pannier bags, cuz Isis comes with rear rack stays and I have never had a problem with that, or would it have a significant effect on bike stability under load.

---

With only 1/4 inch difference in chainstay length it probably won't be noticable. There are 3 reasons for longer chainstays on touring bikes: pannier-foot clearance, pannier weight stability (ie. you don't want weight behind your rear hub), and a softer ride on rough ground (but there are other factors here as well). The more foot clearance, the larger pannier bags you can carry. Traditionally, a touring bike also had a lower bb to lower the rider's center of gravity (actually the opposite is true for your 2 bikes). You obviously aren't talking about a bike that is built exclusively for touring with a really long wheelbase and poor acceleration, but a do-everything bike for light tours and fast rides both. If you were comfortable touring on your old classic, looks like the new Isis should fill the bill as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

Another question, do you think center pull canitlivers or long reach side pull breaks are best? I know I should be discussing this with the frame builder, but since he is just retrofititng my bike with couplers and doing the fork, he doesn't seem interested in being real chatty about it all, I presume relative to a customer for whom he is building a complete bike.

---

You can probably get by with either brake type if you're not carrying really heavy loads over really hilly terrain. But cantis are best for loaded touring. Does the new frame have canti bosses on the rear, or can you get them added? You also need cable-hangers for centerpull canti's, usually attached among the headset spacers on the front and on the seat post bolt or to a braze-on on the rear. Get the braze-on if you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DebW

You can probably get by with either brake type if you're not carrying really heavy loads over really hilly terrain. But cantis are best for loaded touring. Does the new frame have canti bosses on the rear, or can you get them added? You also need cable-hangers for centerpull canti's, usually attached among the headset spacers on the front and on the seat post bolt or to a braze-on on the rear. Get the braze-on if you can.

---

The new Isis does not have canti bosses on the rear. I was thinking since he is building the fork he can build them in, and I guess I could ask him to add them to the rear when he is doing the s/s stuff. I have the set up you describe on my classic with bosses in front and rear and cable hangers attached to the headset and seatpost bolt using problem solver clamps. So, I have all the stuff already. What I am trying to understand though, is if I have enough room to install long reach brakes, since it seems what is gonna limit tire width is hitting the top of the frame/brake. With no brake in there the tire spins freely, but there isn't a ton of room so its hard to imagine how it will spin with a brake on there. Can I even install long reach side pull brakes if the bike was designed to accept standard ultegra side pulls which I assume are short reach? Maybe I just need to try and install my touring wheel on my titanium Isis with ultegra side pulls to see if it will fit. I think the problem is I don't understand how long reach brakes look to be different from short reach. If they look like I imagine, then they only work on a frame designed for them where the thing they screw into will be higher, to give more clearance for wide tires and fenders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimitabby

how much does a custom steel fork cost?? ...I was in a prestigious bike shop a couple months ago trying to get a fork replacement. I went in wanting steel and 3 or 4 sales persons ganged up on me and talked me into getting carbon (which incidentally is really hard to put fenders on) and so I'll never know! would steel have been better? i was told that it would be really hard on my hands. but who knows.

---

First of all, I am only considering a custom steel fork cuz my bike has a 24" front wheel. You can buy production steel or carbon forks easily to fit your 700c wheeled bike. I can buy a production carbon fork, but not till next year cuz that's when the next production that Gerogena Terry ordered is due in. Since its a production fork, it will cost me $200. The fellow who makes the steel fork told me that if Georgena wanted to order say 10, he could sell me one for $200 but if he had to make one just for me it would cost $300. So, in my case going carbon is cheaper. The purported advantages of carbon are that it is a bit lighter and will smooth out the ride more. But my gut says this is a bigger issue on an aluminum bike than a steel bike, or perhaps on very bumpy terrain given that my 100% steel bike feels just as comfy to me as my titanium bike with carbon fork. However the ti/carbon bike wins hands down on the weight factor! BUT, the new bike I am building uses a lighter grade of steel (higher strength to weight ratio actually, so they can use less of it to build a frame of equal strength) so its an opportunity to have a relatively light steel bike. I picked up the frame for only $100 (even though those bikes sold for $2000 as complete bikes), and since I need a travel bike its cheaper to install s/s couplers on a steel bike than ti one.

The fender problem you are having is not cuz your fork is carbon, its cuz you bought a racing bike which doesn't have clearance or bosses for attaching fenders. My frame is like that too, but since it has to go to the frame builder for the s/s coupling, its an opportunity to remedy some of that if I want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

The new Isis does not have canti bosses on the rear. I was thinking since he is building the fork he can build them in, and I guess I could ask him to add them to the rear when he is doing the s/s stuff.

---

For the framebuilder to install canti bosses for your rear brake, I believe he'd have to remove paint from the seatstays, braze them on, and have it repainted. He may not be willing to do that, or the expense may be too much. You'll have to ask.

I can't answer your questions about long-reach sidepulls. Maybe someone who has them would know. You might also looks at some used brake calipers of older vintages for different amounts of clearance.

UPDATE! I just finalized the plans with the frame builder and put down my deposit. I am so stoked. I had already decided to go with the steel fork so I could get a rack and canti bosses added, and then after taking some measurements the frame builder told me that the back ordered Terry Carbon forks wouldn't have even fit, so I am glad I had already decided on steel before finding out that I didn't have a choice afterall. He is gonna also modify the seat stays to have canti bosses and a hanger. So I'll get a light travel bike that can work with tires from 23-32c, with or without racks, for everything from go fast rides to light touring. The price was very reasonable, since it is a bigger job for him if he gets to do the fork, retrofit and rear mods. Now, the question is can I really build this myself. I am gonna have him install the headset and fork, but I'll do the rest. I'll have to take pictures and post them as this project progresses. BTW, her name is Feronia, a travel Goddess and also a fitting name for a steel bike.

Congrats. What a great bike you're going to have! You can definitely do the build yourself. Just take it one step at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl

Now, the question is can I really build this myself. I am gonna have him install the headset and fork, but I'll do the rest. I'll have to take pictures and post them as this project progresses. BTW, her name is Feronia, a travel Goddess and also a fitting name for a steel bike.

---

The only problem you could have is the special tools required to install the bracket and cranck. But you could loan them from a friend or buy them.
The rest of the bike is easy.

OK Ladies, the framebuilder finished making the fork and installing the s/s couplers and canti bosses. He shipped her out today, and took these pix for his website so here she is. I'm gonna build her with: nitto technomic stem, nitto noodle bar, kalloy uno 374 silver post, brooks finesse saddle, and an ultegra/XT mix (50/34 front, 11/34 rear). For go fast rides I'll probably use my lighter wheelset with a 12/27 cluster and 23 c schwalbe stevlios and for touring my sturdier wheelset with the 11/34 cluster and front and rear racks. For in between stuff my carradice bag will do! And she'll be light with her reynolds 853 steel.

Ooooh, nice!! :D

Very Pretty - You're going to have so much fun this year riding a new bike!

Congrats, Triskeliongirl. What a nice ride. Love the couplers.

thanks for showing us your finished frame! this thread was very instructive to me.

I am going to go to Sheldon's website and look up "coupler"

I give up. All i could find was something about SHOES.
what's the cute coupler on this bike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimitabby

thanks for showing us your finished frame! this thread was very instructive to me.

I am going to go to Sheldon's website and look up "coupler"

I give up. All i could find was something about SHOES.
what's the cute coupler on this bike?

---

The couplers are the metal sleeves on the top tube and downtube near the seat tube. They let you break the frame into 2 parts for packing. Now TG can pack her bike in a suitcase and fly with it, and go touring anywhere in the world. Cool, huh?

Oh DUH. those kind of couplers.

thanks Deb you are always a kind patient teacher.

Yes, it is slick.
I'd love to go to one of Velogirl's workshops in SF but don't want to have to learn to take my bike apart and put it back together. I am sure with couplers,
it would be a lot easier.

Yes Mimi- the couplers make it not only easier but cheaper, because what is key is that now the bike packs into an airline legal suitcase. If you have to pack an uncoupled bikes, airlines charge a huge surcharge (~$!00 each way) to transport it. You can either get a bike built with couplers or retrofitted. Rodriguez cycles in Seattle builds bikes with couplers, so you might want to discuss having them make your next dream bike. That way you can specify exactly what you want it to do and be, i.e. light, packable, but still with clearance for touring tires, racks and fenders. Most stock bikes that are light don't offer clearance for wider tires, racks and fenders. I really don't get why bikes aren't designed this way in the first place. Don't these bike dealers get that we want bikes that are fast, but versatile? That is why I went the route I did, I got a good deal on a brand new light weight steel frame that fit me on ebay with a geometry well suited to fast riding/light touring, and then had it modified to be packable, and work with wider tires (by installing canti bosses). But, you'd think folks would build them that way in the first place, or I am really all that weird???

TG, did the framebuilder have to strip paint before installing the canti bosses and couplers? Did you have to pay for repainting, or is it just minor touch-up?

He did have to strip paint for installing the canti bosses and couplers. But since I also had him make me a new fork which also had to be painted he only charged me for touch up paint not complete repaint. He also rustproofed the frame from the inside out before starting (the frame was brand new, never been built so original paint was in good condition). The original design was a blue to silver fade, so he was able to exploit the silver fade in the touch up and fork work. But you bring up a good point. If you are thinking of doing a retrofit, time it with when your frame needs repaininting since the two tasks really work well together. Bilenky Cycle works did mine.

I wanna post a final thank you to all you gals over here that helped me design the bike of my dreams. All I knew when I bought her 2 months ago is that the price was too good to be true and that I wanted to somehow make her into a travel bike. Now that she is built I started a new thread on her, called introducing feronia in the open topic section: http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=12234
but I really wanted to thank you folks here that helped me make it happen.