Carbon forks...

Mainly for the ride qualities. A good carbon fork takes away the road buzz.

Richard Sachs had this to say on forks:

Most people don't think of it the way a framebuilder would, but a fork is a pretty important part of a frame, and it's not supposed to be considered an accessory (like a handlebar set or a saddle) that you buy once your frame is complete. The reason people now buy forks from fork factories is because it is cheaper and more efficient to make them in a mold than it is to have the framebuilder continue the tradition or making them to mate with the frame. I think that is a sad thing. That is the way the market has gone and I don't try to fight it. I continue to make my forks and each fork is made for the frame that it is stuck into.

(fromthis article)

I always regretted that I bought my Roberts with carbon forks, rather than asking them to build me a matching steel pair. I don't care about the nominal weight saving, and it probably wouldn't have cost much more. The carbon ones just don't really honour the frame.

cougie wrote:

Mainly for the ride qualities. A good carbon fork takes away the road buzz.

This is a complete myth perpetuated by fork manufacturers, and rather sadly, the testers in magazines.

balthazar wrote:

Richard Sachs had this to say on forks:

Most people don't think of it the way a framebuilder would, but a fork is a pretty important part of a frame, and it's not supposed to be considered an accessory (like a handlebar set or a saddle) that you buy once your frame is complete. The reason people now buy forks from fork factories is because it is cheaper and more efficient to make them in a mold than it is to have the framebuilder continue the tradition or making them to mate with the frame. I think that is a sad thing. That is the way the market has gone and I don't try to fight it. I continue to make my forks and each fork is made for the frame that it is stuck into.

(fromthis article)

I always regretted that I bought my Roberts with carbon forks, rather than asking them to build me a matching steel pair. I don't care about the nominal weight saving, and it probably wouldn't have cost much more. The carbon ones just don't really honour the frame.

So what are the qualities that a "Matching" set of forks can bring?

Or in other words, how do they match in a way that aftermarket forks don't?

Aesthetics are a personal thing. If you are happy with aero bladed black carbon forks that is your business, not the frame builders. Brake drop is a standard dimension, and unless you want discs or cantilevers so is brake type. Rake is also pretty standard depending on whether you want a race, audax or touring frame and you just buy appropriate forks.

All forks bend in a front impact if it is hard enough, there is no built in crumple zone.

Smokin Joe wrote:

Aesthetics are a personal thing. If you are happy with aero bladed black carbon forks that is your business, not the frame builders. Brake drop is a standard dimension, and unless you want discs or cantilevers so is brake type. Rake is also pretty standard depending on whether you want a race, audax or touring frame and you just buy appropriate forks.

All forks bend in a front impact if it is hard enough, there is no built in crumple zone.

Fork proportions – such as brake drop and rake – vary between different types of bicycle. I think it is immaterial that the customer is capable of selecting and sourcing the appropriate fork for the frame they have. It is reasonable to consider a bike frame as a chassis that can have wheels attached. Why leave the business of locating and fixing the rear wheel to your framebuilder, but keep responsibility for the front wheel to yourself?

I don't particularly dispute that aesthetics are a personal matter – but my claim for their importance was clearly phrased as such.

re. gkerr4 – monochrome TV's have been superceded by slim high resolution colour TV's which are much better, in all respects. I don't see what makes carbon composite bicycle forks much better than steel ones. They are a bit lighter, but I can't imagine what more a bike fork can do.

Richard Sachs is an American framebuilder, widely regarded as among the very best at it.

Balthazars point may be right for high end, craftsman built bikes - I couldn't sa. I have two entry level bikes one with cro-mo & one with carbon fork - and the cromo is a bone-shaking pig.

balthazar wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

So what are the qualities that a "Matching" set of forks can bring?

Or in other words, how do they match in a way that aftermarket forks don't?

Matching matters to me in two – related – ways. Firstly, aesthetics: they should look like part of the frame, in proportions, detailing, and paint finish and colour. Secondly, I think it is respectful to the framebuilder to let him decide how to built every part of a bike frame, according to his own experience and judgment. There are dimensional variations between forks – rake, length, brake type and drop, and so on. I think they're the concern of the framebuilder, not the customer.

There are other matters, too: for instance, framebuilders used to make the frames in such a way that the forks would bend first in a front impact, saving the frame. Such considerations are forgotten now.

Interesting article. The guy is a true enthusiast and seems to have turned away from mass sales in order to remain a bespoke manufacturer. Very admirable but business is business and you can't really blame other manufacturers for wanting to mass produce frames that are of a high quality but will also make good financial returns e.g. as with Chris Boardman.

From reading the article I do feel as if the things he criticises are what he's used/needed to gain the experience/knowledge he currently has and whilst it's fine to be able to design a frame without need of calculation/analysis to say you don't understand stiffness is a bit ridiculous imho. Putting my engineering hat on stiffness is generally what defines how a bike rides and will ultimately make a bike comfortable or less so (depending on whether it is for sportives or racing). To talk in terms of comfort and stability is pretty much the same thing imho but just sounds more touchy feely and probably more appealing to the market he's targeting.

I'm not sure about the whole fork thing though. Without doubt a designer will match a fork to a frame but to say it's not the concern of the customer is not entirely fair.

As with cars we are able to specify all manner of options when we buy a new one. Most manufacturers will often have half a dozen wheel packages ranging from small/narrow to large/wide and I very much doubt that all variations have been designed to match the car yet all will have a dramatic effect on handling. The same goes with suspension upgrades but that is not to say that joe public shouldn't go and play with the options list.

I'm sure a fork is not that much different so it should be possible to tailor the handling of a bike whether with aftermarket or manufacturer options. After all a frame builder, like most engineers, can only design what he 'perceives' to be the right product. By Richard's own admission he builds a picture in his mind of what he believes is required but whether this then suits the customer is a different matter. Thus it's then down to the owner to decide what and how he would like to improve the ride.

Personally its not so much about respecting the frame builder but how close he/she has got to understanding and then meeting the needs of the customer.

I have a theory about the "feel" of CF forks compared to steel, which I''ve just come up with this minute and it would be good to get some opinions on.

Obviously the flex of a fork will be important to how it feels, and the material it is made out of will influence not just the amount it flexes, but how it flexes.

BUT the idea I have is this - the weight of the fork itself may also be very important to how it feels on rough road surfaces, as this weight is right at the front end and more or less in line with the forces transmitted through the front wheel to your hands on the bars. A steel fork, especially if it is combined with a relatively heavy quill stem, could add up to 1.5 lbs to the front end of the bike specifically, and right under where your hands are on the bars. Could this heavy front end be largely responsible for the experience that many people have of a steel fork jarring more?

I'm sure I'll be looking to upgrade my forks at some point. Which manufacturers should I be looking at/avoiding? Bearing in mind my bike's only £500....didn't want to spend too much.

As Balthazar pointed out, don't forget that rake is very important to how a fork feels and that this should be matched to head tube angle. Probably if your bike is a modern road bike of a medium-ish size the headtube angle is around 73 degrees and the "standard" carbon forks with about 43 or 44mm rake will be fine, but a small difference in HT angle makes a big difference in the amount of rake you need, e.g. if your HT is 74 degrees you would ideally want less rake, e.g. 38mm.

I've been thinking about getting a new fork myself and have noticed that there aren't actually that many options at the moment. Reynolds seem to have stopped making them, Look now only seem to do the high-end HSC5SL (according to their websites anyway), and the range of options offered by the other manufacturers is rather limited. Ritchey and Easton seem to be your best bets, and Wiggle is now selling Alpha Q forks which get good reviews in the U.S.

If your budget is limited you are probably looking at a carbon fork with an alloy steerer tube, with extra weight being the main disadvantage.