Fork style advice

Posted on
of 2
/ 2
  • but then it's heavy and lacks compliance

  • never found them to be uncomfortable, weight is subjective!

  • weight is subjective!

    Heaviness, maybe :)
    Weight is very much objective

  • The kilogram is defined in terms of three fundamental physical constants: The speed of light c, a specific atomic transition frequency ΔνCs, and the Planck constant h. The formal definition is:

    The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m2⋅s−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.[3][4]

    This definition makes the kilogram consistent with the older definitions: the mass remains within 30 ppm of the mass of one litre of water

  • @sumo @PhilDAS
    technicalities! ;)

    I dont find a surly fork heavy, whereas others will, is what I meant!

  • Is this not what you want?­/brother-steel-gravel-fork/

    that and a hope reducer headset?

    but yeh TL/DR get a carbon fork, or that and be comfortable knowing there's a weight penalty.

    I have a steel disc fork on my bike. It's not a light bike, but it's subjectively comfrotable. But then it has 2.2 tires. YMMV.

  • I had a Straggler, its fork were heavy, not particularly comfortable, and flexed under braking. But yeah they held the front wheel.

  • Hot take of the day: there is no such thing as a good steel disc fork. You need big tubes to deal with the disc but then it's heavy and lacks compliance. And it will probably flex under braking anyway so basically what was the point.

    Especially when most manufacturers insist on tapering the blade down towards the braking forces. 90's MTB unicrown forks would make for better steel disc forks than a lot of the current stuff IMO...

  • @aniki Agreed ! Carbon isn't inherently flawed, it's even a great material used in aircraft industry etc, but the way it is (mass) produced for cycling makes it potencially unreliable, obvioulsy polluting etc. Unfortunately by looking around the internet, you can find as many examples of it's toughness as it's weakness. I would rather avoid it, but i can probably live with it as well :)
    @Lolo didn't know about that uncompatibility, i will look into this. Regarding weight, by choosing steel over carbon i already accept this flaw :)
    @r.hobbs yep several could match in terms of looks but i didn't find any with the correct AtoC / Offset measurements...
    @cake yes this was on my list (pending legs thickness measurements, seems a bit slim on some pics) but it seems sold out !

  • but the way it is (mass) produced for cycling makes it potencially unreliable

    I mean...most bikes ridden here are mass produced carbon

  • But @CoconutCrab is going to be doing much more rad stuff on their gravel biek, soooooper xxxxxtreme bridle ways

  • Ahahaha no i definitely won't. And i'm no sponsored rider that have his bike swapped for a new one every half season :)
    Anyway, remember i'm not trying to convince carbon enthusiasts to change their mind and go for steel or wathever, just find a non carbon fork that could suit my frame :)

  • Who is riding carbon forks off cliffs?

    And if they did ... I bet they’d clamp and bunged their steerer tubes to spec :-P

  • watch the youtube videos of people trying to destroy carbon forks with hammers

    They should just use an allen key. Rookies.

  • Nobody probably. But neither would OP be. It was just a comment on the strength of carbon

  • Fatigue life of carbon is mega but buy the fork you want. There are advantages to a steel fork. Crash it, bend it back, no biggie 💅🏼 Whilst carbon goes in the bin.

    Carbon lasts longer than metal. Only love is stronger than carbon. Bonding is a different story. I believe that a good glue (epoxy) can last for 2000 hours of work, or about 800 days, not in continuous daylight, and below 35 Celsius. Whenever a carbon “part” has crashed, even if you cannot see a failure, if there is any reasonable doubt about having surpassed the elongation limit, the part must be replaced.
    –Fulvio Acquati
    Deda Elementi

  • strength

    In what engineering application? A gravel fork isn’t a mtb frame.

  • What about one made of a resin composite.

  • Too squidgy.

    1 Attachment

    • 7F6030FB-081C-47AF-BA43-7D1E54455832.jpeg
  • In a MTB frame application, as I said.
    There’s no need to be deliberately argumentative you know, it’s not an attractive look.
    OP mentioned concerns about longevity and having to worry about scratches. Very clearly I’m not suggesting a gravel fork can drop off a cliff and stay intact.
    Have a night off.

  • I think you’re suggesting a the longevity of a carbon fork is not to be questioned because mountain bike frames are made of carbon?

    That’s silly. But whatever.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview

Fork style advice

Posted by Avatar for CoconutCrab @CoconutCrab