Carbon Fork upgrade

VanDbtRiver

Well-Known Member
Looking for a solid review and or any input as to the advantage/disadvantage of carbon over steel forks. I have been riding a Mary SS this winter and have been loving it. I have invested in numerous upgrades and at this point the only thing left to do is shed a couple pounds up front. I've been looking at the White Bros Rock solid because it is offered in lengths more suited for the bikes geometry. I am definitely curious about the niner fork too. So... any info would be appreciated.
 

mattybfat

The Opinion Police
Team MTBNJ Halter's
Looking for a solid review and or any input as to the advantage/disadvantage of carbon over steel forks. I have been riding a Mary SS this winter and have been loving it. I have invested in numerous upgrades and at this point the only thing left to do is shed a couple pounds up front. I've been looking at the White Bros Rock solid because it is offered in lengths more suited for the bikes geometry. I am definitely curious about the niner fork too. So... any info would be appreciated.

Carbon vs. steel is weight and much more compliance in the fore and aft. without side to side flex. WB has about three or four imitators that are all produced at the same factory for a lesser cost. (eXXact, origin8, and now misfit). I had an origin8 465mm that I loved if not for elbow pain after every ride. My old bones can't hold up to rigid any more. IIRC the misfit will be made in the 470 mm something range and priced around the origin8 price.
 

ArmyOfNone

Well-Known Member
I cant offer much in comparison but I have been riding the Niner Carbon fork for about two months now. Once Mr Lyon told me to let a few extra pounds out of the front tire to aid in absorbing the chatter, I could not have been more happy with my decision.

The fork tracks like a young blood hound and is buttery smooth (surprisingly to me). Climbing and out of the saddle efforts...whoa. Its crazy. The only previous rigid experience in the woods that I have is on my cyclocross bike and thats really a whole different ball of wax.

In addition you cannot beat all the sick colors that are available to you.

Hope that helps!

I guess I really should write a full review at this point.:hmmm:
 

FFT

Gay & Stuffy
I swapped a steel for carbon on a Mary. The ride was a bit softer because of the linear flex. The ride much lighter and easier to pull the front wheel off the ground. Had I not gotten dealer cost I may have skipped the whole thing. The bike was more fun to ride but not my cup of tea.
 

ChrisG

Unapologetic Lifer for Rock and Roll
For the first couple of months that I had my Seven, I was running a Salsa steel fork, the same True Temper OX item that comes on the El Mariachi. It felt solid, appropriately compliant, and I had no complaints. I eventually got hold of a Pace RC29 carbon (thanks Walter!) and the difference was profound.

The carbon fork was at least one full pound lighter, allowing the front end to snap up with notable ease when bunny hopping or lifting the front over/onto obstacles. The carbon is noticeably more compliant in stuttery terrain like root beds and smaller rock gardens taken at speed. The only thing that took a little getting used to, was my sense that the carbon fork would occasionally "unload" off of roots & rocks encountered in turns, leading to some interesting re-directional adventures until I got used to how the fork tracks.

So I've been really happy with the steel-to-carbon move, though occasionally I still wonder about trying a hand-built steel fork, like an Igleheart, or maybe even a Black Sheep ti, if I really want to get stupid.:rolleyes:
 

BShow

Member
This winter, I've been riding a Salsa El Mariachi frameset. This includes their Steel fork. I also have a niner Air9 that's currently set up with a White Brothers Rock Solid. I havent been on the niner in months... I had built it up rigid as a pit bike for cross season, and I might have used it once since building it up. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble... I just rode the Air9 yesterday on a seriously rocky trail system(French Creek, PA). the carbon fork felt like it was a lot stiffer than the steel one on my salsa, for sure. It vibrates a lot more as well... The vibrations though, dont seem to affect handling... its more when I hit something, the fork flexes and springs back(forward). I think the steel is generally more compliant than the carbon and I think I actually like the steel better.

Its tough to judge the weight difference, as they are two completely different bikes. The steel salsa single weighs 23-24 lbs where as the scandium niner with gears weighs close to 21lbs I think. The frames obviously have different ride characteristics as well... the steel is a lot smoother and the scandium is a lot snappier.
 

VanDbtRiver

Well-Known Member
This winter, I've been riding a Salsa El Mariachi frameset. This includes their Steel fork. I also have a niner Air9 that's currently set up with a White Brothers Rock Solid. I havent been on the niner in months... I had built it up rigid as a pit bike for cross season, and I might have used it once since building it up. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble... I just rode the Air9 yesterday on a seriously rocky trail system(French Creek, PA). the carbon fork felt like it was a lot stiffer than the steel one on my salsa, for sure. It vibrates a lot more as well... The vibrations though, dont seem to affect handling... its more when I hit something, the fork flexes and springs back(forward). I think the steel is generally more compliant than the carbon and I think I actually like the steel better.

Its tough to judge the weight difference, as they are two completely different bikes. The steel salsa single weighs 23-24 lbs where as the scandium niner with gears weighs close to 21lbs I think. The frames obviously have different ride characteristics as well... the steel is a lot smoother and the scandium is a lot snappier.

:hmmm: thanks for the feedback. So do you feel that having a carbon fork is paradoxical on a steal frame, and that the weight savings isn't enough to justify the upgrade?
 

VanDbtRiver

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE by chris g]The carbon fork was at least one full pound lighter, allowing the front end to snap up with notable ease when bunny hopping or lifting the front over/onto obstacles. The carbon is noticeably more compliant in stuttery terrain like root beds and smaller rock gardens taken at speed. The only thing that took a little getting used to, was my sense that the carbon fork would occasionally "unload" off of roots & rocks encountered in turns, leading to some interesting re-directional adventures until I got used to how the fork tracks.
[/QUOTE]


this is just the reply I was looking for... thanx chris
 

Los

Member
It's amazing how that is exactly the question i just logged on for. I want to upgrade my mary ss and have a fully done up air9 not being used at all. I am a bit confused on what size white bros. rigid carbon fork to run though. I'm assuming stock geometry. Which is?..
 

pinkshirtphotos

Active Member
Last season I raced a Mary SS on an On One (same as white brothers ect) carbon fork. In comparison to the stock steel fork the carbon is very forgiving. At higher speeds I could actually see the flex in the carbon, but never feared it snapping. Riding with carbon fibre bars was overkill for me. Between the flex of the fork and bars I felt the front end became a noodle.
 

Los

Member
Awesome. I'm gonna go for one then. It'll be my 1st upgrade for the mary. I'll stick to the stock mary bars which have such a great ergonomic feel. Can't wait.
 

ChrisG

Unapologetic Lifer for Rock and Roll
I am a bit confused on what size white bros. rigid carbon fork to run though. I'm assuming stock geometry. Which is?..
Most standard equivalents for an 80mm 29er fork are in the 465-470mm range for axle to crown length, 45mm rake.

The Bontrager fork has less rake, I believe, at least in aftermarket, non-G2 geometry.
 

Los

Member
Most standard equivalents for an 80mm 29er fork are in the 465-470mm range for axle to crown length, 45mm rake.

The Bontrager fork has less rake, I believe, at least in aftermarket, non-G2 geometry.

Thanks for the info.
 
Top Bottom