A fun thread to follow. Carbon forks on steel bikes seem to be a shortcut and a way to grab a little credibility in a market that has positioned CF as the premium material for anything. It's like the '90s, when the hot material was titanium. People bought screws, bolts, and nuts of the stuff to save grams and introduce new ways for those fasteners, once of mundane but capable steel, to fail.
These stories seem to revolve around particular makers who build in steel, rather than a perspective saying it has outright merit, benefits, and performance that is (still) credible. The abruptness of the front ends of the early marketing 1 1/8" headtubed steel bikes, first on MTBs, was stunning. I never thought that objectifying stiffness and the ride consequences was a good idea. I instead enjoyed screaming down a mountain on a forest service road with my MB-0 and riding my RB-1 on similar (but less remote and rough) roads. It was the combined suppleness of the frame and fork together that was so rewarding. Tom is (and was) right. A bike F & F is like an algebra expression with a lot of variables My Coast 650B rando with a 1" headtube and threadless Kasei-legged fork has a great ride to it as well. "Better" has to be qualified for me and my uses. Just because all the other kids are doing it doesn't cut it. Andy Cheatham Pittsburgh On Saturday, September 27, 2025 at 1:50:00 PM UTC-4 Ben Miller wrote: > Steve, Thanks for sharing that! I think you'll be happy to know that Tom > Ritchey's philosophy hasn't changed. This video is from this year's Sea > Otter. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvybGDK3uS8> In it Tom says: "You > have a whole generation of people that have lost touch with the feature and > the uniqueness of the ride quality of a 1" fork." And if you don't know, he > is still out there brazing 1" forks > <https://theradavist.com/tom-ritchey-fillet-brazed-bullmoose-bars-and-forks>, > but sadly only for the lucky few you have a 79-82 vintage Ritchey! Lucky > ducks! > > As for forks weights, that is not an argument I'm going to get into, but I > know two things: > > 1. The difference in weight between a steel fork and a carbon fork > *designed > for the same purpose and taking into the account the strengths of both > materials, *just is not that much. > 2. *But*, if it too much for you, then yes, carbon is always going to > be lighter. But a carbon F+F is always going to be lighter still. And > that's the problem with chasing weight, it reduces the whole argument to a > single number. No one is ever going to have a convincing argument to go > with steel over carbon for the weight weenies. > > Again, my point was that a steel frame/carbon fork is not the same thing > as a properly designed steel F+F and the bike media needs to stop > pretending it is. As Steve points out, Tom gets it :) > > On Saturday, September 27, 2025 at 7:29:59 AM UTC-7 Steven Seelig wrote: > >> First, I wanted to share this video with Tom Ritchey >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-gGIqfVB2Y>where he talks about steel >> frames and carbon forks at about the 30 minute mark. The entire video is >> super interesting but I will note that it is from 7 years ago and his views >> and the bike business may have changed, assuming he is still making design >> decisions at all. >> >> Second, my long distance road bike with clippy pedals is a Spectrum >> titanium with a steel fork. I love it. I got super smug when I watched >> the Ritchey video where he talks about how the fork being steel is the most >> important part of the bike affecting ride feel. I'm just a rider not a >> designer, but I do agree with him. >> >> Steve Seelig >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 26, 2025 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 12:34 PM Garth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Where is the sense of beauty in these things, not just frames, but in >>>> parts ? I don't want to ride "tech", I want to ride an artfully crafted >>>> and >>>> graceful lined bicycle. >>>> >>> >>> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and comes with a price. For >>> instance, you may find Ritchey's integrated headset solution ugly. But it >>> saves weight, is reliable, and needs no maintenance or adjustment. If >>> you're a big person (160 pounds or more), maybe the weight savings doesn't >>> mean much, but after my wife rode the Ritchey and then retried the Roadini >>> which had sparked her desire to get a road bike of her own, she discovered >>> that what she thought was a nice light road bike was actually quite porky >>> and not as comfortable as the Ritchey. Weight savings matter, and sure, the >>> Maxway welds on the Ritchey don't look as nice as lugs, but the savings of >>> over a pound and a half shouldn't be sneezed at when you weigh 115 pounds >>> and intend to climb 57000' in 3 weeks in the alps. And before you ask, yes, >>> I spent $$$ getting carbon fiber brake levers and extralight tires and >>> wheels and even lighter cassettes that don't shift as well as the Shimano >>> they replaced but save half a pound ( >>> https://blog.piaw.net/2025/09/review-gabaruk-11-50-11s-cassette.html). >>> Getting that bike under 8kg definitely paid off! >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c9bdff68-7526-47b5-a577-7fc189b4245dn%40googlegroups.com.
