RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Cyclo-Cross


Archive Home >> Cyclo-Cross(1 2 3 )


Steel or carbon fork?(4 posts)

Steel or carbon fork?dawgcatchr
Jun 23, 2003 7:32 PM
Hi. Building up my first Cross bike, getting an employee purchase on a Gunnar Crosshairs (I wanted steel, due to the fact that I will be putting in lots of miles on gravel roads on this bike). It comes with a Gunnar steel fork-is it worth my time to upgrade to a Winwood Muddy Carbon? I know I will save about 400 grams, which is a better choice for all-around riding as well as racing?
re: Steel or carbon fork?atpjunkie
Jun 23, 2003 9:04 PM
racing: Carbon, you are going to appreciate that 400 grams every hilly run up.
All Around: Steel, smoother will last longer (most likely) with a lower chance of catastrophic failure.
Steel.Downhill deux mille
Jun 24, 2003 2:15 AM
One less thing to worry about - virtually indestructable.
You have no choice....Dan Cas
Jun 24, 2003 10:27 AM
When Waterford redesigned the Gunnars,fall of 02,they went to 1/18 steerer tubes.In the process,they lengthened the headtube 15mm and shortened the fork from the industry norm~400mm axle to crown to 383 axle to crown.The idea was to reduce fork chatter(chassis shake) under heavy front braking.

To put a ~400 mm fork on would slacken the head angle almost 2 degrees,raise the BB and slacken the seattube a bunch.

I suggest you email Marc Muller at Gunner and ask his advise.He knows more than anybody about those frames.

Dan