# Carbon Fork Hype?



## jonzinmj (Feb 22, 2008)

So, I've been looking at carbon forks and considering dropping the money, but I have a couple of queries.I'm riding a stock fork on my monocog right now How could a carbon fork be that much more comfy?
I get the weight factor but please someone who has more brains than money and has ridden both tell me if they have felt a difference? I ride mostly tech rocky trails on the CO front range so a little give would be nice in the front end. 
Is the difference more noticeable than say a 2.55 tire at low psi? 
I worry that this is one of those issues like "engagement" on a hub and I'm just not going to notice, but I'll continue to preach after paying tons of moola simply b/c I don't want to look like a jacka**.


----------



## voodoochild (Feb 20, 2004)

I've ridden both carbon and the stock steel fork on my singular and prefer the steel. Yeah, the carbon was lighter but the steel is a better ride. My hands feel less beat up by the end of the ride.

I've got one I'll sell you...


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

It's about as noticable as the difference between ti rails and steel rails on a saddle. Not a helluva lot. At speed rippin' down a bumpy trail, all you'll know in either case is that you're riding a rigid fork rather than a suspension fork.

--sParty


----------



## gatman (Jun 10, 2004)

I can tell a difference between my stock surly 1x1 fork and my pace carbon fork. But, I know there are a lot of other steel forks out there that are better then the 1x1 fork.

The weight is a huge difference too


----------



## Cygnus (Jan 7, 2004)

i dunno. i've had a pace fork on my Al SS for about 10 years. it replaced a suspension fork, so i can't say how different it is than a rigid steel fork (except for the weight penalty of steel). 

i like it alot. but, every rigid fork will require you to slow down on descents, put a big tire on front, or just live with a little pounding. 

i've never had the urge to reinstall the suspension fork, because there's no substitute for the way my bike climbs the way it is.


----------



## ISuckAtRiding (Jul 7, 2006)

i'm with voodoo, i switched to a good carbon fork on my cross bike and it was noticeably more harsh than the previous cheap steel fork. 
Every fork is different, but if you're going to generalize, i'd say steel is a little smoother. But on a real MTB with bigger tires and lower than 80psi, i think what Sparty said is about right.


----------



## gatman (Jun 10, 2004)

I have thought about putting the 1x1 fork back on for the winter. It might be a good test to see what I think after riding the carbon for a few years.


----------



## Lumbee1 (Dec 16, 2004)

With a 2.4 Ardent, carbon handlebar, Surly KM fork, and fat grips, the harshness is definitely reduced but it is in no way as smooth as a suspension fork over rough terrain.


----------



## TheSingleGuy (Mar 11, 2004)

*Hard to say...*

there's the placebo effect and all that. I do reckon my On-one carbon fork is smoother than my KM fork, but hard to quantify. Definitely lighter though!

If you don't already have one, a carbon handlebar gives a really noticeable extra level of comfort. Cheaper too!


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Since January 2004 I have now owned...

One Karate Monkey fork ~ Steel
One custom Waltworks ~ Steel
Two custom Independent Fabrications (one 473 A-C, one 445 A-C) ~ Steel
One White Brothers ~ carbon
Two Salsa Cro-Motos~ Steel
Three Niner (two 490 A-C, one 470 A-C) ~ Steel
Some random custom fork I got off eBay (445 A-C) ~ Steel
One Niner ~ carbon

Hands down the Niner carbon is the best riding fork I've owned. It's not just the weight, it's the ride. The lateral rigidity is better than most, and it's ability to eat up chatter on the trail is second to none... rigid of course.

To take the tire selection out of the equation the KM, WW, and tall IF fork were all run on a 26" wheeled single speed with a Diesel 2.5 and the others were run on a 29" single speed with a Rampage up front.

I don't wanna dig through a mess of photos, but I swear I've owned them all and spent a fair amount of time on each riding them all over the fricking place.


----------



## mo0se (Jul 31, 2006)

I have used a White Bros Rock Solid on a ss steel 29er...The ride quality difference is very small between the steel fork and the wb. The only real benefit I gained is a drop in vibration at the bar..not compliance, and a weight loss of about a pound. I plan on buying one the DT Swiss xrr 470 just for the hell of it...there is nothing wrong with the steel fork I have now though. I guess it's really an aesthetics thing for my project. Tire pressure, and volume matter more, and that is free.


----------



## driver bob (Oct 12, 2005)

I have 3 bikes running right now:

A Monocog with the Redline 4130 steel fork, a One 9 with the 853 Niner steel fork and a One 9 with the Niner carbon fork.

teamdicky has it nailed: The carbon fork eats trail chatter like nothing else, it's so much lighter than the steel forks and the bike goes exactly where I point it.

The 853 fork is more compliant than the 4130 fork, which is a boat anchor !!

For a while I ran the Redline fork on the One 9 while I was waiting for the carbon fork to arrive, the difference is night and day.


----------



## UT Badger (Aug 18, 2010)

I went from a cheap steel fork on an older bike to a White Brothers Rock Solid on my new ride. I find the carbon to be more harsh, especially on the larger bumps an drops. I feel more chatter overall and more vibration when braking hard on the carbon. I won't put a steel on the bike now because the bike is very light and well balanced and I'm worried more weight on the front end would affect the handling (which is fantastic now).
My unqualified opinion is that the shape of most cf forks (straight tubes) does not allow them to take full advantage of carbon's "skwoosh" properties. Winwood makes a curved cf fork, but I haven't seem any comments on them and I am not sure that they make it for 29". I've heard good thinks about the 9er, but I am just not brave enough to put carbon inside my headtube.
If I had a steel bike, I'd stick with a steel fork. 29" wheels and the right tire pressure make a big difference.


----------



## Singular (Sep 21, 2005)

I'd say there is as much difference between forks of the same material as there is between carbon and steel. That is, I've ridden quite harsh carbon forks, and quite compliant steel forks. In the same way that you can't really generalise and say 'steel frames are smooth and Al is harsh', the same goes for forks. It's more about the application than the material.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

Singular said:


> I'd say there is as much difference between forks of the same material as there is between carbon and steel. That is, I've ridden quite harsh carbon forks, and quite compliant steel forks. In the same way that you can't really generalise and say 'steel frames are smooth and Al is harsh', the same goes for forks. It's more about the application than the material.


Except for my roadbike, I can not say anything about carbon forks, but I have had the opportunity to try several steel forks and my experience reflects Singular's comment on carbon. Several years ago, I borrowed a Surly 1X1 steel fork from a friend while having my TALAS fork serviced by Fox. I did not like the Surly, was commenting about it to someone else and he offered to let me try a Vicious Cycles fork that he was wanting to sell. I tried it, thinking mainly that if anything, it would be lighter, but really did not expect it to ride different. Was I in for surprise, athough definately more compliant, I think the biggest improvement over the Surly was the A-C length and angle of the fork. In other words, construction and the right numbers matched to the bike had more of an impact on the ride quality than the material the rigid forks were made of. I did end of buying that fork and it is still on that bike. I find it very hard to believe that Carbon forks are not the same way. I doubt the primary reason a certain carbon fork feels excessively harsh is because it is constructed of carbon.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

UT Badger said:


> I went from a cheap steel fork on an older bike to a White Brothers Rock Solid on my new ride. I find the carbon to be more harsh, especially on the larger bumps an drops. I feel more chatter overall and more vibration when braking hard on the carbon.


I felt the same way about my WB carbon fork.


----------



## voodoochild (Feb 20, 2004)

I'm not a materials guy, but I think Badger hit upon what's not quite right with the straight-legged carbon forks -- um, the legs are straight. It just doesn't seem to me that this is the best orientation for carbon when I comes to shock absorption. It's pointing straight up at your hands. Whereas something like carbon handlebars are going to be able to flex laterally and thus absorb vibration. It's kinda like the road bikes with carbon stays. I can't imagine that those ride all that comfy as it seems like you'd be getting a the road shocks straight up your back side...


----------



## AtotheZ (Nov 16, 2007)

*Ti Fork*

Soul Cycles is talking about creating a Ti Fork - I know IF and Blak Sheep make them does anyone have input on how these ride? I have had four different steel forks, Salsa, Vassaog, On-One and Zion and my rank would be:

1. On-One
2. Salsa
3. Zion
4. Vassago

I think the main differnce here had to do with the geometry - the On-One just flowed great with my 2.35 WTB's and the Vassago just felt slow to me (of course geomotery all depends on what bike you are sticking the fork on).


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

AtotheZ said:


> Soul Cycles is talking about creating a Ti Fork - I know IF and Blak Sheep make them does anyone have input on how these ride? I have had four different steel forks, Salsa, Vassaog, On-One and Zion and my rank would be:
> 
> 1. On-One
> 2. Salsa
> ...


IF makes a ti fork?

Not that I know of. They have a paint job (platinum) that looks like ti.


----------



## AtotheZ (Nov 16, 2007)

I stand corrected IF makes a steel fork in a color that made me think it was TI. Those tricky bas&ards got me.


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

As you can see, the consensus is not a consensus. I think the tire and psi matters more.


----------



## jonzinmj (Feb 22, 2008)

umarth said:


> As you can see, the consensus is not a consensus. I think the tire and psi matters more.


I figured this would happen a little bit. I hate to be that "help me buy stuff!" guy, but I have a genuine curiosity on this matter. My monocog is light enough, so I would only buy something if it would take some of the harshness out of the trail chatter and small bumps. Thank you all for your input. I think I'm going to have to hunt someone down in Fort Collins who will let me borrow their bike in exchange for a six pack so I can decide for myself.


----------



## ISuckAtRiding (Jul 7, 2006)

voodoochild said:


> I'm not a materials guy, but I think Badger hit upon what's not quite right with the straight-legged carbon forks -- um, the legs are straight. It just doesn't seem to me that this is the best orientation for carbon when I comes to shock absorption. It's pointing straight up at your hands. Whereas something like carbon handlebars are going to be able to flex laterally and thus absorb vibration. It's kinda like the road bikes with carbon stays. I can't imagine that those ride all that comfy as it seems like you'd be getting a the road shocks straight up your back side...


it's not that they're straight, it's just that they probably buy off the shelf carbon tubing to cut to length for the legs. Forks like ones made by Serotta and possibly niner/others use directional carbon layed out in specific patterns, with more layers in some areas and less in others. They probably use different modulus carbon in certain areas as well. 
BIG difference.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

ISuckAtRiding said:


> it's not that they're straight, it's just that they probably buy off the shelf carbon tubing to cut to length for the legs. Forks like ones made by Serotta and possibly niner/others use directional carbon layed out in specific patterns, with more layers in some areas and less in others. They probably use different modulus carbon in certain areas as well.
> BIG difference.


Yup...


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> Yup...


But the Niner will look stupid on my steel frame. The Niner fork looks better with fatter head tubes.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> But the Niner will look stupid on my steel frame. The Niner fork looks better with fatter head tubes.


Sometimes it looks okay...


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

teamdicky said:


> Yup...


So huge segue, I'd love to see a lot more 2.3+ XC tires out there. My KM had a fairly shitty stock fork. My rockhopper was better. Monocog Flight comes with a really nice fork for straight bladed. So I could spend some money on a carbon fork for minor (if that) improvements, or there could be a 6-7 tires with volume that one could pick up for rigid forks.


----------



## Brewtality (Jul 25, 2007)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> But the Niner will look stupid on my steel frame. The Niner fork looks better with fatter head tubes.


It will make you a$$ look fat as well


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> Sometimes it looks okay...


That's just a flattering angle.  (and matching paint is like cheating)


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

umarth said:


> So huge segue, I'd love to see a lot more 2.3+ XC tires out there. My KM had a fairly shitty stock fork. My rockhopper was better. Monocog Flight comes with a really nice fork for straight bladed. So I could spend some money on a carbon fork for minor (if that) improvements, or there could be a 6-7 tires with volume that one could pick up for rigid forks.


There are plenty of 2.3 tires out there. The problem is that when you get that big you have two choices big and heavy or big and fragile.

I've been running a Rampage up front (except for some flirtatious moments with other tires) since I started riding a 29'er in 2007. The ones I've used have varied in weight from 750 to 780 grams. I've wanted something lighter since I race occasionally, but when it gets down to lighter 2.3 tires the sidewalls get thinner and more fragile. So I either have to stick with what I've got or take the risk (in some cases just a slight risk) of a sidewall tear/pinch flat (tubeless). So I've always stuck with the Rampage at 18-18.5 PSI.

That said I've noticed a big difference in the performance of the Niner fork over the other rigid forks I listed in a previous post. The first race I did back in May was at a place in NC called Warrior Creek. Each lap we came down a really fast brakeless descent where some folks had decided to use their brakes anyways and a lot of braking bumps had made the trail quite chattery. I was amazed (seriously) at how well the Niner fork felt going over the choppy section. I was convinced I had made the right choice.

I recently got done helping with the design of my new frame. It's designed around the Niner fork.

I will agree that tire selection makes a bigger difference than the material of the fork. One should also consider tire pressure, and by consider I mean "sweat the details." Go out and buy a digital pressure gauge. This is my favorite:










I like it because you can take a reading, bleed some pressure, and take another reading without resetting it.

Knowing the exact pressure you like to run is better than any fork upgrade you might consider. I can tell when my tire is a couple pounds off when it comes to the front of my rigid bike. The gauge makes it ten times easier to get exactly what I want.

BTW: If you buy a pressure gauge don't just toss it in your toolbox. The plastic is fragile, and it will break rather easily. I store mine in an old sunglasses case.


----------



## pg3317 (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm amazed to read so many of the posts saying steel forks are smoother than carbon. I've been borrowing a steel forked 29er SS while my carbon forked (Pace RC31) bike is being repaired. The difference is almost as big as when I first went from front suspension to the carbon rigid. The loaner must have a really rigid steel fork, I guess. I feel so beat up after every ride. While the frames have _slightly_ different geometry, it is very clear to me that the fork is the single biggest difference for me, by a lot.


----------



## ISuckAtRiding (Jul 7, 2006)

pg3317 said:


> I'm amazed to read so many of the posts saying steel forks are smoother than carbon. I've been borrowing a steel forked 29er SS while my carbon forked (Pace RC31) bike is being repaired. The difference is almost as big as when I first went from front suspension to the carbon rigid. The loaner must have a really rigid steel fork, I guess. I feel so beat up after every ride. While the frames have _slightly_ different geometry, it is very clear to me that the fork is the single biggest difference for me, by a lot.


well, the difference for me was also huge, and seeing that the *only* thing that changed was the fork, it's pretty easy to say the fork made the difference.


----------



## dancruz (Mar 17, 2006)

Teamdicky nailed it...I was amazed how well the Niner fork works. I ride rocky dry trails out here in Colorado. Yes you can still tell it's a rigid fork but I'm not beat up after the ride.After reading this thread sounds like Niner got it right....


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

teamdicky said:


> There are plenty of 2.3 tires out there. The problem is that when you get that big you have two choices big and heavy or big and fragile.


All things being equal, 2.3 is ok. I don't really agree with the big and fragile/heavy. I thought nevegal 2.35 (closer to 2.4) were decently plush and this next summer I think I am going to try WTBs Weirwolfs. My sense is that bigger tires for XC don't really happen because not that many ride rigid in the first place.

The digital gauge is a fantastic point. I have a doc on how low I can go f-r before I start pinching.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> I like it because you can take a reading, bleed some pressure, and take another reading without resetting it.
> 
> Knowing the exact pressure you like to run is better than any fork upgrade you might consider. I can tell when my tire is a couple pounds off when it comes to the front of my rigid bike. The gauge makes it ten times easier to get exactly what I want.
> 
> BTW: If you buy a pressure gauge don't just toss it in your toolbox. The plastic is fragile, and it will break rather easily. I store mine in an old sunglasses case.


I have one of those Slime gauges which I never got into the habit of using for two reasons; I didn't know it could take additional readings without being reset, and checking tire pressure is almost too much like maintenance. 

So I'm about to go ride my On-One carbon fork (no, it may not be a nice as your Niner). Here's the setup I'm going to try this morning:

Front wheel:
Flow rim with 2.4 Specialized Purgatory @ 17.5 psi [edit - this was really good]

Rear wheel:
Arch rim with 2.2 Specialized Captain @ 22 psi [edit - this was too low]

I'll use this as a starting point. It also might be good to have a happy baseline I can always try to set.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

umarth said:


> I don't really agree with the big and fragile/heavy.


What I meant was they are either big and heavy (heavy by XC standards) or big and fragile (not up to the rigors of rigid riding in harsh conditions).


----------



## Singular (Sep 21, 2005)

I reckon a carbon fork looks alright on a steel frame, though I know folks who don't like it. The Niner fork really is very nice.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/singularcycles/5104159813/


----------



## 2melow (Jan 5, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> Hands down the Niner carbon is the best riding fork I've owned. It's not just the weight, it's the ride. The lateral rigidity is better than most, and it's ability to eat up chatter on the trail is second to none... rigid of course.


Glad to hear it from teamdicky, his testaments are exactly what we wanted to achieve with this design. Love it or hate the looks, this carbon fork was 100% purpose built for 29er use from the ground up. Rather than picking a carbon fork out of a catalog, making the round carbon legs longer, and getting it painted to match our frames (which is VERY easy to do, BTW) we thought "how can we offer something with better performance, lighter weight, and full carbon from tip to tip."

The common three-piece bonded "segmented style" forks can develop stress risers in transitions between dissimilar materials. Not only that, but through testing the majority of flex and dampening comes from the upper 1/3rd portion of the fork from crown to 4-5" down the legs and has more of a "chatter" dampening characteristic.

With over two years of prototypes, we purpose-built ours from the ground up. From the tip of the dropout to the top of the steerer tube the Niner Carbon Rigid Fork takes full advantage of the damping characteristics of carbon fiber through the entire design, not just a part of the fork. The full carbon design of the Niner fork is both lighter and stronger by eliminating all bonded sections all together.

In addition to the full carbon complement, the outside shape of the fork was designed to disperse impact energy throughout the entire structure, damping trail vibrations before they get to your hands without compromising steering precision.

From tip to tail, the Niner Carbon Rigid fork was designed for better performance. We didn't just want to offer another carbon component, we wanted to utilize carbon the way it was intended to be: stiff, light, strong, and forgiving, all rolled into a single package.

We went with post mounted brake mounts for lighter overall set-up. Forward facing dropouts for safety and easier wheel removal. Some of the pics here have some of our earlier prototypes weighing as little as 500-540 grams. These forks have been ridden for over 2.5 years now and are still going strong.

Again, not everyone likes the style or looks but hopefully this explains the design goal a little bit and feeling the need to create our own. On top of that we were awarded an Eurobike design award for this fork!

Brett


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

2melow said:


> Again, not everyone likes the style or looks but hopefully this explains the design goal a little bit and feeling the need to create our own. On top of that we were awarded an Eurobike design award for this fork!


@Brett,

I read back through the thread, because this part seemed aimed at me? If it was, you mis-understood me. I think the fork looks and sounds fantastic. I was only saying that the fork and frame together look better when the frame's HT is fatter (usually not the case on a steel frame).

But I have a steel frame, and I still want a Niner fork really bad. When can I order one in white? (they seem to not be available now...)


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

Singular said:


> I reckon a carbon fork looks alright on a steel frame, though I know folks who don't like it. The Niner fork really is very nice.
> 
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/singularcycles/5104159813/




this is the best looking 29er ive ever seen......


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Great thread*



jonzinmj said:


> So, I've been looking at carbon forks and considering dropping the money, but I have a couple of queries.I'm riding a stock fork on my monocog right now How could a carbon fork be that much more comfy?
> I get the weight factor but please someone who has more brains than money and has ridden both tell me if they have felt a difference? I ride mostly tech rocky trails on the CO front range so a little give would be nice in the front end.
> Is the difference more noticeable than say a 2.55 tire at low psi?
> I worry that this is one of those issues like "engagement" on a hub and I'm just not going to notice, but I'll continue to preach after paying tons of moola simply b/c I don't want to look like a jacka**.


Don't mean hijack or for this to tangent off on a "steel vs aluminum" thread but noticed that the majority of posts are comparing the forks on a steel frame, and wondering if the ride change is less noticable given that steel is _considered_ the more compliant frame material.

Curious myself on this topic as I recently picked up a pretty nice Kona Scandium frame. I'm using an inexpensive OEM steel fork that was thrown in the deal for the time being but planned on getting a suspension fork in the future. But now that I've ridden "rigid" for a few rides I really like the efficiency of it. I'm only running a 2.1 wire bead tire up front now so not really getting the _cush_ benifits of the bigger hoops yet. I ran a WW 2.55 LT up front on my 26" bike all summer and really liked it for the volume and predictability. I've been eyeing the Niner fork and noticed it has got some major props here in this thread. So now I'm thinking maybe one of these forks and the 29" version WW just may be the ticket once summer rolls around again 

This may be directed more to the Niner riders that may have ridden both frame materials of their line with the steel/carbon forks and noticed a difference.

Thx in advance.


----------



## jonzinmj (Feb 22, 2008)

JMac47 said:


> Don't mean hijack or for this to tangent off on a "steel vs aluminum" thread but noticed that the majority of posts are comparing the forks on a steel frame, and wondering if the ride change is less noticable given that steel is _considered_ the more compliant frame material.
> Thx in advance.


Hijack away! You are way more man than I for riding an aluminum hardtail.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Just an update in the whole tire more important than the fork thing.

I put the steel fork back on my Niner and swapped the 2.35 Rampage (ran at 18PSI) for the Kodiak 2.5 (at 13.5 PSI) and rode a semi-familiar descent over the weekend. Granted the 2.5 tire has thicker sidewalls, I still feel like the Niner carbon fork/Rampage combo was better all around, comfort, control, everything we're talking about on this thread.

The carbon fork is going back on next weekend.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

*Wait*



teamdicky said:


> Just an update in the whole tire more important than the fork thing.
> 
> I put the steel fork back on my Niner and swapped the 2.35 Rampage (ran at 18PSI) for the Kodiak 2.5 (at 13.5 PSI) and rode a semi-familiar descent over the weekend. Granted the 2.5 tire has thicker sidewalls, I still feel like the Niner carbon fork/Rampage combo was better all around, comfort, control, everything we're talking about on this thread.
> 
> The carbon fork is going back on next weekend.


First try a quality 100mm+ suspension fork with whatever tire you like and report back. Thanks.

--sParty


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

Sparticus said:


> First try a quality 100mm+ suspension fork with whatever tire you like and report back. Thanks.
> 
> --sParty


Did and done.

I have a 120mm Reba XX Maxle on my Tallboy.

It performs much better than any of my rigid forks, bar none.

I think if I took the tire off and rode on the rim it would still be more comfortable.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Too funny*



teamdicky said:


> Did and done.
> 
> It performs much better than any of my rigid forks, _*bar*_ none.


Great. How'd we get off topic onto bars now! Carbon or Alum

@ TD, so you _do_ ride suspension. You've been keeping that from us.

@ Sparty, your witty banter is up rather early this morning! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the fork/tire info TD.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*But maybe not a smart man*



jonzinmj said:


> You are way more man than I for riding an aluminum hardtail.


Questioning it _now_ after seeing most are on steel 9r bikes! But yes, I do have a 26" 853 steel ss ht now so I am aware of the ride qualities I may be missing in the future. But aren't the bigger tires suppose to more then balance that all out? That's what the guy at my lbs sold me on.....:skep:


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

JMac47 said:


> @ TD, so you _do_ ride suspension. You've been keeping that from us.
> 
> @ Sparty, your witty banter is up rather early this morning! :thumbsup:
> 
> Thanks for the fork/tire info TD.


Keeping it from you?

Hello?

I've been posting about my new wunderkind bike all over the place... just not so much on the single speed forum, well, since it is a multi-speed bike.


----------



## 1strongone1 (Jan 13, 2004)

*Niner Fork*

Are there 2 different carbon Niner forks?

Some have a very narrow top area by the race, that flows nicely into the headtube of a steel frame while others have a large area that flows nicely into the large bottom headtube of a carbon framed bike.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

1strongone1 said:


> Are there 2 different carbon Niner forks?
> 
> Some have a very narrow top area by the race, that flows nicely into the headtube of a steel frame while others have a large area that flows nicely into the large bottom headtube of a carbon framed bike.


Yep, the new carbon frames (and some people's special custom frames  ) take a tapered steer tube.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Dayum*



teamdicky said:


> Keeping it from you?
> 
> Hello?
> 
> I've been posting about my new wunderkind bike all over the place... just not so much on the single speed forum, well, since it is a multi-speed bike.


10 or so threads on the tall boy! I sit corrected sir.  Those bikes are becoming all the rage out here now being so close to the SC facility.

So as for my quiery, do you think my 16" Kona Kula 2-9 will benifit with the
Niner fork? I have a take-off steel fork on it now from a Haro Mary (I think). It's a 100mm corrected which seems abit tall since the frame geo is 80mm. I do notice abit more of the flop over effect then expected being new to the bigger wheels. Dropping down to an 80 will adjust that I hope. Looking into a winter tread tire with a little more volume too.


----------



## 1strongone1 (Jan 13, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> Yep, the new carbon frames (and some people's special custom frames  ) take a tapered steer tube.


That's what I suspected, they don't differentiate on their website.

Thanks much.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

JMac47 said:


> 10 or so threads on the tall boy! I sit corrected sir.  Those bikes are becoming all the rage out here now being so close to the SC facility.
> 
> So as for my quiery, do you think my 16" Kona Kula 2-9 will benifit with the
> Niner fork? I have a take-off steel fork on it now from a Haro Mary (I think). It's a 100mm corrected which seems abit tall since the frame geo is 80mm. I do notice abit more of the flop over effect then expected being new to the bigger wheels. Dropping down to an 80 will adjust that I hope. Looking into a winter tread tire with a little more volume too.


I'd measure the the A-C before swapping the fork.

I'd also be willing to bet the offset if less than the 45mm of the Niner.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

1strongone1 said:


> That's what I suspected, they don't differentiate on their website.
> 
> Thanks much.


I don't think they've updated it since I would imagine the few that came in the first batch were gone before they saw land.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Will do*



teamdicky said:


> I'd measure the the A-C


Thx. I'll check on fork info with lbs where I got frame. They're a Niner dealer. Couldn't swing the coin for one.

Cool blog site you have BTW.


----------



## Maobike (Jun 4, 2010)

*DT Swiss xrr*

I was wondering if anyone has ridden the Dt Swiss xrr. I have a Pro carbon fork that a friend let me use on my Moots MootoX. I was wondering how the xrr rides with the carbon crown and steer.


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

I just came upon this thread so this post relates to posts several days old, but I think still provides new informatiion.

I agree with teamdicky's assessment of the Niner Carbon fork and would like to add one thing I think he missed. The Niner Carbon Fork is much more resistant to backwards flexing under hard braking than any steel fork I have used. As 2Melow said, they optimized the carbon for the job at hand and the shape of the Niner fork makes it resist brake loads much better than a round steel tubed fork. We have many very steep short hills here and there are many situations where you are going 25 mph down hill and you need to really stab the brakes and turn immediately after. If your fork flexes much during the braking then it will spring forward changing rake and trail while you are steering. This might seem like a fine point, but I can really fly through these sections and others can't and they can't figure out how I can do it.

I also swear by an accurate tire gage. Mine reads in half psi increments and I run 19.5 in my WW on the front of my Sir with Niner Carbon fork. I have a Topeak that I have to reset so maybe I should check out the Slime one.

I also think the Niner Carbon Fork looks really great on any bike I have ever seen one on. The shape is flat with curved sharp angles at the edges. Similar to what Cadillac is doing with most of its cars and many of the Japanese Market "muscle cars" are using the same design theme. To each his own on design, but I used appliance paint to paint mine black and several people have commented something to the effect "wow, what fork is that?" Mine is mounted on a powder coated Sir. (I also have a painted Sir with gears and Fox and a Jet neither of which I ride much since trying the full rigid SS thing)









I think it looks ready to ride!


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

yourdaguy said:


> I think it looks ready to ride!


It does look good. You like the way your WW works backwards?


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

Actually, I originally mounted it the other way because it looked like the right way. After 6 months, I noticed the arrows on the sidewall pointed the other way. So I remounted it about 3 weeks ago. Is it possible my tire was made wrong?? My arrows say to mount it this way. Every experience I have said it should be mounted the other way and I never looked at the arrows originally. I actually thought about making a thread asking this question; so I guess I will hijack this thread over this.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

yourdaguy said:


> Actually, I originally mounted it the other way because it looked like the right way. After 6 months, I noticed the arrows on the sidewall pointed the other way. So I remounted it about 3 weeks ago. Is it possible my tire was made wrong?? My arrows say to mount it this way. Every experience I have said it should be mounted the other way and I never looked at the arrows originally. I actually thought about making a thread asking this question; so I guess I will hijack this thread over this.


The arrows point in the direction the tire was intended to roll. It should roll much better in the other direction (intended direction). I doubt there is something wrong with the printing on the tire.

I have accidentally mounted tires wrong even when I thought I checked first.


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

Here is the same tire and rim on my Jet before I painted the fork on the Sir and I ran it this way for over 6 months. Tomorrow I will take a picture of the sidewall and tread when it is light. The sidewall has the arrow stamped in it in the other direction, but under the printing for the tire. I was shocked when I noticed the arrow on the sidewall pointing in the other direction because the tread looked to me like it should be run the way I was running it. Like I said, I almost started a thread asking if this was the right way to run it.









Sorry for the hijack, but this has been bothering me for 3 weeks.


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

The arrow points to the direction I originally mounted the tire. However, it says: " <- rotation rear optional" Since I am using it on the front it seemed to me like they intended it to run the other way on the front and maybe even the other way on the rear depending on your preference for traction or rolling resistance.

So is my tire made wrong??


----------



## 120 (Nov 20, 2009)

On directional tires I run the front with the tread pattern like it is on the Jet and reverse it for the rear. I would interpret the writing on the ww to be the intended direction for use on the rear tire but would reverse it when running it on the front. 

For example, I am running a nano on the rear and have it installed opposite of what the arrow states. That way the tread pattern forms more of a scooping profile.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Jan 30, 2004)

yourdaguy said:


> So is my tire made wrong??


No. The arrow is pointing the correct direction. The "[rear opptional]" means you can run it the other way on the rear for better traction if you want (or the way the arrow is pointing for better (less) rolling resistance.

However, you may still have the tire mounted the wrong way if in your picture the disk is on the "up" side and not on the ground side...


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

But the rear optional direction is the direction I had it mounted on the jet which we all seem to agree is or should be the front direction. Look at the picture and imagine the tire rotating in the direction of the arrow. It would be rotating like it was on the Jet. So my tire was made wrong or WTB has a different design than we are familiar with.

I am pretty sure my tire was made wrong so I turned it around this morning and went for a ride. I crashed at 7 miles (not a tire related crash) and separated my left shoulder so no more testing for a while.


----------



## 1SPD (Apr 25, 2010)

I would run it the way you had it in the picture on the Jet (with the >>>> pointing in the direction the tire is rolling) and if on the rear in the opposite. 

Sorry this portion of the thread confused me so I am just posting my interpretation of it all.

On topic, I have a Rock Solid on my bike now. It came with a cromo one that I put one ride in on and then swapped it for my Rock Shox psylo (way too heavy). I then ordered the Rock Solid and swapped that on. My opinion is that rigid is rigid but the Rock Solid takes some of the sting out but there is more chatter to it if you will compared to the steel fork. I would have bought a Niner fork if they made one for a 26"! Since we know that ain't gonna happen, I am considering a Trigon carbon for my next cheapie build (ebay carbon frame) over the winter. Thought about going the 29er route but it will cost me more money to build one up at this point and basically, I am broke like alot of you guys out there!


----------



## bycyclist (Oct 13, 2008)

Maobike said:


> I was wondering if anyone has ridden the Dt Swiss xrr. I have a Pro carbon fork that a friend let me use on my Moots MootoX. I was wondering how the xrr rides with the carbon crown and steer.


I just ordered the XRR 470 for my B-day&Xmas gift. I should have it in maybe two weeks (from Slane Cycles in UK) to put on my Jabber, assuming I get that frame shipped from Vassago by then.


----------



## yourdaguy (Dec 20, 2008)

I called WTB and he said the tire is made correctly, but the guy in charge of what to put on the tire might have to go back to school. Anyway, the intention is that the arrow points the way to normally run the tire and the "(Rear Optional)" in parenthesis is supposed to mean that there is another optional direction for the rear not that the direction of the arrow emanating from the brackets is that direction.

Sorry for the hijack.


----------



## DAVP (May 16, 2006)

teamdicky said:


> Just an update in the whole tire more important than the fork thing.
> 
> I put the steel fork back on my Niner and swapped the 2.35 Rampage (ran at 18PSI) for the Kodiak 2.5 (at 13.5 PSI) and rode a semi-familiar descent over the weekend. Granted the 2.5 tire has thicker sidewalls, I still feel like the Niner carbon fork/Rampage combo was better all around, comfort, control, everything we're talking about on this thread.
> 
> The carbon fork is going back on next weekend.


Dicky, Which steel fork? Same geo, etc.

I can't imagine a better performing rigid fork than my custom Spot Brand steel. But if I had to replace it, the Niner Carbon looks nice!


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

DAVP said:


> Dicky, Which steel fork? Same geo, etc.
> 
> I can't imagine a better performing rigid fork than my custom Spot Brand steel. But if I had to replace it, the Niner Carbon looks nice!


It was the Niner steel fork (Reynolds) with the same exact geometry.


----------



## Lumbee1 (Dec 16, 2004)

teamdicky said:


> It was the Niner steel fork (Reynolds) with the same exact geometry.


Was the Niner steel your favorite steel fork?

I'm torn between the Vassago Odis and Salsa CroMoto for my Karate Monkey.


----------



## keene1 (Jan 24, 2011)

i'm thinking of 69ing my voodoo HT. Niner carbon fork has been on my want list...

it would only change my current geometry by 3/4'' (upwards) and the bike feels so damn sharp that i don't mind getting a little slacker head angle.

i'm not weight obsessed but this would get me sub 20lb, better rollability, i love that voodoo wanga and i can't afford a 19lb 29er so perhaps my best shot...

anyone tried carbonising a frankenbike 69er?

i can always buy a 29er frame down the line and i'll only need a back wheel.


----------



## 2melow (Jan 5, 2004)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> @Brett,
> 
> I read back through the thread, because this part seemed aimed at me? If it was, you mis-understood me. I think the fork looks and sounds fantastic. I was only saying that the fork and frame together look better when the frame's HT is fatter (usually not the case on a steel frame).
> 
> But I have a steel frame, and I still want a Niner fork really bad. When can I order one in white? (they seem to not be available now...)


Yeah, it's love or hate with the fatter carbon fork compared to the steel tubing on the steel frames.

Crema Cycles had a tapered Niner carbon fork on a custom steel bike, 44mm HT and the bike flowed really nice. I wish I had taken a pic, it was at the Garda Lake bike festival in Italy last weekend.

By mid June we will be shipping another big production run of forks. By July our stock situation should be solved as we've opened another mold to keep up with demand.

Cheers,

Brett


----------



## 34x18 (May 11, 2011)

2melow said:


> Yeah, it's love or hate with the fatter carbon fork compared to the steel tubing on the steel frames.
> 
> Crema Cycles had a tapered Niner carbon fork on a custom steel bike, 44mm HT and the bike flowed really nice. I wish I had taken a pic, it was at the Garda Lake bike festival in Italy last weekend.
> 
> ...


and here it is:









more pics to come


----------



## Lumbee1 (Dec 16, 2004)

34x18 said:


> and here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fixed


Freiburg-Collective_2011_056 by Stahlrahmen-Bikes, on Flickr


----------



## diylighter (Sep 4, 2008)

jonzinmj said:


> . . . I worry that this is one of those issues like "engagement" on a hub and I'm just not going to notice, but I'll continue to preach after paying tons of moola simply b/c I don't want to look like a jacka**.


That's one of the funniest quotes I've heard in a long time hahahahaha


----------



## esku (Jul 26, 2005)

My Kinesis IX is at list as good as my Niner
And I think that it looks OK 
.


----------

