Weight difference between steel and carbon forks
Hi!
I've a bike with a steel fork (2016 Trek FX 7.1), and to lower weight I'm thinking of replacing the steel fork with a carbon one (the carbon fork of the Trek FX 7.4, with is 100% compatible). The problem is that I can't find online the weight of my steel fork, and neither the weight of the carbon fork of the Trek FX 7.4 I have asked trek customer service, but they have not been able to tell me that info. So the question is: Let's suppose that the steel fork was of excellent quality, and of low weight to be made of steel, and that the carbon one was not so good and of high weight to be made of carbon (to put us at worst!), do you think that there would still be a noticeable weight difference, that would make the replacement worthwhile? What do you think? Would be a "low quality" carbon fork, still be way lighter than a "high quality" steel fork? |
|
|
That trek fork may be exceptionally heavy for a carbon fork. Do they list a weight?
|
Originally Posted by unterhausen
(Post 22243275)
That trek fork may be exceptionally heavy for a carbon fork. Do they list a weight?
I asked to the Trek customer service, but they say they don't have that info... 🤷🏼♂️ |
Pretty sure the forks on my Worskwells were under 400 grams uncut .... 390 grams I think. Are these heavy-duty or disc forks?
|
For whatever you are trying to achieve, I think its a complete waste of time and totally redundant, when you can easily make more of a difference than 500g with your own fitness and performance levels.
|
Originally Posted by Moisture
(Post 22243417)
For whatever you are trying to achieve, I think its a complete waste of time and totally redundant, when you can easily make more of a difference than 500g with your own fitness and performance levels.
|
The bike in question: https://archive.trekbikes.com/us/en/...7_1_fx/details ?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...cb4cfbac8f.png You could save a pound by swapping the fork and you would still have a 26-28-pound bike with w low-level drive train and heavy wheels, designed for casual, comfortable low-speed riding around town.. You could save another pound by spending another $300-$400 and upgrading the drive train a few levels. After all that money, I honestly doubt you would feel any difference in the bike's performance. As @Rolla said, you could do a lot more to change the bike's responsiveness by investing $400-$500 in lighter wheels and tires. After all that, you would end up with a bike almost as good as a new bike which would cost the same. I would not put a penny into that Trek. I would ride it it and enjoy it as is, while saving up for a better bike more suited to the type of riding I actually do. If you actually do casual, low-speed riding around town, the bike is already perfect. |
If it was a mountain bike and the front shocks were in need of replacing I could see swapping to a steel fork on the cheap which is what I did on my 29'er.
Otherwise, save your duckets for a better bike if this one does not meet your specs. |
Originally Posted by Maelochs
(Post 22243497)
I would not put a penny into that Trek. I would ride it it and enjoy it as is, while saving up for a better bike more suited to the type of riding I actually do.
|
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243242)
What do you think? Would be a "low quality" carbon fork, still be way lighter than a "high quality" steel fork?
To answer your hypothetical, a lower quality carbon fork for that bike would probably weigh 850g. A high quality steel fork for that bike would probably weigh 1100g. A high quality steel road fork can weigh 750g, but your bike isn't designed for that style fork. Now for reality- Your fork is heavy. I have worked on countless fx1 bikes(over 100 of em) in all 4 sizes and the forks are at least 1250g. |
Originally Posted by Maelochs
(Post 22243497)
You could save a pound by swapping the fork and you would still have a 26-28-pound bike with w low-level drive train and heavy wheels, designed for casual, comfortable low-speed riding around town..
You could save another pound by spending another $300-$400 and upgrading the drive train a few levels. After all that money, I honestly doubt you would feel any difference in the bike's performance. As @Rolla said, you could do a lot more to change the bike's responsiveness by investing $400-$500 in lighter wheels and tires. After all that, you would end up with a bike almost as good as a new bike which would cost the same. I would not put a penny into that Trek. I would ride it it and enjoy it as is, while saving up for a better bike more suited to the type of riding I actually do. If you actually do casual, low-speed riding around town, the bike is already perfect. Yes, I think you're right, but the truth is that since I already had the bike, and the size and frame geometry are PERFECT for me, I thought it would be better for me to change certain things to my liking than buy a new bike. Anyway, I've already "update" parts of my bike, so now buying a new one is not an option In fact, actually I've changed a lot of thing of my bike: Now, I've in my bike: Lghter wheels; Mavic Ksyrium S Lighter tires: Pirelli's 700x28c Lighter Front transmission: Shimano GRX 40T (1x) Rear transmissión: Shimano Ultegra (11v) So, for me, is a lot better bike now. But, would love to keep "slimming" it, and I think the fork is where you can reduce more weight with less money... especially if we consider that the original fork is made of steel, not aluminum! The problem is that I can't find info anywhere about the weight of the FX 7.4 carbon fork. If mstateglfr is right (thanks mstateglfr too for that info!), then my steel fork must weight (at least) 1250 grams, but I can't find info about the weight of the FX 7.4 carbon fork... 😭 According to the table of Rolla , IF the steel fork of my FX 7.1 weight is 1250g, and supposing that carbon fork of the FX 7.4 weight a bit more than the heaviest of that list, lets say 650g, I would be saving (in the worst scenario), 650g, and will cost me around 200$ Anyway, what I don't understand is why Trek dosn't have the weight of their bike parts in his database for when a client call to his customers service (they have the measures, but not the weight)! 😡 |
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243602)
IF the steel fork of my FX 7.1 weight is 1250g, and supposing that carbon fork of the FX 7.4 weight a bit more than the heaviest of that list, lets say 650g, I would be saving (in the worst scenario), 650g
Yeah, I think it's pretty safe to assume you'll cut the weight of the steel fork about in half.
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243602)
what I don't understand is why Trek dosn't have the weight of their bike parts in his database for when a client call to his customers service (they have the measures, but not the weight)! 😡
|
Originally Posted by Rolla
(Post 22243628)
Yeah, I think it's pretty safe to assume you'll cut the weight of the steel fork about in half.
I bet you're the first person to ask how much that fork weighs. It wouldn't be hard to take it off and weigh it yourself, btw. :) BUT, would be very easy for them to have that data (same way than Shimano does, for instance). Now, I used more my bike for "aerobic training" and sport, not for commuting, and I'm beginning to care about weight, I've swap some components, etc... |
Light bikes nice.
|
OP, you seem pretty invested in this project, regardless of the merits. I expect you'll have to order the fork through a Trek dealer. Maybe it's something that could be returned to Trek if the weight savings doesn't suit you. Or if it's only $200, just do it....
|
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243642)
Now, I used more my bike for "aerobic training" and sport, not for commuting, and I'm beginning to care about weight, I've swap some components, etc... |
Take off your fork and weigh it.
If you are buying a new CF fork, there is no reason to limit yourself to the Trek FX one. If you are going to bother doing this, get a nicer one that you know the weight of. |
Just be aware that some carbon forks my actually result in less tire clearance than your steel fork. I see you're running 28's. Just be sure the new fork you buy has enough clearance for larger tires.
I did this with an old peugeot and a Nashbar 1" threaded fork, I found 28's would not work with my fork. Granted, I was using 25s and had no issues. But did test with a different wheel/tire and found a conti GP 4000 SII would not fit. |
Also consider it not soo much the weight diff but rather the feel and vibration diff.
Many love steel since its real and has more classic feel. Others love carbon for the stiffness. There is a reason why many of the steel / AL bike started using carbon forks and seat tubes. Some frames even mixed carbon and steel, ie rear triangle carbon tubes. |
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243242)
Hi!
I've a bike with a steel fork (2016 Trek FX 7.1), and to lower weight I'm thinking of replacing the steel fork with a carbon one (the carbon fork of the Trek FX 7.4, with is 100% compatible). The problem is that I can't find online the weight of my steel fork, and neither the weight of the carbon fork of the Trek FX 7.4 I have asked trek customer service, but they have not been able to tell me that info. So the question is: Let's suppose that the steel fork was of excellent quality, and of low weight to be made of steel, and that the carbon one was not so good and of high weight to be made of carbon (to put us at worst!), do you think that there would still be a noticeable weight difference, that would make the replacement worthwhile? What do you think? Would be a "low quality" carbon fork, still be way lighter than a "high quality" steel fork? |
Originally Posted by JBerto
(Post 22243642)
Yes, I'm almost sure that probably I've been one of the few that maybe have asked them the weight of a steel fork, cause usually who buy a bike like this doesn't care too much about weight (I didn't when I bought it!).
BUT, would be very easy for them to have that data (same way than Shimano does, for instance). Now, I used more my bike for "aerobic training" and sport, not for commuting, and I'm beginning to care about weight, I've swap some components, etc... |
carbon is lighter than steel
|
If this is what you want to do, do it. There are a lot of ways to live, and no matter which ways you choose, a lot of people will say you are wrong. I wouldn't have started on the project, but apparently you are well into it and enjoying it---so why stop now? Get a lightweight fork with the tire clearance you need .....
One thing .... look at your brake options. Right now it looks like you have cantilever brakes, which are not common any more. You might have a hard time finding another fork, particularly in CF, with cantilever posts. The Trek fork probably will (I assume) but you might be better off going with modern dual-pivot front brakes. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.