Looking at picking up my first cx race bike right around now, and am trying to make a choice between an $800 Conquest Pro with aluminum fork or a $1300 Conquest Pro with carbon fork. A good friend of mine argued that the $500 difference is not worth it unless the carbon fork is an Easton or other hi-quality brand. Friend says that lower-end carbon doesn't offer a significant weight reduction, and chatters too much.

I know its hard to tell without giving specific models or weights, but is my friend generally correct?

Thanks!

http://www.richardsachs.com/articles/cybcjpnatlchamp.html

Jonathan Page won the Elite US Nats on a Steel Bike w/ Steel Fork

so essential? mmmmmm nope

I know its hard to tell without giving specific models or weights, but is my friend generally correct?

I'm pretty sure that you're comparing a Conquest Pro to a Conquest. The Conquest Pro comes with the carbon fork (with Al steerer) while the regular conquest comes with an all Al fork. The Pro has a better parts spec and it lighter overall. You're going to buy quite a bit more raceabilty for that $500.

If I were upgrading an Al fork on an existing bike, I'd most certainly get one with a carbon steerer.

I'm pretty sure that you're comparing a Conquest Pro to a Conquest. The Conquest Pro comes with the carbon fork (with Al steerer) while the regular conquest comes with an all Al fork. The Pro has a better parts spec and it lighter overall. You're going to buy quite a bit more raceabilty for that $500.

If I were upgrading an Al fork on an existing bike, I'd most certainly get one with a carbon steerer.

Actually, I'm comparing a 2007 Conquest Pro to a 2004 (5?) Pro. Not sure about weight of the 2007, but this 04 is 21.2lbs.

Vicious steel fork here......

A good friend of mine argued that the $500 difference is not worth it unless the carbon fork is an Easton or other hi-quality brand. Friend says that lower-end carbon doesn't offer a significant weight reduction, and chatters too much.

- I think I can agree with that statement. Cheep carbon forks suck and alu redline forks work.

But....
I agree with ATPjunkie- you don't NEED carbon.

FWIW- my Alu redine fork worked fine last year, but I am stoked to through on my WCS Carbon this year.

Actually, I'm comparing a 2007 Conquest Pro to a 2004 (5?) Pro. Not sure about weight of the 2007, but this 04 is 21.2lbs.

I'd suggest comparing the parts spec between the '07 and the '04/5 and see if the added cost is worthwhile. I think the '07 has a ten speed drive train (Ultegra brifters and 105 dérailleurs) but I don't recall what the '04/05 might have other than it being nine speed. If it came down to the fork as the primary difference, then I'd get the cheapie.

Just make sure the bike fits. Can you test ride?

i used a alum redline fork in 2005, and a full carbon 4za python fork in 2006.

i got a little less brake studder with the new fork... seems a little stiffer.
certainly didnt make me any faster.

looks prettier though.

http://www.hottubes.com/ShopWebSite/Hot%20Tubes%20Frames.html

Jessee Anthony had no problems using steel frames and forks while winning 7 Nat. Championships. Its about the engine, not the bike.

I just got an IF with a steal fork! I had one before and loved it, so why not go that route again. I mean, is it really going to make a difference if you win or lose a race? NO!!