You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I’ve acquired a nice lugged steel frame to build up into a semi retro style road bike.
I can’t decide on using either a carbon fork (Tifosi/Columbus) or a nice chromed steel fork (second hand maybe).
I’ve noticed that a good quality steel fork doesn’t seem to incur too much of a weight penalty.
I’m limited on the carbon fork choice due to the 1” steerer.
What are peoples thoughts/experiences/recommendations.
Mike
I've got a set of Ritchey WCS carbon forks. At 340g, i'd say steel forks do incur a weight penalty. They are absolutely lovely. For lower spec columbus and the like, I might be tempted by chromed steel. The Ritchey forks originally replaced some Project Twos on my Paddy Wagon. They were a big improvement.
I've since switched to Enigma monocoque carbon forks because I wanted mudguard eyelets. Still light but not in the same league as the Ritchey, Enve or Easton EC90s.
Agree with Tired. Steel forks do add quite a bit to the weight over carbon ones but having had a steel genesis with a carbon fork and now the same frame with a curved steel fork, I would say the steel fork is definitely more comfortable.
I'd go for steel forks if you want a 'retro' look - it's not just the tube diameter that changes with steel, often the whole shape of the fork is different because there's no offset in the crown.
[img] 
[/img]
(pic from a job lot of steel frames for sale on ebay at the mo).
Found a few options for new carbon 1 inch forks when I was looking the other week.
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/suggestions-for-decent-1-inch-carbon-road-forks ]http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/suggestions-for-decent-1-inch-carbon-road-forks[/url]
As with most things like this, design impacts as much/more than material, you can get comfy forks in either material, and stiff ones in either, but the carbon ones are always* lighter...
* I'm sure there's an exception that proves the rule somewhere.