# What exactly are Ashtabula forks?



## Robert Troub (Dec 10, 2020)

Are they just bmx forks?


----------



## Roger Henning (Dec 10, 2020)

The term is used for Schwinn cast iron forks.  Come originally from a foundry in a place called Ashtabua Foundry and I do not remember the state but think Ohio is right.  They came on most of Schwinn's like mid priced models like the Varsity Suburban and many others.  BMX riders used them because they are strong with stood a lot of abuse. Roger


----------



## ozzie (Dec 10, 2020)

I may be wrong but I believe the most of the Ashtabula forks are forged steel.


----------



## Oilit (Dec 10, 2020)

Ashtabula Forge produced the forks in Ashtabula Ohio, along with stems and cranks. The parent company was the Ashtabula Bow Socket Company, later known as ABS, and they had a lot of manufacturing operations at one time. "Bow Sockets" were the pieces that the ends of the hoops in the top of a covered wagon fitted into. They grew with the auto industry, making fittings for soft top cars and then got into bike parts, from what I've read.


----------



## all riders (Dec 10, 2020)

correct, forged steel. Specifically, drop forged where the hot steel is beat into a series of progressive dies. The dies leave lines of "spill-over" material very similar to the parting line on cast material--it is sometimes hard to tell the difference.  In this case, only one would be appropriate to the use.


----------



## bloo (Dec 11, 2020)

One-piece drop forged Schwinn forks like these. The chrome piece is just a stamping slid over the top. Some were forged with a caliper mounting boss, and some without:






Used on all sorts of Chicago Schwinns. Also, in the BMX era, Ashtabula sold them to the public specifically for BMX use, but with a reinforcement welded in like this:





And sometimes a logo forged right into the side, though I don't recall seeing near as many with the logo:





Early BMXers liked them because they were tough. Also, they might bend, but wouldn't break. Tubular chrome moly forks (Tange, etc.) replaced them when they became available.

A bunch of old standard Schwinn forks (without the welded reinforcement) got pressed into BMX duty in those days. A stingray (or similar) frame does not have enough ground clearance for BMX, so a 24" or maybe even a 26" fork would have been used.

Ashtabula also made bomb-proof drop-forged one piece cranks for Schwinn, and for the BMX market later on.

From another CABE thread:













						~ ASHTABULA Fork Questions ~ ANSWERED! Thanks Folks! | General Discussion About Old Bicycles
					

These are the only pictures I have sorry! Anyone have an idea the age/application for this interesting and looks like very heavy duty fork?  Thanks,  Nate




					thecabe.com


----------



## sworley (Dec 11, 2020)

I've seen (and repaired) bent Ashtabula forks on Schwinns but I have not seen a broken one. That must say something. 

Ashtabula also made one piece crankarms and quill stems for Schwinn. Their later black oxide? parts are very desirable among the BMX crowd.


----------



## SirMike1983 (Dec 11, 2020)

They were a moderately durable, cost-effective product that worked from a production standpoint and was acceptable from a user standpoint. They're fairly good at resisting fore/aft stress, but side-to-side the arms have a fair amount of flex. You'll see this if you bank steeply into a tight turn - from the saddle you can see the top of the wheel shift as the fork flexes side-to-side in the bank. Regular fork also may flex a little, but I find these flat forks have a lot of side-to-side movement compared to the regular types. 

On some bikes they were actually a "downgrade" - for example, lower-end 3-speeds might have the flat fork, but the better ones had tubular types.  But for your average 14-year-old just riding around, they're usually OK. Remember when you set up a front hand brake to leave a little extra space between the pad and the rim to accommodate the extra side-to-side flex. I don't mind them, but not my first choice for a fork.

They are fairly straightforward to fix or straighten if you need to do it, within reason.


----------



## Xlobsterman (Dec 12, 2020)

SirMike1983 said:


> They were a moderately durable, cost-effective product that worked from a production standpoint and was acceptable from a user standpoint. They're fairly good at resisting fore/aft stress, but side-to-side the arms have a fair amount of flex. You'll see this if you bank steeply into a tight turn - from the saddle you can see the top of the wheel shift as the fork flexes side-to-side in the bank. Regular fork also may flex a little, but I find these flat forks have a lot of side-to-side movement compared to the regular types.
> 
> On some bikes they were actually a "downgrade" - for example, lower-end 3-speeds might have the flat fork, but the better ones had tubular types.  But for your average 14-year-old just riding around, they're usually OK. Remember when you set up a front hand brake to leave a little extra space between the pad and the rim to accommodate the extra side-to-side flex. I don't mind them, but not my first choice for a fork.
> 
> They are fairly straightforward to fix or straighten if you need to do it, within reason.




Yes, pretty easy to straighten with the proper tool. The park tool works great for tweaking them when they do get bent.


----------



## 1817cent (Dec 12, 2020)

Neat post!  Learned something...


----------



## Jeff54 (Dec 12, 2020)

They are not a Schwinn exclusive fork, CWC and others used them pre and post war.  and in 99.999 % ++ 0f bicycles you have 1 front   fork, not 2 'Forks'  (see below)


----------



## ozzie (Dec 12, 2020)

SirMike1983 said:


> They were a moderately durable, cost-effective product that worked from a production standpoint and was acceptable from a user standpoint. They're fairly good at resisting fore/aft stress, but side-to-side the arms have a fair amount of flex. You'll see this if you bank steeply into a tight turn - from the saddle you can see the top of the wheel shift as the fork flexes side-to-side in the bank. Regular fork also may flex a little, but I find these flat forks have a lot of side-to-side movement compared to the regular types.
> 
> On some bikes they were actually a "downgrade" - for example, lower-end 3-speeds might have the flat fork, but the better ones had tubular types.  But for your average 14-year-old just riding around, they're usually OK. Remember when you set up a front hand brake to leave a little extra space between the pad and the rim to accommodate the extra side-to-side flex. I don't mind them, but not my first choice for a fork.
> 
> They are fairly straightforward to fix or straighten if you need to do it, within reason.



Were truss rods introduced to reduce the flex?


----------



## SirMike1983 (Dec 12, 2020)

ozzie said:


> Were truss rods introduced to reduce the flex?




Not on the flat forged forks specifically. The truss rods go back to earlier forks, and were certainly used with more conventional forks that used tubular arms back in the 1900s and 1910s. Now if you take truss rods and couple them with the flat forks on a bike, it may very well reduce the flex somewhat as a practical thing. As to how much reduction, I guess it depends on the rods you're using and how much weight is on the bike while you bank into the turn. The surest way to reduce the flex is to change out the fork, but that's not always an option if you're trying to stay more original.


----------



## Oilit (Dec 13, 2020)

Jeff54 said:


> They are not a Schwinn exclusive fork, CWC and others used them pre and post war.  and in 99.999 % ++ 0f bicycles you have 1 front   fork, not 2 'Forks'  (see below)  View attachment 1318069



Looking at this, my first question is how do you lean it into a corner?


----------



## Junkman Bob (Dec 15, 2020)

1817cent said:


> Neat post!  Learned something...



For sure ... great info 
Thank you


----------

