>>1938953Carbon is actually incredibly strong. A carbon fork should be as reliable, if not more reliable, than any other. Forks are almost all overbuilt and liability is a huge issue in many markets.
There are two issues, as you say:
One, damage. A carbon fork is sketchy after you crash it. This isn't a unique issue to bikepacking. Serious road cyclists are gonna occasionally crash their bikes. Those road bikes have to feel safe at 80km/h, and the rough abuse they get on b-roads with narrow tires is probably more than gravel bikes get. They are extremely reliable. Repair isn't a serious concern either. You can simply replace a carbon fork if it's badly damaged or you want to err on the side of caution and people who ride high preformance bikes are likely to replace if not seriously update them every few years anyway.
The reality is that you can catastrophically fuck your bike by crashing it regardless of the material and the idea of always being able to repair it on the road is nonsense.
>Why no one makes a sporty gravel bike but with a steel fork?Surly, Kona, Marin, all make those at a low price point. You can have a metal fork from any boutique builder at the high price point. Economonically it's bad for them though as building a fork is expensive and laborious. They'd rather do more volume and spec forks as parts.
The second problem of loading is also nonsense. You want your bike to fit within the niche of bikepacking but if you actually want the most ability for luggage then you're touring and you want a touring bike and have a look at touring bikes lots of them have metal forks.
Basically you've extrapolated a valid discussion around carbon forks into a dogmatic and nonsensical paranoia which somehow ignores the very real options which do exist and which cater to you. Not even mentioning classic frames which is really where you should be at seeing as the unspoken subtext of all these posts is that you're a poorfag.
