In article , ydm9
wrote:

In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with steel frame
and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and a carbon
fork? I realize that there are many variables that can affect the
ride quality, so I'm just asking in general. Just how much of the
"road buzz" does the carbon stays and fork filter out?


It's all marketing nonsense. I keep hearing about Aluminum being "less
good" for all day riding. And then I see a hundred aluminum bikes on
our yearly double century. Then there's the guy that rides up to L.A.
from Carson or somewhere, kills everyone going up to Griffith Park,
comes back down to babysit the fat yuppers on their Waterfords does it
while riding a Nishiki in SPD sandals. Tires, geometry and seats make
a bike feel different. Material makes bikes sound different.

Look at a double diamond bicycle frame. Explain to me how it can move
enough to matter without either stretching the seatpost or compressing
the seat stays--the direction where the material is almost infinitely
strong.

People just need to make peace with themselves about choosing bicycles
based on their self-image. For example I ride italian iron because I'm
of the "Breaking Away" generation. It just looks more like a bicyle
to me than a sloped top fat tube aluminum bike. It suits me but I
don't need to pretend it's better from an engineering stand point to be
happy with the fact that it suits me.

Kurt