Originally Posted by Mark77
Not necessarily an accurate survey. How many times did post #17 vote, as he broke 6 steel frames?
you can only vote once - the comparison between materials is relatively meaningless anyway.
Steel and alum alloy would be more likely to fail because of age and relative low cost of them. Who uses a composite bike as a beater? Also - because composite materials are relatively newer as a material and the price point higher, greater care is generally taken to ensure they function. The quality control for a 2000 dollar composite frame is ideally going to be higher than a 500 dollar steel frame.
If we wanted to compare because we have some curiousity - why not look at real data of the material's properties? Alum has no fatigue resistance - so the frames have to designed with less flex in mind because flex would shorten the lifespan. Titanium, steel and composites have fatigue resistance so they can be engineered with more flex without sacrificing longevitiy.
Whether the frames fail or not is a matter of manufacturing and design - got lil to do with the material.