Originally Posted by
Trakhak
Even 4-lb steel bikes are pushing it for durability. When I was managing a shop 20 years ago that carried Bianchis, I once asked the sales rep what Bianchi of Italy did with the warrantied Bianchi USA frames. He said, "They don't do anything with them because they don't warranty the frames at all - Bianchi USA does, because that's what you have to do to sell bikes in the U.S."
Back in 2005 when I was shopping for a new bike, Bianchi was was in the running until I learned that they only offered a 5 year frame warranty. Everyone else was offering life-time, even on the CF frames.
Not sure where the myth of the superior durability of steel frames came from, but it's only a myth. But it'll stick around for a long time, in the U.S. anyway, as long as the believers keep believing that aluminum bikes break because they're aluminum but steel bikes break despite being steel. Me, I agree with the savvy European high-performance bike buyers: I'll take carbon or aluminum over steel any day.
It's because we all had Schwinn's when we were kids. They were steel, indestructible, and weighed ~45lbs. An apple/orange comparison to a top-tier steel frame to be sure, but that's where it comes from. The low-end steel bikes are the only ones you can abuse and neglect, and still ride forever. They're crappy, but the frames are durable. Just look at all the Peugeot UO-8's that are still around.
That being said - I prefer steel because they're aesthetically pleasing to me, and I can ride around all day on a nice one-off that is fun to ride. Were I seriously concerned about performance or competition, I'm with you - CF is where it's at.