You say that aluminum is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to bicycle quiality and longevity. But the industry says otherwise. Look at mountain bikes, the frames undergo more stress than any other kind of riding and the vast majority of them are aluminum. There are very few steel mountain bikes in the catalogs of major producers. That's a trend that has been around since the mid90s. And, if steel is the 'premium source' as a bicycle material, why don't more large producers make more of them especially for applications like mountain biking? Up until just a few years ago (less than than 5?) bicycle catalogs were filled with aluminum bikes even at the highest price points.

Any bike been around since 1936, has a legitimate claim to longevity. Sure there are more, and older, steel frames out there but they were made in far greater numbers than were aluminum bikes of the '30s.

Finally, I'll ask the question I always ask in the 'steel vs aluminum' debate: If you are so concerned about longevity and strength, why aren't you riding on steel wheels with steel stems and steel seatposts and steel handlebars and steel crank sets? You are the one who said that "aluminum is an inferior metal when it comes to fatigue life, stress thresholds, and flexibilty as compared to steel"