Originally Posted by DayGloDago

I believe that frame geometry and design has more to do with the quality of the ride than does the material the bike is made of. You can have a stiff, agressive carbon frame that rides very harshly....you can have an aluminum frame that will ride cushy..... -and the difference between the various extremes is not as great as some make it out to be.

In relation to steel and titanium, aluminum will stress over time. Aluminum will still outlive carbon though. You see lots of 15 year-old aluminum bikes still going strong- not as many carbons.... I've only ever ridden aluminum and steel. The steel is supposed to be a smoother ride...but I think my aluminum bike rides much more plushly than the steel I remember riding- but my bike is somewhat of a more relaxed geometry, whereas the last steel bikes I rode were more tradional old-school racing style.

A lot of this boils down to marketing. Many manufacturers competing for your dollars...all offering differing options- but, again, we're talking about simple bicycles- and there isn't a huge difference between them all. Personally, I avoid carbon, because it is not as durable as aluminum and steel. One crash may ruin a carbon frame. It scratches easily...dropping your bike could even seriously damage it. Way too delicate for me. Aluminum is not as durable as steel...but durable enough for me. My bike is aluminum with a chro-moly(steel) fork, and it's the nicest riding bike I've ever owned. In my book: Aluminum, steel and titanium= good choices. Carbon= there's really no reason a recreational rider should be riding a carbon bike...there's really no advantage, but plenty of disadvantages. And bear in mind that not all carbon is creted equally. Low-end carbon frames are quite different from state-of-the-art expensive ones. The cheaper carbon frames weigh often weigh just as much as metal frames. Just as my cheap aluminum bike werighs more than a good steel bike.