Originally Posted by
SamSpade1941
By far and away the worst bike I have owned was an aluminum frame / carbon fork / carbon stays bike . It was very stiff and transmitted every bit of road vibration to you even with 25 mm tires which were the largest ones that could be fitted to it. Granted I did not find it an especially comfortable bike because I am larger rider , but honestly I do not think a frame that has a supple , compliant ride is a bad thing. The vintage steel road bikes I own are fast enough to satisfy any need for speed I have , and they satisfy it comfortably.
As an aside no argument can be made from my perspective for the weight savings carbon offers since I know that a steel bike can be made just as light as a carbon bike ... The Rodriguez Outlaw is a good example.
A steel frame loaded with carbon fiber parts.
The reality is that quality steel frames aren't that much cheaper to make than similar quality aluminum and even carbon frames. It's a hard sell when a new quality steel frameset will be around $500-1000 retail and you can modernize a $100 30 year old steel bike that's not too different. The other fact of the matter in regard's to the OP's specific complaint is that most commuter bikes aren't made from carbon and most people don't commute on bikes. There's not much downside to a carbon bike for recreational use which will be stored inside, which is what happens to a lot of nicer steel bikes anyways. On the current crop of fatter tired bikes, there's not that much to be gained from a steel frame either. There's the supposed durability which is generally inversely related to quality, and repairability, which will often costs as much as replacement. There's the mythical planing which requires you to power down on the pedals before you can feel it, and you have to find a specific frame that works for you and your pedaling style, it's not a property inherent to steel. There's personal preference of course, but there's also steel bikes available for people that prefer them.