Sorry - strip away the religious fervor, and it is that simple. And as to your reference to matters of taste - precisely. Taste: emotional responses in distinguishing differences that are (to the uninvolved observer) trivial or nonexistent. And you're welcome not to buy. I don't believe in the superiority of steel bikes, as I don't believe in ghosts. Plenty of people have felt and continue to feel otherwise (e.g., search Google Books for the Journal of Psychical Research).

Yes...steel offers no advantages at all...like that it doesn't shatter, or deteriorate with UV, or suffer much fatigue, or aesthetics, or ride quality. After all, I've never seen a CF chain stay break from chain slap, and I've never heard of a frame cracking after 3 years. It's all in our heads, and all bikes should be CF or aluminum. I'm just amazed anyone managed to ride it for over 3 miles.

Thinking CF doesn't have a place, or advantages, is silly. Thinking steel doesn't is silly as well.

I just plain like steel bikes, but don't hate Al as much as I used to. Steel frames are not 100 times better like they were in the 80s, maybe just 8 or 9 times better. Aluminum's come a long way, but steel's generally still a little bit better, IMO.

I don't have a ton of CF riding experience. I don't like the sound the frame makes when you shift gears, that's my #1 complaint about it, so no biggy there. It does seem that CF might not be as well suited to abusive riding and/or long term owners like myself, however.

It's true that steel is density challenged, but in terms of strength-to-weight ratio it wins hands down compared to other metals (specifically aluminum and titanium). Even when normalized to account for material stiffness (Young's modulus), steel is still quite competitive as shown in the lower chart.

The Achilles heel of CF is its low elongation; even though it has a very high strength-to-weight ratio, when stressed beyond its elastic limits it fails catastrophically.

This thread has become decidedly C & V. Well done.

A lot of bikes pass though my hands, and I've come to the conclusion that the best way to figure out what's right for you as an individual is to ride as much as you can and as many as you can, and then hang on to the ones that speak to your soul. Carbon, steel, aluminum, cardboard, coffee stirrers, whatever. If it's right, it's right. If you're really lucky, it's both right and pleasurable to behold.

There is no common "best".
Only what's best for you.
You.

Can I get an amen?

I don't like sloping top tubes. Ever.

AMEN. And AMEN!

I don't like fixie's.

I have lost count of the many cracked or broken carbon frames and forks I have seen in the last year alone. I know most of them were replaced under "Warranty", still that's rediculous. To me, when I ride a carbon bike it feels very unforgiving, and the ride is very harsh. I guess it's the choice of many these days.

Mike

JYB is right; too many variables. My bike choices are entirely driven by handlebars.

I like Cinelli 66 and 64. So I have to have a Cinelli stem.
I have to have a Cinelli stem, so I need a 1" threaded headset and fork.
I have to have a 1" threaded fork, and the ones I like are attached to steel bikes.
I have a carbon bike that looks like a steel bike, but it has Cinelli handlebars, so it's cool.
I have an aluminum bike that looks like a steel bike, but it has Cinelli handlebars, so it's cool.
I have a carbon bike that looks like a space ship, and I'll get Cinelli bars and stem on it sooner or later.
I have a carbon bike that looks like a Schwinn Continental, and the poor thing has to make do with carbon bars.

See, it's not about the bike, it's the bars.