HTupolev

Depends on the context. If I show up for a road ride on a rigid bike with supple 2" tires, I can call it plush without much objection.

Aluminum would spring just fine if you made a spring out of it. The spring just won't last very long, since any amount of flex no matter how small will fatigue aluminum. Steels can handle small stresses without taking any fatigue, so a steel spring may be repeatedly sprung in normal operation "forever" without breaking.

Aluminum frames tend to be stiffer not because aluminum is stiff (its stiffness is actually extremely low by volume, and comparable to steel by weight), but because aluminum structures put under load must be designed to be stiff, as they'll otherwise fail from flexing.

"Resonance" implies a lack of damping, and would generally be a bad thing for preventing vibrations from getting to the rider.

This is actually one of the arguments in favor of CF: its flexing is very dampened and non-springy compared with the metals, and thus in theory should prevent vibrations from propagating about and sticking around.

JohnJ80

Did this steel bike have the same bars, wheels, tires, fork, and seat as the Aluminum bike? IF not, a subset of those?

J.

memebag

I just went from a 2007 Trek Pilot to a 2017 CAAD12. Both are aluminum frames with carbon forks. The Trek has a carbon seat post, the CAAD is aluminum.

The CAAD is much smoother over the same terrain. I was stunned at how smooth the ride is.

Same material, different design, different results.

ETA: Also, same tire width and pressure.

JohnJ80

Exactly, the material is much less important than the design. In fact, I think you can get pretty much the ride you want in any material but the design will be different.

J.

aplcr0331

Ride what you can.