I know people will throw on the Sheldon links, and other links and say the tire pressure, the fit, etc. will matter more on comfort. May be totally true, but here's my perspective.

Rode a leisurely 20 mile ride on my Ritchey Road Logic today. I'm in Kansas, the roads suck; mostly chip and seal. Haven't ridden the bike in two weeks, so put 100 lbs air in front, and about 108 to 110 lbs in back (I weigh around 163 for those who need all the details). Anyway, about 0.5 miles into the ride, I thought I flatted. The bike is just so damn smooth and comfy! I thought my Miyata was a great ride, but it seriously doesn't compare to the Ritchey. Anyway, had a great 20 mile ride.

Got home, just had to try out my Cervelo back to back again. Pumped up to same air pressure. I admit, the tires and wheels are different, so not 100% apples to apples. But the efficiency and the feeling of speed on the Cervelo, the Ritchey just can't match.

I seriously love both bikes. But my conclusion is this - if I'm riding long rides, I'll probably take the Cervelo. Need every bit of efficiency available. If doing something 40 miles or less, I'll probably take the Ritchey more.

I totally understand those that say "steel is real" - at least for my bikes, it truly offers a very comfortable ride. On the other hand, if I could only have 1 road bike, I think I'd still pick my carbon Cervelo.

Even among carbon bikes, ride quality can vary wildly. There are carbon bikes that ride smooth as glass and carbon bikes that will rattle your teeth out. I have a Calfee carbon bike that is as smooth as anything I have ridden. I also have a Panasonic steel bike I bought in the 70s that was so harsh I gave up on riding it. I also had a steel Raleigh that was my favorite bike of all times. If I could find another bike like that Raleigh, I would buy it immediately.

I think design and geometry have more to do with the ride than the material that the bike is made from.

I've yet to ride a carbon fiber bike - and God knows I've tried a few - that offered the superior ride quality of my early 1980s Columbus SL frame Ciocc San Cristobal. The carbon fiber bikes I've tried were certainly very light (thanks mostly to all the carbon fiber goodies hung on them) but felt like dead plastic and were downright harsh on our washboard south Louisiana roads. The lightest carbon fiber frames reportedly offer an eye-popping two-pound weight savings over my Columbus SL frame. Not being an elite pro cyclist riding in Le Tour de France, I think I'll gladly take the extra two pounds - and the durability and comfort - of a quality lightweight steel frame over carbon fiber.

Its not about the material. It really isnt. I have ridden carbon bikes that were stiff as a 2x4 and I have ridden Carbon bikes that felt like a barcolounger. I have also ridden steel bikes that truly felt alive only to flex so bad they would ghost shift at any hint of power and I have ridden other steel bikes that were very stiff in fact one of the best riding bikes I have ever owned was an old aluminum S-Works E5 bike........

You want to experience a lively riding carbon bike, try a Calfee, Parlee or Crumpton. These are hand-made custom carbon frames. My Calfee is as lively as any bike I have ever ridden. It doesn't feel dead at all and rides as smooth as glass on nasty roads. These bikes are also much more crash tollerant than other carbon frames.

I have a steel frame hanging up my garage that has been crashed. I use it now for a clothing rack. It is not worth repairing. Carbon frames can be repaired easier than steel frames.

Why do I get the feeling this is going to be one of those "no right answer" threads.
That said, I have two built up steel framed bikes and two CF bikes. Lord knows I really love the 01 Bianchi Campione I have and I swapped out the mediocre CXP21 with Campy hub wheelset for a set of Mavic Ksyrium Elites to give it every opportunity to be fast, but it just doesn't deliver. I've compared it riding with the same groups to both of my CF bikes and the CF is always faster. I made the same comparison with a vintage Nishiki Prestige that I rebuild with aero, bladed wheels and Shimano 600 STI shifters with the same result. As for ride quality, I don't feel much difference between the four bikes or at least I can say they are all comfortable.
So I'm going to stay with the CF bikes for club rides where I'm trying to keep up with a reasonably fast group.

I am slowly shopping for a cf bike, I will get one to play with. But, I think of them as disposable bikes. I don't think they will last like a steel bike. I know to many guys who have had to replace frames on cf bikes. Sometimes it was poor quality control, sometimes it was impact damage and then other times stupid things that were not the fault of the bike or material.

It depends on the bike you are looking at. I know of people with CF bike with over 120,000 miles on them and they ride like the day they were built. Not all carbon bikes are the same. Just like you can not compare a Kia to a Mercedes Benz.

Not all CF bikes are disposable. The material itself will out last steel. I expect my Calfee to last as long as I want to ride it.

The folks at Rivendell would tend to disagree with you regarding repairing steel vs. carbon:

Materials that fail fast are said to fail "catastrophically." Of all materials used in bikes, none fails more catastrophically than carbon fiber, and none fails more slowly than steel. You want your bike stuff to respond to trauma by bending and denting, not shattering and snapping. Metals tend to do that. And once that's covered, you want plenty of time and lots of warning between the onset of failure (a crack, for instance) and total material separation. Steel is the first place winner here, too. Reparability is desirable, too, and steel wins that one, also.

Another quality to consider in a frame material is how well it ages; the degree to which it stays strong as it gets old, and environmental stress in the form of ozone, ultraviolet radiation, salt air, and temperature extremes affect it.

In this regard, metals are far superior to rubber, plastic, and carbon fiber. The resins used to hold the layers of carbon fiber together degrade with exposure to ultraviolet.

I agree - based on personal experience - that steel frames are easily repaired. My (admittedly limited) exposure to carbon fiber frames is that they aren't so much easily repaired, but rather easily replaced.

I would imagine that they could cut out a top tube and weld in another one. I looked into it many years ago with my Panasonic but it just wasn't cost effective. So the frame was straightened but it was never the same.

I bought a Calfee, because when someone has a carbon bike that breaks in half and needs it repaired they send it to Calfee. I have seen Calfee take bikes that have been broken in half and fix them like new. One bike that was left on the roof of a car that went through a garge opening and broke in half was fixed for $400. Even high end Italian bike manufactures send their bikes to Calfee.

Here is a link to their repair service.

https://www.calfeedesign.com/howtosendrepair.htm

I know of 23 year old carbon frames that are doing fine but 30 years ago, CF bikes didn't exist. A well made one will last through the next ice age. It wont' fall apart. of course, if you crash it at high speed, it can break but other materials will be damaged too.

I hit a concrete parking block at 10 miles per hour with my steel bike and it destroyed it.

If it were my beloved Ciocc, I'd certainly consider having it repaired. Check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJHwPqn2jY0

My old buddy John Cobb (Racing Research, Cobb Cycling) once told me that you couldn't fix a CF frame. That was in 1989 - I suppose the technology has drastically improved since then.

Thanks, I will check it out. I would like to repair my Panasonic, but there are probably better steel bikes now. As for repairing carbon, it was probably true in 1989 because that they couldn't be repaired because the technology was so new. Since 2003, Calfee has repaired 2,100 of them.

I called up Kish, a custom steel and Ti frame builder in California. I asked him about building me a steel frame. He tried to talk me out of it and recommended Ti because he said that wouldn't dent as easily, was lighter and had the same ride quality, but of course it was also more expensive. I thought that my next bike would be a Ti bike but I am open to steel. Independent Fabricators is building bikes out of stainless steel.

Okay, I'm impressed considering that the kudos came from Lennard Zinn.

I have been riding regularly with a friend who has a Cadex, an early aluminum lugged glued CF frame. No issues at all. Rides like new.