Steel Frame vs Aluminum Frame w/ Carbon seat stays and carbon fork

In article <[email hidden]>,

ydm9 said:

In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with steel frame
and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and a carbon
fork? I realize that there are many variables that can affect the
ride quality, so I'm just asking in general. Just how much of the
"road buzz" does the carbon stays and fork filter out?

There is no "in general" answer to this, you have to compare specific
complete bicycles if you want to know how they ride and even then
most comparisons are highly subjective.

For most recreational riders, their discomfort on the bike is a
function of bad bike fit and lack of mileage - neither problem is
affected by frame material.

"In general", if you ride a 2003 Trek 2100 which has an aluminum frame
and DOES NOT have carbon seat stays and compare it to a 2004 Trek 2100
which appears to be about the same bike WITH carbon seat stays, how
much difference is there in ride quality?

[email hidden] (Paul Southworth) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

ydm9 said:

In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with steel frame
and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and a carbon
fork? I realize that there are many variables that can affect the
ride quality, so I'm just asking in general. Just how much of the
"road buzz" does the carbon stays and fork filter out?

There is no "in general" answer to this, you have to compare specific
complete bicycles if you want to know how they ride and even then
most comparisons are highly subjective.

For most recreational riders, their discomfort on the bike is a
function of bad bike fit and lack of mileage - neither problem is
affected by frame material.

"In general", if you ride a 2003 Trek 2100 which has an aluminum frame
and DOES NOT have carbon seat stays and compare it to a 2004 Trek 2100
which appears to be about the same bike WITH carbon seat stays, how
much difference is there in ride quality? I would think there would
be a difference in ride quality.

Forgive me for not being specific about a general question.

[email hidden] (Paul Southworth) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

ydm9 said:

In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with steel frame
and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and a carbon
fork? I realize that there are many variables that can affect the
ride quality, so I'm just asking in general. Just how much of the
"road buzz" does the carbon stays and fork filter out?

There is no "in general" answer to this, you have to compare specific
complete bicycles if you want to know how they ride and even then
most comparisons are highly subjective.

For most recreational riders, their discomfort on the bike is a
function of bad bike fit and lack of mileage - neither problem is
affected by frame material.

ydm9 top-posted:

Quoted message said:

"In general", if you ride a 2003 Trek 2100 which has an aluminum frame
and DOES NOT have carbon seat stays and compare it to a 2004 Trek 2100
which appears to be about the same bike WITH carbon seat stays, how
much difference is there in ride quality?

The only definitive way to tell would be to swap wheels, seatpost and saddle
between the two models (with identical bar tape, too!), and even then fit
would probably be the most important "ride quality" issue.

My bike has carbon seat stays and it rides very smoothly, TYVM, but I really
doubt I'd notice if someone magically switched 'em to aluminum. Maybe a 1-2
% difference in road vibration? Who knows...

Bill "but they look cool, and of course that's what REALLY matters" S.

In article <[email hidden]>,

ydm9 said:

"In general", if you ride a 2003 Trek 2100 which has an aluminum frame
and DOES NOT have carbon seat stays and compare it to a 2004 Trek 2100
which appears to be about the same bike WITH carbon seat stays, how
much difference is there in ride quality?

Near zero.

Quoted message said:

I would think there would
be a difference in ride quality.

Then there definitely would be a difference... to you.

In article <[email hidden]>, ydm9

Quoted message said:

In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with steel frame
and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and a carbon
fork? I realize that there are many variables that can affect the
ride quality, so I'm just asking in general. Just how much of the
"road buzz" does the carbon stays and fork filter out?

It's all marketing nonsense. I keep hearing about Aluminum being "less
good" for all day riding. And then I see a hundred aluminum bikes on
our yearly double century. Then there's the guy that rides up to L.A.
from Carson or somewhere, kills everyone going up to Griffith Park,
comes back down to babysit the fat yuppers on their Waterfords does it
while riding a Nishiki in SPD sandals. Tires, geometry and seats make
a bike feel different. Material makes bikes sound different.

Look at a double diamond bicycle frame. Explain to me how it can move
enough to matter without either stretching the seatpost or compressing
the seat stays--the direction where the material is almost infinitely
strong.

People just need to make peace with themselves about choosing bicycles
based on their self-image. For example I ride italian iron because I'm
of the "Breaking Away" generation. It just looks more like a bicyle
to me than a sloped top fat tube aluminum bike. It suits me but I
don't need to pretend it's better from an engineering stand point to be
happy with the fact that it suits me.

Kurt