There is a counterintuitive slump in quality of experience along the progression of bicycle frame materials technology. One would expect each point along the p

There is a counterintuitive slump in quality of experience along the progression of bicycle frame materials technology. One would expect each point along the progression to be completely superior than the last: steel, aluminum, carbon fiber. I had to learn the hard way that isn't the case. Steel is flexible (comfortable ride) but heavy. Aluminum came along and offered lighter frames, but the frames had to be made much stiffer to avoid the perils of repeated stress fatigue (steel's asymptote for strength after repeated stress is some fraction of its original strength. Aluminum's asymptote is zero -- flex it enough and it will eventually accumulate micro strew fractures and break). The progression to aluminum was a trade off: ride comfort for weight. Carbon fiber came along and offered a no-compromise solution: the flexibility (ride comfort) of steel, and lighter than aluminum. Unfortunately, the cost is much higher with carbon fiber. If you are on a budget, I'd agree that you're better off with steel than aluminum.