Originally Posted by
pandabear
Is a cf frame THAT much of an advantage?
You have to be clear about what advantage you are talking about. Speed? Comfort? Longevity?
Originally Posted by
pandabear
I'm asking because i'm trying to justify the cost, and i don't know if it necessarily equates. I could be wrong, but the weight of the frame seems less important, the difference of the rider weighing 170 or 175 lbs. I feel like the wheels and drivetrain are more important because performance can be more improved through the weight reductions of those components. am i looking at this incorrectly? obviously, at the top tier of racing, you want the lightest frame and every possible technical advantage, but will the more-active-than-average rider really be hindered?
The key here is that
everything in cycling is a case of
diminishing returns. Beyond a level of cost (somewhere around $700-$1500), things provide small, tiny benefits for a lot of money.
The only case where these small, tiny benefits are
rationally worth the high expense is in
racing.
Originally Posted by
pandabear
more closer to it being cost-effective though.
No, for normal people, it never is "cost effective" to spend more than about $1200 on the total bike. Keep in mind that the overwhelming issue at "high speeds" is aerodynamics,
not weight,
not "efficiency". Overall weight becomes more of an issue when climbing long/steep hills.