Originally Posted by
Hermes
With respect to recreational cyclists getting benefit from better equipment, the answer is categorically yes. The reason is simple. Recreational cyclists do not make much power compared to pros. So 5 pounds off the bike equates to about 6 watts during a climb. For a pro, it is 6 compared to 400 or 1.5% and for a recreational cyclists 6 out of 180 or 3.3%. If you and I were climbing your GMR and I was leading producing 200 watts, if I raised the tempo by 6 watts you would definitely feel it and if you were at high threshold, you would start to go anearobic.
If you compare a full carbon 15 pound (UCI limit) aero bike with lightweight aero wheels to a 21 pound round tube steel bike with low end wheels, IMO, it is about a 10 watt different when climbing. That is a lot. It is very difficult to raise threshold power by 10 watts by training and takes a long time.
IMO, it all gets down to money. I have not read a post yet that says, "I can afford anything. I have test ridden the high end CF bikes and chose the steel frame".
See the problem in most of the comparisons, they take a CF frame and put the absolute best and latest components on it, they take the steel bike and go dumpster diving behind the bicycle junk shop for components for it in comparisons. Few recreational riders have the option of a top of the line CF frame and the absolute best and latest components for it. Usually they have a fixed budget handed down by the family financial manager, so if the frame costs 3 times as much, it means you have that much less left for components. A CF frame outfitted with a mix of Sora and 2300, versus a steel frame with Dura-Ace throughout, is going to be a lot closer to even on total bicycle weight, the steel might even be lighter.