Originally Posted by
SwingBlade
It is the relative technological gains as overall bike weight plummets that yields both real and perceived differences. With respect to comparing a 22 pound bike with a 15 pound bike, the meaningful differences are not so much related to weight savings as to the efficiencies resulting from the technological advantages and efficiencies inherent with successively lighter bikes. These efficiencies make a real difference in energy expenditure and endurance particularly with respect to climbs, which is why although speed gains are minimal, performance gains are often meaningful. The accompanying perceived gains of such technology, while perhaps not strictly quantifiable on a case-by-case basis, likely result in varying degrees of improvement in attitude and confidence.
Originally Posted by
gregf83
Nope. Any performance improvements while climbing are pretty much solely due to the weight loss. Better components may shift nicer and feel better but they won't make you faster up the hill.
Sorry, but where did I mention nicer shifting? I'm talking about high tech lightweight carbon frame efficiencies, BB30's, and all the other aspects of these newer super bikes that optimize energy transfer and, hence, energy conservation. Of course it is about significant weight reductions as I stated above, "...
as overall bike weight plummets ...".
However, if it was simply a matter of weight reduction, we could build a bike frame of any number of materials that would yield a 9 pound bike but it likely wouldn't remotely perform as well as one of the current crop of high tech 12 pound super bikes. So, nope, these gains are not solely due to weight loss ... unless you are talking about the rider.