Originally Posted by
pgjackson
Ok, here's a follow-up question...after all that money spent where is the real innovation? All the bikes look essentially the same, frame weight and durability is about the same, aerodynamics about the same...the only significant difference appears to be paint. DI2 seems to be the only real cycling innovation on the horizon. What are the tangible differences between a CF frame built 5-10 years ago and one built 5 minutes ago? Don't tell me "verticle compliance" and all that marketing BS. I would submit that Brand-X's 2012 bike will be virtually identical to their 2011, 10, 09 bike despite what their marketing says about "revolutionary innovative design".
I think that the frames get lighter and stiffer every year. Further, I think that the changes are significant, in objective engineering terms.
However, I do not think that most of these changes are significant for most riders. Most would be as well-served by a 20 year old steel bike as anything made of carbon. That's not to rubbish people buying the carbon, they buy what they like and enjoy. Nothing wrong with that.
It's useful to spend time on an early carbon bike, and then ride a current model. The differences are easily noticeable, even by your average schlum.
So the changes are happening, the bikes are getting better, but in ways that are mostly irrelevant for the vast majority of the riders and in much smaller increments than the marketers would have you believe.
But that's what happens when people insist on buying cutting-edge racing equipment. They are essentially buying the wrong tool for the job, unless they are racing at a high level. As a result, much of what they're paying for are solutions to the problems that pros have, leading to posts like this questioning the usefulness of the advances.