Originally Posted by
pgjackson
OK, is a guy with a 5 year old $700 bike automatically at a distinct disadvantage racing a guy with a new $7000 bike? I mean, every year manufacturers tout revolutionary new designs and quote fuzzy research statistics to prove that their latest product is superior to last year's version. An older, cheaper bike shouldn't stand a chance.
It depends on the two guys. If their skill, experience and fitness are about the same and the race is the same priority for both of them, then the $7000 bike may make the difference. If one of the two guys has a handful of wins and is about to be upgraded while the other struggles to hold on to the back of the pack, then the bikes won't help the slower guy catch the faster one.
So the point is that large differences in bike technology (and cost) that produce small differences in performance can overcome small differences in riders. Whether it's worth it, and to what degree, is an individual decision for each rider/racer. The technology doesn't have to transform me from a middle-aged guy finishing in the middle of 4/5 races to a neo-pro to have its value.