cafzali

This is not a "black and white" argument. When discussing new technologies and/or adoption of things from one area to another that's previously not utilized it, the litmus test should essentially be is the gain worth the pain in terms of complexity, weight, benefit, etc. And for the vast majority, there's no clear benefit because most people don't ride in mud/muck on a road bike, most aren't having issues stopping/slowing with current, technology, etc. And for all these "non issues," they pick up a system that requires more maintenance, adds weight and requires them to switch from what they have now.

This is quite simply not analogous to the switch from standard disc brakes on cars to ABS-equipped disc brakes or something similar. Sure, some will make it out to be that way, in large part because we're a consumer-oriented economy and are relatively easily persuaded by marketing and news articles with headlines containing phrases like "Game changer," etc. But the specs just don't add up for most and the advantages are hard to quantify using a metric. Most people don't really understand the metrics behind stiffness or similar things either, but if a magazine tells them it's good, then that's all they need.