Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
ITT: a bunch of people commenting on $6000 bikes who have never ridden $6000 bikes.
OP: it's about optimization and design effort. It takes a lot more engineering effort to design a sub-15lb bike than it does a 17+lb bike (and the price reflects this as much as it does the raw material cost - $4000 buys about a week of one engineer's time; development cycles are in the years of man-hours). Two pounds might not seem like a lot, but 2lbs is 1% of a 200lb bike+rider system, which is directly 1% faster up a hill, which is 6 seconds on a 10 minute hill. Races have been won on far less margin.
If none of this seems important to you, then you are not in the market for a $6000 bike. Not everyone is.
Very few cyclists race. If you weigh 185+ lbs., you're not going to be very competitive as a climber anyway.
This means maybe .1% of riders will benefit from a $6K bike.
The performance gain on a climb is absolutely miniscule, in theory only, and you lose a portion of the advantage on the way back down.
I say in theory only, since drafting, choosing the right line, your own weight variation from one day to the next, among many other factors, affects your performance on any given day. Also, what if you bring 2 26 oz water bottles and your friend brings 1 20 oz bottle? Now you're 2 lb. weight advantage is gone completely.
$6K+ bikes are all about pride of ownership, bragging rights, etc.