Originally Posted by
gregf83
I've answered the OPs question numerous times in this thread you just don't understand or haven't been listening.
I also corrected your incorrect statement that lighter weight isn't faster.
The OP didn't ask why people bought expensive bikes he asked what the advantages are. The advantages are they are lighter which will make you proportionately faster up hills. Save 1% in weight, go 1% faster. Simple isn't it?
The 1% advantage is only an advantage on very long climbs. When racing. Maybe.
But what if your rides don't have many climbs? Or they are very short? What if a 3-5 second advantage is not noticeable on a 1 or 2 or 3 hour ride?
What if you run over a pebble on a $13K bike which throws you off your line when you climb? Perhaps you throw an f bomb, lose your concentration, and get thrown off your line. Oh well. That 3 to 5 second advantage is lost.
The difference in performance is so trivial (only on long climbs), so difficult to notice, and so easily negated, at such astronomical cost, it's not worth it.
What it boils down to is bragging rights and ego. Nothing wrong with that, though, if that's your thing.
This is a theoretical advantage only, with no real world, actual performance measurements to back it up.
An errant gust blows your way? Performance advantage gone. You swerve a bit to avoid a pothole on a climb? Momentum lost.
You have to descend to actually get back home? Advantage lost due to lighter weight.