Originally Posted by
Stucky
Yes- but my point is that the performance difference would be minimal. While, in that scenario, the bikes would be responsible for any and all performance difference, what I was saying is that the fitness of the rider is more important than any tiny gains one might get from a high-tech aero bike. If you normally average 20MPH on rides- going to the extreme ends of quality and technology in the road bike spectrum might mean a 19.89MPH average at the low-end, and a 20.16 average at the high-end [I just pulled those numbers out of my ass, as an example of the miniscule differences we're talking about].
Instead of pulling numbers out your ass, why not read the literature? As I said before, after training for a few years, there's more to be gained by improving equipment than by training. Of course, those numbers are grounded in testing not pulled out of the air.
Then, I don't buy your characterization of a 0.27 mph difference in speed as minuscule. That might be your perspective, but for others it might be huge. Also, the difference in speed around 20 mph from bad to good equipment is more like 0.75 mph (by test). Based on analyticcycling and using the defaults that means an increase in power from 131W to 140W. You might ask someone who's trained with power what's involved in increasing power by 10W from a well trained state.