What constitutes an "advantage"? If you are speaking in terms of competition, most people who ride do not compete in organized events, or do not ride primarily in organized competitions, so you would be asking a very tiny minority of riders about a very tiny minority of their riding.

The advantage of having a lighter bike is not a delusion. If I am struggling up a hill on a bike I know probably weighs 28 pounds with bags and bottles, I am pretty sure I would be struggling less with a bike which only weighed 18 lbs similarly equipped. ( I hope to test this theory eventually.) While one could point out that the lighter bike only cut two seconds off a two hour rider or whatever, the fact would remain that I suffered less/enjoyed more on that one hill. is that an "advantage"?

Sort of. it is also alright to reach a point where you have everything you need for a hobby, no matter how long your wish list. It is more than just buying things (which is a hobby in itself.) There is a point where having something as nice as you can justify logically and financially is its own reward.

Amusing, but inaccurate I think, when it comes to most riders.

I think most of us are smart enough to realize that only better riding will make us better riders, and most of us have probably found the balance between how we ride and how hard to push—that is, most of us have found how hard we like to work to improve.

We all have the option of devoting every waking hour to improving our riding—leaving our families, selling all our possessions, hiring the best trainer, riding and exercising like a rider from the WorldTour peloton. For most of us, a slightly lesser commitment brings greater overall satisfaction. We don’t do nearly everything we could to be better riders, because a large part of our goal is to also Enjoy riding, and to enjoy riding as a part of the rest of our lives, which we also enjoy.

“Better rider” isn’t therefore the goal. “Better ride” is. And here, it is indeed mental, though not delusional.

There is Pride of Ownership—people like having nice things. We each decide what constitutes the nicest “nice thing” we can afford and justify owning, and try to acquire it. For cyclists, that doesn’t mean the lightest or most expensive bike (not exclusively, at least.) It means something at the upper end of what is practical to own, even if a heavier, cheaper, less refined machine might be more practical to own.

We all know this. Few of us would enjoy cycling a lot less if the best bikes on the market all weighed a pound more ... we would all still have “aspirational” bikes, bikes we could not only dream about but practically consider possibly owning some day, as well as bikes we simply dreamed about owning but knew we never would or could.

“Better” doesn’t always mean “.001 seconds quicker” or “Strava KOM” or whatever. it could simply be a ride taken on a bike one longed for and has finally acquired. “Better” could mean several different things during one ride and several different things during the next.

I think the CV folks are an excellent illustration of the workings of the bike-buyer’s mind. To them, weight is really a small issue,. and the latest tech development is a non-issue, but they value their bikes at least as much as the guy buying the full Dura-Ace Cervello R5 or whatever. For a CV person, “Strava KOM” or “five grams lighter” means nothing—some of them ride bikes which probably weigh twice what the weight weenies ride, but they will spend their money buying something almost primitive and never consider something cutting-edge. Different "better.”

It is not about “better rider,” it is about “better ride.” And “better” has nothing to with numbers, or logic, but it also not a delusion.

Say, if light bikes = mental illness, does an heavy rider on a light bike average out to sound mental health?