Originally Posted by
PeteHski
The only performance parameter that has taken a hit is weight. Everything else is incrementally better, especially tyres and brakes. Most "casual" riders are likely to value better ride quality, improved shifting and disc brakes more than a few hundred grams of weight saving. That's probably why the market went in that direction rather than some industry-wide conspiracy.
The bottom line for me is that nobody could convince me to go back to a rim-braked bike on narrow tyres and mechanical shifting. "Serious" riders can choose to have it all, but the low weight now comes with a major cost that probably doesn't make sense for all but the most competitive racers fighting for the podium, especially hill climbers. For me, 0.7 kg weight makes no significant difference. It's worth next to nothing and only really measurable on major climbs. Maybe worth 30 secs on a 1 hour climb up Alpe d'Huez for example.
Overall, it is about the perspectives in analyzing, we should not mix them.
Weight variation of 0.7kg (1 kg in my case – it really feels different), marginal gains from aerodynamics and stiffness, 0.5 km/h higher speed – all these are the fancy things for which we pay more than 80% of a bike price, the rest of maximum 20% being for the basic utility of the bike. If you reduce that fancy component, you should also reduce the 80% component of price. But market evolution is the opposite: the price is much higher than the pure cost of technological upgrades and inflation, even if at least one of the main fancy components (lightweight) was compromised. And you have no choice on the market.
On the other hand, If we look from pure utility point of view: I have an old bike bought as new for trainer only. Full aluminum, 350 EUR, 21mm tires on shallow rims, Shimano Claris 3x8, 10-10.5 kg weight. 20000 km on trainer and no signs of failure. I bet, if I take it on the road, I will lose less than 1 km/h speed versus the modern and lighter bike. But it is not fancy, so I don’t mix things.