Originally Posted by
Garthr
Weight in numbers is an easy thing to fixate on since anyone can weigh their bikes, parts and themselves. Wind resistance is difficult to translate into relatable terms, or to see tangible benefits. There's power meters/metrics for the riders relative strength, but there's no on the bike real time wind resistance meters that tells the riders what a drag their frame, clothing or positioning is.
This. Weight was a super-effective marketing tool because is is easily quantifiable, and when people started riding they rode heavier bikes, and as bikes increased in cost, thy weighed less ... therefore lighter was better. Marketers could tout tiny weight savings over last year's model, or "other bikes in class," and gain customers.
In a similar way, when "stiffness" became a thing, manufacturers would claim that This Year's Model was ".000667 percent stiffer laterally, for better power transfer, and .008834 percent more compliant vertically for a more comfortable ride."
Now that aero has been shown to trump all else, every frame is ridiculously stiff, and since wider, softer tires and both faster and more comfortable, a lot of people don't mind buying stiff frames.
Originally Posted by
Garthr
If I was a paid pro I can understand pursuing that, but I'm not, so I don't. With nothing to gain or lose there is a certain for lack of a better term, "liberation" no matter what appears as happening.
This also. "Marginal gains" only really matter at all if a rider thinks they do. .000673 percent more aero means zero to me, and the days when shaving every gram was affordable have passed for me. I can just ride my bikes and i don't care.