Originally Posted by
Jughed
-A full on aero bike from any big brand - aero bikes are known to be fairly stiff and unforgiving.
Does the added complexity of the bike (hidden cables/harder to work on, software updates for shifting, batteries, proprietary parts), stiffer ride/more aggressive position... do the marginal gains really make it superior for the average Joe?
There are plenty of modern bikes, some that are even pretty aerodynamic, that are smooth-riding and easy to maintain. Plenty with cables that are not routed through headtubes and the like. btw, in seven years of riding Di2, I don't think I've ever updated the software, and it has proven more reliable (and with less maintenance) than my mechanical drivetrains. Sure, I've done a few things on it, which is to be expected given the mileage and that I ride it in challenging conditions...But it's never left me struggling to ride home in one gear after a cable snapped mid-ride.
Originally Posted by
Jughed
In terms of cars - on the road/touring event, driven by non race car drivers. A McClaren P1 is going to be superior to say a M3 BMW. Superior in every sense of the word - but on the road, normal conditions - the M3 is going to be way more comfortable, road friendly, probably more reliable, easier to deal with - just not as "cool" to own. And that is what it really boils down to - is it "cool".
Your comparison is inapt since it includes two modern cars. A better comparison would be the BMW M3 and a 2002; which would you rather drive daily or on a long road trip? Most people would choose the M3 every day of the week.
I just love these posts in which many of us are told that we're foolish rubes for buying nice new bikes. I often sense, right beneath the surface, a poster's desire (perhaps unconscious) to justify his own parsimony or lack of means.