Originally Posted by
Wogsterca
When you look at bike weight, there is a sweet spot, around 22lbs (10kg), the cost goes up very quickly when you get below this level, for example a 19lb bike is roughly 3 times the cost of a 22lb bike, and a 16lb bike is three times that. Also realise that as the weight goes down so does the durability, when you get below this point. Yeah a 16lb bike would be nice, but the cost is very high and not everyone can afford to employ a full time mechanic. This is why most bikes in that range are owned by racing teams who do employ mechanics.
This is a
lot of baloney. A 16lb bike costs 9X more than a 22lb bike? And requires a full-time mechanic? Can you quote
any credible source to back-up any of the claims you've made here? I'd be particularly interested if you could show that light-weight bikes are less reliable than heavier bikes. My experience tends to suggest that heavy bikes with low-end components tend to require
much more maintenance than light bikes with top-end components.