Originally Posted by
Exit.
"real professionals" are all riding full carbon, so his point is rather flawed.
His point isn't at all flawed, because he didn't say anything about frame materials per se. I read an article about Tom Boonen's (carbon) Paris Roubaix bike not long ago, and Specialized said they wouldn't offer the same bike to actual customers because it was so overbuilt. It was both siffer than any amateur could comfortably stand over any distance, and heavier then was necessary for the uses to which most amateurs would put it. They didn't build Boonen the lightest possible bike. Pros can do things to bikes that even a gifted amateur simply can't do. They very often care about issues other than weight - otherwise, special bikes for climbing stages wouldn't exist, because no others would be needed.
I think Richard is quite correct that the fascination with weight of most amateur riders, who are probably carrying some extra weight themselves, is very misplaced. The weight of a bike is not "a huge deal" necessarily - it depends on the purpose of the bike and the qualities of the rider. It's largely marketing types who want you to believe that weight is a "huge deal." Whether or not most amateur riders enjoy riding a particular bike and ride more, vs. less, has very little to do with weight.
I just attended a presentation by Jan Heine, author of "The Competition Bicycle" and "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" where he pointed out that one of Coppi's Tour-winning machines was some ridiculous amount heavier (I think about 7 pounds) than was necessary given the technology of the time - riders in earlier Tours had ridden lighter bikes. Obviously weight wasn't all Coppi cared about. The same is true today, though not to the same extent, since the weight penalty a rider can tolerate to achieve gains in other areas is less. Also, riders have less choice - they tend to have to ride the bikes sponsors want to sell, rather than sponsors wanting to sell what the pros actually ride.