I don't live in your trend market driven urban areas.. (LA a prime example) ,, but I do get a sense many asking in this forum, about upgrading to more "Speeds"
As if that is going to make them faster , with out adding effort ..

Well for me it depends on the race. In cycling I prefer the more challenging courses than the all out road races where the end result is solely depend on speed.

They should and in the case of bike racing, they are.

'It's become'? Like it wasn't that way in the 1880s?

Found a pic of the OP:

https://www.bikemag.com/wp-content/u...-desgrange.jpg

Yes, cycling technology has been the ruination of racing ever since the beginning. What can we do about this scourge??

The OP implies that races are won by tech or by talent. In my experience (at least in ski racing), the winners have both. That is, the guys and girls with the best hardware, and the best training, and the best fitness, and the best wax, etc.

Elite level athletes are fussy perfectionists. They work hard at every aspect of their game, and leave nothing for chance.

I used to run lots of dual slalom against some really good skiers. I could just glance over at my opponents skis and know how much I was going to win or lose - within a quarter of a second. When you looked over and saw someone who was using next year's team race skis (marked: Prototype or TEST), that got your attention. Invariably, your opponent was wearing a team jacket that said "National Development Team" or "Suisse" or the like, then you knew you knew you were going to be thrashed.

Yes it should be that way but that's not how it works out in the real world... Drugs have won more athletic events then ability, talent and equipment. It's come to a place where it's impossible to compete at the highest level without some chemical assistance.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to mechanical/material assistance.

im not of the sheep mentality if I see bs I call it out....don't really care what others think about it...although we do live in the snowflake world

Here ya go

The two riders swapped bikes and compared times of each bike with the same rider on the same courses.

The bottom line comparing a ~$100 craigslist road bike, to a $7500 top of the line racing bike, yielded about a 10-15% performance advantage for the new bike (much of which was braking advantage).

They tested again with a new $1000 road bike vs the $7500 one, and the difference shrank to 2-4%, depending on the course.

Maybe, maybe not. I watched this video a few days ago and I was surprised at the difference between the $7,000 bike vs the $1,400 bike (the performance of the Walmart bike wasn't surprising). Nearly 6 minutes over an hour is a significant difference.

The winners have both. It is quite close in ability sometimes, not so much in others. So the tech matters. It really matters in a stage race where a TT has places separated by < 1 sec common.

Money is a sign of ability.

The difference is exactly 10% improved performance, for fully five times or 500% the investment.

They do. See the UCI technical rules.

this video proves my original point the more money u have to spend on advantages the faster u can go......not fair to the local guys on a limited budget

Are you advocating for a spec racing series? One where all competitors must ride exactly the same bike?

What happens when local guys on a limited budget, can't afford the spec bike?

You can have "Run what ya brung" or a spec series, but not both.

if the guy with the most to spend wins is he better or is his advantages the reason he won

A >9% climbing difference between a $1000 road bike and a $7000 road bike?

That's considerably bigger than the difference I get between my Emonda and my 1984 Stumpjumper drop-bar conversion with bar-end shifters and full-length fenders and 2" tires.