How much faster is a red bike than a blue one? And what about unusual colors like Celeste?

Except the joke was about the camera, not the lens.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most racing bikes being ridden around aren't used to race on.

I said something similar once, adding that most people probably don't race on their bikes. Seems like common sense. But somebody pointed out that triathletes race their bikes, and there are vast numbers of them with season tickets and day passes. Presumably using them at least once in awhile. So I had to admit that there are more bike racers than I ever imagined, perhaps enough to even account for "most" of the racing bikes being ridden.

The impact is relative to total weight. A 135 pound climber on a 15 pound bike is faster up the steepest hills by a factor of (135 + 19) / (135 + 15) = 1.027, saving 95 seconds per hour.

Waiting 31 minutes and 25 seconds for your group's stragglers to catch up isn't an improvement.

OTOH, if you missed your 1-hour Diablo jersey by 60 seconds last year it's entirely worthwhile.

On flat ground the speed difference won't be measurable, and energy accelerating not significant even in criteriums.

Pretty sure you didn't buy a sprint bike. Sprint bikes are built to withstand crashes and and 200 plus pound guys generating 2,600 watts. My sprint bike was built before the introduction of carbon frames on the velodrome. It weighs 19 lbs. Steel stem and bars. Mass start track frames, which is what you probably have, are similar to road bike frames.

It is a question of the "law of diminishing returns" and of course money!

Correct.

Last year I switched from a Trek Madone 4 to a Emonda SLR. I went from 2700 miles to 4100 and my average speed increased 1.5mph.

So it must be the bike, i'm the same old fat guy and a year older.

And both camera and lens (especially lens) have a huge effect on the picture you take. The typewriter (apparently this is a very old joke) doesn't.

Of course, expensive cameras and lenses won't make great pictures if you don't have skill, but they do have a lot more to do with the result than a typewriter does. Where a bicycle falls on that spectrum is up for discussion.

Or friction...

Well said.

I personally believe a bike falls midway on the spectrum, certainly it matters some. That's why I have a Cervelo and not a GMC Denali.

What're you trying to say about my Denali?

...I've heard it brings all the boys to the yard.

Yeah, his bike is light. It is still over 15 lbs. It is closer to 16lbs.
The science of Olympic track bikes (Wired UK)

Look Cycle - L96 Speed - Frames - Track

This is a more common frame seen on the circuit than Chris Hoy's

That's right. Plus there are lots of people that road race without licenses - club races, club tt's, even Strada times.

I think Doge was trying to point out is that modern track bikes don't need to be overweight just to handle the power the riders produce.

If you look into the construction of sprint frames, you will find that they build them much sturdier than pursuit or road frames.

More to the point of this thread. Do you think there are UCI World Class riders that line up in any cycling event with equipment that is not within 500g of their rivals?

That is very likely a true statement. Which again it goes back to knowing when equipment does, or doesn't matter for the individual choosing equipment. Most sprinters are looking for stiff and somewhat durable over just lightweight. Light, somewhat durable and stiff of course is even better. Most guys roll to the line with Magic front and rear of the same model.

Again, to the point of this thread. Most people that flock together have similar equipment. That can be group rides and that can be the many areas of racing. If your equipment is much different than those you are hanging with something is slightly out of order. Either you are much smarter than they are, or are at some sort of disadvantage. If there are not rules around your riding and you want to equalize things - just get a motor.

Exactly opposite.

The lighter weight, name-brand frame, higher-end groupset, whatever, might not make even a measurable difference in performance for most riders over most rides---but to the rider, the difference is Extremely meaningful.

My next build will have Ultegra. On an entire groupset I save, I think, 200 grams over 105. Less than eight ounces. Does that make a difference? Don't make me laugh. Not a performance difference, but a Huge satisfaction difference. A very, very meaningful difference.

The fact that I would probably cover the same route at the same rate on a GMC Denali----That makes no meaningful difference (Call it Denali denial.) I want Ultegra---Even if I get laughed at for spending the money for performance capabilities I am incapable of using.

To me it is meaningful.

Of course, SRAM Red is lighter and would make me Much faster---because it is red.

That's how you can tell I am not a "serious" rider---none of my bikes are red.

You sure global climate change didn't give you more tailwinds?

Then wouldn't I have a headwind on the way back

Maybe I was more motivated after buying a new bike that increased my level of enjoyment. Maybe I was motivated to go to the gym over the winter instead of sitting on the couch. Maybe since i enjoyed riding more, i rode more.

The April after I bought the new bike had more miles and more calories burned than the previous August with the old bike.