Today I did a few test rides and one of them was a cervelo s3 on zipp tublulars and dura achee. One thing I noticed was the effect of aero. obviously that's the effect of the wheels to a great extent, but nonetheless the bike felt noticeably faster. However I had less confidence handling it as it seemed really "delicate".

I know it is a sacriligeous thing to suggest but is it possible that a slightly heavier more solid feel might be suitable for most casual riders?

I'd say that's a valid thought as it relates to an inexperienced rider....

IMO a durable (steel preferably) sub 24lb bike is ideal for anything but racing. Less expensive, less to worry about, significantly harder to break. On the other hand a lot of people that have money to blow and want nice things will end up buying light racing style bikes even though they don't race, and there's nothing wrong with that although I don't think anyone would say it's necessary. Part of the problem too is people with cheaper / heavier bikes being jealous of people that have nicer bikes and over-blowing the issue.

I guess to summarize my thoughts, I think casual riders overestimate the importance of the bike they're riding.

I've dated a few dainty girls and initially assumed the same thing. You'd be surprised. Same with the bike. :-)

I'm sure the lack of confidence was because of the bike and had nothing to do with your personal bike riding skills.

Check out the schwinn volare 700 - i've had a lot of success weight wise with that. Not to heavy, not to light. I guess it depends on your body type though

When I started racing as a Cat IV in 1977, I already knew that lower weight (particularly on the wheels) was very desirable for sprinting and climbing as it equated to lower inertia/higher acceleration. When it comes to comfort, I've yet to ride a modern carbon fiber frame that approaches the comfort/road handling qualities of a good Columbus SL or Reynolds 531 steel frame. Weight isn't everything, and I know that from having watched a 28-spoke wheel disintegrate during a hard sprint at the Arkansas State Championships in 1977. To win, you have to finish.

It might depend on what you are riding now. My ride is the Cervelo RS and I also have ridden the R3. But the big tryout was the S3 for about 4 days. It was like what the OP had as far as components. Weight wasn't a dramatic difference between the RS and S3, but those tubular Zipps, that fast spin up on acceleration; the S3 on fast descents, unbelievable.

Lighteous is righteous.

I am glad to hear you say what you said about Cervelo. If I were in the market for a bike, the RS would be at the top of my list. An R3 is probably a great bike, but it would kill my neck. I thought the RS would be touring bike compared to the R3 so it is good that you say they are similar in weight. How about ride quality?

This is a perpetual topic of discussion in BF.

Bikes are like toilet paper. Both the cheap one and the soft one do the job. But the soft one feels nicer.

The girls might disagree.

I don't really think this is a valid analogy, It's more like driving a slow but fun sports car versus one with much higher limits, but only on the street. Unless you're racing competitively the difference is more bragging rights than anything.

Just imo...

if you go slow on a lightweight racing bike, its like driving a sports car slow, you will feel it wanting to go fast. if you drive a slow car fast, you know it won't go fast...same with a slow bike, you know it won't go fast. light is not everything, but there is a lot to be said about a bike that is light enough to climb the big mountains and stand on for the sprint.

But the thing is, an old steel racing bike is barely slower than a new high end racing bike, and both are limited to the riders ability, just as cars on the street are limited to laws and safety factors.

Point being, unless you're in a timed competition, it generally makes sense to make compromises. I don't drive a prepped track car to work, but I could. Which goes back to the original post, where I agree that for a casual rider the need for a super light racing bike is not really there.

Incorrect. You're just slow.

Nope.

Slow people always draw such ridiculous conclusions!

People are too obsessed with the word "need" on here.

Tell us about your mup lap records, or how you dropped your group ride due to your bike that is 4lbs lighter than everyone else's...

What relevance does saving 10 seconds on a 5 mile climb have outside of a competition?

Define competition

it is relevant in this context, that is, casual riders, whose opinions on their "needs" are based on marketing, misconceptions, and other factors.

I don't care what bikes others ride, but just like cars, I don't find racing equipment necessary if you don't race. The only function for this mindset is for companies to make more money.

See above

A time and place where it matters that you're faster than others or yourself, eg, a race.

Personal satisfaction. I don't race (couldn't compete even if I wanted to) but that doesn't stop me from trying to be a better cyclist. Lighter and more aero can pay dividends, even if it's purely on a psychological level.