Originally Posted by Vintage Schwinn

Well it varies according to each individual's desires, expectatations and the joy & pleasure that they derive from whatever bicycle that ultimately choose to pilot.

From a purely practical standpoint, viewing it simply and strictly from a bean-counter/CPA 's perspective, than yes it is silly to even ponder the question because probably 95% or more folks probably have machinery that though state-of the-art today, doesn't do for them--or--assist them any better that the typical bicycle of fifty years ago because they simply are not that close to being a top-caliber cyclist that would benefit from such small differences in equipment technology!

Yeah, but it is never just black and white and pure facts, from a rational human buyer's perspective. Very few people make such purchasing decisions like a robot or computer. Yeah, there are a few of the stereotypical university science professors and research scientists, and ultra-egghead accountant types that do approach purchases/acquisitions in such a way, but most other humans give greater emphasis to other "reasoning" for purchasing/acquiring something such as a car, bicycle, boat, tennis raquet, golf clubs, musical instrument, clothing, shoes, electronics-stereo-television-home entertainment equip-computers-phones, and other items and gear. It is pretty much the same as to different individuals' overall perspective about dining and eating-out and entertaining and vacationing & travelling the world.
What one person finds perfectly suitable may not be the same viewpoint that another person has.
They both are correct. There is no general right or wrong that can be just given as answer. Each person is different and must decide for themselves what ultimately makes them happiest.

Does anyone need an automobile that can go from zero to sixty miles per hour in ten seconds or less? Certainly not, but there are many that meet or exceed that criteria with a some doing so in under four seconds. Most every new econon-box subcompact today is capable of 100 mph top speed and has excellent steering and braking response and handles well on a twisty, winding road at speeds to at least 85 mph, something a sixties-seventies musclecar cannot do, although hell yeah, a 426 hemi mopar, 454 chev, and many more from mopar, GM, Ford, and AMC can certainly fly in a straight-line. I specifically chose the 426 Chrysler hemi and the 454 Chevrolet because these engines are massively heavy v-8 big block engines, and with that 800+ pounds of engine in the engine bay, you cannot get anything close to decent steering, much less anything close to handling with even the best factory front suspension available and overall chassis tuning of that era or any era. The problem is more of a physics problem. There once was a saying that went that there is no substitute for cubic inches, but that has largely been disproven over the past 40 years.
FIAT has issued a Dodge Truck that has sold well over the past few model years that has over 700 horsepower, and this is real, net horsepower rating, and not the fudged- overinflated by 20%, SAE GROSS horsepower ratings that the US Automakers used prior to 1972 model year. Yep, it simply is to capture those customers that want to brag and boast about having the "ultimate" and those same customers derive satisfaction and pleasure from folks gawking and looking at their truck and asking questions and commenting about how "cool" that it is. There is no practical reasoning for and no benefit to having 700 horsepower in any street vehicle of any kind, and much less so in a pickup truck of all things. .................but you know to some it is just beyond cool.....and therefore has a perception of status or "cool" or whatever you wanna call it among a certain group of folks...............................sure, some might take a different viewpoint, that it is excessive from a "green" viewpoint in that it likely gets relatively low miles per gallon, even though from a purely emmisions standpoint, the 700 hp new Dodge truck probably polutes far less than a 2005 Chevy Tahoe or 2005 Ford Explorer, and probably five times less than any 1980's GM vehicle that is carburetted and still on the road today in 2021.
Hey, isn't this overall topic much like the age old debate of $$$$$ swiss timepiece versus a new $15 quartz watch.......or just using the phone's display..
Baby boomers eligible for Soc Security or receiving SS in 2021 likely do remember when the Bulova ACCUTRON tuning fork method produced the world's then most accurate watch more than sixty years ago....... If I am not mistaken, this was also used as the basis for the clock in the Apollo 11 moon mission in July 1969.
I remember that SEIKO, I'm fairly sure it was SEIKO that introduced the superior and more accurate Quartz method at about that point in time as the sixties ended and 1970 rolled up on the calendar. .....Anybody here was in college during 1972 that recalls the new calculator from Texas Instruments that sold for over $100 and was the approx size of seven smart phones of 2021 stacked together to make a shape of a small brick......that T.I. calculator did little more than add/subtract/multiply/divide.....
Well, the small red led display of that T.I. calculator led to some manufacturers making DIGITAL WATCHES which were on the market by 1973.
So yeah, today's new $8 Chinese quartz watch from Walmart is still more accurate than my Chopard automatic "Mille Miglia" chronograph --and-- that $8 Walmart quartz watch is still more accurate than my Girard-Perregaux automatic chronograph. Yeah, are seconds or a fraction of second per day something to really get concerned about. Many fully serviced and cleaned mechanical movements aren't within + or - 45 seconds per day of accuracy.
You also have a lot of boneheads that say a vinyl record is superior to a compact disc and that is just absurd. Sure, you could have one that has better eq and balance than a poorly done CD but there are numerous limitations with respect to what you can and cannot get on to vinyl. Bass must be mono on vinyl. You can do stereo bass on tape or cd & digital if you wish. You've got to reduce the deep bass response and you have to reduce certain treble spectrum instruments like high-hats and cymbals. You don't have to do this for CD, TAPE, or DIGITAL. With Vinyl, you are limited to approx 20 min per side BEFORE THE SOUND QUALITY BEGINS TO DEGRADE with each minute over 20, and 23 is the point where Sound Quality really drops off with every additional minute. With a Vinyl record, you've got to place your most dynamic songs on the beginning of each side, because sound quality degrades as the grooves get closer to the center label. There are other issues with respect to noise, and increased noise with each subsequent playing no matter how clean. Even if everything were absolutely perfect with the LP pressing and lack of warpage and best-in-the world equipment, you still have an overall s/n (signal to noise ratio) that falls way short of what better tape decks can do, and way, way, way short of s/n ratio of compact disc, dvd, blu-ray, md, or any other digital format. You also have significant issues and variances with respect to the mechanical "stampers" that press an album. Quality control and sound quality issues arise because of this and it has always been a major issue since 1948 when the LP came to be. Stampers are replaced after some qty number of pressings.............ever wonder why your copy of an LP sounded like dog-doo and yet your girlfriend's same copy of that LP sounded really good, even though you bought the album within the first month or two that it may have been released......................it is a crapshoot because one LP could be made on the 6000 stamping of the stamper just before being replaced and hers may have been the 232nd stamping of another stamper..................there was just no way to tell, then - or now...........................exception being some numbered limited editions etc and mobile-fidelity labs pressings that carried numbers....
The other thing is that to get a really good sounding LP, you had to have somebody really good doing the mastering for the record, and they had to do generally a large number of test pressings to get it right....................well that was fine if you were a Motown label artist , or were The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Santana, Led Zeppelin, Joe Cocker, Pink Floyd or anybody really huge but if you were a nobody-just outta the garage band or artist, your LP or 45 might come back sounding thin and dead with no bass and you might have had no ability to change that. There aren't really any classical music folks today that favor the LP as a vehicle for the best sonic quality for new releases. Why would someone want speed issues that arise from even slightly warped LP's and noise and limited overall sound quality, and limitations on both time capacity and the extra-ordinary monkeying that one must do to reduce deep bass and certain treble items to get them on to vinyl.
This is a huge issue with live recorded symphony performances. Tape and Digital formats including compact disc have zero issues with accurately representing the sound as recorded with deep bass and all the brilliant high end. Vinyl cannot do that and must have the brilliant near genius talent of someone experienced in the black art of doing whatever needed to master the LP such that it sounds like it did on the tape. A lot of those folks are dead and gone. Unless you're already huge, I doubt that you've got Bob Ludwig's phone number, and thus it is just gonna be mostly luck that your LP sounds at least half as good as the CD or digital version.
Yeah, it is mind boggling that young folks are crazy about LP's these days. There is no scientific reasoning for that.