Canyon have an Ultimate CF with Ultegra costing less than €3000 that weighs in at 7kg with rim brakes. Add aero wheels and it's a bargain Cat 2/3/4 racing bike.
It's more than light enough to really help in the climbs and with a bit of aero can be quite competitive for general bunch racing.
Spend a bit more and get the aero wheels included and disc brakes:
https://www.canyon.com/en-pt/road-bi...nfarbe=RD%2FBK
Ultegra is widely used by the less wealthy Pro teams in the Continental category, a great groupset and Dura Ace is really only very marginally better.
Beng1 and others aren't entirely incorrect about some of the things they say, they just go wrong when they apply their personal abilities, needs, experiences upon others in their cost analysis assessments for rider vs how much to spend before their personal attributes don't necessarily justify the expense.
Aero is good for everything cycling. Lightweight is good for going uphill. Same Rider + bike = 80kg is going to cost more watts than Same Rider + bike = 78kg on a day of climbing. An obvious fact. A bike that is both aero and light is ideal for most types of riding but flat races will benefit from more aero at the cost of a little greater weight. Very steep races will benefit from lighter weight at the cost of less aero.
This is why WorldTour Pro's nowadays tend to have 3 bikes; aero, lightweight and TT.
Of course, it also depends upon the type of rider and their inherent strengths too - the terrain they are most likely able to take advantage of. The type of bike will also be dictated by this.
Manufacturers are trying to meld an ideal between aero and lightweight; see Specialized etc. but some are still sticking to getting maximum marginal gains and offering both extremes and the middle ground, see Trek, Cervelo etc.
Modern bikes in the last 5-10 years or so are more aero than older bikes despite some numpties trying to convince us otherwise; this has been proven time and time again. Similarly, daft mods to increase rider aero that don't actually work in real race conditions are equally stupid. Follow the science, not the nut job who thinks he had a eureka moment after a few too many beers.
Watts saved can mean a faster ride or an easier ride. Cycling today is a lot more scientific than it used to be with aerospace engineering, wind tunnel testing for every component and the rider, from rider nutrition, position, technique to the bike. It is the sum total of the whole at its most efficient that is the goal and we are better at it now than we have ever been.
The bike examples I mentioned above are all most of us need really for what we do but the super bikes will help anyone that little bit more depending upon what they want, terrain they ride upon etc - albeit to really maximise those extra gains for aero machines, you have to have the engine to do so since they are best realised the faster you go.
Still, engine or no, a superbike is a lovely thing and can be enjoyed the same way one would buy an expensive sports car that they will never fully use to its potential. A super light bike can be enjoyed without the big engine too, however, since it saves watts by weight alone and anyone who has ridden a sub-7kg bike will know this.
