Maelochs

Pure BS. The key performance metric is the ability of the rider. I could ride a three-ounce bike and not be able to keep up with the pro peloton.

Maelochs

That's an interesting story. Have you written any other fiction?

Phil_gretz

^ this is why I bought a digital luggage scale.

Helpful when we're hauling maximum loads via airlines to our new home. Um, the bag weighs 49.8 lbs.

Equally useful when servicing or building a road bike. Customer: "My go-fast bike weighs 16 pounds (proudly)." Me: "Here, let's hang it from my scale...and...um, it's more like 18.7 pounds." Customer: [crickets]

Riveting

This is likely because we've realized there's more to a bike's performance than its weight. It seems that weight is taking a backseat, and now aero and better braking are king. The cycling machine has spoken.

Maelochs

Here's another part of the deal (and this has been debated here before): A lot of the bike market is driven by wealthy (or would-be-wealthy-if-I-didn't-race) riders who want what the pros ride.

The pros are finding that aero, over the length of a stage or a monument, trumps weight, unless there is a ton of climbing .... and even then only the top GC contenders and their one or two best lieutenants are going to be there for the final climb, so having the big motormen on aero bikes for pace between the climbs makes sense.

Deep-dish wheels don't add a pound .... but a few hundred grams, maybe. Discs are heavier, and I am not sure if they are there to win races 100 percent ..... but obviously they aren't stopping the best riders from continuing to win.

So if we are getting bikes that weigh a little more but are a lot more aero .... that is because the pros have found that they can ride faster on those bikes.

If any of us buy bikes "like the pros" and then complain about the bikes ... I laugh. Not every bike out there is four pounds heavier than they were five years ago .... and if a rider does a ton of climbing and wants the lightest possible bike, s/he can go buy that bike .... and it won't weigh four pounds more. It might have discs, and weigh a pound more ....

But for those of us who aren't getting our bikes from our sponsors, we have a lot of freedom in our choices.

I don't regret buying a Workswell frame six years ago, and building it up with Ultegra, for a "showroom" weight of under 16 pounds for a relatively "cheap" build. And I am going to sign off here and go ride that very fun bike in just a few minutes. if I wanted I could buy a perfectly good affordable frame from a lot of places .... and if I had cash to burn, I could buy expensive frames in a lot of places, and build them up into whatever bike I wanted.

I hear the new Giant TCR is a really nice machine .... put some low-profile superlight wheels on that and tear off up the mountain, if that is your thing.

But yeah .... the industry has gone aero because a lot of people Choose to buy what the pros ride .... and a lot of people have realized that unless they are doing a ton of climbing, they also are faster on aero bikes. And ... . racers or not, a lot of riders want to go faster.

People complain that we are being "sold" aero as the next big breakthrough .... No. We were sold "light weight" as a big breakthrough -- To Be Faster. Now it turns out that in most situations and extra pound or two doesn't matter ..... but low drag is free speed.

We are not being "force-fed" aero except in the exact same way we were "force-fed" light bikes. A lot of riders like to go faster, and a lot of riders buy what makes them go faster.

You could as well complain that we can't buy bikes with 14-mm wheels and 18-mm tires---"The industry is forcing us to ride wider tires." Yup, and they are faster, too .... what a downer, eh?