On Wed, 26 May 2021 19:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2021 5:56 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 6:12:30 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/25/2021 1:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
The Airborne looks like it will be about a half lb less weight than the Trek Emonda in the same size. One might suppose that the Trek might be more Aero but like the Airborne, it has large diameter tubes that had no attempt at being aero in design. Also one would have to question whether small diameter round steel tubes are less aero than the much larger diameter of, say, the Pinarello frameset. I can't say that I ever noticed any difference between the late Basso Loto I had and the Trek Madone which was supposedly quite aero.

Of course I'm not a pro rider and I very seldom even approach the speeds that the pros commonly get in the peloton.

But isn't that the entire point of Aero? To give you that very small gain when you ride at those sorts of speeds all day long? You sure as hell aren't going to put out these sorts of power and my entire reason for posting this is to tell you that you sure as hell aren't going to gain enough to even consider spending large amounts of money on a fantasy bike to make it worth your while.

Another point - Components are now more expensive than good frames. But China is invading that space as well. You can get a Sensah 11 speed group complete for $200. They have been working their way up from not very reliable and seem to have now hit a high enough reliability standard that I will give them a test. The failure points seem to be the levers on the previous versions but that supposedly has been reengineered to be reliable. And if it weren't so you could always buy SRAM levers which have the same pull ratio and we know that those levers are reliable. And you would still save a pile of money. I'll see after I get rid of all of my extraneous bikes.
Regarding minor differences between road (i.e. racing) bikes, slight
differences in component performance, new manufacturers or even nations
producing frames and parts... Well, I just don't get it.

I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

- not everyone gave up because he getting a little older or slower,

?? I haven't given up. What gave you that idea??

- special bike for bad weather ,

Good point. Add that to the list of extra bikes I can understand.

- just a spare bike,

You're duplicating. The spare bike can be one of the ones already
mentioned. (Last night I was very busy before the night ride to which a
friend had invited me. So instead of switching bikes, I did the ride on
the "spare" folding bike I already had in the car.)

- other set up for instance for time trial,
- climbing bike

Those are good examples of multiple bikes just for fast riding. Is your
"climbing bike" really so much slower in a time trial that it will
prevent you from winning, um, whatever you might otherwise win? (Maybe a
Powerbar? Or for first place, maybe a cycling cap?)

snip snotty remarks

That was a snotty remark, Lou.

I guess I'm just an inefficient consumer.

No you just narrow minded or cheap. I often wonder where you spend your pension on.

Honestly, I don't seem to spend it on enough stuff. Despite being
retired, my account totals keep increasing. They would even if the stock
market stopped rising.

I long ago realized that accumulating more possessions isn't going to
make me any happier. That applies to lots of things, and certainly to
bikes.

Maybe we can comment on that. You advised Mark to buy another guitar instead of a power meter. How is owning multiple guitars different from owning more than 1 bike for going fast?

I remember the conversation, but I don't remember the details.

I have only one guitar*, which I bought very carefully and played daily
for decades. I've now mostly moved on to other instruments, but if I
were to consider another guitar, it would probably be because I had
developed an interest in another type of music - e.g. an electric guitar
for hard rock, perhaps a dobro for some types of blues, maybe a
classical guitar if I decided to return to that style.

True story: I once had a friend who suddenly came into a _very_ large
amount of money. Among other toys, he began splurging on expensive
guitars, ones costing up to $10,000 apiece. He ended up with over 50 of
them when his wife divorced him.

Odd thing was, he was a terrible, terrible musician, literally unable to
consistently count to four while playing. The extra fancy (and
extra-fancy) guitars didn't help a bit.

I hope the analogy is clear.

And, it might be mentioned that on can make fairly good music on a
guitar made from a shovel.
(and two spoons for the rhythm section :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9-ltPsbw9g
--
Cheers,

John B.