millimeters of saddle height, frame layup differences, 50g of weight, etc...
I really can't notice any differences between bikes if certain things like positioning and tire pressures are controlled, and that's something that has been pretty freeing to me.
I do imagine my next bike will probably be an aero frame, as that's an aspect that has been measured, correlated, and found to be beneficial; a lot of the other remarkable claims about bike performance... not so much.
to quote the article: "Let the rationalizing begin! "
Not all claims can be measured, but some of those are thereby not by definition worthless. They are just more personal.
I agree you cannot feel 50g of weight or frame layup. However, I (personally) felt that my saddle was 1cm lower over the course of a 70km training ride. It just felt harder to pedal, and I immediately thought about my seat post not being tightened. I guess not everybody will feel this, but I am doing a lot of distance and have always exactly the same saddle height on all my bikes.
About comfort: I have said it over and over on this forum:
tires DO make a difference, wheels a bit, and frames not so much.
I can race Paris-Roubaix on my stiffest alu frame with open pavé 28mm tubulars at 5 bars and it will be very comfortable.
I could do the same on an old steel bike with 8 bars pressure in the tires and it will be hell. In anyway, carbon wheels in PR are still nonsense whatever Zipp wants us to believe:
they themselves prove from the article that even though the 303 is more vertically compliant, it doesn't matter compared to tire pressure which is the key variable determining comfort.
And to conclude: many carbon wheels break, while most nemesis survive for years.