Please no ... some of us are well aware of, and trained in this stuff, and have been for many years.
The post's tone, that so many are ignorant, is insulting
None of the above means there isn't some correlation between the cost of frames and how well they ride, even if it's far weaker than the marketing rubbish would have you believe, and there are many exceptions ... assuming otherwise is course a bias itself ...
For anyone who actually cares, here's an guideline on how to breakdown sawyer's logical fallacies:http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
But anyway, I'll ask:
What is so "insulting" about the post? Was any person personally attack? Was there an actual attack? Why did you consider it an attack? The last question is important, ask yourself that one, then go back to your cognitive biases. Yes, we all have them, you display them just like many other people here and elsewhere. It's a reality, it's not an attack. I'm not going to stop you or anyone else from doing it, but no one should be blind to it. We do it to each other.
And, actually, is there a correlation between price and quality of how a frame rides? Outside of quantitative data, that correlation is scarce. Feelings can not be quantified, and even if you think you have the same feeling as another person's pro-ported feelings you are probably displaying a segment of primordial empathy, not an actual feeling itself nor a committed agreement of that feeling because you are, always will be and always have been, a separate organism with separate living experiences unique only to you.
As for quantitative data, here or anywhere, in any context, people need to remember what they were taught around 12 years old in a basic science class: scale matters.
For example, a brand can say their wheels are 5% lower CdA compared to their previous model. That's great, but what's the scale? If the original CdA was .05 and the new CdA is .0475, is that really that much of a difference in reality when a living, breathing, and unique organism is entirely in control, operating, and powering the object while subject to their own issues (such as physical, mental, and emotional health) which absolutely
"But it all adds up, marginal gains!" Yes, this is true marginal gains in quantitative data does exist. Are you willing to spend the money, time and effort to make sure all of those components in your marginal gains actually work together, not in any counter-acting way, and will not be affected by the moment-to-moment issues of the human operating it? The "gains" actually happen with that human, not the equipment and can only be sustained through continuous effort and support at all times.
Your response is not insulting, but it's falling into the same traps which are being point out to you.
This isn't to say a person should not buy new equipment in their desires to improve [x] where [x] represents perceived performance, emotional gratification, or whatever. Go for it.
The point is: a person needs to make decisions for themselves. Listen to someone else's opinion on equipment, try it out for yourself, be aware of their cognitive bias and your own, then figure out what you need to do from there.
|| Other projects in the works.