... But before you start dropping hints to Santa, here's the bad news: the Superfly costs $8,000. Yes. EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS. That begs two questions. The first is, "Do I have a spare 8K to spend on a mountain bike?" The second is, "Do I need such a lightweight bike?"
Only you know the answer to the first question. But the answer to the second question is no. Even if you race - even if you race in the expert cat; the answer is still - NO. Here are a few reasons why.
First, when mountain bikers hit the Olympic level, they've already lightened their body. Every bit of their excess body fat has been whittled away. Some male riders get down to only five percent body fat. So a lightweight bike won't make much difference if you're carrying around several pounds of unnecessary fat. Which, unless you spend four or five hours a day working out at an Olympic Training Center, you probably are.
Read the full article here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/08/37 ... rylink=cpy
Overall, I think this article wasn't written that well, as he really only has one point to make and he spends many lengthy paragraphs making it: If you have body fat you can lose, it is much easier (and more productive) to work on physical fitness and weight loss than it is to spend money on an expensive mountain bike.
I agree with him completely. I know that I personally have a few pounds I could shed. But what the author, Wina Sturgeon, fails to address is: what happens once you've shed all the fat you can and you're lean enough that a lighter mountain bike could pay off? Is the lighter mountain bike worth it then?
What are your thoughts on the topic?