Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.

IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.

I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.

Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.

Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.

when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.

I don't think I'm alone in that.

Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.

I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)

I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.

Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.