I'm a fluid dynamics researcher, and I'll tell you the money these people spend on "aero" and "weight saving" and "higher drivetrain efficiency" stuff is 99.9% snake oil. Unless you are among the top 1000 road bike racers in the world.

Increasing your exercise load by half an hour per week, or spending a little time understanding and implementing aerodynamically efficient body posture or other forms of technique, will both yield improvements that are several orders of magnitude higher than the marginal improvements achieved by spending $$$ on "aero" and carbon fiber.

I've seen detailed calculations of rider performance that indicate a 500 g saving in frame weight (which is huge), over the course of a 120 km race with 1200 m climb, will save you a whopping total of 15 seconds on ~4 hours of race time.

But there's more to it than just numbers on paper, and there's more to biking than just riding in a straight line from point A to point B. Carbon fiber frames aren't just about saving weight. The Carbon Fiber has different flexibility and damping properties that result in a different feel, for example.

My engineer friends make fun of me for spending $1K on a set of carbon fiber wheels, until I let them ride the bike. It only takes a few pedal strokes to feel how the reduced rotational inertia translates to faster acceleration. The advantages are even more significant when jumping or throwing the bike around, because the bike's moment of inertia is reduced significantly.

Carbon fiber handlebars don't save much weight, but the damping properties make for a minor reduction in fatigue. Carbon fiber Derailleur arms will again only save a few grams, but they're more likely to spring back from impacts than metal pieces that will simply bend. More expensive shifters have better bearings and cables that make for more precise shifts, meaning less fiddling over time and less mental effort to make sure I'm only changing 2 gears instead of 3.

The list goes on and on. Casual observers think we're just being silly and fooling ourselves with expensive parts. Meanwhile, I'm still buying the expensive stuff, enjoying it, and having zero regrets. At this point I just don't talk about it with any non-bikers because so many of them think they've got it all figured out.

Bikes are all about diminishing returns.

If you spend $500, you get a bike that's probably twice as good as a $250 department store bike.

Spend $1000, and you get a bike that's half again as good as that $500 bike.

Drop 2 large and you get a bike that's 25% better than the $1k bike.

etc etc until you are paying $15,000 for a bike that's 0.5% better than a $10,000 bike.

We all find what part of the curve we want to participate in.

Personally, I think $4500 for a really nice looking eBike with some fantastic add-ons is a decent deal.

Pretty much everything is about diminishing returns though, so nothing special about bikes.

For instance I can (and have) build a Miata race car for $5K to do good laptimes at the race track. Or I can spend over $100K on a car to go a handful seconds faster per lap.

Mostly truth. Some things more than others.

if you do a blind experiment, where you don’t know the wheels under you, or a third party adds weights to the rim you can demonstrate this. be sure to use the same tires, at the same pressure, as tires and pressures make massive differences in comfort feel and efficiency.

source: me, long time triathlete, cat3 bike racer, coach of a professional cyclist and state tt record holder, gear nerd who has done lots of power meter experiments and spreadsheets

This is exactly what I was talking about. People like to assume that a simple math equation tells the whole story, while ignoring the fact that bikers do more than just exist as rigid attachments to a bike that travels in straight lines.

I can do the math, but I can also swap wheels in a matter of minutes and feel the very obvious difference.

I'm talking about 29" mountain bike wheels, where the mass and moment of inertia is significantly more than what you see on 26" road bikes. It's palpable.

Maneuvering the bike in the air is another place where the mass difference is noticeable. Dropping 500g doesn't sound like much when you think about holding 500g in your hand, but it's a different story when that mass is on the ends of a 48" long wheelbase and you're trying to maneuver it in the 0.5s that you're in the air.

If you're just riding something like your tri bike in a straight line down a smooth asphalt road at a constant velocity then it obviously doesn't matter, though.

You’re not necessarily wrong, but I will point out that high end audiophiles will often say the same thing about their absurdly priced equipment, and then refuse to participate in a double blind test.

You also probably won't see this in your PM data unless you're getting data on partial pedal strokes.

More steady power stuff like on the road, climbing fast, etc? I agree that lower wheel weight just isn't something you'll notice. (Very good evidence for this is riding a fatbike on a fast rolling dirt road ride vs. climbing very steep fire roads.)

This is only true if you measure only along the forward/reverse axis.

Cyclists stand up, and rocking the bike sideways is easier with lighter wheels.

On mountain bikes there are even more cases.

- Carbon fiber is a worse conductor of heat than aluminum. Use some carbon fiber bars, foam grips, and either carbon brake levers or aluminum ones with heatshrink tape over them and your hands will stay warmer in the cold. When it's REALLY cold and you're using pogies (grip area covers) this is particularly important as it means less heat wicking away from your hands.

- In my experience the sidewalls on carbon rims are a LOT stronger than aluminum. Sure, it's possible to break carbon, but it takes a lot more force than it does to dent or crease aluminum. I've ridden carbon rims hard on seriously rough trails, hitting rims on things which have dented my aluminum rims, and the rims are just fine.

- When building bicycle wheels one of the usual steps is truing the wheel, or adjusting the tension on each spoke to pull the rim into being straight and eliminating wobble. This is not a thing with carbon rims. With carbon rims they are SO stiff that instead you bring all the spokes up in tension evenly and then maintain this even tension and ensure the wheel is straight (no radial or lateral wobble). Unlike aluminum rims, changing the tension on just one, or even a handful, of spokes won't pull that part of the rim in whatever direction. The rims are just that stiff, and a well-built even-tensioned carbon wheel will last a long time.

- It's also possible to do far more complicated forming with carbon fiber than one can do with metal, particularly at reasonable weights. Having a very low stand-over height (good for technical mountain biking) with carbon is no big deal; just some engineering. With aluminum it requires a lot more material, which can add pounds (noticeable amounts) of weight.

I've been riding on carbon rims on both hard tail XC bikes and my full suspension trail bike for six years. I've also had aluminum rims on my single speed and hard tail trail bike. I can't count the number of times I've hit the carbon rim and had it be just fine, but all of my aluminum rims have some degree of denting from much lesser riding.

Between the bikes with carbon wheels there's about 12,000 miles of trail riding and they've been just fine.

After I dented the rim on the I9s and had a spoke break I decided a good winter project would be rebuilding the wheels to carbon rims because my previous experiences with them have been so good.

I think the primary benefits of carbon are stronger sidewalls (less likely to dent) and that they cannot be bent and thus can't go out of true (unless the wheel is built wrong). Yes, they can be broken, but it takes a LOT more than it would for a comparable aluminum rim.

(For reference, the rims I've beat on so hard are Light Bicycle RM29C07 and I'm replacing the stock rims on the I9 wheels with AM930.)

You can watch Danny macAskill try to destroy bare carbon wheels (no tires) on concrete here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc

I assume some of the horror stories come from people buying cheap carbon wheels or early models before they had layups and molds figured out.

If you're really concerned, add something like a cushcore to the inside of the tire for additional damping.

Your complaints are common, though. I've all but given on up trying to discuss carbon wheels with people in person because there are so many preconceived notions out there. It was the same way 5-10 years ago with everyone avoiding carbon handlebars for one reason or another.

Look for "Danny MacAskill Tests Santa Cruz Reserve Carbon Wheels": he really tries to destroy those rims, and it takes him doing ridiculous things to do so. Aluminum rims would have cracked/ bent much earlier.

\aside why not smaller (radius) wheels? Use higher gearing, and accept the bumpiness.

Though for touring aot commuting, there's something pleasant about higher inertia.

Bumpiness isn't just a comfort issue. Your body ends up absorbing a lot of the up and down motion, which drains your forward momentum.

So, biking audiophilia.

You might be interested in what we're up to [0], get in touch if it interests you.

[0] https://bodyrocket.cc

Are you going all out with triaxial load in the seat post, or uniaxial (posterior)?

Seatpost is actually one of the simpler sensors, without giving too much away it's sensing force in 4 different directions.

Your post is what theory looks like when people forget the difference. Your theory leaves out tons of variables, including the condition of the road, and the differences in how materials deform under pressure. I've seen the stats you're referring to, and that's what it looks like in a lab with perfect conditions.

Go ride a $400 bike and a nice carbon fiber bike. The difference is much more substantial than 15 seconds per 4 hours. It's less fatiguing, the pedals feel stiffer (cheap bikes feel mushy in the pedals), my speedometer has a higher average speed, it's easier to climb hills (flat surfaces like in the lab are rare on real world streets--flat roads are almost never 0% grade), etc.

Sometimes you need to put down excel and actually do the thing you're theorizing about.

In particular, when you are bonking and trying to keep up with a group or get up a mountain, you become PAINFULLY aware of the deficiencies in your equipment. An extra pound on your bike when trying to keep up with your group up a 8% grade will feel like you're carrying an anvil.

A semi-professional once told me how crazy it is that people with a beer belly spend a huge amout of money on their bike, just to get a few grams off. A proper diet could save them a few kilos for free.

aero equipment and position and training are all orthogonal so it isn’t a question of picking just one.

Traditional bikers have underestimated demand for e-bikes at every step of the way for one reason: Traditional biking has a massive selection bias effect that excludes anyone who isn’t in great physical shape. The deeper you are into cycling, the more homogenous your perception of what constitutes a biker.

You’re not going to see average consumers at the top of 20-mile mountain bike trail with steep terrain at 7AM. You’re only going to see equally enthusiastic bikers who are highly trained and discipline. It leads to a stereotype that these are the only people who care to spend a lot of money on bikes.

E-bikes turn that assumption upside down. They offset the physical fitness requirements and blow the doors wide open for anyone and everyone who wants to spend their way into the sport. Now those previously unreachable heights can be accessed by anyone with a credit card. It’s no longer just a niche hobby exclusive to those who can put years into building up their fitness and bike knowledge.

The total addressable market of e-bikes is much greater than the total addressable market of conventional high end bikes for that reason.

Ironically, this is creating a lot of animosity among traditional bikers. Previously, the most difficult uphill trails were lightly trafficked because only a select few could ride them. It was satisfying to be one of the few people at the top of a difficult trail at sunrise. Now, it’s not uncommon to be passed on the uphills by many people who are visibly out of shape, but use e-bikes to make up the difference (and then some). Some people are even hacking their e-bikes for more power or to allow power application without pedaling, turning them into electric dirt bikes that tear up trails. This is why we have so much regulation clamping down on e-bike access right now. Those regulations might be the biggest modulator in the size of the e-bike market.

On top of that people are already spending thousands of dollars on ebikes- this really isn't that much more expensive than a much shittier version. The "best ebike" according to Wired last year is the exact same price as this one but weighs five pounds more.

[1]: https://www.lookcycle.com/us-en/products/bikes/e-bike/road/e...

The 1-2 kg weight savings is useful if you need to carry your bike up the stairs to your top floor apartment. Or to ride it up hills in manual mode. Both of those seem like niche cases.

Edit: other responses tell me that modern carbon fibre frames are not much more expensive than metal, not much more fragile, and may be more comfortable. That makes it a more reasonable choice than I thought.

It isn't just about carrying it up the stairs to your apartment, it is the stairs taking the subway and getting off, getting on and off buses, going up and down stairs for parking garages when you get where you are going, the battery lasting a little longer overall, taking hills and accelerating a little faster. Especially for someone who is not a typical fit cyclist, the weight difference can be a the difference between this and not cycling at all.

For relatively short trips, mixing with public transit an electric kick scooter is a competitive option, cheaper, comparable weight or lighter. Slower and less utility though

These don't really seem niche. The lighter the better, simply because F = ma, the lower the mass, the higher the acceleration from the same amount of force from the battery applied. Or, higher range.

It has become more difficult to underestimate the popularity of e-bikes, now that I get overtaken by a steady stream of pensioners every time there is a slight uphill.

https://ampedcycling.com/puncture-resistance-what-can-i-do-t...

I regard time spend during my bike commute through the forests as very valuable. Sometimes I even slow down a bit to cherish the moment.

So many advantages here. You save money, save time, and get more fit.

I think this bike for wealthy commuters and city dwellers, could replace public transit or Uber rides. People seem to have taken up cycling in cities due to the risk of riding on public transit. And as someone else said, taking a 50+lbs (25kg) e-bike inside or even upstairs is a pain.

But I think most of all, this is sort of a "halo" product - the best bike they could build, probably very expensive, but "sexy" and definitely news-worthy - as this HN submission has shown. And in the future they can launch cheaper alu-framed versions of this bike when this bike has established LeMond's e-bike reputation.

That's expensive for an average bike but entirely in the range for an equivalent quality alu bike - Carbon fiber simply isn't that exotic anymore.

> carbon fibre frames are prohibitively expensive and the market for them serves very involved, often professional or semi-pro cyclists whose performance bottlenecks are imposed by the bike instead of themselves.

just isn't true. Many hobbyist/amateur/weekend warrior-type cyclist ride carbon bikes. They can be had at lowish prices (my first was £1000) to multiples of the price of this Lemond ebike. Almost all owners of such bikes are limited by their own ability, not the bike.

It's probably fair to assume a lightweight, high quality ebike would be pricey. Perhaps being carbon adds a bit more to the price but the material choice alone isn't totally ridiculous.

> High-performance rims and tyres but only one chain ring.

Single-ring setups with a wide-range rear cassette are actually a pretty good choice for a commuter bike. Less maintenance, less weight. A double chainring setup likely offers smaller gaps between gears but likely a comparable overall range from lowest to highest. On a commuter bike simplicity wins.

I guess ultimately this bike is some combination of publicity stunt and Veblen good. I can't imagine Lemond anticipates selling many of them.

This isn't true. This bike is using a 40 gear crank in the front with an 11-40 cassette in the back. That puts the gear ratio at 1.0 on the low end and 3.64 on the high end. The corresponding Shimano GRX setup with a double chainring would be a 46-30 in the front and a 11-34 in the back. This gives a 0.88 ratio on the low end and 4.18 on the high end, which is actually quite a big difference. One could argue that the difference in gear ratio on the low end isn't a big deal because this bike has pedal assist, but the difference on the high end is quite noticeable.

At the other end, the assist is going to cover a lot of gearing, and it’s going to make the gaps in a 1x setup a lot less important.

(FWIW, I ride a 1x42/11-42 and a 2x 50/34-11/32. And a triple on the tandem, and I lived with a cx geared 1x 39-12/28 for a few years. High gears are drastically overrated unless you’re racing)

I think some of the price of the carbon comes out of the marketing budget. In a way, the difference between a 4k ebike with cheaper looking parts vs a 4.5k bike with "premium" parts comes down on the side of spending the money.

I'd estimate that bike would sell for ~2k without the electrics. It's nice, but it's not super speccd. High end carbon rims are expensive, but they're not _that_ expensive compared to aftermarket aluminum rims. Niceish rims are basically 80-100 now. Carbon is probably 150 or so. (That's retailish, but not MSRP, what I could get them for, not what a bike co could get them for wholesale)

OTOH, it's lighter than my gravel/commuter, which doesn't even have electrics, so there's that. But I'd need rack/panniers for the commute, and I'd have range worries there.

What I'd like to see is a lightweight system that adds ~100W to my output for ~ 4hours. Something that's not painfully heavy if it's off, but makes the last hour of the commute better. (I do 2hrs each way when I do it.)

Low weight isn’t just for speed.

I wouldn't be surprised if the total savings from carbon fiber on this bike is 4+ pounds. They use carbon everywhere, frame fork, seat post, wheels, handlebars... even the fenders.

I absolutely see a use case for a motorized bike that weighs 26 lbs, and it’s the use case they lay out in their ad copy: it widens the accessibility of electric bikes. Maybe the tech costs too much, and that will hose the project, but the value prop is crystal clear to me.

A detachable battery might also help with this.

For some reason I understand this mode is illegal in the US, but it makes all the difference over here - especially when going up stairs (or other 45 degree slopes).

That's the entire point! To make an electric bike that weighs the same as a conventional bike. My aluminum frame road bike weighs about 23-24lbs, so having a 45-mile-range ebike weigh about the same is really cool.

And just like any emerging market, no, it isn't meant to be for the masses day 1, just as the Model S wasn't. This is iterative.

People who want an ebike and have a good chunk of disposable income and are willing to pay (a lot) more to have the best experience on a bike. The weight and integrated lights and non-shitty look are particularly nice next to the typical ebike offering.

> Suffice it to say, you'd rarely see a commuter using a carbon bike.

The first thing I thought about seeing this bike is how great it would be for commuting. I live in a rainy city and work on the second floor. I've carried my fairly light non-ebike up to the second floor about 200 times and it's still no fun. Pulling a bulky ebike of those stairs is a hard no.

Likewise, I know a lot of apartment dwellers who have to carry their bike up to the second floor. Plus, in general older people. Lifting a 35 pound eBike onto your bike rack is a non-starter. A lot of my older friends who bought ebikes also bought newer lower bike racks because of the weight.

This bike isn't a general use-case bike for certain, but it's got a lot of appeal in my eyes. Doubt I'll buy one (an e MTB is way higher on my list!), but if I was looking to replace my commuter bike it would be up there.

Spending $4500 on a bike that would be my daily driver is cheap compared to the car it's displacing.

Not sure where you got your intel about the durability of modern carbon fiber frames, but it would be just fine.

That's not necessarily true. Most carbon frames are expensive because they are high-end models, not because of the material itself.

I would be worried about durability though, if this is used like other commuter bikes. Carbon frames usually come warnings to not lean them against sharp objects, not sit on the top tube, etc. Unlike metals, the fibers are only strong in one direction. Anyone bumping into this bike by accident, e.g. when locking it against the same rack, might cause damage to the frame.

https://forums.mtbr.com/drivetrain-shifters-derailleurs-cran... has a nice summary, including a picture from Sheldon Brown's website. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/home.html

Basically, there are 21 or 15 usable gears depending on how you want to calculate things. Then add to the equation that this is an electric bike and a single ring with 9 cassette gears seems reasonable.

This bicycle looks less cartoonish than my specialized, weighs less, and costs about the same.

The aero features like integrate stem and bars is mostly found on time-trial and triathlon bikes. In contrast you can get conventional road bikes, gravel bikes, and mountain bikes in carbon at any nice bike shop.

I commute on my carbon frame bike and use steel one only in winter now.

I don't really like the external gearing of this bike, and not sure it needs standard Di2 type of components for shifting and whatnot....

This bike looks about 10x better than almost every other e-bike I've seen, so far. I'm sure we're about to see a lot of improvement in the next couple years of e-bike styling and tech...

This might be an increasing phenomenon in advanced middle age, as we have more money and less time to invest in our hobbies.

Signed, a guy who just bought a laser cutter today...

But fancy carbon bikes have a robust market with 40-somethings who like to ride and have significant disposable income, it's the market that "Rapha" is going for.

This bike is for a similar market which perhaps isn't quite able to get aero anymore but would still like something sporty that will help them up a hill, I guess.

Carbon frames are really common now, and are available in mid-range road, mountain or gravel bikes. You can even order one on AliExpress for cheap and build a decent road bike around it. And it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium.

Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gains, and this effect is noticable even at non-pro speeds. With disc brakes there is less concern about the longevity of the carbon rim - so why not use it?

One chainring is all the rage in bikes now - since the advent of super-wide casettes with multiple cogs (reaching 13!) there is no real need to add a front deralieur. It’s a component that breaks down frequently, multiple chainrings weight a lot, the chain wears down more… The recent popularity of 1x11 or 1x12 drives is very well-deserved.

Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting, while the other stuff is a collection of things that are common and highly praised by cyclists nowadays.

> it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium.

The affect the frame has on the ride quality is significantly smaller than other components of the ride like the tires and seat post[0]. Carbon often has a very small weight improvement over a well made steel or aluminum bikes, so if you're buying an e-bike because you want pedal assist, I don't understand the need to shave 1 or 2 pounds off the bike.

> Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gain.

This appears to be true. Most of the aero penalty of the bike comes from the wheels and having deeper wheels does reduce the drag a lot.

> One chainring is all the rage in bikes now

It is all the rage, but it's not clear yet whether it's justified or just a ploy by the manufacturers to save costs on their end. The gear ratio of this bike goes from 1.0 on the low end to only 3.64. 1.0 is pretty good for going up hills, especially with the motor assist, but 3.64 is really low, especially for a bike trying to tout itself as really fast! I don't understand this choice. Most road bikes have a top end ratio of around 4.54.

> Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting

The mudguards are nice, but I don't understand the choice of handlebars. Why do you want a super aero light-weight bike but then put flat handlebars on it so you can't get in an aero position like you can with drop handlebars. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the bike doesn't have mounting points for a front or rear rack, which is a huge downside for commuting, if not a dealbreaker.

[0] https://www.cyclingabout.com/why-impossible-steel-frames-mor...

[edit] you're right that trends do matter when affecting people's purchasing decision since most people aren't very informed about the actual pros/cons of the tech they're buying, but this doesn't undermine the original commenter's opinion that this bike doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint.

Diving deeper into gears and handlebars - I believe it’s a very consious choice.

- max speed with an optimal cadence (90 rpm) in this setup seems to be around 43km/h. This is plenty fast and definetely above typical commuting speeds. Even the electric support is more about better range/less sweat than making the bike fast, speeds appproaching 50km/h are close to the legal limits anyway

- with straight handlebars it’s comfortable to ride, no matter the level of personal fitness. Drop bars make you bend more - this isn’t very inviting and could drive off the customers that are accustomed to relaxed positions (that they know from riding in their SUVs daily). And with speeds mostly well below 40km/h there is no need to curl into the aero postion. Just put on some trendy glasses and the electric support will deal with the extra drag.

It really goes hand in hand and I’d be suprised if such bike would be released in other config.

I know a few guys like that, mostly for mountain biking, but they also buy them for their wives so they can go for a ride together.

Isn't this how Tesla started ? A sportscar with subpar performance and impractical for many journeys due to limited range and charging options.

this isn't a racing bike, it's a boring old commuter made with good quality but completely normal components, a few fancy materials in visible places and a famous cyclist's name attached to it.

Back in the 90s, yes.

Carbon frames are the mainstream now and have been for at least the last decade.

> I don't understand who this is for

I'd consider it if I was still commuting longer distances but covid put a stop to that. The range is a bit too short but if the additional external battery really delivers 70% more range as claimed, it would be a great fit for what used to be my commute.

Those are rather versatile bikes, which one can use for anything between commuting, bikepacking and not-fully-competitive road racing. At least the mid-range bikes in this category are already out of carbon. It's far more common than exocitic nowadays.

The price of 4500$ actually doesn't feel too excessive, given that a Specialized Diverge with similar components is 3900$ (https://www.specialized.com/us/en/diverge-comp-carbon/p/1752...) - without a motor. But ok - Specialized is also one of the most expensive brands.

I bought a gravel bike this year (Trek Checkpoint), and I'm very happy with it. If I would have a strong use-case for an e-bike - like a longer commute - I would definitely consider something like that Prolog.

There are also significant amount of carbon commuter bikes around by other companies so this is nothing new. Particularly the prices of e bikes are significantly due to the motor etc.

I don't get it either though- if I wanted a moped, I'd just buy a Vespa.

This isn't true. Most $1000+ road bikes have carbon frames.

Wholesale, a good quality no-nme Al frame is about $100, while an equivalent quality CF frame is about $250.

If you are using Shimano 105 or above level quality, a CF frame is a reasonable upgrade.

They do ride better than anything but the best Al frames since that can put more stiffness where required and less where bump absorbing is needed.

The rest of your comments just shows misunderstanding of the luxury market. BMWs sell when Toyota makes fine cars.

Lack of aero shape probably facilitates putting the battery in there. Though they could do the handle bars and seat stays at least.

Their MO is to always come up with what's going to be the latest new thing then use the media outlets to pump their idea to boost sales. Same thing is happening with the forced imposition of disc brakes on road bikes. Then it's going to be hookless rims that can only handle 75 psi max.

Drop weight and improve aero a bit too.

It's for making as money for the bike designer, manufacturer, and reseller as possible.

As such, it targets a market of people who have a lot of money and want to buy status symbols, the latest gadget, or virtue-signal some green thing or other. These people are highly unlikely to be pro cyclists or highly steeped in gear knowledge.

It's about profit, pure and simple.

They also often commute on them.

They’re expensive, but the market exists (at least here). Ride portola loop or old La Honda on any given day and you’ll probably pass 100k worth of bikes.

I’ve also seen fancy specialized brand bikes with internal motors that give out an extra 250w of power. I suspected they were for older people that want to keep up on rides.

Main thing I was pointing out was that carbon bikes aren’t just for super athletes, they’re common where I live.

Monocranks are a new trend with the 11 speed cogs, and electric assist will effectively flatten things so you don't need as many lower gears.

My thoughts exactly. Who's the target audience? And at that price point?

Uh, no?