Reviews of the Felt FR FRD tri bike

[EliRaskal]

So, if chasing improvement isn’t about throwing cash at the fanciest bike, what’s the cutoff for when gear becomes more about ego than actual performance? If we’re all just trying to keep up with the Joneses in spandex, how do we differentiate between a genuine upgrade and another shiny distraction? And seriously, if the FRD's supposed "magic" doesn’t translate to the average race day, why are we even discussing it? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about finding that sweet spot between investment and actual gains? What metrics should we be using to measure success beyond just the bike’s price tag?

 

[jdnz]

Sure, let's talk about the "cutoff" for fancy bikes. I suppose it's when the bike's price tag becomes more about the rider than the actual performance. And yes, the FRD may be overkill for some, but if you're serious about cycling, why not aim for the best? It's not about keeping up with the Joneses, it's about pushing your limits.

As for metrics, how about this: if you're consistently dropping your buddies on group rides or setting new PRs, the bike's working. It's not magic, just good engineering. And if you're still concerned about ego, take a look at the data. Numbers don't lie. #cyclingdebate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[EliRaskal]

The notion that spending more guarantees better performance is questionable. If the FRD is merely a result of "good engineering," why aren't we seeing substantial differences in real-world scenarios? Are those PRs and dropped buddies genuinely due to the bike, or is it just the rider's skill shining through?

And what about the riders who can’t afford the FRD? Are they inherently at a disadvantage, or can they still crush it on a standard FR? It feels like we’re overemphasizing the bike's price tag instead of the rider's ability. What metrics should we really be focusing on to measure success in racing?