>>1659646Someone told you that. Aero isn't that magical unicorn art that you think it is, it is often ugly. That asymmetry is well within tolerance, otherwise you'd run dummy left side chainwheels and casettes too, but you don't.
Besides, if you really wanted aero, you'd either go burn up that fat gut of yours or/and ride a recumbent. There is zero reason to even try making an upright bike more aero than its rider, other than wanking it to pro racers riding in a heavily regulated series where all that aero trickery is used to skim the rules and get that .1% more performance. On a regular civilian bike it is pretty much rice, in bicycular form.
Disc wheels are heavier, true, but disc rims can be considerably thinner and lighter, which compensates for the hub being heavier and spoke counts being reasonable. Moment of inertia ends up around the same.
>>1659649I ride, I drive and I engineer, and I gotta say that you insufferable bastards don't appreciate how easy you got it. I used to drive a K-swapped EJ Civic back in college, and despite it being just a more modern engine for the car of the same segment from the same manufacturer, it was hell. Fighting all the little issues that constantly sprung up, sorting out all the work someone else did to make a square peg fit into an oval hole, begging bureaucrat cunts to not crush it (which they eventually did), it was fun when it worked but it often just didn't. On bicycles almost everything is standardized, and whatever things aren't they are simple enough to work around. Should you row a beautiful Campy derailleur with a $5 ali special friction shifter? Probably not. But you can, and it will work just as well as that shifter will allow it to. Roadiness of bikes is a spectrum that depends largely on frame geometry and tire choice, the rest are just components that the usual scumbags arbitrarily separated into two camps.
