The other thing is, you might look at recumbents. (...) Trikes tend to be slower (...)
Ehh. I want one to get places faster! Hehe. I guess it'd still be faster than running, but my ability to transport it without riding it (in case of a flat or something) is also important -- that's another thing we were looking at at the shop. I found that I can pick up and carry the lighter alloy bikes pretty easy -- they had some kind of exotic titanium-framed bike that was so light it was kind of scary to think about riding on it -- but the cheaper steel bikes are pretty heavy for me to pick up and lug around. Some of the 26" bikes, I was struggling to even pick up! I'm sure a recumbent trike would be too heavy for me to comfortably carry any distance beyond a few meters.
Let's say you spend an extra 400 and get a bike that is 5 lbs lighter. If you are 160lbs you may be moving 170lbs instead of 175lbs.
I don't even weigh 100lbs; well under in fact. 5lbs is more than 5% of the total weight of me and my bicycle. 5% is quite a bit.
Even if it didn't make any difference in the performance of the bicycle, though, it would still have a dramatic effect on my ability to carry
the thing, which could be relevant.
None of the improvements (lighter frame, better bearings, lower rolling resistance tires (compared to standard road tires) really make any difference.
This seems dubious given that I know full well of the notable mileage improvements given by low-resistance tires on my car. Also,
Let's say you spend an extra 400
paying more doesn't USUALLY give you anything other than less weight at the same durability.
Hehe, I didn't intend to spend any more than I have to just to get a lighter bike! My concern was simply that none of the bikes I tried were comfortable, so I'll have to probably get something more esoteric, which USUALLY means higher price (due to lower demand). That's why I remarked on saving money to spend more.