[jdietrich]

Your arguments for the weight limit don't really hold up.

Manufacturers have used the "spare" weight for aero purposes - deep wheel rims, profiled tubing etc. The incentive to shave off grams is just as strong. Every gram saved by skimping on strength is a gram that can be used to reduce drag.

Safety has been dealt with by the certification scheme for frames and wheels. Every frame and wheelset used in a UCI sanctioned race has to be tested to UCI standards, so the weight is academic.

The technical playing field is far from level and costs have never been higher. The leading WorldTour teams can afford a lot of technology that's out of reach for Continental teams. Two aero bikes, two climbing bikes, a classics bike, a TT bike, eight different wheelsets, plus wind tunnel time to get it all working - that easily adds up to $100k per rider.

[sandworm101]

Minimum weights are used in all sorts of racing, from sailing to F1, both as a bulwark against technology costs and cutting corners on strength. Drag isn't much of an issue in cyclocross. It's the sort of thing you can throw money at for marginal advantage, but it doesn't make those who can afford it unassailable.

[JanezStupar]

In cycling frame weight is not a big or factor. Wheel weight on the other hand is very noticeable.

Also note that frame efficiency is more important than its weight. For instance there were silly light, silly expensive bikes around which had crap performance, because they twisted like noodles in the wrong places.

Super light weight is a great magnet for dentists.