It does raise some of the same questions about what defines an object. If I own a bike, and sell it to a friend, it is my old bike. If instead I replace all the components, with the only common part being the frame. It is still the same bike, just upgraded. If, however, I strip the components and sell the frame to my friend who then rebuilds it with new components, it is no longer my old bike, it is just my old frame. I'm pretty sure if you ask any of my cycling friends, they would agree with me. I'll have to bring up that question on my next ride.
Interestingly, with higher-end bikes, the value of the bike is typically split pretty evenly between the wheels, the frame, and the groupset. Yet you would never meet someone who's idea of a particular bike follows the wheels or the groupset. Similarly, the frame on high-end bikes is often not the heaviest part of the bike (this would probably the groupset collectively, or the rear wheel, individually). I guess it's the most bike-like part of the bike compared to everything else and we therefore link it to the concept of a bike more than the other parts.
Interestingly, with higher-end bikes, the value of the bike is typically split pretty evenly between the wheels, the frame, and the groupset. Yet you would never meet someone who's idea of a particular bike follows the wheels or the groupset. Similarly, the frame on high-end bikes is often not the heaviest part of the bike (this would probably the groupset collectively, or the rear wheel, individually). I guess it's the most bike-like part of the bike compared to everything else and we therefore link it to the concept of a bike more than the other parts.