The golf club analogy was used as an example to demonstate the differences in different grades of product using the same type of construction.
Both are filament wound carbon fibre, but the basic version is totally inferior while being advertised as basically the same product.
The filament wound shaft is designed to resist torsional loads during impact and deliver the clubhead suarely through the ball. The basic shaft, for the same swing speed and impact force delivers the face at about 2-3 degrees open, producing a shot that can deviate as much as 20 yards offline, and lose about 40-50 yards distance by imparting unwanted sidespin on the ball and lowering the MOI coefficient.
That's a big margin for a product that's sold on it's ability to improve distance and accuracy.
You seem to be comparing a fairly simple lay up process in Kayaks (which can also be made from glass fibre, and as yet, bicycles can't) to the very complex lay up involved in bicycle frame manufacture where high tensile loads are experienced regularly in use, and comapring the costs directly.
I don't think there's a comparison to be made there.
The motorsport analogy is a more direct comparison, as the loads are far higher, but in similar areas. The technology for CF bicycles has filtered down from motorsport.
I saw a Yeti 575 chainstay snap a few years ago and we had the Renult F1 team riding in the area that weekend. It was one of their engineers that pointed out the "chopstrand" constuction method and suggested it was not up to the job.
He then went on to elaborate on the construction processes they use for different elements of the car and the costs invloved.
I got some nice fleeces and t shirts that weekend too.