Cervélo R3 or Soloist Carbon (S2) ?

[Permon]

Hi, is there anybody who could tell the differences between these to framesets (R3 vs. Soloist carbon)? I am interested in riding characteristics of these two.

I currently own R3 but consider buying a Soloist carbon (S2). The R3 is great... stiff, quite comfortable and ultra light.... I'd like to know if Soloist is stiff the same way...? It seems to me like the Soloist cannot be that stiff.... and what is a real weight of Soloist? (size 58 in my case) My R3 58cm is 920g (only frame). I quess Soloist is like 1150g, right..?

Thanx in advance for your posts!

[BenCousins]

The word direct from Cervelo is that the S2 is the better bike in all circumstances apart from very steep climbs.

[c50jim]

The Soloist carbon had, in my opinion, a very firm ride. It wasn't really harsh, just unforgiving. If you're racing, it may be the better bike. If you're just riding, the R3 is more pleasant. The S2 will be closer to the Soloist than the R3. In fact, someone posted (here?) that the S3 rode pretty much like a Soloist.

[Mario Jr.]

I had a chance to compare the Soloist Carbon and the R3 at Eurobike. Honestly I found the SLC to be a horrible riding bike and the R3 a hell of a lot better. The SLC was harsh, very flexible in the front and was very annoying, as the toe clearance was terrible. The R3 was stiff and much more comfortable, and apart from the toe clearance issue, a very nice riding bike. This is also what I hear from the CSC riders I know. But I didn´t think the difference was that big.

I know in theory the SLC should have the upper hand with aerodynamics and all. But honestly, don´t tell me there´s a signifigant difference on the two frames, when there´s two bottles on the bike effectively destroying the airflow.

[otoman]

[quote="Mario Jr."] This is also what I hear from the CSC riders I know. [quote]

Well all the CSC riders I know say they like the SCL-SL better.

[eljamoquio]

I don't know any CSC riders at all! Sniff...

[justkeepedaling]

Both of you guys fess up, which CSC riders are you talking about

[Greg66]

I had a carbon Soloist and sold it to get an R3SL. I found the SLC to be uncompromising stiff, so much so that after 2-3 hours I just couldn't ride it any longer. Every bump and crack in the road comes straight up into you and your back. The R3 is a much more comfortable ride.

The S2 is supposed to have more vertical compliance following the redesign of the seatstays. If so, what I thought was a shortcoming of the SLC may have been addressed.

[henkv]

Are you all riding on cobbles? Not me! On the road I can not believe someone is finding the SLC too hard or whatever. It is probably not a bike to ride once every 14 days but in daily use I love it. (20000km/year). Total weight setup = 6,95 kg with fullcrum zero wheels, pedals and hac5, bottle cages etc, 54cm. And for the toe clearance, yes at 8 km/h a turn of 180 degrees on 2,5 meter wide roads, it is something to watch out for. However at normal speeds, and that means also in hairpins, there is no problem at all!

[mrfish]

Comfort is a personal issue, and depends a lot on where you live and what you plan to do with the bike. IMO it's more the quality of the roads that should drive what you buy than whether there are a lot of hills.

In Germany for instance, most roads are pancake smooth and look like a racetrack. People there ride Canyons, deep rims and 20mm tyres. I would buy an SLC here.

People in Italy and UK ride ride shallow to mid rims, 23mm tyres and think Canyons are boneshakers unsuitable for anything. I would buy an R3 here. OK, really I would buy a Colnago, but never mind.

People in Belgium still ride 32 spoke wheels, steel frames and believe you're mad if you prioritise weight saving over a bike that won't collapse when ridden repeatedly over a badly cobbled farm road. I would buy an RS or an Edddy Merckx here.

[Permon]

Comfort is a personal issue, and depends a lot on where you live and what you plan to do with the bike. IMO it's more the quality of the roads that should drive what you buy than whether there are a lot of hills.

Thank everybody for useful posts!
I live in the Czech republic and road are similar to GB, I quess. So, the R3 is definitely a better choice than SLC for me. And as somebody mentioned, the SLC is not very stiff at the headtube area... and this area is really important for me (I am a tall + strong). So, I keep R3 for the next season and will be waiting for another evolution of R3...

[calabiyau]

I own a 2009 54cm Cervelo, 1092 gram frame with water boss screws and seat post collar only. The ride is very stiff. You better know the roads you are riding on, since the frame can be very unforgiving on bad roads. On the other hand power transmission is complete and this implies instant acceleration. This is not an explorer’s bike it is a race bike. I am not knocking the stiffness. It is the reason I bought the bike. I question any bike that claims aero. For example, Cervelo tells you that 25 percent of drag is caused by the bike, but does not tell you the size or position of the rider, nor does it tell you the percentage of reduced drag relative to a non-aero bike. When they provide information on their bikes in vector fields where you can input wind speed and direction, bike speed and direction. In other words vectors I will pay heed. Yeh. I am a physicist. You need a 6 hour test ride on a S2 before making a decision. The R series may be the perfect bike for you,, unless you are a sprinter. The S2 would not be my only bike, but since you looking at it as a second or so, test it out. calabiyau

[aeroslave]

Gday Gents... just my 25 cents worth....

Those who find the S2/Soloist Carbon to be too stiff should harden the f*** up. Its is designed to be stiff. The SLC is a a race bike designed yes...to be raced. Its not designed for a lovey dovey ride averaging 18kph on your way to get your capuccino. Yes you can use it that way but its not designed for that. I have both the R3 and the SLC and they are both great for different purpose. To each their own experience but when I am going to race real hard...I usually pick the red rig to better my chances. The R3 is a great bike but the SLC is a better all rounder.

Another thing..the S2 IS the Soloist Carbon. They are the same. Some of you are saying that the S2 has redesigned seatstays....thats the S3 NOT the S2. Get it right ha ha ha ha...S2 same as Soloist Carbon.....same chainstays....S3 theres your thin seatstays ok???

The only difference between the S2 and the SLC are the ICS2 and the colour. All dimensions/sizing are the same.

[Stats]

I prefer the R3 in terms of looks - Cervelo also stated that they were surprised to find that the R3 was also surprisingly aero... apparently the squoval shape was not too bad for aerodynamics and the head tube width plays a large part in frame aerodynamics too...

I think you'd get more advantage from aero wheels personally and if you get those and your body in an aero position on the bike (because you're more comfortable on the bike, because it hasn't beaten you up over the last few kms of harsh riding) then you'll perform better anyway... so that's my vote in looks, comfort and all round ability... although i'm sure that Cervelo is not going to admit so freely that the Soloist is not superior in aerodynamics because how would they sell any then?

they're both great bike, buy the bike that you feel the need to defend more

[chippyboy]

I owned the r3 and my friend owned the s2 and he share the same size as me so sometime we exchange bike to each other.

Here is a quick review.

R3
1. Light weight
2. Very good front end (head tube)
3. very smooth ride on bad or worst road (due to the seat stays)
4. Very good climber

S2
1. Very stiff (accelerate very well)
2. Rougher ride (due to the stiffness)
3. Aero (so very good on flat road)

So decide according to your riding style, that's it