Weight Weenies

i want to start doing some sportives and want a bike that will be comfortable for 6 - 8 hours in the saddle yet efficient and responsive to make the most of my 'limited natural resources'

I like the look of the Cervelo R3 which according to the blurb is meant to be very comfy but i don't know if thats just comfy for a super stiff race frame or comfortable full stop.

unfortunately i can't find any reviews and wondered if any of you out there had any personal experience.

also i'd be grateful for any suggestions on other frames/bikes that would fit the bill.

many thanks

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

Buy a C50, no looking back after that!

I don't think Cervelos are known for their comfy rides. I'd 2nd the C50 for someone looking for comfort

the r3 is extremely comfortable. never ridden a c50, but have ridden colnago carbon bike before. you can ride an r3 all day and no problem with comfort. same with a colnago carbon bike. but in terms of weight, go with the r3, you will save almost a pound compared to a colnago carbon. if you want something that screams luxury bike, go with colnago carbon. the r3 is like a porsche but can still absorb the shocks well, the colnago is like a rolls royce or a bentley that is comfortable but also has 500 horsepower when needed.

Kuota Khan. You will not be disappointed.

My R3 is more comfortable than the Vitus 979 (small diameter aluminum) and Airborne Zeppelin (ti) frames I have. My PedalForce QS2 is a little more comfortable mostly because the Specialized Pave post I put on has some give to it. But the difference in comfort is pretty small. The carbon frames mute some of the high frequency vibration from rough pavement but without suspension you still feel the bumps. No frame material or fancy constructoin (short of a SoftRide beam bike) will change that. I have done 100 mile+ rides on all of those bikes and have been fine. The R3 does have a shortish head tube so it may not work out for you if you want to run your bars higher than racer normal, for long ride comfort.

Before you believe the reports that the R3 is comfortable, you should post your weight and the size of frame you might ride.

I rode a 51cm and found it to be quite rough riding with my 135 lbs on it. A heavier rider on a larger frame might not find it as bad. Tires wheels and saddle also make a difference. I used the same tires, wheels and saddle I'd been using for the previous couple of years.

The quality of construction of the R3 does not justify the $2800 MSRP, IMO. I was not impressed at all. There are better frames out there, like the LOOK 585.

I would certainly recommend the R3, and maybe the SL if money is no object.
Its a really light and responsive frame. If you did a search, there are a lot lot lot of reviews and beautiful R3's from the previous year or so..

The only problem for me was how harsh a ride it was in the initial weeks but am used to it now.
I also dont recommend it if you intend to race or travel a lot with the frame as Im not convinced its durable enough with knocks and hits.
In this scenario, the C50 would not be a problem (or rather less of a worry).

I dont race nor travel to races (fly, etc), so would thoroughly recommend the R3. Just make sure you put on a set of stiff wheels to feel the full responsive potential of the frame (32 spoked build?)

I have not ridden the R, although my son had the predecessor R2.5 until it broke and he loved everything about it, but not about the SOloist carbon that replaced it.

This comment is more towards those who've recommended the C50. It is a really nice bike. Mine is a 2005 frame with the HP stays and I wish I had bought the slightly less stiff Extreme C. I find the C50 feels rough over bumps and poor pavement. On the other hand, I can ride it 150 km and not feel beaten up at the end and it climbs better than my first generation (1995) C40 did.

A couple of months ago, I bought a Parlee Z1 and it does everything the C50 does in terms of performance, but with a smoother ride. Chek it out too if you can scrape up the $.

I love the ride of the R3. However, I own a Tarmac SL and can ride it for 6-8 hours with no complaints. The R3 is awesomely stiff and I am dying for the SL version to finally become availible.

R3 is a great bike. I have one now and have had several Roubaixs by Specialized. I own the Sworks currently.

For longer training rides I almost always use a Roubaix. Both the bikes are set up very close in the cockpit. Slightly more drop on the R3 but only a few cm.

For me the R3 is a better going down hill and climbing standing. The frame more comfortable on the Roubaiux and better for climbing seated.

I was out for a century today..the first this spring. One of my thoughts was I would really like to have last year's Roubaix Pro frame (even more comfortable than the S works) back for long rides early in the season. That frame can be had for well under $1000 on ebay. I'm 6'1" and go up or down 5# from 180#.

I wrote a short comparison of the two frames here last fall. My opinions still stand although I spent so much time getting the fit sorted on the R3 it is my ride of "choice" now. But since I do have a choice just nothing over 4 or 5 hrs thanks.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 04&start=0

Im 70kg and last year I raced the 'Maratona dles Dolomites' and the 'Marmotte' on an R3 with neutron clincher wheels. For me it's definitively a very comfortable bike, excellent rear shock absortion.
I just recomended it to a friend who was looking for a frame for long distance rides.

Cannondale Synapse Carbon?

It's specially designed to be comfortable!

lol

thanks every one, it sounds on the whole like it's definately worth arranging a test ride.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com