Cervelo R3 v Rivals

[Pantani]

Late post, but for what its worth, I haver both. C50 is the most comfortable but the R3 is way lighter, stiffer and doesn't give up much in the comfort stakes at all. For mountains, I'd say its by far the better choice.

[flying]

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.

Yeah Baby
My feelings exactly. After I broke 2 Cervelo's I went back to Look & am glad I did. They were the 2.5 Cervelos though not the R3
But still I agree with Dave about value for the $$$ & comfort

[acid_rider]

I am assuming size of 53-56cm frame size (~small-medium).

R3 has 73 STA in most/all sizes. If you prefer a slacker STA then also consider Time which in most sizes also have ~73 STA (at least in Small, Medium they do).

C50 has ~1 degree steeper STA to R3 and Time (~74 in size 52-54). If you prefer a 1 degree steeper STA of R3/Time then Colnago C50 is hard to beat in comfort terms. Also Trek Madone is also very comfortable (I have Madone 5.9) provided its gemetry fits you well.

I also have a Time Edge. It is comfortable for ~4 hours in the saddle, the maximum I have tried to date. Time VXS and VXR(S) are meant to be even more comfortable than Time Edge. Similar price to C50 and more expensive than R3, I think.

I am told Look is also very comfortable (565/585) with angles a touch less steep than Colnago C50/Trek Madone (0.25 degree or so). And cheaper than C50/Time.

[matt_vawter]

Here is a question (since I am considering a Cervelo): Is the Soloist as stiff and non-compliant as the R3?

Anyone have experience on both of these bikes?

Thanks

[Roobay]

I have both
although the solist is an SL
But i can say that SL is stiffer and less compliant than the R3
jr

[roberto]

Standard Soloist is less complaint and less comfortable than the R3.

[DocRay]

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.

You repeatedly post this comment on the forum, either provide some (any) evidence of poor quality of R3s, or explain why you are shilling LOOK.

I'm 6'4", 190lbs and ride a 58cm frame. I would not say that comfort is a not a feature of the R3, my aluminum soloist was far more complaint. I bought it for power transfer, handling at speed, and climbing stiffness. The fact that it does all this and is still light is amazing. I wasn't worried about build quality, as it has a lifetime warranty.

[DocRay]

Standard Soloist is less complaint and less comfortable than the R3.

not according to Tour testing.

Are you referring to the Soloist CF or Team Soloist?

[DocRay]

My feelings exactly. After I broke 2 Cervelo's I went back to Look & am glad I did. They were the 2.5 Cervelos though not the R3

That's like saying, "I won't drive a Ford GT because I owned a Ford Pinto."

Fundamentally different frames.

[spaniardclimber]

I rode both Cervelo Soloist carbon and R3. IMO R3 is much more comfortable.

[davidlee]

The Standard carbon soloist is much stiffer and much less comfortable than the R3 . The R3's stiffness to weight is higher, but that number is misleading in the sense that the soloist is noticably stiffer out of the saddle. When I first got my R3 I thought I had punctured several times on the first ride , purely from vertical flexion of the seat stays . Needless to say , super plush on long rides or Roubaix, Crit bike- no thanks.

[DocRay]

We must be riding different R3s. I have yet to ride a stiffer frame.

[CharlesM]

If comfort where the measure between the soloist team, R3 and LOOK 585, I would take the 585. The R3 is a GREAT bike, but not the best of these 3 with comfort as the cheif component for determining ride quality.

I'm not sure who else had ridden all three (and taken the time to use the same saddle, wheels, tires for all three), but others might have a different opinion.


DocRay is right in that size changes a lot in character for some frames though.

Doc's 8 inches taller than me and I'm 140 - 150. All of these bikes will behave a little different at the top of the size ranges than at the middle / bottom. And especially in the smaller sizes, as bike companies are emphasizing "more" stiffness means "better", the stiffness is arguably getting a little too much attention.


Mostly, I long for bike manufacturers to show me an SC in 2008 instead of another SL or SS.


I would love for a company to measure improved middle to low level vibration (in the range we feel) as well harder bump damping and show us a bike that they would call "Super Comfort". Keep the thing around 1000 grams with a way smoother feel that allows us to maintain tire pressures and stable feel.

[Taz]

Whithout having ridden any of these bikes, I think that vertical compliance and power transfer stiffness (either in the BB area or in torsional stiffness) are two different things.
A bike can be stiff while also being comfortable and vice versa.
I have ridden bikes that are less stiff than my Tarmac SL but are a lot less comfortable.
Finally things like wheels and seatposts can make a lot of difference in the comfort of a bike.
A friend has a Storck Scenario C 1.1. He used to have a Thomson 31,6mm in-line seatpost and every time I rode his bike it was a very punishing ride. When he changed it for an Easton EC 90 31,6mm with setback it was like he changed bikes. The bike was much more comfortable with no difference in how stiff it felt.

[DaveS]

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.

You repeatedly post this comment on the forum, either provide some (any) evidence of poor quality of R3s, or explain why you are shilling LOOK.

I've previously posted the fact that I find Cervelo's lack of replaceable headset bearing seats a significant fault. The aluminum seats are so thin you'd be lucky to recut them once if damaged. Damaged headset bearing seats would be normal wear and tear, not covered by warranty. As a mechanical engineer, I also think the lower bearing seat should have a full tubular inner support. The inside of the headtube also reveals the sloppy hand layup and evidence of no bladder or other internal mold to insure high density and uniform thickness. The LOOK headtube is smooth and precise inside and out.

The finish on all Cervelo carbon frames is far below that of LOOK and many other brands, for that matter. Put them side to side and compare. If you don't agree, then you don't know what you're looking for.

I'm not "shilling" LOOK. Although I like the brand, I like others too (like Colnago), but the Colnago geometry isn't my favorite for the mountain descents that I do on nearly every ride.

Why are you shilling Cervelo?