HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:40 pm
Posts: 863
Location: Eire
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:36 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am
Posts: 1281
DaveS wrote:
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 :wink:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: if you want geometry
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:14 am
Posts: 10
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:49 pm
Posts: 75
Location: Boulder, CO
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:19 pm
Posts: 1948
Location: On Pave
I have both
although the solist is an SL :lol:
But i can say that SL is stiffer and less compliant than the R3
jr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:41 am
Posts: 130
Standard Soloist is less complaint and less comfortable than the R3.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:47 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Posts: 3468
Location: Hamilton, Canada
DaveS wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:48 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Posts: 3468
Location: Hamilton, Canada
roberto wrote:
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?


Last edited by DocRay on Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:54 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Posts: 3468
Location: Hamilton, Canada
flying wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:15 am
Posts: 1159
I rode both Cervelo Soloist carbon and R3. IMO R3 is much more comfortable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: R3 vs Soloist
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:56 pm
Posts: 8
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:25 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:33 am
Posts: 3468
Location: Hamilton, Canada
We must be riding different R3s. I have yet to ride a stiffer frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:38 pm 
Offline
Formerly known as PezTech
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:37 am
Posts: 5683
Location: Phoenix Arizona
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 784
Location: Greece
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:26 pm
Posts: 2527
DocRay wrote:
DaveS wrote:
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?


Last edited by DaveS on Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:32 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CBRE, shoemakerpom2010, zander and 70 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Used Cervelo S3 vs New Cervelo S3 - 4200 budget

in Road

Marloon

14

983

Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:25 am

coppercook62 View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Cervelo R and Cervelo S series??

in Road

bigben99

3

1237

Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:09 pm

RichieE46 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2014 Cervélo R3 or S3

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

hlegs

29

16077

Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:01 pm

johnnyscans View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Cervelo R3 geometry...

in Road

Powerful Pete

11

2087

Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:48 am

Powerful Pete View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Wheels for Cervelo S5

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

FHKJ

17

1883

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:06 pm

fogflip View the latest post


It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:45 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB