Cervelo S3 or S2 w/ Zipps - what would you do?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
Monopolisf
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:57 pm

by Monopolisf

All,

I'm in the market for a new ride, have tested the S2 extensively, and am trying to decide between the following:

A) Cervelo S2, Super Record, w/ training wheelset AND Zipp 404s (for racing)

or

B) Cervelo S3, Super Record, w/ mid-level wheelset (to use for both racing and training)

For the money, what would you do? Has anyone ridden the S3? I'm considering the S3 primarily because it is supposedly a more comfortable ride relative to the soloist (which is somewhat stiff). Can anyone comment on its improvement in comfort relative to the S2? Is it worth the premium? I couldn't care less about the S3's incremental aero improvement...just ride quality.

Thanks in advance!

by Weenie


User avatar
lancejohnson
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:08 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Contact:

by lancejohnson

The S3 may not work with your SR group - it's in another thread up here but basically Cervelo says that they don't hold as tight of tolerances as Campy does and that the crankset (I believe) may rub.

Given that, I think the S2 may be the best idea if you want the new Campy stuff. Plus the speed of the bike will be better on the S2 with the Zipp wheels if you are serious about your racing...
___________________________________________________

"Organization is for the simple-minded, the Genius controls the chaos." - Jens

Monopolisf
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:57 pm

by Monopolisf

Thanks for the thought but I'm relatively comfortable with pairing the S3 with Campy. The bottom brackets for the S2 and S3 are actually identical...and the tight tolerances can be addressed with a spacer...as I understand.

User avatar
lancejohnson
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:08 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Contact:

by lancejohnson

In that case, I can't speak to the comfort difference, but depending on what wheels you end up going with on the S3, the S2 with 404s would be an innately faster bike is almost all conditions.
___________________________________________________

"Organization is for the simple-minded, the Genius controls the chaos." - Jens

Peith
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 am
Location: Fairfax, VA

by Peith

S2 and 404's.

Absolutely.

I "borrowed" a front 404 last season at a TT when I got a flat at the start house and couldn't focus on riding hard because I was so stoked at how smooth and comfy they felt...at some ridiculously high psi (not my doing...)

RichTheRoadie
Tinker, Taylor, Tart
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Aus.

by RichTheRoadie

Just to balance this out a bit - I'd go S3 with cheaper wheels for now and upgrade to the wheels you want further down the line.

It's easy to upgrade the wheels, but buy the wrong frame (or get the S2 and wish you'd bought the S3) and that's an expensive mistake IMO :shock:

I speak as someone who has gone through A LOT of bikes over the last few years because I've made these very mistakes myself in the rush to build 'good' bikes instead of 'great' bikes... although don't get me wrong - the S2 would still be a cracking machine I'm sure!

User avatar
Starter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

Monopolisf wrote:Thanks for the thought but I'm relatively comfortable with pairing the S3 with Campy. The bottom brackets for the S2 and S3 are actually identical...and the tight tolerances can be addressed with a spacer...as I understand.


Below is a link to a page of a thread on this forum about the S3/Campy issues. Check out the pic of the Campy UT cranks mounted (with the spacer) on an S3... I don't think you'll have any rub problems resulting from those cranks flexing, as they're pretty damn stiff... but throwing a chain could cause some serious damage in that confined space...

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... c&start=60

I don't know. Building an S3 with SR in the face of all this controversy is kind of like asking Murphy's Law to kick you square in the balls. A build can be simple and fun, or one compatibility nightmare after another... When I build a rig, I try and do everything I can to make sure it will be a hassle-free experience, so I can get it done and get on the road.

There's enough random component compatibility issues that arise during a build even when everything looks fine on paper. Why compound these with issues that are known to you walking into it?

pharding
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:50 am
Location: Chicago

by pharding

The issue isn't the cranks flexing. The issue is frame flexing under power or due to a rider's weight.

User avatar
Starter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

That's a kettle of fish I was hoping to avoid, as the fanboys won't accept that, and it will probably start a flame war... but the issue of severe damage due to a dropped chain is one that even the most rabid Cervelo boosters can't deny...
Oof.

Monopolisf
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:57 pm

by Monopolisf

Guys, I hear ya about the chain drop. BUT the fact is the bottom bracket areas on the old soloist, SLC-SL, S2, and S3 are all identical AND TONS of people have built up the soloist and SLC-SL with Campy. I've never heard of a single instance of a campy chain drop messing up a frameset. Have you? Seriously, I think this is a non-issue.

User avatar
Starter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

I understand that Cervelo has been saying that. But I've also seen those frames with Record, and never heard any mention of spacers being needed, nor of the tolerance being very tight. Who knows, maybe it's always been a small non-issue as Cervelo claims. Funny no one mentioned it until the S3 dropped. Funny how google searches for problems or issues with Campy and Cervelo only find S3 related stuff. I dunno. Seems like Cervelo might be rewriting history a bit.

The photo is clear. A chain dropped (at least on the bike in the pic) would be jammed in that narrow space. Seeing as how the narrow space is carbon fiber and the chain is hardened steel, logic suggests the possibility of damage. Whether or not that's a non-issue for you is a personal decision.
Oof.

Tom_P
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:22 am
Location: Bellevue Washinton, USA
Contact:

by Tom_P

Hi

S2 w/ Wheels and SR

For sure
tp
Tom Price
Triumph-Multisport
www.triumph-multisport.com

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

by Pantani

What about an S3 with Chorus and 404s. SR won't make you go any faster.

NGMN
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 am

by NGMN

Monopolisf wrote:Guys, I hear ya about the chain drop. BUT the fact is the bottom bracket areas on the old soloist, SLC-SL, S2, and S3 are all identical AND TONS of people have built up the soloist and SLC-SL with Campy. I've never heard of a single instance of a campy chain drop messing up a frameset. Have you? Seriously, I think this is a non-issue.


The BB's may be the same, but the chainstays are definately different. The S3 got the chainstays from the P4 as I understand it.

FWIW, I would be inclined to go with the nicest frame you can afford, which in this case is the S3. I too would skirt the compatability issues, SRAM red and DA 7900 are both nice groupsets.

by Weenie


Attrition
Banned
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:15 am
Location: San Francisco

by Attrition

ditch the 404's zipp wheels are crap get some edge rims and 240s hubs

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post