Riding position was similar, r5 was where I put the saddle and bars, dogma2 was not mine but I hopped on it and it felt Damn near perfect. Also had short rides on ones too big and too small, besides the geometric issues associated with that, they shared the same feeling of reassuring solidity when leaning at any angle, esp when also hitting some small bumps. R5 feels good, but "regular", or what I've come to expect from bikes.
Maybe part of it all is that I didn't EXPECT to like the dogma. I'm a numbers, testing, proof- type of guy. that's why I say the dogma is greater than the sum of its parts. On paper, it looks like a pile of poo.
Which one is stiffer? I don't know, my test facility is out of order. For STW I'm pretty sure the r5 wins.
Venge is also nice, nicest balance of aero to -everything else versus others, s5 included. s5 post is a bit limiting (no carbon rails, some saddles in the front position interfere with the back top of post), I'm a believer in tapered steerers, cable routing is not-quite-there. And of course the venge looks a lot better.

When do people realize that the big pro teams DOES NOT ride stock frames. They get special layups to have them lighter or more usual, stiffer and sturdier. For gods sake, Saxo's SL4 frames weighed over 1200 grams last year and were stiff as a board.

+1
Same with HTC's Scott, etc etc; never take what pros ride as an example.

_________________
ciclismo-espresso.com

garmin had an end of the year sale of their Cervelos from 2012. that might have been something to think about buying.

Exactly, the dogma weighs what it does for a reason -
not because Pinarello can't design a lighter frame

I can't find it now but I think Cervelo said they had extended the wheel base of some R3s for Roubaix (this might have been the R3 mud) but other than that the pro bikes were stock. Same post from Cervelo said may pros got R3 s instead of R5s due to cost and lighter weight was of no benefit)

Can't tell if Garmins bikes are stock, but I can tell you that I have first hand knowledge that Saxo, HTC, Katusha, Gerolsteiner all have or had special layups for the team frames. I would be surprised if this is not the case for most pro-tour teams.

Interesting topic. Years back, Bicycle Guide commissioned construction of two identical geometry framesets, one of Columbus SLX, the other of lighter gauge Tange Prestige. No stickers IDd the tubeset used.

All testers preferred the heavier Columbus bike blind - claimed it handled better and rode better/smoother. Everyone was surprised that the Columbus bike won, given that the Tange bike used higher end steel, and was lighter etc.

Hell, I'm feeling pretty good right now. My Steel Bianchi comes in at 7.37 kg. and that is with a 1500g wheelset on it and Chorus crank/bb.

_________________
09 Pinella w/ Record 10spd
http://1spd.blogspot.com/

... I, literally, just yawned after reading that. Nothing personal, but did you miss the whole part about time-on-the-bike being a factor as discussed earlier in this thread?

How long were these testers riding the bikes blind? Surely not more than a few minutes.
Given even a few hours, the riders will get used to a lighter bike (again, if they are confident) and will descend perfectly fine (again, confidence an issue) and would probably not go back to a heavier bike give the same geometries.

Confidence.
Geometries.
Time.

_________________
Exp001

you yawn, I shrug - I don't have a dog in this fight. Maybe I shouldn't confuse chasing light weight with chasing a bike that works better.

>Maybe I shouldn't confuse chasing light weight with chasing a bike that works better.



Ok, care to elaborate?

There are people (such as myself) who use sub-13lb bikes on ultra distance races.
They *must* be reliable, and they *are* light. They *must* give enough confidence to tackle an unknown descent in the dark, and they do.

So... what are you getting at?

Having ridden a Pinarello Dogma and other "high end" bikes that are by comparison heavy, I can honestly say that the difference in performance is not that significant to frames that are lighter. Heck, the A2J Rolo is very light and has a higher lab-tested stiffness quality than Pinarello... and it's damn light! And it doesn't look like it's there to be posed against a wall, it looks like it's meant to be ridden.


It's quite funny what we're finding, actually.

About a decade ago, there were curmudgeons saying "Carbon will spontaneously explode!!!!!!!!1!!!". Look where we are now.
About a decade ago, there were curmudgeons saying "A carbon bike will never be as light as a Ti bike!". Look where we are now.
About a decade ago, there were curmudgeons saying "A carbon bike always be unaffordable". Look where we are now ($600 gets you light & reliable)

Now?
Curmudgeons saying "A light bike isn't reliable". Utter bullsh*t.
Curmudgeons saying "A light frame isn't stiff". Again, bullsh*t.
Curmudgeons saying "A heavier bike always has better handling." I think the bull is running out of feces.

_________________
Exp001

There's nothing that warrants that an extremely expensive frame as a Dogma should be in that weigh class. A lot of bikes are as stiff/planted/stable as a Dogma with considerable lower weight.

I agree and this is part of what makes me think the engineering could be better.

Manufacturers like Colnago or Pinarello do not care (even if they obviously can) to make a light frame because they know that at the end the frame's weight itself does not matter. They care to make a frame that performs great and looks like a precious item. You may blame them for that if you want. I don't.

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno
Colnago Master X-light
Wilier 18carati