Page 1 of 1

Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:17 am
by Powerful Pete
Most esteemed Weenies...

As many of you know I am the happy owner of a 2008 Cervelo R3. I am looking to confirm that the geometry of the R3 has not changed over time...

In other words, does the R3 geometry table that is currently on the Cervelo site here accurately reflect the measurements of my frame?

Thanks for helping me shed light on this.

Edit: I have found this explanation on the Cervelo forum...

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:35 am
by em3
Current S2 frames have exact same geo as pre-2011 R series frames. EM3

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:35 am
by Weenie

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:38 am
by fa63
If I remember correctly, the R3 went through a pretty major change in geometry a couple years ago. Mostly a slightly shorter reach but quite a bit taller stack.

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:11 am
by Powerful Pete
Aha. This is helpful...

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:35 am
by rmerka
Here's the geometry table from 2008 for your R3.

Image

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:06 pm
by FourRings
FWIW, I recently switched from an '07 R3 to a '12 R5. Begining in 2011, geometry for the R3 and R5 (which share the same geometry) was changed. Cervelo implemented the changes in order to introduce progressive, linear reach and stack changes throughtout the size range. Some of the key changes I saw on the new frames were: 5mm increase on the seatstays; 73.5 headtube angle v. 73.0 - with the same 43 mm fork offset, this results in slightly less trail; the headtube length was increased.

To sum it up, in many ways the dimensions of my old 61 fall between the dimensions of the current 58 and 61.

Hope this helps. Btw, I'm happy to provide my riding impressions if interested.

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:41 pm
by goodboyr
Just went from an '06 R3 (58cm, 130 -6 stem); to an rca (same "new" geometry as r3/5) (56, 120 -6 stem). Stack is identical, reach decreased. But I think I was a bit too stretched out on my r3 with the 130 stem, and so far after 400km on my new bike I feel the reach is much better. Did change to enve bars which have a bit more reach than the old bars, so net reach went down by maybe 10mm.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:41 pm
by Powerful Pete
@FourRings, thank you. I am considering moving to a different frame entirely, and wanted to compare geometries. It may be time to leave Cervelo...

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:24 am
by FourRings
Out of curiosity, what are you trying to solve for?

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:05 am
by kamikaze
Yeah, they changed it to fit with their new geometry philosophy:

Lengthening the chainstays was a good move too though.

Image

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:13 am
by justkeepedaling
Powerful Pete wrote:@FourRings, thank you. I am considering moving to a different frame entirely, and wanted to compare geometries. It may be time to leave Cervelo...


If you can wait a bit, a RCA trickle down teched R3 or R5 would be stellar

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:13 am
by Weenie

Re: Cervelo R3 geometry...

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:48 am
by Powerful Pete
@FourRings, not 100%, but solving for a 2014 C59.

@justkeepedaling, good point, but it is time to try something new. I tend not to change frames often, and have been on the R3 since 2008/2009. An R5 is simply an improved iteration of what I have (nothing wrong with that) but it does not do much for me on an emotive level, and spending serious money on a frame is about emotion, after all.