What is the weight of the Cervelo R3 & R3SL, R3 2011 & R5

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

donn12's info is straight from the source - cervelo's brainbike, if im not mistaken.
if i were in charge (and in my head i am), bike "frames" would include everything required as a frame: derailleur hanger, seatpost clamp, bb cable guides, cable stops. i agree with sedluk, though, in that disclaimers works fine too.

v70cat
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:23 pm

by v70cat

Does anyone know the actual weight of the 2012 S5 VWD, Team and Base models. For 2013 they are offering two frame the VWD & another not sure if it is the 2012 Team and the 2012 base model?

by Weenie


dalex
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 12:05 pm

by dalex

Over on Slowtwitch this is what Damon Rinard from Cervelo said concerning the 2013 models (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gfo ... 84#4156384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

the new R3 is equivalent to the existing R3 Team. We're working towards simplifying the model line: keeping the best technical aspects of each frameset but dropping the suffixes.

Also, the R5 is about 300 grams lighter than the R3.

Dozer
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:43 am

by Dozer

sedluk wrote:I weigh my frames as they come from the factory. I am not going to take off the rear hanger, collar and cable guides. And in the case of the R5ca, I am not going to take out the pressed in bearings.

I think it is fine to weigh the frame with these items and simply say what you are weighing.


+1

IMHO, that is the most accurate way to compare frames with the exception being the pressed in bearings. But just like you I would not have removed the bearings just to get a weight.

Frames should be compared on a funcitonal level. Last time I checked a frame MUST have a rear hanger, seat collar and cable guides to function as a frame. Removing those to get a lower weight is just muddying the water.

em3
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:57 pm
Location: NYC

by em3

Dozer wrote:
sedluk wrote:I weigh my frames as they come from the factory. I am not going to take off the rear hanger, collar and cable guides. And in the case of the R5ca, I am not going to take out the pressed in bearings.

I think it is fine to weigh the frame with these items and simply say what you are weighing.


+1

IMHO, that is the most accurate way to compare frames with the exception being the pressed in bearings. But just like you I would not have removed the bearings just to get a weight.

Frames should be compared on a funcitonal level. Last time I checked a frame MUST have a rear hanger, seat collar and cable guides to function as a frame. Removing those to get a lower weight is just muddying the water.


Respectfully, this is the LEAST accurate way to weigh frames. There is no manufacturer that lists frame weight with fittings attached...bare frame with NO fittings is the industry standard and provides the necessary baseline to make any comparison across models within the same manufacturer and across different manufacturers. For our purposes on this forum, when one person posts frame weight with mech hanger but no other fittings and then another guy posts weight of same frame with mech hanger and seat collar then everything gets muddied right away and the information becomes useless as we are unable to make real comparisons. Correct and consistent information is the best information!
EM3
______________

Dozer
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:43 am

by Dozer

em3 wrote:Correct and consistent information is the best information!


I agree totally with you there.

My thinking behind including the 'bits' is that you bring the frames up to equal functional levels and therefore can make a 'if I swap frame A for frame B the change in weigh to my bike is C' comparison. 'Bits' can be added or subtracted on paper to equalize any 2 frames for comparisons, but that doesn't tell us if one manufacturers frame uses lighter or heavier add-ons.

I'm always cautious using the manufacturers data. I would assume most bike manufacturers are just like the manufacturers of other engineered products and the data they share is 'marketing' data as opposed to 'engineering' data. I'm sure a few do let their engineering data out, but I assume they are the exception and not the rule.

This is, IMHO, why thier published data doesn't include the 'bits' - so they can advertise the absolutely lowest number with respect to their frame weights.

At work when we compare our vehicles to competitors we always group individual parts into function subsystems. Then when we do performance/cost evaluations we are as much apples to apples as possible (it's almost never perfect). Just taking part vs part leads to bad comparisons more often than not, is my experience.

:beerchug:

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

em3 wrote:
Permon wrote:
Donn12 wrote:
They are different quite a lot. The R5 is produced in a different way. The R5s bottom bracket is included in one piece with down tube/head tube/top tube piece.
R3 is a different story, the bottom bracket is bonded to the down/head/top tube piece later....so, additional material has to be used to "connect" these 2 parts.
Of course other tubes are layed up in a different way with better materials.


Just curious ....what exactly is the source of this info? I have not seen this sort of info revealed anywhere. Are you confusing R5CA with R5?

On another note, I think this thread needs to be shut down...too much misinformation on weights with people posting weights with frame accessories that should never b included in frame weights. Simply too much misinformation resulting in apples to oranges comparisons of weights among different model years.

If u r going to post weight of frame do so without anything hanging on it...no bearings, rear mech hanger, seat collar, cable guides. Without a consistent baseline with which to make comparisons weight info is useless!
EM3


You can find it here: http://redkiteprayer.com/index.php?s=cervelo+R3

By contrast, the R3 has completely different molds and is made using some less expensive materials than the R5VWD. The R3 has a separate BB that is then bonded and over-wrapped to the seat tube, down tube and chainstays. Laying up a one-piece front triangle is considerably more difficult, especially at the bottom bracket. However, the extra time and work required result in a frame that is just as stiff as the R3 but 10 percent lighter. The R5ca realizes an even greater gain: a 56cm R5ca weighs in at 650g.

fitty4
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Denmark

by fitty4

fitty4 wrote:have a white 2008 r3 it weighs 931 gr with hanger and fittings cups


Fittings cups?? I meant headset, anyway it was 879gr just bare frame size 54 ...now it is:
Attachments
PB020032[2].JPG

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post