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

the R5ca is definitely lighter. the r3, r5 are much improved, despite the weight (blasphemy, i know). according to cervelo's own presentations on their website, they previously underestimated the stress/strain put on certain parts of the bike, especially the top tube. maybe now they will allow people to rest their thigh on the top tube at traffic lights!
my coworker just had his first real ride on his new r5 (w/ 2011 super record) and he came back ecstatic. previously on a 2010 tarmac pro.
even on weight weenies, sometimes a few extra grams pays off.
otoh, the other guys are definitely catching (caught?) up.

-Greg

sedluk
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:10 am

by sedluk

My 51cm R3-SL weighed 852 grams and my 51cm R5 weighs 823 grams, both are with collar and hanger.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5785
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Guys. I don't even own a Cervelo but I do know there's more pure "frame" in a 2011 R series than a 2010 R series. For instance, due to their geometry changes in the R sereis for 2011 the headtube alone is just shy of 2cm more on a 2011 58cm versus a 2010 58. The new wider bottom bracket also contributes a bit. Point is, there's more going on between the two model years than just reducing or adding weight to frames with exactly the same dimensions and geometry. In that respect, you are comparing apples to oranges. Maybe you are all right because of this. Just thinking out loud.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

fitty4
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Denmark

by fitty4

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

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

by v70cat

So the new R5 weighs more than a R3-SL?

I don't the" improvements" what was wrong with the R3-SL?

User avatar
geedawg
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 6:07 am

by geedawg

v70cat wrote:So the new R5 weighs more than a R3-SL?

I don't the" improvements" what was wrong with the R3-SL?


Nothing was "wrong" with the R3-SL, but as quoted above, geometry changes were made (presumably to make the R5 appeal to a wider consumer base with a taller headtube) and the bike was made stiffer, ie wider bottom bracket and such.

On average, it does look like the R5 weighs in pretty close to the R3-SL, but is a significantly stiffer bike that rides better according to almost all accounts.

Blasphemy b/c we're on WW, but "improvements" don't always = weight reduction. Especially in this case, where the bike's performance is improved but weight remains relatively static.

If you want light, the R5CA fits the bill.

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

by v70cat

geedawg wrote:
v70cat wrote:So the new R5 weighs more than a R3-SL?

I don't the" improvements" what was wrong with the R3-SL?


Nothing was "wrong" with the R3-SL, but as quoted above, geometry changes were made (presumably to make the R5 appeal to a wider consumer base with a taller headtube) and the bike was made stiffer, ie wider bottom bracket and such.

On average, it does look like the R5 weighs in pretty close to the R3-SL, but is a significantly stiffer bike that rides better according to almost all accounts.

Blasphemy b/c we're on WW, but "improvements" don't always = weight reduction. Especially in this case, where the bike's performance is improved but weight remains relatively static.

If you want light, the R5CA fits the bill.


I have a 08 R3-SL it is plenty stiff and I don't need a taller head tube (this is a performance bike not the RS).

spandexboy817
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:55 am

by spandexboy817

Just weighed by gf's 51cm 2011 R3 and it was 894 with hanger and bottle cage bolts, but no seat collar
Red and black paint job

konky
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm

by konky

v70cat wrote:
geedawg wrote:
v70cat wrote:So the new R5 weighs more than a R3-SL?

I don't the" improvements" what was wrong with the R3-SL?


Nothing was "wrong" with the R3-SL, but as quoted above, geometry changes were made (presumably to make the R5 appeal to a wider consumer base with a taller headtube) and the bike was made stiffer, ie wider bottom bracket and such.

On average, it does look like the R5 weighs in pretty close to the R3-SL, but is a significantly stiffer bike that rides better according to almost all accounts.

Blasphemy b/c we're on WW, but "improvements" don't always = weight reduction. Especially in this case, where the bike's performance is improved but weight remains relatively static.

If you want light, the R5CA fits the bill.


I have a 08 R3-SL it is plenty stiff and I don't need a taller head tube (this is a performance bike not the RS).


I had a 2008 R3 SL also, which I absolutely loved. A true race bike. It got mashed in a crash and I bought a R5 to replace. The head tube on my 51cm R5 is only 8mm longer than the SL head tube. With no spacers it still makes a very,very sporty set up. Otherwise the R5 is massively stiffer up front and noticeably stiffer in the crank/BB area. The handling, especially during descent, is much more secure but it still retains the old sporty feel that the old R3 has. The R5 doesn't quite have that fabulous R3 SL twitchy feel but I guess even most pros would prefer the R5 with the added stability and markedly stiffer front end.

farm_lim
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:58 am
Location: cebu, philippines/ hong kong
Contact:

by farm_lim

2010 R3SL size 51 w/ rd hanger. no cable guide and seatclamp.
Image

weight
Image

Image
you cant buy fitness, but you can buy advantage.

ill principe
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

by ill principe

2011 size 56 with seat post clamp, bottle cage bolts and rd hanger.
Image

2010 size 58 with headset, seat post clamp, bottle cage bolts and rd hanger.
Image

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

so the 2011 one is lighter by whatever that small section of bubble wrap weighs

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

No, the 2011 is lighter as a frame.
2011 pictured has minimal paint... or at the very least, far less paint than the 2010 version.
2010 version has plenty of paint.
Estimate for a size 56 that a full paint job is ~100g to ~120g, thereabouts.
The 2011 is at least 100g lighter in weight compared to the 2010... which makes sense, considering the BB is now full carbon, not an aluminum insert.

The weight of the bubble wrap is really negligible. It's probably 1g or so, perhaps 3g tops. In frame weights, that is rather moot.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

ill principe
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

by ill principe

Probably stating the obvious, but the 2011 is fully painted black, not like the 2006-2007 frames which were clear coated carbon with decals. The amount of paint must be considerably less than the 2010 white (due to the amount of white needed to cover) but its still fully painted.

The real difference in weight between the '10 and '11 is the fork

Image

Image

Both forks are uncut and includes the lower ring of the headset. The 2011 fork is 340g uncut without the headset part.

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

Ah! I thought it wasn't black but just carbon. Sorry! :oops:
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post