Cervelo R3 (comfortable or not?)

bryangiggsy

I bought a Cervelo R3 16 months ago in Slane Cycles in Belfast for 2400 pounds without the wheels. At present i would class it as my occasional bike or winter bike as from March till September I ride,train and race triathlons on my tt bike Orbea Ora. The problem i have with my Cervelo is its such a stiff frame its not really a comfortable bike to ride . My mate Smitzer bought a Scott cr1 at the same time and when we switched bikes one day i was amazed at how comfortable the scott was when compared to the Cervelo. Maybe ill change my mind as i become adapted again to the cervelo through the winter but at present I dont think its a comfortable bike to ride. Do you agree or disagree?:cool:

100Suns

Raam is the official spokesman in the Cervelo R3. Always on hand with impartial, objective advice on the old R3;)

Raam

Not a lot of people on here know this, but I have one too.
I find it very comfortable to ride.

Lumen

I rode Raam's R3 once. It felt very stiff. Then I bought a Scott. That felt very stiff. Then I put some deep section carbon wheels on the Scott, and it felt great. But stiff.

Maybe you need to spend some more money.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

I rode Raam's R3 once. It felt very stiff. Then I bought a Scott. That felt very stiff. Then I put some deep section carbon wheels on the Scott, and it felt great. But stiff.

Maybe you need to spend some more money.

How comfortable is your Scott? On a scale of 3 to 9.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

How comfortable is your Scott? On a scale of 3 to 9.

Numbers cannot possibly do it justice. It feels like riding a table tennis bat.

Smithzer

Its an Addict not a CR1 and it's very comfortable.

Raam

People of boards.ie, know this... the Cervelo R3 is a pretty bicycle.

Lumen

You have carbon wheels and shiny metal cranks. This is an inelegant combination.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

You have carbon wheels and shiny metal cranks. This is an inelegant combination.

I agree with you on that one.

victorcarrera

I don't have a cervelo but I have (stiff)2 carbon race bikes.

The forks are designed to be stiff so that they handle and steer as you want them to and the frame is made stiff so that strong sprinters dont break them. The downside is unless you are training on very smooth roads all the time it can be uncomfortable.

For this reason all my group training is done on a soft aluminium frame and wheels with an extra wide and padded saddle.
If I train alone I use a hybrid which even has a shock absorber in the seat post and big fat tyres.
If I had to train on my race bikes the way I have set them up I think would have given up cycling a long time ago. It may be the very reason why so many people don't stick with it.

niceonetom

victorcarrera wrote: »

I don't have a cervelo but I have (stiff)2 carbon race bikes.

I beleive I've seen you race on a Planet-X Pro Carbon... is that the (stiff) bike you're talking about?

levitronix

I don’t think stiffness equates to an uncomfortable ride on a bike, my present bike a canyon cf is deemed to be a very stiff its very comparable to the cervelo , my last bike a felt f5 hadn’t a patch on the canyon for comfort and the felt should of had less torsional stiffness but on the felt I could feel a lot more of the road under me, while on the canyon the ride is a lot smoother but the frame has no give on a sprint or out of the saddle climb.

The winter bike im riding an orbea al with a carbon seat stays hits you in the ass with every bump you ride over, and if I put the bike on the turbo I can cleary see the bottom bracket being pushed side to side when I pedal in a high gear, put the canyon on the turbo pedal in the same gear look down at the bottom bracket the bike stays firm. The bike feeling uncomfortable might not down be down to stiffness at all

victorcarrera

niceonetom wrote: »

I beleive I've seen you race on a Planet-X Pro Carbon... is that the (stiff) bike you're talking about?

A little OT perhaps but in response yes. I have a PX pro carbon and a Focus cayo. I find the Focus stiff all round. I think the planet X has poor lateral stiffness in the bottom bracket area and forks (flex if you like) but no vertical compliance in the forks. It is this lack of shock absorbtion from either the shape of the forks or physical properties of carbon forks and carbon wheels I refer to.
For example many posters on here have completed the Etap Hibernia this year on roads I am familiar with. I wasnt surprised when I read the complaints about the rough surfaces on the roads down there. I have used my race bikes occasionally and my training bikes on those roads.
There is just no comparison. Yes it may be OK if you only do 5 hours a week. But I have to do 10 hrs minimum to be competitive at the level I am at. I am happy to exercise the muscles for that length of time but I don't feel the need to train my teeth or vertabrae to rattle for a couple of 2 hour races in the summer.
In any case you also have/had one what do you think?

Quigs Snr

Comfort is relative to the rider and subject to many variables such as wheels, tyres, tyre pressure, seatpost material and length, stem / handlebar, saddle, bar tape etc.... Not to mention variables introduced by the characteristics of the rider, their biomechanics and the way they fit the bike. No particular brand will be universally more comfortable and anything you read to the contrary is marketing bullsh*t and opinion.

niceonetom

victorcarrera wrote: »

In any case you also have/had one what do you think?

Yeah, I have one too and find it pretty comfy actually. I'll concede that it might not be the stiffest around the BB but I've never found the front end to be harsh. It's much more cushy than the aluminium Cube Streamer I have and MUCH MUCH softer than the alu cannondale capo (fixie) I use (that thing is brutally stiff, but I like it most of the time). I haven't spent enough time on other full carbon bikes to form a real understanding of how the various moduli and weaves affect things (mores the pity).

One thing I hva noticed (and this might actually be on-topic) is how much the wheels and finishing kit affects vibration. In Wicklow I've used Mavic Cosmic Carbonnnes and found they really amplify any ripples in the road - they're strong and feel fast once up to speed, but they make some descents (Shay Elliot to Sliabh Mann for instance) pretty hairy as the bike bucks and skitters. There's very little vertical flex in those wheels. The same bike feels totally different with 32 OpenPros on it - much more forgiving.

I think I can tell the difference between my old cheapo alu seatpost (with no layback) and the Bontrager OCLV one I'm using at the minute too.

victorcarrera

bryangiggsy wrote: »

The problem i have with my Cervelo is its such a stiff frame its not really a comfortable bike to ride .:cool:

The cervelo is the only bike I have seen with box section tubes connecting the bottom bracket. I seem to remember this was a major developement in the 1980's in the motorcycle frame building world where frame stiffness is also revered.
What type of discomfort do you refer to? Is it road vibration through the seat post and forks or is it position as Quigs suggests?

niceonetom

victorcarrera wrote: »

The cervelo is the only bike I have seen with box section tubes...

Not box section - "squoval".

bryangiggsy

The discomfort i refer to would be vibration through the saddle. I probably have not rode it enough to get accustomed to it ..it just struck more how more hard and rigid it was compared to the Scott. The change in position going from aero on a tt bike to sitting up on a road bike might have something to do with it as well although one would think riding in the aero poistion would be more uncomfortable but i find it more comfortable.

Raam

What seat post and saddle do you have?

victorcarrera

What type of wheels and spoke count are on your Cervelo and on your friends Scott.
On your next spin swap wheels with your friend and see how it goes.
Correct saddle width for you and padding are important.

bryangiggsy

Selle italia saddle..fsa slk seatpost

leftism

Theres not nearly enough pics of cervelo bikes in this thread!

Very disappointing....

Chips Lovell

Isn't the R3 meant to be a stiff ass race bike?

Beasty

leftism wrote: »

Theres not nearly enough pics of cervelo bikes in this thread!

Very disappointing....

Try this one

niceonetom

OP - if you're coming from spending more time on tri-bars you might just be suffering from the fact that a higher proportion of your own bodyweight ends up on the saddle when in a normal road position compared to the aero position.

Can you not just console yourself with the notion that stiffness = efficiency and suffer on.

el tonto wrote: »

Isn't the R3 meant to be a stiff ass race bike?

According to Cervélo it's "Optimized for stiffness, lightweight, comfort - and Paris-Roubaix."

The S3 would probably be more of a "stiff ass race bike", the RS would be a fat-ass road bike (or at least a road-bike for people with fat asses - sorry, I have a thing against lax geometry roadbikes).

Smithzer

victorcarrera wrote: »

What type of wheels and spoke count are on your Cervelo and on your friends Scott.
On your next spin swap wheels with your friend and see how it goes.
Correct saddle width for you and padding are important.

R3 has Cosmic Elites
Addict has Ksyrium SL's

I get what Bryan is saying cause when I rode it I found it really stiff compared to the Addict and I dont think its anything to do with the set up, I just think it is "a stiff ass race bike"

Raam

Beasty wrote: »

Try this one

Wooooh, this one!

2old4this

Hi Raam,

Have you had any issues around the bottom bracket area? I was getting my groupset changed and my local bike shop noticed a crack around bottom bracket.
I'm sending it back to Slane Cycles this week.

Raam

2old4this wrote: »

Hi Raam,

Have you had any issues around the bottom bracket area? I was getting my groupset changed and my local bike shop noticed a crack around bottom bracket.
I'm sending it back to Slane Cycles this week.

No, but one of the guys in the club did. He got a warrantied frame.

I also got mine warrantied but it wasn't the BB area.

Staro

Gotta say Cervelo stand over their lifetime warranty,I had an issue with a frame and they looked after it. I got the 2011 model as a replacement, cant wait to get it built up. It has the new B Bright BB technoligy that is on the S5ca.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/eurobike-2010-cervelo-unveil-updated-road-range-27591

Raam

Staro wrote: »

Gotta say Cervelo stand over their lifetime warranty,I had an issue with a frame and they looked after it. I got the 2011 model as a replacement, cant wait to get it built up. It has the new B Bright BB technoligy that is on the S5ca.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/eurobike-2010-cervelo-unveil-updated-road-range-27591

Staro, what about a fork? I got the same one back, but my replacement frame was the same colour as the original. Did you get a brand new fork?

Staro

RAAM, Yep I got a replacement fork, headset (Crane Creek), Seat post (3T) & BB with adaptors. Now for a new group set & wheels.............

2old4this

It's been a long wait. Cervelo did cover my frame and offered me an R5 instead of the R3 SL. I asked for an S3 instead and they agreed. very happy days.

fat bloke

Gratuitous R3 pic



This is my wife's bike.

Controversial point maybe, but I think it looks way nicer in the smaller frame size. I don't like the look of frame sizes over 56 -the headtube section starts to look gawky or something to my eye :pac:

As regards comfort. She has found the frame stiffer than her old race bike, but she's never said it was "uncomfortable" per se.

horizon26

niceonetom wrote: »

OP - if you're coming from spending more time on tri-bars you might just be suffering from the fact that a higher proportion of your own bodyweight ends up on the saddle when in a normal road position compared to the aero position.

Can you not just console yourself with the notion that stiffness = efficiency and suffer on.



According to Cervélo it's "Optimized for stiffness, lightweight, comfort - and Paris-Roubaix."

The S3 would probably be more of a "stiff ass race bike", the RS would be a fat-ass road bike (or at least a road-bike for people with fat asses - sorry, I have a thing against lax geometry roadbikes).

Nothing wrong with the RS,had one for a weekend brilliant bike.

niceonetom

horizon26 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the RS,had one for a weekend brilliant bike.

Nothing really. I just have slight issues with high-end bikes that masquerade as speedmachines but are actually armchairs. I dislike the Specialized Roubaix for the same reason. Some people love 'em though.

fat bloke

Hey, nothing wrong with comfort.

I'm riding an old Colnago Master Olympic, steel frame bike. It's not the lightest in the world, but by jaysus is it comfy. It's absolutely fantastic on our cruddy Irish roads - my carbon "nice" bike is in the shed, but I'm certainly don't miss the jarring and the juddering and the hand-numbing vibration - particularly on descents.

niceonetom

It's really the geometry of bikes like the RS and the Roubaix that I dislike. What's the point in all that carbonny goodness if you have to sit on it like a sail? - and you do have to sit that way thanks to the mahoosively tall (and therefore ugly) headtubes.

More than that, I dislike the fact that both these bike manufacturers are now so in tune with the fact that the vast majority of their customers are far too well heeled to be able to use a proper race geo bike so even their dedicated race bikes (like the new R5ca) come with these stupid tall headtubes and then the pros have to use -17 degree stems to get the bars low enough. Spesh have to custom make some frames for the pro teams they sponsor because the production models are not designed for speed, but designed for dentists. This saddens me. It's one thing for a producer to make bikes for the middle aged market, and let's face it, the vast majority of people who will pay for a R5ca are unlikely to be able to tough their toes, but it's a compromise in the wrong direction, I think.

This is just my take though, and I know I'm outnumbered on it.

fat bloke

I completely agree with you, and there's an alarming sameness in the swoopy back and down from the head tube trend of the specialised ilk, that I don't like (in terms of silhouette at least). But the good thing about bikes is that there are so many manufacturers and there is so much choice. As for spesh - in fairness have they not always run tandem frame builds of equally high quality and price, acknowledging the roubaix style sportive user, and the s-works racer?

I have a Felt and the geometry of the F range is almost resolutely old school in it's non sloping cross bar.

pprendeville

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Comfort is relative to the rider and subject to many variables such as wheels, tyres, tyre pressure, seatpost material and length, stem / handlebar, saddle, bar tape etc.... Not to mention variables introduced by the characteristics of the rider, their biomechanics and the way they fit the bike. No particular brand will be universally more comfortable and anything you read to the contrary is marketing bullsh*t and opinion.

Will carbon seatposts and handlebars give a much smoother ride than their aluminium equivalent?

horizon26

niceonetom wrote: »

Nothing really. I just have slight issues with high-end bikes that masquerade as speedmachines but are actually armchairs. I dislike the Specialized Roubaix for the same reason. Some people love 'em though.

I was only joking,the RS is a nice bike though.

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

It's really the geometry of bikes like the RS and the Roubaix that I dislike. What's the point in all that carbonny goodness if you have to sit on it like a sail? - and you do have to sit that way thanks to the mahoosively tall (and therefore ugly) headtubes.

Maybe because even though you train your not-at-all-fat ass off and would dearly love to be able to get really low and aero on an S3 with a 140mm stem, your back is too f*cked to allow that? That's certainly why I ride an RS rather than an R3 or S3.

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

Maybe because even though you train your not-at-all-fat ass off and would dearly love to be able to get really low and aero on an S3 with a 140mm stem, your back is too f*cked to allow that? That's certainly why I ride an RS rather than an R3 or S3.

Good for you.

I've tried explaining myself and pointing out that my opinion on this is just that, and doesn't require justification or agreement. I dislike expensive bikes that are designed around and for dentists instead of PRO racers. Nerves have been touched by this apparently. In light of this, I'm changing tack:

Do some yoga, and HTFU! Headset-spacers are for the weak!

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

I dislike expensive bikes that are designed around and for dentists instead of PRO racers.

Cancellara and O'Grady both won P-R on an RS. Not exactly fat-assed dentists. They rode that frame primarily to ease the pain of riding on cobbles. Perhaps they should have just HTFU'd too and ridden proper pro bikes. After all, all the other P-R winners managed to get through it without a denist mobile.

Do some yoga, and HTFU!

'Salute to the Sun' and 'Downward Facing Dog' being the hallmarks of hard men everywhere...

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

Cancellara and O'Grady both won P-R on an RS. Not exactly fat-assed dentists. They rode that frame primarily to ease the pain of riding on cobbles. Perhaps they should have just HTFU'd too and ridden proper pro bikes. After all, all the other P-R winners managed to get through it without a dentist mobile.



'Salute to the Sun' and 'Downward Facing Dog' being the hallmarks of hard men everywhere...

Don't believe the marketing blurb.

I don't know for certain, but I'd place money on both O'Grady and Cancellara's "RS"s being custom made with geometry that has nothing in common with your dentistmobile. Certainly the Specialized Roubaixs that Boonen and Cancellara won their Paris-Roubaixs on were custom made with proper pro geometry (long TT and short HT) and have nothing in common with the bike in the shops other than the decals.

Being unable to touch your toes does not a man make. If your masculinity is fragile enough to make you afraid of a little yoga, god knows how you manage to cope with life in lycra.


Edit: a quick google says O'Grady won P-R on an R3. I'm guessing Cance too. No one is fast on an RS. Comfy is code for slow. Deal with it.

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

Being unable to touch your toes does not a man make. If your masculinity is fragile enough to make you afraid of a little yoga, god knows how you manage to cope with life in lycra.

I did Yoga in the past but all the mumbo-jumbo (no offence intended to any Hindus reading) drove me nuts and I took up Pilates instead. So I'm perfectly secure in my masculinity, thanks. I was just poking fun at you putting Yoga and HTFU in the same sentence, knowing what the Chopper character would make of it.

Edit: a quick google says O'Grady won P-R on an R3. I'm guessing Cance too.

Yeah, the RS wasn't offered for sale until after the '08 P-R but the whole project only arose in large part from the work that was done to modify the R3 for P-R. In the '09 P-R, however, Hushovd et al rode an almost standard RS frame. The only differences were that the brake bridge was higher at the back and the fork blades were further apart to accommodate wider tyres. In every other respect according to the journos who looked at it, it was a standard RS. But, yeah, Hushovd being the slow, soft dentist that he is only managed to finish third that year. He might have won it if he HTFU'd and rode a pro bike.

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

Yeah, the RS wasn't offered for sale until after the '08 P-R but the whole project only arose in large part from the work that was done to modify the R3 for P-R.

You are a marketing man's dream.

cantalach wrote: »

In the '09 P-R, however, Hushovd et al rode an almost standard RS frame. The only differences were that the brake bridge was higher at the back and the fork blades were further apart to accommodate wider tyres. In every other respect according to the journos who looked at it, it was a standard RS. But, yeah, Hushovd being the slow, soft dentist that he is only managed to finish third that year. He might have won it if he HTFU'd and rode a pro bike.

Google says yes, you're right. In 2009 Thor did ride an RS and, bless him, he did use one of the -17* stems to try and get somewhere near his normal position. I guess when the bike manufacturer owns the team you have to ride what you're told to.

The next year the entire team was back on the R3s (with modifications to the fork and brake bridge but a normal PRO headtube and position).

The fact that the bike manufacturer paid one of its riders to race the RS does not mean it was designed around and for racers. No one designing that head tube had Thor in mind. They just didn't. Pros are notoriously resistant to changing their position at all and suddenly giving a rider the significant disadvantage of the increased drag of higher bars is going to be a tough sell - unless that rider is already a contracted employee that is. It's a testament to Thor's strength that he was still competitive.

I'm sure someone here could guessimate the extra watts raising your bars by 20mm dictates you produce at 50kph. I'd be sure it's not a trivial number.

The longer wheelbase and trail etc. make sense at roubaix and they mod the R3 to extend the stays and fork for tyre clearance - but don't kid yourself that that god awful headtube exists for any other reason than to save the dentists the embarrassment of 50mm of spacers.

Anyway, it's a good bike, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm only aying that it's designed for non racers. The cervelo site says as much. Don't get all defensive or be ashamed of it. HTFU and say it with pride: I ride a dentist's bike and I LOVE it!.

karlmyson

Watching this debate with interest. You know how to settle this score but you might be best not meeting really ...

niceone, I can tell you cantalach on his RS is downright awesome. I hope he never buys a proper PRO bike.

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

I'm sure someone here could guessimate the extra watts raising your bars by 20mm dictates you produce at 50kph. I'd be sure it's not a trivial number.

OK, last point I promise. I reckon you're spot on there. It is a significant number. If bikecalculator.com is to be believed, it looks like being somewhere between 25-40W at 40km/h. Here's the crucial thing though: for a huge percentage of people who buy expensive carbon bikes, this is a completely theoretical advantage and in practice the tables are reversed. Why? Too many people can't use the drops of their 'pro' bikes because they lack the flexibility and core strength to do so. Sure, they can get into the drops but they can't actually put out any kind of meaningful power. Their breathing is under too much pressure because their diaphragm has been recruited to provide stability. A tell-tale sign is a rider who goes into the drops when they're in 2nd or 3rd wheel but moves up to the hoods when they're on the front and additional power is needed.

For all of these people, the pro-looking bike with the long stem and no spacers is wasted and the only real advantage it offers them is aesthetic. Performance-wise, they would be better off on a bike with a more relaxed geometry that they can actually use properly. My other bike is a Giant TCR (a proper 'pro' geometry I hope you'll agree) but, truthfully, it's wasted on me. I'm much faster on my RS.

HTFU and say it with pride: I ride a dentist's bike and I LOVE it!.

I must admit that's kinda funny...

niceonetom

Now I'm not sure where we actually disagree to be honest. We barely do at all.

I understand the reasons why the RS or Spesh Roubaix geometry makes more sense to a lot of people, and you've explained them well there. Those are limitations that don't really apply to the truly PRO, so I guess my objection starts when manufacturers market these bikes to the public as pure race machines when really they're only race machines for people who can't use race machines. It's disingenuous. Obviously, sales would be hit if they came out and made a line-one admission that the prospective customer is just not suited to the bike he watches his heroes ride. Part of owning these high-end bikes is the fulfilment of fantasy for us weekend warriors - tact as as well as economics dictates that manufacturers and marketers participate in the dentists' PRO fantasy.

A lot of my objection is totally aesthetic. Short head-tubes are pretty.

The rest of it is good-old-fashioned snobbery. When you ride a Planet-X opportunities for snobbery are few and far between so I take them where I can. I am flexible enough to have no spacers below my stem though and, with my somewhat meagre power output, I grasp at anything that might make me faster or at least look faster.

Stick with the pilates and get some shallow drop bars. That giant deserves to be ridden.