Cervelo R3 (comfortable or not?)

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.

Lumen

I think niceonetom's objection is not so much that middle-aged dentists have too much money and can't touch their toes, but that the needs of this market end up affecting the design of pro bikes.

IMO this would be resolved by shooting the marketing idiots who decided to force pros to use a relaxed geometry bike with a -17 degree stem.

As a member of the too-old-and-inflexible-technology-magpie demographic I'm quite happy to ride watered down products versions like the Cervelo RS (which I don't own) or carbon clinchers (which I do), and I see absolutely no value in forcing this stuff on pros to score marketing points.

The fact is, the dynamics of a bicycle at 45kph and 400W are completely different from the dynamics of a bicycle at 30kph and 180W, and the needs of a pro cycling on smooth continental roads with full team support are completely different to those of an amateur pottering solo along over the pitted roads of Wicklow, so there's no real reason why slow amateurs should be using the same equipment as fast pros.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

I think niceonetom's objection is not so much that middle-aged dentists have too much money and can't touch their toes, but that the needs of this market end up affecting the design of pro bikes.

Yes. That objection had slipped my mind. The geometry of the R5ca actually makes me angry.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Yes. That objection had slipped my mind. The geometry of the R5ca actually makes me angry.

Hmmm.

Epic top tube length - 586mm on the size 56!

Not sure what that's about. Are zero offset seatposts compulsory now?

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Hmmm.

Epic top tube length - 586mm on the size 56!

Not sure what that's about. Are zero offset seatposts compulsory now?

The effective tt length is distorded by that 72* seat-tube. I think the reach is the in the same as the 56cm R5 with a more normal-sounding 564mm tt.

The 72* seat tube angle is presumably there to make a zero-offset seat post give the same saddle position as a 73* s-t with a 20mmseat-post. That makes sense from a gram shaving point of view, but I think it would be hard for me, or anyone who who doesn't normally use a 20mm off set seat-post, to get a good fit.

It's the 173mm head-tube that makes me angry though. They've designed the ultimate climbing bike around a rider for whom all that gram shaving is pointless.

They're also normalising this tall front end thing (and 3T are helping them) so I fear the day when pros all have to have their bikes custom made and all the standard bikes in the shops need silly up-and-then-down stem set-ups to get a low front end.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

The effective tt length is distorded by that 72* seat-tube. I think the reach is the in the same as the 56cm R5 with a more normal-sounding 564mm tt.

The 72* seat tube angle is presumably there to make a zero-offset seat post give the same saddle position as a 73* s-t with a 20mmseat-post. That makes sense from a gram shaving point of view, but I think it would be hard for me, or anyone who who doesn't normally use a 20mm off set seat-post, to get a good fit.

But the seat tube is 73 degrees on all sizes, which is the same as most race bikes.

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

That giant deserves to be ridden.

I'm afraid the Giant has been permanently attached to my turbo since I got the RS! The problem is that not only does it have the aggressive TCR geometry, it's also the older alloy model and the road buzz coming up through the saddle is savage sometimes. On a 200km day it just beats you up completely.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

But the seat tube is 73 degrees on all sizes, which is the same as most race bikes.

There has to be something wrong somewhere - according to the chart the top-tube is longer but the reach is the same, as is the front-centre and rear-centre. That has to mean the seat-angle is slacker, right? Where else could these extra mm be coming from?

There's also been a bit on online discussion about the 72* seat-tube angle and its pros and cons.

niceonetom

cantalach wrote: »

I'm afraid the Giant has been permanently attached to my turbo since I got the RS! The problem is that not only does it have the aggressive TCR geometry, it's also the older alloy model and the road buzz coming up through the saddle is savage sometimes. On a 200km day it just beats you up completely.

I know that feeling from my old alu cube. Stiff but the buzz was a mare. If I could I'd have two bike with identical riding positions, one brutally stiff and respeonsive for racing (maybe a S3) and the other a bit cushy (the planet-x probably).