View Full Version : Cervelo or Roo?
I can get a pretty good discount fro my LBS on any of these brands. I am looking at the P2ksl for 2k, Kilo for $1,500 and the Tequila for $1900. I am kind of thinking I should get the Kilo and then get a good set of wheels but am also tempted by the nicer albeit slightly better frames. They all fit so that is not an issue and am just trying to make up my mind.
Thanks
Matt
if your budget is limited , get the kilo and have the extra money to put towards an aero wheelset.
spiderbike
02-01-07, 05:11 PM
both the roo's have aluminum seat post...IMO carbon seatpost are a must
Also on the p2 sl the seat tube angle is a little steeper which gives some people more comfort but If your okay with more shallow and limited angle of Roo's then thats not a concern.
A comfortable bike that allows you to stay in the tuck is more important than aero wheels
I think that I would go with either the p2 sl or Tequilla, get a carbon searpost and save the wheels for the next big purchase...
the kilo BB leaves a lot to desired (FSA Gossamer MegaExo)
Sprocket Man
02-01-07, 06:24 PM
both the roo's have aluminum seat post...IMO carbon seatpost are a must
Also on the p2 sl the seat tube angle is a little steeper which gives some people more comfort but If your okay with more shallow and limited angle of Roo's then thats not a concern.
A comfortable bike that allows you to stay in the tuck is more important than aero wheels
I think that I would go with either the p2 sl or Tequilla, get a carbon searpost and save the wheels for the next big purchase...
the kilo BB leaves a lot to desired (FSA Gossamer MegaExo)A couple of things about your post need clarification/correction:
1. The P2SL can be adjusted to either a 78 degree or 75 degree seatpost angle, depending on how you position the top section of the seatpost. Both of the QRs that the OP listed have a 78.5 degree seatpost angle. So the QRs ride steeper than the P2SL (regardless of seatpost position). Not to say QR is any better or worse than the Cervelo, it's just steeper.
2. Carbon seatposts offer slightly lighter weight (possibly 15-30 grams at most) and greater "bling" than aluminum. However the general consensus is that carbon seatposts offers no discernable performance advantage or comfort advantage over aluminum. It offers no performance advantage because the weight savings, if it exists, is so small, there is no practical difference. And it offers no comfort advantage because carbon seatposts don't absorb any more up and down shock than aluminum does. It's not that I think there's anything wrong with carbon seatposts - I bought one for one of my bikes. But I know that the only reason I have it is because it looks nice - nothing more.
3. What's wrong with the FSA Gossamer MegaExo BB? I have one on my Felt and I've never had problems with it.
spiderbike
02-01-07, 08:01 PM
A couple of things about your post need clarification/correction:
1. The P2SL can be adjusted to either a 78 degree or 75 degree seatpost angle, depending on how you position the top section of the seatpost. Both of the QRs that the OP listed have a 78.5 degree seatpost angle. So the QRs ride steeper than the P2SL (regardless of seatpost position). Not to say QR is any better or worse than the Cervelo, it's just steeper.
2. Carbon seatposts offer slightly lighter weight (possibly 15-30 grams at most) and greater "bling" than aluminum. However the general consensus is that carbon seatposts offers no discernable performance advantage or comfort advantage over aluminum. It offers no performance advantage because the weight savings, if it exists, is so small, there is no practical difference. And it offers no comfort advantage because carbon seatposts don't absorb any more up and down shock than aluminum does. It's not that I think there's anything wrong with carbon seatposts - I bought one for one of my bikes. But I know that the only reason I have it is because it looks nice - nothing more.
3. What's wrong with the FSA Gossamer MegaExo BB? I have one on my Felt and I've never had problems with it.
1. All the Roo's OP listed that are above a size 49cm bike has a 76.5 degree seat tub angle!!!! Some people find this uncomfortable for long tri's. Maybe not this OP
2. In my experience when I switched from a alum. seat post to a carbon I notice a more comfortable ride on choppy roads...again might not be a problem for OP
3. That BB is not good, just a opinion from prior use...maybe OP likes bad BB
strukljv
02-02-07, 06:04 AM
Just a few points that came to mind...
1.) I can't comment much on the angle of the seat post but I do agree with Sprocketman that the carbon seat post will offer minimal advantage over an aluminum one. I have a Cervelo with an aluminum seat post but the carbon fork seems to take care of the bumpy roads.
2.)Also, I think CurtKurt has the right idea. 9 times out of 10 I'd probably go with a somewhat less expensive bike and a nice set of aero wheels over a really expensive bike. I purchased a set of HED3's this past season and the difference was amazing.
3.) I also have had no problems with the mega exo bottom bracket. Maybe spiderbike just got a lemon?
Anyways, just thought I'd offer my two cents.
I love my kilo
In my experience, carbon posts are waaaaaay overated. everyone is different though.
1. All the Roo's OP listed that are above a size 49cm bike has a 76.5 degree seat tub angle!!!! Some people find this uncomfortable for long tri's. Maybe not this OP
actually, the 07's all have a 78.5 degree seattube angle. the 06's are at 76.5 in the large size.
I have a kilo and hed3's.
My megaexo gossamers have been fine so far for the first year.
I should mention these are all 06's.
spiderbike
02-02-07, 08:44 AM
I love my kilo
In my experience, carbon posts are waaaaaay overated. everyone is different though.
actually, the 07's all have a 78.5 degree seattube angle. the 06's are at 76.5 in the large size.
I have a kilo and hed3's.
My megaexo gossamers have been fine so far for the first year.
1. That would make a big difference in bike choice for me. They certianly become = appealing with that angle.
2. yes I did have a bad experience with that BB...that is a fairly easy and inexpensive change if you have the same experience as me.
SaabFan
02-02-07, 09:03 AM
Key question: Have you ridden or been fit to any of these bikes?
IMHO you won't go wrong with any of them, but personally I'd lean towards the Cervelo, since the component spec is a bit higher and I like a lot of the little touches on the frame. But I own a P2k, so I'm biased.
Oh, and to emphasize a point someone made earlier: Don't worry about tiny performance gains from features on the bikes or aero wheels. Get a bike with a *frame* that fits you, and components that will last. You can always jump on some wheels next year, or whatever.
Does your dealer have any Cervelo Duals? IMHO they are an absolutely stupid-good buy, even at MSRP.
Just to make this trickier, there is an 06.5. 06 graphics, with 07 geometry. You wouldn't know the difference without measuring the angles, don't think.
Secondly, carbon seatpost won't matter at all.
Third, any chance of getting a Dual? I think they are around $1500 for Ultegra versions. I think Cervelo has great frames.
Fourth, helmet and wheels = great investment. Older Zipp 440/530s are fast wheels that can be had for about $400-500 a pair. And a chrono helmet is $100
No dual's but I sure he can get one. I am just trying to tell myself I dont need CF now. I mainly ride road but have started swimming and running and to be honest I feel like I am in better shape mixing it up like that than just riding so may as well have a goal.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.