mauisher

Hi, I'm in the market for a new bike and am considering a Cervelo R3 or RS. I currently ride a small 52 cm Trek 5500 with a race geometry, which fits fairly well with adjustments. I do not race but ride agressively (I think !!). The head tube is 10cm on the Trek and I have about 2 cm of spacers between the head tube and the stem, which is flat. I'm aware of all the other geometric differences between my current bike and the two different Cervelo's. Due to logistics, it's impossible to try the bikes. It seems that the R3 would be ok for me.

Which bike??? What considerations?? Any of you Cervelo owners out there who've tried both with your opinions between the two? Thanks

RoboCheme

I have a RS and I'm very happy with it. The RS has a longer headtube and longer chainstays. If you read this thread from the beginning, you'll get an understanding of the differences and how they set up the RS for Paris-Roubaix.

https://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/3...px?PageIndex=1

mauisher

Thanks for the link. Still not sure why the RS might be better.

RoboCheme

More upright position without the spacers. If you don't want a more upright position, get the R3.

sirious94

rs for comfort
r3 for climbing
s3 for racing

dalava

RS has 20mm longer headtube (in the 56cm frame) than the R3. It also has about 11mm longer chainstay to compensate the taller headtube to achieve the same riding control as an R3. RS would be a bit more "comfortable" than a R3 because of these difference: you are more upright because of the taller headtube, and you feel a more plush ride because of the longer chainstay. But make no mistake, RS is not a touring bike, it's still a race bike. There are suggestions that you can just add a bunch of spacers and flip the stem on a R3 to get the same effect as RS, and they are wrong! The geometry change in the taller headtube *requires* the chainstay lengthening. And if you jack up a R3, you will get a twitchier and very different ride than a RS.

I also believe the new R3 has a different seattube diameter from the RS, but I could be wrong.

Hammertoe

The RS will fit those with longer legs and a short torso better than the R3...

And climbing will not necessarily be better with the R3...

If you are a pure climber, as I am, having a taller head tube creates a better climbing position...

Hammertoe

jrobe

"I do not race but ride agressively"


I am 51 years old and not very limber anymore. The R3 was the better fit for me though. I have it set up with about a 4" drop from the saddle to the bars. If I was going to spend money like this on a race bike, I didn't want to be riding it in a less aggressive position. Many of the pictures you see here of the RS show that the owners have it set up with very little if any drop to the bars. I wouldn't have needed a Cervelo to ride that upright.

After I bought a Cervelo TT bike, I realized the big advantage of a more aerodynamic position and have gradually lowered the bars even more.

From you post, it sounds like the R3 is probably the better bike for you. Haveing said that though, it is kind of foolish to buy a bike like this without an extensive fitting session and a little test riding.

DaveSSS 

I owned a 51cm R3 long enough to ride it 200 miles. IMO, the geometry sucked and the ride was not great either. No other brand makes a frame with such a short front-center and small (twitchy) steering trail in this size. I tore my down and sold the frame.

With the RS they went too far in the other direction, making the HTA a slack 71 degrees. The longer chainstays have nothing to do with the taller head tube. If anything, they would balance out the weigh distribution change from the longer front-center. The twitchy ride of an R3 is due to the short steering trail and very short wheelbase, not the handlebar height.

When comparing head tubes be sure that you add the proper amount for the headset. The Cervelos will probably come with 10mm tall headset top sections, but they also offer a 20mm. As I remeber, even though the frame uses an IS standard headset, the OD of the head tube is not exactly the same as most FSA or Cane Creek IS standard headset top sections.

MDcatV

how often is this question asked?

OP - check the search function I swear I answered your question within the past week or so.

Cleave

Hi,

+1. I've answered this question about this size R3 vs RS more than once too.

I really respect DaveSSS opinion about bicycles and his detailed technical knowledge. I don't agree with his handling assessment of the R3.

I raced my 51 cm R3 over 800 miles this year -- mostly in criteriums. IMHO, the handling is far from twitchy. I find that the front end gives up (slides) at the limit. I am not crazy about the handling of the bike but some of it may be due to the Tufo tires on my race wheels. On the few training rides I've done with the bike (one in the mountains) the handling was OK with some cheap clinchers.

The best thing about the bike? It is really light.

My teammate has 51 cm RS and he loves it. He just turned 70.

PSR215

I think it was too. I have the RS and like it, I have ridden the r3 and liked it very much but at 62 thought Id be better off in the long run with the RS. However on one group ride I do theres two white r3s that I like so Im still conflicted

DaveSSS 

Cleave...

The R3 is probably a fine crit bike. I don't race crits. I have a very aggressive setup (11cm saddle to bar drop) amd I've but I've got my saddle tip 6-7cm behind the BB center for climbing. I much prefer a little longer stays, more steering trail and a longer wheelbase for high speed descents. I much prefer my LOOK 585 frames. I've got an Ultra if I want more stiffness and an origin with a little better ride.

Zen Cyclery

R3 all the way!