sky blue sky

I am looking at getting my first good road bike. I never thought I could afford a Cervelo but now it seems that the sale prices of the 2010 models are quite reasonable. I was looking at the RS first because it is been marketed as being a more comfortable bike. It might suit me better because I am not planning to race and I want a bike that feels good on longer rides. Then I found an R3 for almost the same price. That seems to be a better deal. Are there major differences between the two? Does R3 feel harsh compared to the RS?

So 2010 RS with Rival or 2010 R3 with Ultegra? Both come with quite cheap wheels. The price difference is about €250.

v70cat

The R3 and the RS has different geometry, the RS has a higher front end but both should ride about the same. If you have a big belly or a bad back go with the RS, if not go with the R3. Both bikes should ride very nice. Make sure that the R3 has Ultrgra 6700 with the front cables under the tape.

You should also look at the 2011 R3 prices. The 2011 R3 has a number of improvements. https://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2011/R3/.

In addtion it seems that they cut prices for the 2011 models.
https://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2.../prices-specs/

JimF22003

I haven't ridden the RS, but my R3SL is anything but harsh. It's way smoother than the Trek 5.5 I had before. That's the very first thing I noticed about it when I first rode it. It's like the bumps and the cracks in the road weren't there. The handling is fantastic too.

v70cat

Yes my R3SL also rides nice thanks to the super-thin seatstays that is common to the RS, R3 and R3SL. The new 2011 R3 is lighter ( I think but have not weighed them) than our older R3SL and costs $4,000 with Ultegra 6700. It would seem like the bike to get. At the $4,000 price range it is probably the best bike (better than other brands) for the money in 2011.

patentcad

The RS is a Fredilicious R3.

bostongarden

My first impression on the pricing is positive. It strikes me as relatively aggressive. This may explain why I've seen a dramatic drop in price on eBay for R3s

simonaway427

The RS is no slouch. Just because it has a longer head tube doesn't make it slow. Its a race winning bike.

Buy whichever one feels the best - both are fantastic bikes.

sky blue sky

The problem is that my LBS does not have the right size in stock. I would have to order the bike and commit to buy. There is no way I could test drive them first and then decide. The R3 deal sounds pretty good to me and I have an Ultegra on my cyclocross bike so I know that it's good stuff. I am a little worried about the fit and comfort of the bike. Would this be a comfortable bike for an amateur rider?

jrobe

"Does R3 feel harsh compared to the RS?"


That is the first time the word harsh was ever used in the same sentence as a R3. They designed these bikes to ride the cobbles of Paris Roubaix. These bikes are as smooth as a baby's behind. The RS is just designed to ride a little more upright.

I am 52 years old and have a bad back and I can ride my R3 all day comfortably. You can't go wrong with either bike as long as you get the right size and are fitted on it properly.

alpha_bravo

The R3 is very comfortable. I have had mine for about three months and have been amazed at how comfortable it is. As others have mentioned, it really seems to smooth out even the roughest chip seal. However, when you need it to respond, the bike doesn't seem to flex a millimeter. I test rode a lot of bikes before buying, they all claim to combine stiffness and compliance, but none did as well as the R3 IMHO.

Ride quality the RS and R3 are identical, it's just that the geometry is a bit different. Coming from cyclocross, the RS will be a little more familiar to you, taller head tube, steeper seat tube angle, etc. Really the only way to know is to get out and ride one. See if you can find an R3 to ride even if it means driving some distance to find a bike shop that has one.

Whatever way you decide, you're going to have a great bike.

valygrl

I test rode an RS and R3SL back to back this summer, at a demo day associated with a race. They are both awesome.

I think the RS would be easier to get used to as your first "real" bike, because of the more upright position, and you probably wouldn't need anything more aggressive for a long time / if ever, unless you are racing.

For me, the RS felt too upright, and the R3SL felt great. But we didn't tweak the bar placement, both bikes had a couple of spacers under the bars, so it's hard to say. If I bought it, the RS would probably lose all the spacers under the bars, but the R3SL would keep some, so that's an aesthetic decision.

When I finished the ride I said "I want the R3SL handling with the RS's comfort." It might be important to add that I ride the XS size, so the RS had 650 wheels, which I don't like, and which I think contribute to the handling characteristic that I didn't like on the RS. That kind of takes me out of the market for the RS.

If you end up with the R3, make sure to tell them to leave the steer tube long, then you can raise the bars, and move them down as you become more flexible / want a more aggressive position.

v70cat

I am over 50 and a amateur and love the fit and ride of my R3SL get the R3.


The LBS should do a fit before you buy, if not look for another shop.

ericm979

The LBS should definitely do a fit before you buy.

The differences between the RS and R3 are:
RS has 1cm longer chainstays
RS has curved seatstays
RS has a taller head tube
and the RS uses slightly cheaper carbon

The longer chainstays will make handling a bit slower and the bike more stable. That's not a bad thing as the R3 is fairly quick handling. It's a small difference that won't turn it into a truck. I don't know what difference the curved seat stays will make, as the R3's are pretty small as it is. The taller head tube means that you will need fewer spacers to get the bars high enough. If you prefer a severe seat to bar drop or have short legs for your height you may not be able to get the bars low enough. But that's much less likely than not being able to get the bars high enough on an R3. The difference in carbon won't be noticed.. it's like an extra 50g.
The RS is also cheaper, which is nice.

If you can't get fit on either one before you commit to buying, I'd go for the RS as it's more likely to fit. But buying a bike that expensive without test riding it is not a good idea- too many things can go wrong. I'd buy a different make/model that you can test ride and fit instead of a Cervelo that you can't test. A bike that doesn't fit isn't a good deal no matter how little you paid for it.

DaveSSS 

It's always been my opinion that the 49 and 51cm sizes had goofy geometry. I owned a 51cm in 2006 just long enough to ride it for 200 miles. I thought it sucked, so I tore it down and sold the frame. My complaints were steering that was too twitchy, huge amounts of toe overlap and chainstays that were too short. The ride was also pretty rough. For 2011, all of the geometry that they claimed to be so great is now gone, in favor of geometry that's about the same as other popular brands, like the LOOK 585 that I bought to replace the R3.

There is little difference in the fit of the two frames, other than the minimum handlebar height is about 20mm lower on the R3.

v70cat

I have heard of people going to a independent fitter before buying. That way the fitter gives you direction on what bike will fit you best. I purchase my Cervelo without sitting on it but knew my measurements and fit. This might help https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...&SITE.CODE=RDB

Garfield Cat

Whichever you choose, get a nice wheelset right away. Maybe your retailer will give you a deal if you buy the bike and an upgraded wheelset.

sky blue sky

It will take a few months before I could ride the new bike so I have some time to save money for new wheels. Damn winter.

sky blue sky

I am ready to pull the trigger with the R3. The only thing that I am a little worried about is the fit. My riding position is not very aggressive. Here's a picture of my current bike. As you can see, the saddle to bar drop is quite small. Could this be done with an R3?

DaveSSS 

Post your actual saddle height and the saddle to bar drop, then I can tell you. The easy way to measure the drop if to measure vertically from the floor to the top of the bars and the top of the saddle, then take the difference. Saddle height is always measured from the center of the BB to the top of the saddle, along the centerline of the seat tube.

I was going to suggest an easier method, but comparing a cross bike to a road bike involves too many variable - larger tires, longer fork, different BB drop. Comparing two road bikes is not difficult.

roadiejorge 

Indeed. It comes with a basket too.

sky blue sky

Thank you very much Dave.

From the floor to the top of the bars is 89cm and from the floor to the top of the saddle is 95cm. So the difference is only 6cm. Center of the BB to the top of the saddle is 69.5cm.

Caveman

I just bought a 2010 RS. My 'old' bike is a Litespeed Solano and I really don't notice any big difference in fit and riding position between my old bike and my new RS. I think the difference in riding position between the RS and R3 is greatly over exagerated. Don't buy an RS thinking it's a comfort bike. It's clearly not. It is still an aggresive riding position and the slightly taller headtube is about the same as having one extra spacer on your steerer tube. I'm sure the technicians and racers can objectively prove me wrong but my subjective opinion is there isn't much real difference. I think you will be very happy with either one. Buy the right frame size (RS or R3) and then tweak the riding position to suit by altering the stem length, rise, spacers, bar width, setback, etc. They are so similar I would let the price be the guiding factor.

By all accounts my Litespeed was highly regarded in it's day and the RS has a great reputation as well. Comparing the two the Cervelo is smooth and void of any vibration but it's not as plush as the Litespeed. The RS is also lighter and much stiffer in the BB even though the Litespeed is no slouch in the lateral stiffness department. The Litespeed feels slightly (very slightly) more stable but I can dive into a fast corner easier on the RS and it feels very stable in the turn. I have no difficulty riding either one hands off coasting or pedaling.

I've been casually looking for a CF bike for about 2 years but I resisted for three reasons. One, my Litespeed is a terrific bike and there was no urgency to change. Two, for the money no CF bike on the market was worth it as far as how much of an improvement it would have been over my Ti bike. I liked a few CF bikes but dropping $3K+ didn't really get me much more than I already had. Finally, most of the CF bikes I looked at didn't really excite me for one reason or another. The ones I really liked were pretty expensive and the bargain ones didn't appeal to me that much.

I bought the RS because it was a killer deal ($2500) and one of a few that I really liked. At the time I wasn't looking to buy a new bike but I couldn't pass up the bargain and so far I'm very pleased with it and I would buy it again in a second.

BTW, it's also my first road bike with a SRAM gruppo (Rival). I have 9spd DA on my Litespeed and Ultegra 10spd on another bike. Simply said the Rival is clearly better than the Ultegra and just as good as the older DA. The Rival brakes are way better than either of the Shimanos. If Rival is this good I can't imagine how good Force/Red is. I know mechanically they are the same and the main difference is materials, but never-the-less, I'm convinced. SRAM is the way to go.

YMMV.

operator

The rival brakes are only better than stock shimano because they come with swissstops pads. Put those same pads on the shimano's and they will stop just as well.

I love unsubstantiated stuff like this on bikeforums. You think they're better, but you have no idea why but you will still say that they are. Good job.

The geometry changes in 2011 pushes the R3 closer to that of a 2010 RS. If you're looking to race, you wouldn't even bother looking at the R3 and head straight for the R5. The weight difference in stock bikes with Sram kit is extreme from 2010 range. A 58 R5 with red comes in at 14.8lb's without pedals. A 54 R3 with rival comes in at 16.5 without pedals. Which again, is significantly lighter than the 2010 RS.

You'd be stupid to buy the 2010 RS if

a) you fit the R3
b) you like how it rides geometry wise
c) minimal price difference

The RS is carbon for the cheap, old geezers and people with zero flexibility who can't handle race geometry. It was Cervelos first bike that wasn't designed to be raced from the outset then sold to consumers. It's a slow bike, meant for slow people.

DaveSSS 

With a saddle height of 69.5cm, you only need a total head tube length, with headset and spacers, of 140mm to get that 6cm saddle to bar drop, with an 84 degree stem. The 51cm size of the R3 or the XS size of the RS would have the needed head tube length. The RS has a shorter reach, but uses the oddball 650C front wheel. The R3 is has a very aggressive geometry, with lots of toe overlap.

Personally, I'd look at another brand. I've owned many high end road frames and I was not impressed with R3. The 2011 model is an improvement, with regard to geometry. It took Cervelo 5 years to realize that their geometry was goofy. Now it falls in line with many other brands.

Caveman

I love unsubstantiated stuff like this on bikeforums. You think you know better, you have no idea why but you will say it anyways. Good job.

What's your problem sport? I gave an apples to apples comparison of my experience with DA, Rival and Ultegra. I own them and I ride them.... a lot. Maybe you have a different experience, but to reply to my post in an insulting tone is BS. GFY.