Hermes

My observation is that pros use what the sponsors provide to the owners of the teams. Our racing club has many sponsors and we get deals from them (Cervelo is not one). For example, our team kits are from Voler. I wear Voler. Is it the best? Probably not but it is cheap via our club and works fine.

I do not know if I have to give up comfort versus stiffness. Wheelsets and tire pressure can make a huge difference in comfort. I was very pleased with my LBS's work to set up the bike for me. We did it to get close. If I like it and want to pursue a bike at this price point, then we can play around with different wheelsets. My LBS has numerous demo wheelsets from deep dish carbons to the Mavics with carbon spokes that I demoed and I have my own stable of wheels. All of my wheelsets are Shimano compatible.

Hermes

My Race XXX Lites are 1350 gm which is the same as the Mavics with the carbon spokes. The Mavics said TT Demo on the stickers. I think it is a wheelset that is available to shops for demos.

Right now, I am running Easton Tempest IIs on the Madone for the winter. The carbons are hanging around along with the Race Lites that came with the bike. A few months ago, I weighed the Madone with the Race Lites using the bathroom scale approach i.e. me and then me with bike. It was around 19 pounds +-. I did it again with the Race XXX lites and it was 17.5 +-. My 4 pounds may be overstated. Also, bike weights are always quoted without pedals and in the smallest size frame. For the Cervelo to come in at 15.2 pounds in a 58 cm frame with pedals and a heavy water bottle cage is remarkable. The frame is in the 800 gm range.

In general, racers do not like Bontrager wheelsets - to soft and not stiff enough. And the wheelsets issued to pro teams by Bontrager are different that what we get.

The main draw for me to the R3 SL frame was its claim to be stiff, light and strong (ideal for Paris Roubaix) and shock absorbing. That statement seems like it has something in it for everyone. However, testing is the way to sift through the BS.

I have a coach and go to a cycling training center. My coach says my weight is ideal right now so I will hold 168. I am putting my money into the engine right now. Bike buying is a couple of months off when the engine and riding position are tuned up a bit more. For example, my coach thinks that I may be ready for for a 53/39 double by the middle of the year. These guys are hardware agnostic and only care about hitting your numbers and doing what they say.

I really like my Madone and Trek is a great company that takes cycling very seriously as well as product quality. I will try definitely try a new one.

Hermes

The R3 was not twitchy and handling was superb. So is my Madone. However, I will say that the R3 felt, (very qualitative statement) very stable going really fast and turned precisely where I looked. As you know, you look ahead through the turns at high speed so the bike goes where you look. Never look down or to the side of the road on a high speed descent or that is where you go. More so than the Madone.

BikeWNC

FWIW, I weighed a set of Mavic R-Sys wheels at 1400g. So they are not quite as light as Mavic says. Also, they are the least aero set of wheels on the market. I'm waiting for the new Shimano wheels to come out.

Hermes

Campy shifting seemed heavy to me. It requires a very positive force. Shimano goes out of their way to create a light action on their Ultegra and D/A. But this is a Porsche / Ferrari debate.

Acceleration was amazing both sitting and standing but I suspect standing more so because that is where the later stiffness and lower weight would really come into play.

Velodiva

Hermes gave me a full verbal report of his test ride, but left out this detail. Easy sale?? Hmmm . . . .

BikeWNC

I thought he was referring to you when he mentioned the babe in the parking lot. Silly me.

Terex

Agreed. From reviews on Roues Artisanales and Tour Magazin, the Shimanos look good. I think I'd really like some Reynolds DV46-C's, but they are a bit spendy.

Nice bike Hermes! Looks like you're going to find something really nice.

And about the compact question - I've got a 53/39 with 12/25 or 12/27 cogs on my Scott CR1 SL. I've got a compact on my older, heavier Trek 2300. Seems like a nice combination for me. I always ride hills, and I ride the Scott in the summer and the Trek in the winter.

stapfam

Stem length is not as critical to handling as getting the fit right. If that requires a shorter stem on a larger bike- then so be it. I cannot understand why the stem length has to be 100mm or it won't work.
The height of the saddle- even if it is a sloping tube- Does not point to a smaller frame being a necessity to me. Although a 56 may fit you better- will the top tube be 20mm longer? Or will a different stem length still be required on the 56 to get the fit right?

Now on the wheels- when I was checking out bikes last year- I took my good set of wheels along to check out the bike. A different set of wheels could cause a big difference in the handling that could sway your decision one way or the other.

Looks a great bike but it will be interesting to see if other bikes match up to it.

wagathon

I have the same experience with stem lengths--whatever works best. Additionally, the spec chart in the OP has an interesting measurement that I have not seen for other bikes: the "Reach."

The 61c Cervelo's Reach is only 6mm longer than the 58. An even smaller frame, seems to me, permanently locks a rider into an aggressive riding position.

I seldom use my drops. Even so, I like set-ups that allow that option, as well as a range of hand and body positions that are above the drop-position.

BikeWNC

Reach really makes more sense than the old use of setback. Both really describe the same thing. In the case of the R3 with parallel 73 degree angles the difference in top tube length is divided equally between reach and setback. The math works out to Cos 73 degrees = x/20mm (the added HT length) where x = 5.85mm.

So with the larger 61cm frame the bars will be for the same stem length and angle, 2cm higher and 6mm longer. Meanwhile the saddle relative to the seatpost clamp would have to move forward 6mm to be in the same position behind the BB. So really the rider would only have the extra 6mm of reach and 2cm of bar height different than the 58cm frame.

Now to directly compare the two frames, if we moved the bar up the 2cm on the 58 to equal the bar height of a 61cm frame with no spacers, the bar would then move 6mm closer to the saddle. So the difference between the two bikes at the same bar height would be 12mm or coincidently due to the parallel angles and similar geometry the same as the difference in top tubes of the two frames.

The larger frame would have a longer wheelbase. In the case of the R3 with similar chainstay lengths in all sizes, all that would be in the front end. How that affects handling would be dependent upon position on the bike and type of riding you do.

BluesDawg

Looks like there will be quite a few Cervelos on the roads of California soon. Team CSC is on the roster for the Tour of California.

Cleave

Hi,

My last road race in October looked like a Cervelo convention at the start line. It was a Pro/1/2/3 race (it wasn't my original intent to be racing with these guys!) and most of the Cervelos were SLC-SLs.

Anyway, I very seriously considered the Soloist Carbon and the R3 before going with Serotta. I am still quite impressed with the design of the R3.

oilman_15106

Buddie of mine recently got the same bike. Full Record and Shamal wheels! Have not seen it yet but when pressed he said after everything was said and done the LBS had $7000 of his hard earned dollars.

Hermes

I was hoping to lure SSP into this discussion. There has to be a hot chick to get his attention.

maddmaxx 

Scramble.....scramble.......scratch.......

Red Rider

Picture?

[IMG][/IMG]

Velodiva

That is pretty lame.

Hermes

You know dear. I thought it WAS you. You know how easily men can get confused.

maddmaxx 

Scramble......scratch.......scramble.......grovel......