weight v aerodynamics
 

I'm thinking about buying a Cervelo, and am torn between the R3 and the Soloist Carbon? I ride in NYC, so there aren't any particularly problematic climbs, though there are some areas with rolling "hills." Would you choose a light weight (R3) or aerodynamics (Soloist Carbon)?

They're both light as all hell.

Choose the one with the better fit or stiffness.

is the R3 even out? which one can you get your hands on first? i'm partial to the R3.

The R3 is out and available, at least here in NYC.

I'm also partial to the R3, but I suspect it is an inherent bias towards getting the lowest possible weight on a bike, because that is what we've been conditioned to think about for decades. I've recently heard and read that aerodynamics are probably more important.

i don't get aerodynamics because it's the rider position that matters most. i mean, once you put a rider on either of the bikes, i feel like aero doesn't matter anymore. the rider will screw up any drag they've managed to save on the bike.

I own the soloist carbon, and trust me, go for it. NYC has no climbs of note and even so, mine comes in at under 16 lbs with race wheels. The R3 does have a very nice ride if you are doing Roubaix style runs (potholes in NY ARE killer after all).

If you are going to use that logic, why buy a bike that is lighter? After all, you put a rider on either of them and it is going to be heavy. The answer is that the rider position (or weight) will be the same on both bikes and thus cancel each other out. The difference, therefore, still exists and still matters.

The answer? Buy both and give me the soloist.

I don't know what your budget is, but the R3 is cheaper than the Soloist carbon.

Basso used the Soloist Carbon for the Liege-Bastone-Liege, a climbing race.
Weight is ~200g difference, both are extremely strong frames. Aero has real advantages, but my Soloist is a handful in crosswinds while riding Solo. The R3 is substantially less expensive.

20% of drag is from the bike.

Get the aerodynamic bike, commit to lose 5lbs, and viola! best of both worlds.

The weight differance probably won't be noticable. The Soloist carbon can be built to go under the UCI weight limit, its no heffer.

I've always heard (with little backing) that 30% of drag is from the bike, but that includes wheels, which are the most important aerodynamics-wise.

They're both excellent bikes, the R3 should have a better ride on nasty roads and is quite a bit cheaper. The soloist will be slightly faster and is just too cool.

Flat spokes vs round spokes
 

wrong post*

I haven't ridden the Soloist but am very pleased with my R3. It's stiff, light and vertically compliant which is a bonus if your roads are not smooth. I don't think you'll go wrong with either purchase.

Both are sweet bikes and will work great. Buy whatever feels better and/or is cheaper.

Both are great bikes, you probably won't notice the difference performance-wise between them. Buy the one that has the best frame geometry for you.

is there any data regarding how much less drag the Soloist has compared to the R3?

The frame geometry, at least in the 58cm frame, the size I'm looking at, is identical. It would appear the only differences are the aero shape of the head and seat tube on the Sololist, and the seat stays.
I'm thinking that the R3 has to be more comfortable because of the seat stays. Anybody ridden both?

Just get both.

for the same reason why every cyclist in NYC wants a sub-16 lb bike: it's easier to carry when they're climbing the stairs up to their 6th floor walk up ;)

look at it this way: how fast are you? are you a racer? if you are, do you TT or take solo flyers? aerodynamics kick in when you're going FAST.

IMO aero anything is worthless until you're going over 25+ MPH

That would solve the problem, wouldn't it??

Would love to do so. Do you have any spare change?

It's always the issue of close, but no cigar.....both of these bikes are almost exactly what I'd want, but not quite.

Wind resistance becomes a major player (over weight and rolling resistance) at about 14 MPH. It is of extreme importance (I believe around 90% of all energy goes to wind resistance) above 22mph. So yes, it is important at racing speeds but also as low as 14mph.

I have not seen ay drag data, but as to differences, the head tube and seat tube are importantly different, but so is the downtube as well as tire clearance (in case you like to ride 25c or larger tires). The R3 will be more forgiving in the rear end than the soloist, and it is my experience that the Soloist rides about as with the same stiffness as an alum bike (which I like as most carbon is noodle-ee :) If you want, buy the one you are leaning towards, try it out, sell it if you don't like it...you will likely get back nearly every penny you spend as these are both hot items.

What type of H2O bottles will the Soloist Carbon take since it has aerodynamic tubing?, and how does it affect the drag? Seems that standard, round bottles would completely defeat the purpose of the special tubing, and that there would not be much in the way of choices for reducing drag.

on analytic cyclist there's a chart showing time gained at the same output through aerodynamics. the slower guys actually gain more time than the fast guys. i'll try to find it for you. aero still plays a huge role in the whole thing.

the soloist weights 200 grams more. thats nothing compaired to the aero benefits. plus it just looks pimp.