Ok ok!!! sl3 is the king of comfort bikes! Lol.

Either way the cervelo is a great bike, weight is no issue here.

Campag- im getting the sworks as a replacement on my sl3 :(.

I found a crack on the paint, near tje seat clamp. Its very very small, but specialized came thru. I only need to pay shipping and component swap. Its awesome!!! I also got my current sl3 that way, my sl2 had a finish flaw (crack) were the carbon met metal on the back triangle non drive side.

I ride my bikes hard, maintain them clean, and my mechanic is a specialized authorized mechanic. I consider myself lucky, and will always tell people to buy from reputable authorized dealers.

As to compare the sl2 to the sl3. Its a bit difficult for me, the sl2 was a tad big for me 54" and the sl3 is a 52" the difference in fit is huge. The sl2 is a bit more agressive but its more comfortable than the sl2. Its notisably stiffer! I will stop here, cause im a newby at cycling( started road cycling on
2010). My first modern road bike was the sl2, i was 30 pounds heavier, and 3avg mph slower than today. Im a very different rider now. To be fair ill let more experienced riders compare.

Comparing the geometries of 54 cm S2, R3, and RS.


BK_SZ___WHS____HTA____BB____HTT__HTL__FC___RC___SOH__STK__REA___RK
S2_54___700c___73°____68____545__140__573__399__746__541__380
R3_54___700c___73.1°__68____548__148__575__405__753__555__378
RS_54___700c___72°____68____546__160__590__410__764__555__376___49
RS_51___700c___71°____68____532__140__588__410__742__531__369___53


It's interesting that the slightly longer head tube (160mm or 12 mm longer than the R3) doesn't change the reach by much (just 2 mm).

It would seem that "more upright" (the RS) would mean a significantly shorter reach. Are people supposed to pick the next size smaller RS?

R3 geo
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2012/R3/geometry/
RS geo
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2012/RS/geometry/

The engineering trade-off being made here (stuff being "impossible to take apart without breaking") is to reduce the sale price. Things that are easy to repair might (quite likely) have a significantly higher initial purchase prices.

Currently, things are being made have cheap prices with the expectation that they would be replaced rather than fixed. For many things, it's cheaper to replace rather than fix (since the latter requires expensive labor).

I think more than anything your chart shows two things:
1. Use stack and reach, always.
2. Cervelo went through a change in belief about geometry between the S2/RS production and the new R3 production. Clearly from comparing to the S2(which used to share the R3's geometry), if a person wanted a "relaxed geometry" bike, they could go with the RS and see significantly different stack to reach combinations and different handling characteristics. Now, Cervelo's R3 geometry is "supposedly" built to work for their pros and the everyman. The stack and reach are almost the same, despite head tube length differences, because of the new Cervelo fork's longer Axle to Crown. So one chooses the RS as a comfort bike more because of it's price, tire clearance or slight changes in head angles or wheelbase; not because of a higher handlebar position.

Anyway, I'm starting to see murmurs of the possible "offing" of the RS because of its redundancy in the new Cervelo line up but thats just rumors.

I need to test ride an RS I suppose.

For the R3, they got rid of the white/blue model, and the R5 is now black/tan instead of black/green. Minimal changes, but changes nonetheless.

Where did you hear/see this? Their website shows a white/blue r3 and no black/tan r5 (which if true sounds pretty terrible)

Thanks. This makes sense (and/or matches what I was suspecting).

http://www.roadcycling.com/reviews/C...w_002516.shtml

http://university.tri-sports.com/2011/03/28/cervelo-r3/

Older/prior R3.

Current R3.

Yep! Didn't notice the date.