I recently looked at the RS and noticed that it did not have a tapered steerer tube. I am back in the bike market and (currently on an '05 Roubaix) and I want the latest technology available on my next purchase. I have been informed by LBS that the technology behind the RS is just different and the tapered steerer is not necessary on the bike. The Synapse and Roubaix, which are other considerations, have the tapered steerer. How crucial is this to the bike and the level of technological advancement.
Comments?
Thanks

The RS hasn't changed in like 3 years...it's dated.

Also look at the Defy Advanced. I recently rode the Roubaix SL3, Synapse and Defy Advanced and will be getting the Defy Advanced in the spring. LBS says they have sold a ton of Roubaixs but they are also having issues with the rear shifting...they believe due to the tight curve of the RD housing and where it exits the frame. They say the SRAM groups shift just fine but the Shimano groups have issues because Shimano's RD spring tension is lower than SRAM. I went into the test rides assuming I would walk out on the Synapse but I found it had a nasty rattle of the brake cable in the TT (internal routing) on chip seal pavement. I'm not dropping this kind of coin to have a bike that makes annoying noises.

Just to throw out a thought. It may be dated but that doesn't make it bad. The RS frame comes in around 1000 grams(pretty light for the sportive category) and comes stock with a very nice 3T fork. It also runs a little cheaper than the Specialized you are comparing it to.

I thought it may a little "behind" some of my other considerations, but I agree with Triguy that this does make it a bad choice.
I rode the giant last year and loved it, but there is no one in my area offering Giant anymore.

ride them all then decide

i have a giant ocr 1... the giant realaxed geo model prior to the defy it's a good bike

I test rode a cervelo R3 and I loved it I have on on order now

the no tapered head tube is probably trivial..cervelo makes top notch bikes so do others.. find what you like the best after a test ride

The RS is an older model, but hey, it was good enough for Parix-Roubaix XD. I would just buy a current R3 if you want latest and greatest

I'd also say it's a bit dated. Same with the paint schemes on all their bikes. 2010 colors were nice, but 2011-2012 suck. Heck, they didn't even change the colors for 2012. Hey Cervelo, what's up with that?

The RS is being discontinued for 2012...even though its still on their site.

Besides...if its good enough for Paris-Roubaix...its good enough for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7FNE...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8aJhiy3w4

The RS is a fantastic bike. It climbs well, descends well, corners like nobody's business, and it's a very, very comfortable ride.

I was recently looking to upgrade and was looking at R3, defy advanced, Scott, and Roubaix SL3...for me it was Roubaix hands down. R3 was just as much, seemed dated, and i liked the ride of the Roubaix...very stiff and responsive...yet very smooth ride. Three months after the purchase and I love the bike...right decision for me...bike climbs like a goat and takes off when you mash it. With that said, this is based on my preferences...u can't go wrong with any of the above bikes.

Hi Bosock,
Completely agree. Roubaix wins the comfort bike crown. After a ton of research and a number of test rides, I just ordered a 2012 Roubaix SL3 Pro frameset from my lbs. The frame is on backorder from Specialized and is supposed to be available prior to March 2012.
I love the hidden cable routing and the geometry in particular...I am 6' tall with long arms and legs and ordered the 58 and will appreciate the nice tall head tube as I decided to give my neck a break and ride fractionally more upright beginning 2012.
I will build with Campy and am excited about the build.
With respect to Cervelo...my view is Specialized has deeper R&D. The RS is dated but the good news is...it is a whale of a bike...a great bike for average non racer in particular. I prefer the Roubaix but no doubt would be fine on a RS.
Cheers.
Pic of the frame I ordered below:

The RS is a steal right now at it current price. Other words for "dated" would include bargain, cost effective and just as fast.

Remeber, Cervelo sold the original aluminum Soloist unchanged for almost 8 years. The RS has less place now that they've raised the headtubes on the R series bikes. Still a great bike though!

Cervelo's 2012 squoval bikes, the R5ca, R5, R3 all have the same head tube length for their respective size bike frame. The RS has a longer head tube compared to the frame sizes of the other three.

The Roubaix SL-3 head tube is slightly longer than the Cervelo RS. Even on on both of these going back to the 2008 models, they have not changed. That means the head tube length of the 2012 Roubaix has not changed since 2008. Same goes for Cervelo RS.

typically Cervelo does not accept that a new technology is effective unless they stand to patent/trademark/profit from it.

IIRC the headtubes of the RS and Roubaix are 160mm for the 54.

A closer comparison to the SL3 Pro would be the R3. The RS would be closer the the Expert and Comp.

Not in terms of vertical compliancy. The Roubaix SL3 rides like a cloud but is torsionally very stiff. Why the Roubaix SL3 is universally loved is...it has the power transfer of a R3 and a ride perhaps even better over rough surfaces compared to the RS. Credit Specialized for this elusive balance. I have stated before that Specialized R&D runs very deep. Look at all the great products they make...in particular their saddle technology is second to none...make great shoes etc. This is no slight on Cervelo, but in my opinion, Specialized makes the best production bikes.
It was Specialized vision that created the comfort road bike genre really with the Roubaix. Also...for larger frame sizes...for example the 58 Roubaix has a head tube length of 225mm versus 200mm for the RS...and 199 for R3.
The RS is a great bike but as I mentioned, I believe the Roubaix is the king of the comfort bikes. I have a CAT2 buddy who races a Roubaix because he likes to ride a bit more upright and it doesn't hold him back.

I have very little time on either rides...so I can't really comment on the ride quality too much. The R3 was also developed for the cobbles. In Vroomen's blog:
"Of course, that said no pro should ever ride the R3 except for Paris-roubaix (which it was designed for originally)."

As for Specialized making the best production bikes...that is debatable...but I do believe that their soft goods rival the best. I ride pretty much all their soft goods, from the Prevail to the Pro road shoe...to their bib shorts.

You will see team riders on R3's at non cobbled races, but you will never see one on a Roubaix.

Just because it's the "fad" for 2012 to have a sexy curved top tubes doesn't make it better than a frame designed 3 years ago.

Some bike companies need to release a new design each year to catch the attention of consumer while Cervelo engineers better frames with a purpose... and they last. But I'm biased...although own a Argon.

Not to completely derail this thread, but comparing head tube lengths is an inaccurate method for comparing geometry. It's much more accurate to use stack and reach and in this regard, you'll see that the RS is very comparable to the new R3/5 geometry in terms of "height":
Size - RS v. R3/5 Stack
48 - 520 v. 505
51 - 531 v. 530
54 - 555 v. 555
56 - 579 v. 580
58 - 599 v. 605
61 - 618 v. 630

Now this tends to show that their stack in comparative sizes is very comparable and the RS is actually lower in some size names. Though the reaches vary as well.

It also discards the fact that the "sportive" category also uses slightly different HTA and wheelbase lengths to also change the ride characteristics.

Not quite how it works but will preface and say I agree, Cervelos are great bikes. It is debatable if Specialized makes a better bike across categorizes and a moot point at the end of the day for non pro racers in particular. But if you compared the depth of design talent the companies aren't even close. Further Specialized sells a lot more bikes and what this cash flow does is free up more reinvestment to release new tooling to keep bikes evolving with latest technology.

Curved tubes I agree are sexy but that isn't why they exist. They have a purpose.
Curving a top tube concave down for example allows the section to be reduced for same level of vertical compliance which lowers weight. Asymmetric sections are about function more than appearance but there is an eye toward both. So the products that both companies produce reflect their companies size and talent. You will never see the change in products out of Cervelo that you will with Specialized. On the other hand, many are attracted to the exclusivity of a Cervelo bike because that aren't as common as Specialized. When I look at a Roubaix versus RS or even R3, I see apples and oranges. Also Cervelo for example has taken a lot of criticism for the new R5 which although a great bike certainly looks dated if not uninspired. The connection of top tube, seat stays and seat tube look like an abomination...my opinion. No doubt it works and is light though. To me, more engineering has gone into the Roubaix and riding each I believe it can be felt as well. The OP saw this as well and why he started this thread.

Size and talent: Specialized is bigger in size and product lines. Specialized makes bikes other than road.

Curved tubes, maybe just a different approach to achieve lower weight. Not necessarily better talent. Dated and uninspired: adjectives.

Could you explain this to me further? I don't think what you just said is obviously true, and I'm a mechanical engineer. Use free body diagrams, shear force diagrams, etc., if it helps.



I think it's just styling, plain & simple.

ftfy

I have a 2012 SL2 Roubaix and have no issues with shifting. Maybe it was a good thing I did not get the SL3 :-)