Seattle Forrest

I've done some test rides ( even with a Garmin and HRM ) and sought advice offline and in the road forum on this site. Being on the small end of Clydesville, I thought I'd ask what the C&A forum has to say? There are two frames I'm looking at, with exactly the same price: a Cervelo R3 and S2. One is light-weight yet stiff, and the other is very aerodynamic.

The S2 feels twitchy in my size ( 58 ), maybe because of the much lower headset; a 61 cm frame is a lot more stable for me, and what I'd go with if I got this bike. I can sprint a couple mph faster in this bike, which is fun, and seems like magic, because the ceiling I always hit (in terms of speed) has been lifted. That was very impressive. It climbs well, but the big frame puts more of my weight over the front wheel than I'm used to, and I'm not sure that's great. Most of my rides are solo, and there are some flat areas I could benefit from the reduced drag. Surprisingly, the position didn't bother me, but it might be responsible for the handling that I wasn't crazy about.

The R3 should be more twitchy, with faster steering and a shorter wheel base. I felt like I could take corners blindfolded. My normal frame size works perfectly, and the geometry is almost the same as the bike it would replace. I'm more confident on this bike, because of the handling. My favorite thing to do on any ride is to take hair pin curves at speed - I seek them out, and they're the reason I started to enjoy hill climbing. I ride in the mountains whenever I have the chance.

Here's what I'm wondering. The 2/3 pound I'd save with the R3 won't amount to very much because I could stand to lose ~15 lbs. And my girlfriend likes to cook. Do Clydes ( I'm 6'1" ) have a very different aero profile than smaller riders? Does an aero frame have the same kind of diminishing returns for us? Would you assume you'll get used to the handling on any bike, or might something never feel right?

I'm leaning toward the R3 because the handling feels so right, but I'm a little worried that I'm making a mistake. Thoughts or advice?

Pamestique 

I think you answered your own question - it terms of having to lose weight is a few oz. even an issue? All bike magazines will tell you to physically (ie off you) lose weight and not compromise the bike.

In term of bikes, you need to determine your riding style and what appeals to you most. My new bike is extremely twitchy compared to my old bike and at first I hated it but now... I am in love! My bike "jumps" off the pavement when I want to take off. Of course a twitchy bike has other issues.

I do think larger riders tend to have different profiles... larger generally means you are stronger on flats and can move with power... you need a bike that accomodates that power. A lighter rider never really has to worry about flex.

Another thing to cnsider - your age... your are probably young and so this may not be a problem but if you are getting up there, remember that more agressive positiing may be difficult to maintain. My old bike was agressive. My new bike is less and I dont regret the change. Of course i am 60 and don't bend like I use to. I want to keep riding this bike at least another 10 years so I had to factor that in...

sstorkel

Back when Cervelo was doing 48-hour test-rides, I took an S2 home and compared it back-to-back with my Cervelo RS. The aerodynamics are definitely impressive. Cruising at high (18+mph) speeds seemed to be effortless. In the end, I returned the bike after less than 24 hours, though.

My biggest complaint was the aerodynamic seat post. Unlike the rest of the bike, the seat post was insanely stiff. On poor-quality roads, like the ones I normally ride, the S2 felt like you were riding a jackhammer not an expensive carbon fiber frame. I also wasn't terribly impressed with the climbing ability. On my first hill, I literally stopped twice to make sure the brakes weren't dragging on the rims! Of course, at that time Cervelo was selling the complete S2 bikes with relatively heavy/cheap Shimano RS10 or RS20 wheels.

Personally, I'd go with the R3. I would expect the ride to be every bit as comfortable as my RS, with a slightly more aggressive riding position and slightly quicker handling. If you want better aerodynamics, you can always invest in some deep cross-section carbon fiber wheels...

Seattle Forrest

The roads are mostly pretty good, but there are some awful sections. I have an RS now, and appreciate the smooth ride. The R3 is definitely the closest to that. ( I think it's ever so slightly more "harsh," and the bike shop says it's because the seat stays aren't curved, so they don't compress a little like a spring. ) The S2 didn't feel terrible, but it does less to dampen the road buzz.

I'm leaning pretty heavily toward the R3, and will probably make up my mind tomorrow. I appreciate hearing your experience, Sstorkel! And I wish they had 48 hour test rides for me!

A thread in the road forum had someone talking about having bought a bike, and the guy never got used to its handling, felt like it was twitchy until he sold it a year or two later. Any thoughts how often that happens? I guess that's a different way of asking whether feeling more confident on the R3 is the trump card that should make the decision for me? It feels sure footed like a mountain goat, and right ... and has faster and tighter steering.

volosong

Can't really advise you on which model to get as I'm unfamiliar with Cervelo. But I must say that of the two, I like the looks of the S2 more than the looks of the R3. Maybe that is just the color on the web page. At first I thought that the S series were their TT bikes and you were comparing apples to oranges. Hah, what do I know? (Those seat stays on the R3 sure are skinny.)

But ... about twitchyness ...

I have been riding a Mondia since 1972, a Reynolds 531 bike with Campagnolo Nuevo Record, and had been quite happy with it. Since then, the technology bike world passed me by. About a year and a half ago, I went out and purchased a Trek Madone. Carbon FIber! "Cool", I thought. What was very unsettling was its twitchyness. I just couldn't steer that thing straight, no matter how much I tried. I would have been a total disaster if I tried to ride in a pace line. No way was I going to ride hands free, even for a few yards like you see the first place finisher in a race do. I would go down for sure. That old Mondia ... boy, that thing sure was stable.

Advance a year, and I purchased another CF bike this Spring, this time a Kestrel that has a lot more aggressive geometry than the relaxed geometry of the Madone. Wow! I thought the Madone was twitchy. After riding the Kestrel, I came to realize that I adapted to the Madone and while I still will not ride hands free, it doesn't feel twitchy at all, unless I allow it to be. Like a wild stallion that you trained. It will respond to you, but will never be rid of its wild nature and tendancies. Now, it is the Kestrel that is the wild, untamed stallion who has a mind of its own. Two hands all the time on that baby. (But that thing sure can climb. I can just mentally will it to go up a hill, and go it does. Okay, I exaggerate, but you get the idea.)

All this is to say that you will get used to twitchyness...probably. And, that there are various degrees of it. Some of it can be mitigated by using different tires, a different sized stem, where you have our weight on the bike, etc. Those are nice looking bikes. If I wasn't happy with my Madone and Kestrel, (and with Pinarello frame in the closet, waiting for components), I'd seriously consider a Cervelo.

txvintage

If keeping just one bike in the stable go for the all arounder. While a bike that launches in the spriint is a great thing, what percentage of time riding do you spend doing intervals or sprinting vs just riding? Having lived and ridden in your neck of the woods before, I'd say the better climber seems the logical choice.

Of coursse, since one's stable can never be really over stocked, get both! lol.

sstorkel

I think this happens to newbies quite a bit. Once you've been riding for a while, I think you have a much better idea of what you're looking for in a bike ("Like my current bike but with X and Y but definitely not Z"). It didn't take me long, for instance, to decide that I really didn't like the S2. Now, if you asked me to pick between a Cervelo R3 and a Specialized Tarmac... that would be a much more difficult choice!

Seattle Forrest

I've got a cyclocross bike with a cargo rack and panniers, plus (ahem) aerobars to give me another hand position. It's got a mount to carry the lock around in the frame. I use that one for getting to and from work (since they won't let a bike in the building) and for the kinds of errands I prefer to do by bike, but need to lock my bike up for.

But there's nothing but hills and mountains here, and I really like mountains. Probably I'll wind up ordering the climbing frame tonight.

sstorkel

Have you looked at other, non-Cervelo bikes? There are lots of nice bikes in your price range...

txvintage

I had about 6 months left before moving to San Diego and I bought a Crit bike, Cannondale Black Lightening, knowing I would be racing Crits when I got to SoCal. While the bike was a monster for it's designed purpose, the corncob on rear wheel almost killed me the first time I took it out around Port Orchard! I made a bee line back to the LBS for some gears to make do with until I got to San Diego.

I don't know what part of Seattle you are in, but there are some killer steep short climbs.

Seattle Forrest

I think everybody in this thread is suggesting I go with the R3, which is the one I'm leaning toward because of its better handling. Your post ... makes me feel a bit better about that, like it's not such an unwise decision after all. Thanks!

Nope. Upgrading my frame is only going to set me back a few hundred bucks, but only if stay with Cervelo. It's a pretty unique situation that I don't want to jinx by talking too much about until I have the new bike.

bautieri

If this is strictly your "go-fast" bike. I'd get the S2. The twichiness you feel is likely the difference in geometry and possibly a bit too much weight being supported by your hands. I remember my first road bike, coming from a mountain bike, I thought I would never get used to the handling. In time, I did and now I find the handling of most mountain bikes to be far to ponderous. Coming from your current bike, the twitchy feelings are probably similar as the riding position is more aggressive. If you find you can't live with it, a stem with a bit of rise in it would do wonders to get your weight back off your hands.

Besides, you admitted that the RS was very similar to the bike it's replacing. Go for the aggressive S2 or invest in some bike bling for your current ride.

bautieri

...well someone had to vote for the S2 ^^^^

Seattle Forrest

From the posts I've read of yours, you seem to know a great deal about bikes, and about how they work. Let me ask about this in more detail. I had thought the handling ( turning, mostly ) came from the fork and headset angle, and the wheel base. I think the R3 is set up to be faster than the S2 in both of these ways. But it sounds like the bar height has a lot to do with it - which is what the guy at LBS seemed to be implying when he said I should test ride a 61 cm frame if the 58 didn't handle well, because of the taller headset. And it made a lot of difference. First ... will using a taller stem when the bike isn't designed for it cause any problems with this? Second, if I wound up doing that, either for comfort or to change the steering, how would I figure out how much of the aero benefit I would give up? ( I guess test ride it with a taller stem? ) Also, if the R series turns more quickly and feels better for handling ... do I really want to get used to (only slightly) more sluggish handling?

bautieri

conversation moved to PM

volosong

Inquiring minds want to know. Please continue here, if you can.

sstorkel

I think the S2 geometry is actually more sharp/twitchy than the R3, by a very slight margin assuming you compare two frames of the same size (ex: 58cm S2 vs 58cm R3) The S2 appears to have a slightly shorter wheelbase than the R3 and a slightly steeper head tube angle. The shorter head tube of the S2 will put more weight on the front wheel, which may tend to emphasize these handling traits. Unfortunately, Cervelo doesn't publish the rake or trail numbers for the forks.

A 61cm S2 has a wheelbase that's almost identical to a 58cm RS. If you're looking for something that turns better than an RS, a larger size S2 probably isn't it...