# RS vs R3...compare and contrast



## MercRidnMike

Hey all,

I still haven't pulled the trigger, but I am closing in on a decision. Just wondering if folks have had a chance to compare and contrast these two frames. I know the R3 is the newer iteration, but both are well tested Paris-Roubaix / fondo / endurance frames.

For those who have had a chance to torture test both, can you share your impressions....just trying to see if I need to save the extra pennies for the R3.

(Yeah, I know, I know...test ride both and buy the one you like....just not that easy with only one Cervelo shop locally and them not having a lot of stock right now...)

Cheers


----------



## RJP Diver

Get the R3. You can get the RS... but then you'll always wish you got the R3.

I'm just saying...

:d


----------



## GDR

I test rode both and I really liked the R3 better, it seemed like when I wanted to sprint or get out of the saddle and push it the R3 took off. Both were nice but I got the R3 and every time I end a ride I can't stop thinking how much I love it.


----------



## enellch

It really depends on which frame fits you the best? As for difference in ride beyond fit, no hobby rider could tell much difference and neither won't make you any faster or slower..get the one that is most comfortable for you.


----------



## Nob

I own a R3 and actually really like the longer wheel base of the RS better. RS wasn't around when I bought my R3 but a custom bike for CSC and the spring classics at the time. FWIW my stem is slammed on my R3. The RS will be a more up right position.


----------



## xls

Cervelo's "stack" and "reach" numbers are almost identical between the RS and the R3. I rode them back to back and found that the main difference in reach was due to the hood position on the bars. I don't know if there's a "standard" way to set up those or even if it's done by the shop or the manufacturer. Anyway, the R3 was set up with a longer reach. The main differences (I could only tell when riding them back to back): R3 accelerates a bit more quickly and it has a quicker steering. The RS might be more relaxing on long tiring rides. For my frame size (54cm) the R3 also has a lot more toe overlap. The RS had *almost* none. "Almost none" may be worse than "a lot" though, depending on your point of view.

I ended up buying the R3. Honestly, when I get out of the saddle and stomp on the pedals to pass someone I'm amazed how quick my bike is (it can't be the motor). Makes me smile every time. 

Edit: Fixed a real flaw in my reporting on the two bikes  [Thanks RJP for pointing it out!]


----------



## RJP Diver

xls said:


> Cervelo's "stack" and "reach" numbers are almost identical between the RS and the R3. I rode them back to back and found that the main difference in reach was due to the hood position on the bars. I don't know if there's a "standard" way to set up those or even if it's done by the shop or the manufacturer. Anyway, the R3 was set up with a longer reach. The main differences (I could only tell when riding them back to back): R3 accelerates a bit more quickly and it has a quicker steering. The RS might be more relaxing on long tiring rides. For my frame size (54cm) the R3 also has a lot more toe overlap. The RS had *almost* none. "Almost none" may be worse than "a lot" though, depending on your point of view.
> 
> Honestly, when I get out of the saddle and stomp on the pedals to pass someone I'm amazed how quick this bike is (it can't be the motor). Makes me smile every time.


You mention points about both bikes and then end with your preference for "this bike" but don't seem to be clear as to whether "this bike" is the RS or the R3.

So... ???


----------



## AythanNyah09

Im really curious on this thread. I am looking for an endurance (long-distance) bike and I think I was all set for the RS. But im wondering on how much of an upgrade is the R3? Im waiting for the lunch break so i can go to the local Cervelo lbs dealer so I can test ride an R3.


----------



## xls

RJP Diver said:


> You mention points about both bikes and then end with your preference for "this bike" but don't seem to be clear as to whether "this bike" is the RS or the R3.
> 
> So... ???


Duh! :mad2:  Fixed it! Thanks, RJP. :thumbsup:


----------



## Nob

Up grade? I don't think the R3 is an up grade. Lighter yes but a performance upgrade...I don't think so.

It carried Thor Hushovd to the podium of Paris-Roubaix. One of the best sprinters in the world found it "stiff enough". I think the advantage and it is huge imo is the longer wheel base on the RS. Makes it more stable as a climber and descender. I have owned a R3 since '06 and am seriously thinking about replacing a Roubiax S-works (wonderful bike btw) with a RS. A correction from my earlier post....as noted previous in the posts above the bikes are almost identical on top tube and reach so the riding position can easily be the same.


----------



## AythanNyah09

@Nob - TYVM for that info. Now I just need to find a dealer who sells the RS... apparently its harder to find than I thought.


----------



## xls

Availability of the RS was also a problem for me. There was only one in my size available anywhere I could find, and I wasn't 100% convinced buying from that dealer was going to be ok.


----------



## RoadrunnerLXXI

AythanNyah09 said:


> @Nob - TYVM for that info. Now I just need to find a dealer who sells the RS... apparently its harder to find than I thought.


No need to find another bike shop. Just have your LBS order one for you from another bike shop which carry Cervelo. I was told by my LBS all shops do this for each other if they both carry the same brand, knowing someday, the other shop might be doing the same thing. The only thing that will prevent it from happening if there aren't a right size available with the component groups you want.


----------



## bitsa

when I was making your choice 2 years ago,I went with thw RS which I loved. Any rides over 40 miles it was the RS instead of my Madone 4.5. In the beginning of April I had an encounter with a car and the RS frame was cracked. Under the crash program I got a replacement frame, by my choice was either the R3 or R3T frame (no RS frame available). I went with the R3T frame and I agree with above the R3T, spins up much faster and climbs much better then the RS did. I don't know about long rides yet as I also fractured my tibia in 2 placesduring the car encounter and have only begun riding recently and have only got up to 25 miles. Either way you can't go wrong with either bike.


----------



## xjbaylor

Nob said:


> Up grade? I don't think the R3 is an up grade. Lighter yes but a performance upgrade...I don't think so.
> 
> It carried Thor Hushovd to the podium of Paris-Roubaix. One of the best sprinters in the world found it "stiff enough". I think the advantage and it is huge imo is the longer wheel base on the RS. Makes it more stable as a climber and descender. I have owned a R3 since '06 and am seriously thinking about replacing a Roubiax S-works (wonderful bike btw) with a RS. A correction from my earlier post....as noted previous in the posts above the bikes are almost identical on top tube and reach so the riding position can easily be the same.


I agree, and in reality I think the R3 and RS are simply different bikes with different goals. The RS "suffers" in the public eye because it doesn't have some of the options that the public now sees as standard for high end bikes. The RS still uses an English threaded bottom bracket (better than BBright in my opinion) and a non-tapered steerer tube. Because of that it would appear to be a "lesser" bike, but I don't think that is true at all.


----------



## tdietz87

You really can't go wrong with either. I found the r3 to corner faster, accelerate faster, but at the disadvantage of feeling a bit "twitchier", but certainly not too difficult to handle. The rs is a very fast comfortable bike, and also less expensive. I don't race, probably never will, but I still picked the r3 for me. Good luck with your decision.


----------



## AythanNyah09

I will admit that Im a returning beginner rider. Can I afford the R3... Ya. Would I rather go for the price of the RS... Ya. My overall goal is not go faster than others... just to make it past that 100m+ mark. Im not expecting to do it by that first year but I have all ready committed to a charity century in 2013 April. So, I have until then to get my arse "callused" up enough to make the ride. lol

Differences that Im seeing so far... but i have no clue whats what:

Frame Cervelo R3 / Cervelo RS Frame
Fork Cervélo FK30 tapered 1 3/8th / 3T FUNDA PRO
Crankset SRAM S900 BBright (50/34) / FSA Gossamer (50/34)
Shifters SRAM Rival / SAME
Brake Levers SRAM Rival / SAME
Bottom Bracket FSA BBright / FSA MegaExo
Front Derailleur SRAM Rival / SAME
Rear Derailleur SRAM Rival / SAME
Brakes SRAM Rival / FSA Gossamer Pro
Chain SRAM PC 1071 / SAME
Freewheel SRAM PG 1070 (12-25) / SAME
Headset FSA IS-3 / SAME
Handlebars 3T ERGONOVA OE / FSA Omega Compact
Stem 3T ARX PRO / FSA OS-190 LX
Seat Post 3T DORICO TEAM / SAME
Saddle fi'zi:k Arione / fi'zi:k Pave
Spokes Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
Rims Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
Wheels Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
Tires Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick, 700c x 23c / SAME

How is the part by part worth a $500 upgrade of price?


----------



## RJP Diver

AythanNyah09 said:


> How is the part by part worth a $500 upgrade of price?


Different (if not better) frame.


----------



## Doc1911

Either bike can get you to your ultimate goal and beyond. You can't go wrong either way. On either bike you will probably choose to customize such things as the wheels, seat, (I choose to change my crank), etc. If the budget is close, in your cost analysis, consider such mandatory things as pedals, shoes, helmet, etc. 

This said, the R3 is awesome!!!!




AythanNyah09 said:


> I will admit that Im a returning beginner rider. Can I afford the R3... Ya. Would I rather go for the price of the RS... Ya. My overall goal is not go faster than others... just to make it past that 100m+ mark. Im not expecting to do it by that first year but I have all ready committed to a charity century in 2013 April. So, I have until then to get my arse "callused" up enough to make the ride. lol
> 
> Differences that Im seeing so far... but i have no clue whats what:
> 
> Frame Cervelo R3 / Cervelo RS Frame
> Fork Cervélo FK30 tapered 1 3/8th / 3T FUNDA PRO
> Crankset SRAM S900 BBright (50/34) / FSA Gossamer (50/34)
> Shifters SRAM Rival / SAME
> Brake Levers SRAM Rival / SAME
> Bottom Bracket FSA BBright / FSA MegaExo
> Front Derailleur SRAM Rival / SAME
> Rear Derailleur SRAM Rival / SAME
> Brakes SRAM Rival / FSA Gossamer Pro
> Chain SRAM PC 1071 / SAME
> Freewheel SRAM PG 1070 (12-25) / SAME
> Headset FSA IS-3 / SAME
> Handlebars 3T ERGONOVA OE / FSA Omega Compact
> Stem 3T ARX PRO / FSA OS-190 LX
> Seat Post 3T DORICO TEAM / SAME
> Saddle fi'zi:k Arione / fi'zi:k Pave
> Spokes Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
> Rims Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
> Wheels Fulcrum Racing T / Shimano R500
> Tires Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick, 700c x 23c / SAME
> 
> How is the part by part worth a $500 upgrade of price?


----------



## GDR

I love my R3 and for me it was the right choice. Every time I pull into my driveway after a ride I am smiling because I really love the way the bike handles and rides. But that's me. The most important thing is how the bike feels to you.

I don't know if you can justify an additional $500 based on a part by part comparison, but I could definitely justify the cost if the more expensive bike was more comfortable and fit me better. Get the bike that feels better, if you don't you will probably spend more than $500 trying to get either bike feel good.


----------



## voodooguy

I rode an RS for about a year, got hit and ended up on an R5 (riding that for a year now) after crash replacement (R3 not readily available), which is a R3 clone except a tad lighter and integrated cable guides. I am a Clydesdale, too. Given the recent higher end R series has a geometry that mimics the RS, the fit/position has essentially been the same. The RS is an absolutely wonderful bike. The seat stay action is incredible and does reduce vibration and road feel over the R5. Sometimes, probably related to my weight, it felt too cushy. For me, the immediate difference was the stiffness of the BB on the R5. It goes immediately. I was surprised at how evident it was to me. My buddy, a Parlee rider, rode the bike too and noted the difference/advantage of the stiffness. I believe it has helped me a bit of a better climber, too. More road feel on the R5. The steering does feel faster to me, too. I believe you would be happy with either one, as long as it fits and feels good to you. But I recommend a test ride on both, if you can. Faced with a choice between the two, I would likely stick to the R3 or 5 over an RS.


----------



## AythanNyah09

@Doc - thank you for your input. Ive been reading your posts and most definitely have been following your threads. I appreciate your constructive comments. In terms of cost, the budget for pedals, shoes, and gear is a separate budget. And the overall thought process has been, like most new people in this game, buy 2 bikes? 1 low-end now and if I get into it... then buy another later? Or just buy that 3 year bike now?

@Voodoo - I have also been following your threads and I have noticed that you also bought the RS first. Overall, the differences are my true concern. Im sure the overall package of SRAM Rival "is a better" complete group but the weight of the frame is not really a concern in my thinking. If im wanting to lose weight on the frame... I can focus on my own frame before the bikes frame. Since this is normal scenario of being a Clydesdale myself... My overall fear and the knowledge im attempting to garner is the RS is a definite long distance endurance/comfort bike but I read that the R3 is "similar" in geometry but has the classification of a "racing" geometry bike. In my mind, "racing geometry" is backache after 50m+.


----------



## xls

There is some confusion going on in this regarding the term "Geometry". Look at Cervelo's stack and reach number for the bikes. RS and R3 are very similar. These numbers are what affects the fit of the bike. IOW, as long as you're stationary both bikes will fell very similar to the rider. However, not all of the geometry is the same. In fact, head angle, wheelbase etc. are quite different. Those affect how the bike will ride (how quickly it turns, stable vs. twitchy, etc.)

You can get a general idea by looking at the numbers but nothing beats riding the bike. Like most others have said, you can't go wrong with either. I could only tell a difference when riding the bikes back to back but I don't have a lot of road riding experience (lot of MTB though). 
If you're not sure you'll get into it, a cheaper first "tester" bike is a good option. I'm sure an RS fits the term "cheaper" for some people, for me it didn't. I went all out (by my standards) when I got my bike feeling very confident I'd put a lot of miles on it.
I second the advice on keeping a good-sized budget for nice riding gear. Good gear makes long days in the saddle much more pleasant. Don't get an expensive bike and ride in cheap / bad-fitting gear.


----------



## MercRidnMike

Thanks for all the good pointers, folks. I am a Clyde class rider so I may give the R3 the first kick at the cat when it comes to a test ride. 

For those who want to know, I am no stranger to the long haul, but most of my long stuff has been on a full suspension mtb... My belt is notched with a bunch of 1/2 Centuries and metric centuries (k100s), a few full Centuries and even a double metric / 125 mile ride.

My average ride isn't usually that long...I am more often in the dirt than on the asphalt...but I do like getting out for charity rides and challenging myself (I have a hyper mile ride in mind for when I finally get an honest road bike). 

That being said, I do like efficiency in a bike (which a 37lb FS mtb isn't when it comes to road riding), but I also want enough cush for the tush so that 8 hrs in the saddle won't leave me dragging my butt. The R3 sounds like a bit "sharper" for short, fast rides but it may also resist my weight a bit better on the long rides too. The RS definitely caught my eye...the ext. bb shell being something I am used to working on, it is aimed squarely the type of riding I see myself doing with it and is cheaper...it'll be a tough decision for sure.

I'll keep you posted as I get to the point of pulling the trigger.


----------



## xjbaylor

MercRidnMike said:


> That being said, I do like efficiency in a bike (which a 37lb FS mtb isn't when it comes to road riding), but I also want enough cush for the tush so that 8 hrs in the saddle won't leave me dragging my butt.
> 
> I'll keep you posted as I get to the point of pulling the trigger.


As long as you aren't racing (heck even if you are) the RS sounds like it is right down your alley. If I were in your shoes I might also at least take a test ride on the usual distance suspects, namely the Roubaix, Synapse, Felt Z series, etc. You might also take a quick look at a custom steel frame like a Gunnar.

If you have already ridden or dismissed those others than just ignore me as either Cervelo would be great for your purposes.


----------



## AythanNyah09

I agree with a lot of points here. Unfortunately, finding an RS (at my recommended size) is pretty much impossible unless I "order" the bike by paying full price and then possibly getting a refund. So, I thought the R3 was similar sizing and I truly liked the ride the best. Yes... pricier than I wanted to spend but the ride was much better than the synapse or felt. The roubaix... Im sure I had just a bad setup but I rode them and there was a lot of creaking on both the 105 model and the Ultegra model. (Like stepping on a wooden floor.)

Of course, R3 was in a higher class than the Synapse Carbon 5 or the Felt Z4. But the R3 only concerned me for those long rides in which riding around the parking lot cannot tell me.


----------



## xjbaylor

AythanNyah09 said:


> roubaix... Im sure I had just a bad setup but I rode them and there was a lot of creaking on both the 105 model and the Ultegra model. (Like stepping on a wooden floor.)


I'm far from a Specialized apologist, not even a fan, but I can tell you there was definitely something wrong with your bike. Specialized builds technically sounds bikes with very high levels of QC. My normal group ride is probably 30% Specialized bikes, and no one has had a bad experience with them. Sadly, much more consistent in finish and QC than Cervelo, at least in my sample group.


----------



## porterhouse

My experience is similar to voodooguy. I owned an R3SL, RS, and now have an R5 (size 56). Just comparing the RS and R5, there are plenty of subtle differences but I would agree that the most significant differences are; the RS has less road noise and vibration in the handlebars and seat, more dampened feeling of bumps through the seat, a little softer handling, and requires more effort trying to keep your speed above 20+mph. The R5 has racier road feel and handling, more vibration and feedback in the handlebars and seat, jumps as soon as you stand on the pedals, glides along at speed, and generally feels more efficient than the RS until you get onto some really rough pavement. 

It is really a choice on what you want to do. Do you want to put your head down and get to point A without taking in too much scenery or do you want to sit up and get to point A but at a more relaxed pace that comes with sitting up? For me, although I enjoy doing 6+ hour monthly rides, the majority of my riding is daily training and local club rides. I felt like I was expending more effort than I wanted to riding at cruising speeds on the RS so I decided to sell it. 

Another option to consider to confuse the subject a bit… Get a couple of wheelsets to tailor the ride a bit. A shallow set that is more flexy and comfortable, and a stiffer deeper set if you want to throw down on weekends or the weekly local circuit practice.


----------



## MercRidnMike

XJ, I'm on the same page here (Cervelo isn't the ony brand being considered) and have had a Roubaix and Synapse under me enough to check general fit (didn't have time for much of a test ride, though). 

The Roubaix was an easy fit coming from my Cx commuter bike...I have the Cx bike set up to almost the exact same fit as the Roubaix gives, but with a little higher bar position. The Synapse fit a fair bit different and for the "same" size, was much longer. I think I'd need to drop a step to go apples to apples on the Synapse.

The Felt Z series caught my eye and I have been looking at them seriously too...but they are quite difficult to sling a leg over locally. Giant's Defy Composite series has also been on the radar, but the M/L size sells out pretty quick and I wasn't in a position to pull the trigger when one was available. The Scott CR1 is on the list too. Custom (steel, ti or carbon) are not options for my current budget, I'm afraid...I've been looking at Guru's and Gunnars, but only with longing 

The local Cervelo dealer seems to have an R3 or RS in stock whenever I am in and they are one of the closer LBS to me. Added to that is that I'm a Canuck, the Cervelos are the lightest and have a slightly higher parts spec and the Paris-Roubais pedigree of the Cervelos.... they became the front runners.

Ultimately, I know it'll come down to test rides, but I'm trying to reduce the field and prioritize the ones that are more likely to be "it" right off the bat.


----------



## miker2012

not to hijack, it is still on topic enuff i hope to get a reply.... i am trying to decide b/t these two bikes as well, but here is the rub

i am a very short male rider (163cm total, 72cm inseam with short arms) and was looking at these bikes because they seem to have longer head tube lengths which will better fit my shorter arms.... with most xs (47-48) size bikes still having 52cm top tubes, i am still a little too streched out and i have to reach just a fraction more than i want to get to the hoods and it compromises my position cause i end up having to lean too much weight on my hands to reach, even on a frame as small as a 48cm super6... can anyone comment on the reach differences between the the RS and the R3? speicfically i am looking at the xs RS versus the 48cm R3

also, has anyone swapped out the 650cc wheels on the xs rs for 700cc? how bad is the toe overlap?

thanks


----------



## xjbaylor

miker2012 said:


> also, has anyone swapped out the 650cc wheels on the xs rs for 700cc? how bad is the toe overlap?
> 
> thanks


You should probably start your own thread, so that the OP is still getting his question answered. All I will say in this thread is that you don't want to swap the wheels up to 700c. The front center (measured from the bottom bracket to the fork dropouts) on the XS is 33cm shorter than on the 51cm. Normal deviation between two consecutive sizes is around 10cm. In other words, the toe overlap would be...epic.

More importantly, the geometry, including the rake of 40mm is designed around the 650c wheel. I am no expert on bike geometry, but I would imagine swapping to a 700c wheel would have a noticeable, negative, effect on the handling.


----------



## miker2012

xjbaylor said:


> You should probably start your own thread, so that the OP is still getting his question answered. All I will say in this thread is that you don't want to swap the wheels up to 700c. The front center (measured from the bottom bracket to the fork dropouts) on the XS is 33cm shorter than on the 51cm. Normal deviation between two consecutive sizes is around 10cm. In other words, the toe overlap would be...epic.
> 
> More importantly, the geometry, including the rake of 40mm is designed around the 650c wheel. I am no expert on bike geometry, but I would imagine swapping to a 700c wheel would have a noticeable, negative, effect on the handling.


thanks... i did just now start my own thread in the beginners corner, sorry to hijack but i didnt have the requisite 5 posts required to be able to start one

if you dont mind, go take a look at the thread and give me your comments, it would be much appreciated

as for the 650 to 700 wheel swap, thats what i figured... the geometry on the xs would result in huge overlap.... gonna look at the r3 instead


----------



## AythanNyah09

Well.. thanks for everyones time and effort. I pulled the trigger on an R3. I felt comfortable enough by test riding an R5 (VERY NICE BIKE) and testing a RS (VERY COMFORTABLE BIKE) and pulled the trigger on an R3. Good thing is... I got the R3 for a lot less of an RS!


----------



## maximum15

Well, I am late to this party but I will say this for those who might look at this thread later:

My wife has a 2012 R3 and I have a 2010 RS. I ride 25mm tire width and in an effort to have just one spare wheelset to use on either bike, I put my wheels with the 25mm wide tires on the R3 to check clearance. There is no way I would ride that bike with that tire width -- 2mm or less clearance in places. The tires were Michelin Krylions on Open Pro rims inflated to 80 or 85 psi (or maybe I put my Vittoria open pro slick on fulcrum 7s on it, can't remember which). She did a few hundred miles with that tire width and no rubbing, but it is just too close for comfort in my opinion. On my RS, no issues at all. I don't know if that is true on the newer model RS.

Edit: The R3 is an R3 team which has a different fork than the base model. I don't know how much difference that makes on tire clearance in front. In any event, the sidewall clearance in back was too little to allow any comfort running 25mm width.


----------



## AythanNyah09

@Max - thanks for that. Ill have to do more research to find out what 25mm tires work with the R3.


----------



## enellch

*Going from R3 to RS*

Hi,

Great thread...I am considering switching from a 2009 R3 to an RS..reason is that i am running 2cm spacers and -6 stem, and feel that i am about 10-15mm to low for a comfortable angle in my elbows etc..I have experiments with flipping my stem (according to calculators that adds 22mm height on a 73degree steerer) and this comes out feeling good but perhaps too high, and also very twitchy. 

Now, my question is, the RS would allow me this fit (-6 stem and just 1 or 2cm spacers) but I have also noticed that the 2012 R3 have a 13mm taller head tube (56 frame) moving me close to goal. 

Which one to get? I love my 2009 R3 apart from finding it too low upfront.


----------



## Bosock

The one thing i have noticed and recommend to those considering the RS over the R3, at least it is the trend around here, is that Cervelo, or the local bike shops, seems to have classified the RS as an entry level Cervelo and the spec's on the bike seem to have been really lowered. I was looking at the specs of the 2009 or a 2010 (the kinda dull grey one) when i was looking to make my purchase and shop informed me they had newer models. The newer models were well under spec'd compared to the 2010...i know this happens each year to keep price point with ever increasing inflation; however, the RS seemed to take a good hit compared to other bikes and even the R3. I went looking for a RS...do to spec differences decided the R3 would be a better purchase...ended up with a SL3 Roubaix...go figure. They are nice bikes but from what i have seen around here the newer RS's really took a spec hit. Not saying bad bikes or purchases...just that it was a key factor in my bike selection.


----------



## AythanNyah09

SL3 Roubaix is a $3900 bike. I think the price line for the SL3 versus R3/RS are $1000-$1500 over the R3/RS. Something to consider. But it may be a great option for the second bike.


----------



## Nob

Been riding S works Roubaixs for a few years along with various Cervelos. There are no flies on the SL3 Roubaixs. Awesome bike by any comparison.


----------



## Bosock

Aythan...that is what specialized list the SL3 Roubaix for on their site and generally you can get them far cheaper. I got my SL3 Roubaix shortly have the 2012 models come out and bought the 2012 (for the color) for 3100. The best i could get the R3 for was 3299 (with similarly equipped Ultegra) and the RS was 2599 i believe with a mostly rival setup. That was one of the elements to my decision...that and the SL3 frame is an outstanding frame which allows for an excellent ride.


----------



## AythanNyah09

Wow... awesome price! The MSRP is 3900 for the SL3... I was lucky to pick up a R3 for a few hundred less than the RS price. But, I wont hate on the SL3... thats for sure! Im hoping I can upgrade to something like an SL3 in the future...


----------



## champamoore

AythanNyah09 said:


> I will admit that Im a returning beginner rider. Can I afford the R3... Ya. Would I rather go for the price of the RS... Ya. My overall goal is not go faster than others... just to make it past that 100m+ mark. Im not expecting to do it by that first year but I have all ready committed to a charity century in 2013 April. So, I have until then to get my arse "callused" up enough to make the ride. lol


You can easily get up to a century in 3-4 months with some consistent and gradually ramping up training. A century is way more approachable than you think. If the century enjoys an altitude profile akin to most Gran Fondos, you may want to add an extra month or two and some serious hill workouts to your routine, though.


----------



## xjbaylor

AythanNyah09 said:


> Wow... awesome price! The MSRP is 3900 for the SL3... I was lucky to pick up a R3 for a few hundred less than the RS price. But, I wont hate on the SL3... thats for sure! Im hoping I can upgrade to something like an SL3 in the future...


R3 to Sl3 is a lateral move. Neither an upgrade or a downgrade, as long as the bike fits you and your planned use.


----------



## Rashadabd

I agree, same class and same intended purpose for the most part.


----------



## AythanNyah09

Even though its post R3 purchase... I always have that small voice in my head hearing "R3 is an aggressive geometry" from other LBS shops.. while SL3/RS is 100% endurance geometry. But, again... thx for the clarifications and the confirmations! I cant wait to get out their and ride!!!


----------



## Rashadabd

6 podiums in 7 years in arguably the toughest and one of the longest one day races in the world (the cobbles of Paris Roubaix) should give you all of the confidence in the world my friend. This bike is great at long distances, so enjoy it man.


----------



## dmason898

I too am seriously looking at the RS because of the price point, more relaxed geometry and the fact that I don't plan on racing. 

For any of the RS owners out there, how much does your bike weight? Anyone know how much the stock RS weights?


----------



## Rashadabd

I don't know about the frame weight, but this should give you a general idea:

http://forums.cervelo.com/forums/t/72.aspx?PageIndex=429 (scroll down)


----------



## Rashadabd

And, if you have settled on the RS, I would hurry because my understanding is that it will be discontinued some time between now and another month or so and that the entry level R3 will be placed in that price range instead.


----------



## MercRidnMike

Rashadabd said:


> And, if you have settled on the RS, I would hurry because my understanding is that it will be discontinued some time between now and another month or so and that the entry level R3 will be placed in that price range instead.


My local shop indicated the 2013 R3 price point would be slightly higher than the 2012 RS, but not as high as the 2012 R3.

And yeah, if you can find one, jump on it quick....my local shop had nada and couldn't get a 2012 RS when I pulled the trigger.


----------



## dmason898

Good advice. Thanks guys.


----------



## dagamon

I just purchased an RS, and I rode the RS and the R3 back to back before finally buying. It was hard to pin down, but I really just jived with the RS more. I was lucky, they only had one in stock and it was my size.


----------



## dmason898

Any idea what the weight of your RS is dagamon? What size frame did you get?


----------



## dagamon

It was a 56, but I don't know the weight.


----------



## binorx

My 2012 RS size 54 weighs 18.8 lbs fully loaded (cages, light, speedplays, garmin and spare tube/cartridge/levers)


----------

