# Rode RS today! Cervelo vs. TREK?!?!



## N.C.VortexRider

Hey everyone,
I went by my LBS today and got set up on a 2008 RS with full Dura ace. It was pretty awesome yet the ride was very short. Fitted to a 51cm frame btw. It is at closeout price of $3200. Day before I went by local Trek shop, they have me looking at a demo'd 09 5.2 Madone with Ultegra SL, red shield 5 yr warranty. Demo price $3200, $190 for red shield, also a $350 option to have new re-spray if I cared for a "new" look. 

- I really liked the sharp handling of the RS, yet after an entire day of researching after my concern is the toe overlapping on the 51's (which I incurred on a tight turn). 

-The price between the two is very balanced, yet the red shield sounds reassuring for the long haul. However I read alot of riders get the AL frame Soloist/ S1 and they say its just as good if not better than the CF roadies around. But they all deal with a heavy bike. Roughly 19-22lbs depending on 08/09 and painted vs. flat finish. 

My overall question is what is more recommended by you all? I love the tech. on the Cervelo's but RS or Team Soloist/S1 in comparison for overall $/per Trek 5.2 madone.

Any and all on this is surely appreciated. Tips, personal experiences, pics, etc. are all welcomed and appreciated to assist in this decision. 

kind regards!


----------



## JimT

I envy you actually finding bikes in your area to demo. 

To you question I would go with which one felt best, and then if they were equal I would go for the that looks best to you....

Good luck I am sure you will be happy either way


----------



## jpdigital

Only one I can (legitamately) chime in on is the Soloist/S1. As far as tech./value-per-dollar IMO is unmatched. As far as the ride, while it _does_ have an_ unaluminium-like_ ride, it still is aluminium. In saying that it rides better than many if not most low-to-mid level carbon bikes is true, you'll _definately_ feel the difference in ride from an S1 to an RS (or even a Madone for that matter).

Though RS can be (and in some cases _is_) raced, the S1 definately has a blatently aggressive demeanor to it. Consider what kind of riding you do, at the prices you're mentioning both are a tremendous value. If you like to do longer rides on, say, chipsealed roads than IMO the RS would be the way to go. Also if you value overall comfort as opposed to shear agression, again I'd lean toward the RS.

That being said, I cherish my S1, as far as aluminium goes, it's as good as it gets. It's _very_ explosive, but not at all harsh.

Also, where did you hear of Solosits/S1s weighing 19-22lbs? Mine is a 54cm build w/ full Centuar (roughly similar in weight to Ultegra) & decently overbuilt DTSwiss handbuilts and it's a hair under 17lbs.


----------



## jaydub_u

S1 might surprise you. I chose it over 3 simularly price CF bikes. Ride was as comfortable and it just felt faster. As for weight, My S1 weighed in at 18.01lbs without water bottles. The 2 CF bikes from Felt and Scott that were comperable in price (2200.00) were 2oz. heavier.


----------



## filtersweep

- Red Shield? An extended warranty against manufacturer's defects? What "defect" will suddenly show up AFTER 3 years?

Toe overlap? Completely normal. You can coast right? Just watch your feet when turning at sub-walking speed.


----------



## brujenn

move your cleats forward?


----------



## messyparrot

For $ 3200.00 you can get a S1 and some nicer wheels.

I love my S1 and it weighs around 17lbs, it is a rocket.
Love my SLC SL also but the S1 is really a steal of a deal at the price they are.


----------



## N.C.VortexRider

filtersweep said:


> - Red Shield? An extended warranty against manufacturer's defects? What "defect" will suddenly show up AFTER 3 years?
> 
> Toe overlap? Completely normal. You can coast right? Just watch your feet when turning at sub-walking speed.


The red shield covered any defects or wear and tear parts on the Trek. Say I broke my chain, or had a bent rim- from what I understand, if I had the extended warranty I would go in there and the parts are replaced at no charge, and no labor is paid either. The Cervelo doesn't have that, only the defect warranty offered from them direct.

As of today, thinking about the costs and value- I am strongly leaning with the S1/ team soloist over the CF frames. That way the additional savings can later be put towards new aero wheels, better components etc.


----------



## N.C.VortexRider

messyparrot said:


> For $ 3200.00 you can get a S1 and some nicer wheels.
> 
> I love my S1 and it weighs around 17lbs, it is a rocket.
> Love my SLC SL also but the S1 is really a steal of a deal at the price they are.


Ah I just missed your post, looks as if you said the same thing I have thought about and think is the best way to go about what to get. Yet Trek's are awesome... however Cervelo seems to be a step above in overall quality with less marketing, maybe thats why it took me so long to find a Cervelo that beats the Trek's I've been looking at. Its been nothing but TREK TREK TREK and Cannondale, Giant in the mix. 

As for the weight of the s1, I read on a Cervelo forum that riders were weighing in their bikes at roughly 19+ lbs. and it was more tedious work shaving grams off to equal rival CF bikes. 

Overall- looks to me that I will soon be posting up pics of an S1 that I will gallantly say I bought. BTW guys, post up some pics will ya?! Even i'll say "this thread is worthless without pics!"


----------



## jpdigital

The S1+upgraded wheels definatley sounds like the way you should go, then! BTW, when I weighted my bike it was w/ everything on it, inlcuding: 2 bottle cages, pedals (granted, they're Speedplays), computer & a spare innertube.


----------



## natedg200202

N.C.VortexRider said:


> The red shield covered any defects or wear and tear parts on the Trek. Say I broke my chain, or had a bent rim- from what I understand, if I had the extended warranty I would go in there and the parts are replaced at no charge, and no labor is paid either. The Cervelo doesn't have that, only the defect warranty offered from them direct.
> 
> As of today, thinking about the costs and value- I am strongly leaning with the S1/ team soloist over the CF frames. That way the additional savings can later be put towards new aero wheels, better components etc.


The most interesting part of this thread is the Trek "Red Shield". I had never heard of it and just looked it up. Not sure about your claim that broken chain / bent rims will be covered. The Trek site says: "Defects in materials or workmanship and breakdown due to certain normal wear and tear " Bent rims are not normal wear and tear. Also, a worn out chain doesn't represent a defect in materials. 

I don't see that "Red Shield" covers much of anything that any other bike company would cover. 

I have an RS and I love it, but the Madone's are good looking bikes.


----------



## N.C.VortexRider

My only concern, if any, is the advantage the CF framed guy may and/or have in climbs over the Alum. S1 frame. Seems most cervelo guys on here have a cf version and may be the best bet to ride the S1 and the RS again to compare- but in price between the two.....it's apples to oranges. (or is it not?)


----------



## Getoutandride

I work in my LBS, we deal bianchi, trek, cervelo and GT. Of all I chose the Soloist carbon, I had test rode products from all the brands over a fair bit of road to find that the cervelo held its own - just a beautiful machine to have


----------



## N.C.VortexRider

I need to ask before going any further in finding "my" soloist.... are the soloist team editions any different than the S1 that I may pick up from the LBS? My guess is only the paint scheme is different but if there are other variations please do let me know. Thanks much guys.


----------



## MCF

All I can add to this thread is that I have a 2008 Cervelo RS with SRAM red and I love it! That's all that really needs to be said about the Cervelo RS. I see a lot more Treks on the road than Cervelos (more Cervelos are showing up) and I do like having a bike that not everybody else rides...


----------



## jpdigital

*Team Edition?*



N.C.VortexRider said:


> I need to ask before going any further in finding "my" soloist.... are the soloist team editions any different than the S1 that I may pick up from the LBS? My guess is only the paint scheme is different but if there are other variations please do let me know. Thanks much guys.


Never heard of a Team Edition. Perhaps you are thinking of what the S1 used to be called: Soloist Team (?). If that's the case, "Soloist Team" just basically lets you know Cervélo is refering to the Aluminium Soloist, not the Carbon Soloist.

Looks like you're leaning toward the S1, great choice!!! You'll have absolutly NO regrets. Only thing I'd do is use the $$$ you're saving toward upgrading the wheels (but I think you already mentioned that that's your intention).


----------



## 4l3x

Well considering that Trek makes several dozen bikes in each catagory and cervelo only makes 11 bikes in total i would go with cervelo. They simple have more engineers working on each individual bike. Treks are still great bikes and i myself own one and have been very happy with it but for sure my next bike is going to be an S2/Soloist Carbon.


----------



## N.C.VortexRider

After looking at the price variations between new '09 and past season frames, im not sure if it will be more beneficial to buy a new '09 from my LBS or find an older frame and build up? Yesterday on ebay there was a S2 (soloist carbon frame and grouppo) and it went for $2,000. VS '09 S1 compete bike for $2,200. 

So I was torn between the two- used CF soloist frame and build or pay extra for the new S1. I thought of what condition the CF soloist frame was or could be in, if there were any internal hairline cracks, etc. as opposed to knowing with a new S1 it is in sound condition. Any recommendation on wether or not I should build one and save the extra off no retail cost or just bite the bullet and stick with a new S1.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder

Too much analysis. If your budget allows, go with the RS that you started with and don't look back. You'll love the bike.


----------



## zerocar

*newbie to the forum.*

After much debate as to which bike to get. Trek 5.5 or Cervelo RS, both 2008 left overs. I finally test rode both of them back to back yesterday- about 20 minutes on each. The madone was smoother but i noticed my pedaling effort was not rewarded as i thought. I read so much about the new improved BB as was dissapointed. Since i currently ride a Trek 1500 SLR and wanted to continue with them since i haven't had any problem in almost 3k miles. I rode the Cervelo and was very pleased with the ride and super impressed in the way my pedaling efforts were rewarded. The smoothness of the trek was just marginally better and don't think it would make a difference even after 50-60 miles. Since my riding style with my group is very fast and hilly with many breakaways involved i decided to go with the RS. The wheeels need to be replaced or swapped out from my old bike but other than that it is ready for anything. BTW it is all Dura Ace with FSA compact cranks. 

Ride On!!:thumbsup:


----------



## stumpy_steve

zerocar said:


> After much debate as to which bike to get. Trek 5.5 or Cervelo RS, both 2008 left overs. I finally test rode both of them back to back yesterday- about 20 minutes on each. The madone was smoother but i noticed my pedaling effort was not rewarded as i thought. I read so much about the new improved BB as was dissapointed. Since i currently ride a Trek 1500 SLR and wanted to continue with them since i haven't had any problem in almost 3k miles. I rode the Cervelo and was very pleased with the ride and super impressed in the way my pedaling efforts were rewarded. The smoothness of the trek was just marginally better and don't think it would make a difference even after 50-60 miles. Since my riding style with my group is very fast and hilly with many breakaways involved i decided to go with the RS. The wheeels need to be replaced or swapped out from my old bike but other than that it is ready for anything. BTW it is all Dura Ace with FSA compact cranks.
> 
> Ride On!!:thumbsup:


I totally agree with you. I rode the same madone aforementioned in the OP (09 5.2) and it just didn't have a "snap." I don't know what it was, but the madone just didn't feel like a race bike, like how my tarmac felt. It didn't do anything for me, and I could have gotten one at a steal! However, when I rode the RS, it was the perfect blend of speed and comfort, and still had something there. It didn't feel dead, but snappy and lively. 

Similar to a 20 year old girlfriend to a 40 year old wife. They can do the same thing, sure. But not the same way, and won't put a smile on your face the same way.


----------



## Tommy Walker

The RS would be my choice, actually it was and if you can get Dura Ace for that price it's a better buy. I actually thought I had to go higher than a 5.2 Madone to have the equivalent to the RS.

The RS is not for racing, it's for long comfort rides and I mean you feel no pain. Trek is a good bike and has great support. I paid about that for my '09 RS with Ultegra.

If you are still up in the air, compare the wheelsets as well. I did upgrade my RS10's for Ultegra's, no real good reason, it's just the forum's said the RS10's were not that good and I was offered a great deal to upgrade to Ultegra's (so I have full Ultegra's except for Speedplay's) I also noticed that the 2010 RS will have Fulcrum Racing 7's and the Dura ace version will have Fulcrum Racing 5's.

I thought looking was fun; kind of like having a bunch of 20 year olds putting a smile on your face  (I actually had the biggest smile on my face after test riding the RS)


----------



## a_avery007

yeah,
the RS is not for racing..lol
Thor got 3rd on it in Paris Roubaix...


----------



## MCF

If you can't win a race on an RS, you aren't going to win on any bike.


----------



## jimmyke

*Rs*

I am in mid 60's now so comfort wins out over speed but speed still counts. I ride a steel Crown Jewel and a RS I love both bikes but if I could only have one it would be the RS.


----------



## Tommy Walker

OK OK I retract that statement; you can race on the RS..you can race on the RS. It is just set up for the distance ride and puts you in a more upright position. I was actually trying to be too nice about the Trek,,,get the RS it's a much better bike.

I upgraded my wheels to Ultegra's and rode it today for the first time; I noticed a big difference from the RS10's.


----------



## MCF

Yes, the RS10's really do SUK!! I upgraded from RS10 to Reynolds Assaults and could really feel a big difference. Didn't know what 'noodle' wheels felt like until I rode the Reynolds Assaults and could feel how much more stiff they were over the RS10's. Anyone that is riding an RS with the stock wheels, do youself a favor and upgrade to ANYTHING.


----------



## M-theory

The problem with Cervelo is that the bikes are not fitted for smaller riders. The seat tube for the S1 is 73 degrees throughout the entire set of bike sizes. Normally bike manufacturers increase the slope of the seat tube for smaller riders to accomodate the disproportionately smaller thighs of smaller riders. 

Cervelo saves money on manufacturing by using the same geometry for all sizes. And then they have the audacity to claim (on their website) that their bikes fit better because they don't change the geometry. For that reason alone, Cervelo has lost all credibility for me.


----------



## a_avery007

you are joking right???
lets see, 
09 Giant TCR Advanced SL in size small has a 73.5 SA
09 Specialized Tarmac SL2 in size 54cm has a 73.5 SA
09 Jamis Xenith SL in size small has a 73 SA

many others prefer not having small bikes with 74.5 SA as it makes the top tube effectively longer and increases your reach....

yeah half a degree will mess up your fit..lol


----------



## M-theory

a_avery007 said:


> you are joking right???
> lets see,
> 09 Giant TCR Advanced SL in size small has a 73.5 SA
> 09 Specialized Tarmac SL2 in size 54cm has a 73.5 SA
> 09 Jamis Xenith SL in size small has a 73 SA
> 
> many others prefer not having small bikes with 74.5 SA as it makes the top tube effectively longer and increases your reach....
> 
> yeah half a degree will mess up your fit..lol



Nope, I wasn't joking. As for your examples, the Specialized Tarmac is 74 in size 51cm...more pertinent to this discussion. Further, it goes to 75.5 for a size 49cm. You see what they're doing? On the opposite end of the spectrum...for the larger bikes, the Tarmac has 72.5 angle for a size 61cm. Hmmm It cost money to retool the manufacturing equipment for the varying angles...but Specialized does it to achieve better fit for riders across the board.


Jamis uses 73 for all sizes. They too, like Cevelo are saving money. But unlike Cervelo they do not have a video on their website claiming a superior fit because they know they are cutting corners. _*Cervelo is shameless.*_

Sorry dude, 1 or 2 degrees makes all the difference.


----------



## Tommy Walker

*RS10's*



MCF said:


> Yes, the RS10's really do SUK!! I upgraded from RS10 to Reynolds Assaults and could really feel a big difference. Didn't know what 'noodle' wheels felt like until I rode the Reynolds Assaults and could feel how much more stiff they were over the RS10's. Anyone that is riding an RS with the stock wheels, do youself a favor and upgrade to ANYTHING.


I've notice the 2010's will have the Fulcrum Racing 7's on the RS and the Dura Ace models will have Fulcrum Racing 5's. I've heard good things about the RS20's and the RS 80's, as well as the Ultegra's.


----------



## a_avery007

this is why it makes sense..
steep angles increase reach..

here is a link that might help you:
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62975&hilit=reach+chart

tell me what you think???

felt has crazy reach in small sizes...steep seat tube angles are the culprit..

to each their own bro....


----------



## John Kuhl

What a bunch of crap. Cervelo isn't doing this to save money, it is
just "there" way of fitting the bike. If you don't like the way they do this
buy another bike. To say they are doing this to save money is wrong.

Best, John


----------



## zerocar

if 73 degrees doesn't work for you then what does and how did you calculate your preferred seat tube degree??


----------



## cmg

Most bikes seat tube angles go steeper when the size gets smaller. 74.5-76 is very common for a 49-50 seatube bike. the real trick is the top tube lenght on the slack tube frames 73-74 angle frames. The 73 STA with a 53cm top tube will have the same reach as a 74 STA and a 52 top tube when you put the saddle in the same horizontal distance to the bottom bracket or get very close. Lemond did this with his steel frames. the choice is what kind of knee over spindle distance your looking for and stem lenght.


----------



## fallzboater

Note that STA isn't that critical, as long as you account for it with TT length, since your saddle has rails (and you can choose a post with different offset if needed). 

dx = H*tan(dSTA)
where: 
dx is your (roughly horizontal) change in saddle position
H is the BB to saddle height
dSTA is the change in STA

In my (extreme) case, with a 87cm seat height (don't laugh), a 1 deg slacker SA moves my saddle back 1.5cm (most people will be closer to 1.0cm), so if I want to keep the same position, I can move the saddle forward that much on the rails, then balance TT and stem lengths to put my bars back in the same position. It does make a bit of difference as far as where your cg is over the wheels, though.


----------

