# Moots vs Cervelo R3 vs Eriksen



## jlebens

I've narrowed the field and could use some feedback on this decision. I am about to replace my custom steel frame built by Glenn Erickson in Seattle about 10 years ago. This bike has been a near perfect match for me with stable high speed steering, a supple ride and good stiffness for climbing. It weighs in at a little more than 18 lbs. I'm planning to do some week long rides this summer with lots of climbing and miles. I'm not a racer and not a kid, so finding the best combination of comfort and climbing/handling is my priority. I'd keep riding the steel frame, but I know I can lose a pound or more and get a better climber with today's technology. We've got a great local Moots dealer, but a custom Eriksen would be nice as well. The Cervelo is appealing for it's weight, comfort and climbing strengths. I have not ridden a Cervelo, but have ridden a Moots and liked it just fine. The durability of a Ti bike is appealing, but the Cervelo lifetime warranty is a big positive. Suppleness of a metal frame is appealing, but super light weight of carbon is, too. The Moots graphics are boring, but the quality is obvious. There is something about a custom frame (I've owned two) that makes them extra special. (I'll probably use either Dura Ace or SRAM components)ut: 

Your thoughts?


----------



## PigmyRacer

Your comparing apples to oranges. If you want carbon, get the Cervelo. If not, the toss up between Moots and Eriksen is really custom vs. stock. They are practically the same, Eriksen is the former owner of moots so his frames are not very different.


----------



## jlebens

That may be the main issue - I am trying to decide between carbon and Ti -


----------



## Mootsie

I went down this road as well and I will always remember what Excel Sports in Boulder told me: when they sell someone a Ti bike they never see them again.... I think that says it all.


----------



## Bixe

*....*

Both of these are customs though the Vamoots is so close to stock geometry that it might as well be. The Eriksen is tweaked towards an all day ride. The difference between the Vamoots and the Eriksen is the difference between an off the rack geometry and whatever tweaks you might want in your geometry.

Other than the geometry, the differences between these two would be splitting hairs. (Qualifier: My proportions are average and my preferences conventional enough such that I have few problems with most stock geometries.)

While I'm also riding four other carbon bikes these days (besides the LS and a since departed Merlin), I can't speak to the R3 in particular. As mentioned above: Apples v. Oranges.
I would suggest that the geometry and the ride quality override the weight differences. Obviously, losing a few hundred grams is noticeable in how the bike handles, but IMHO there are other characteristics that deserve consideration (of both the frameset as well as the build).

If your bike will be the second of two, I recommend the custom Ti to get the geometry you prefer as well as for the durability.

The cluster detail is a well traveled pic from the Vamoots. The build quality of the Eriksen is comparable....


----------



## jlebens

If you are also riding carbon, you must have a preference for Ti - can you explain?


----------



## Bixe

*....*



jlebens said:


> If you are also riding carbon, you must have a preference for Ti - can you explain?


Oh, I can try….

My presumption that this bike is one of two may be incorrect, no?

I don’t necessarily prefer Ti bikes for every application. Obviously I enjoy riding the carbon bikes around too and rotate among the several routinely. I have been riding at least 10k miles/year for many years now, so they get ridden regularly…

I am also no youngster, race occasionally, usually in the local crit series to stay in regular touch with the boys. I ride a throw-away bike in these circumstances. I generally prefer to ride the 585 in the mountains and ride the Moots or Eriksen for the centuries (couple dozen last year). There are other circumstances when I might roll one of the others out because this bike would work best over today’s route. This choice comes from having spent hours in the saddle of each of them and learning what the bike does best, carbon or ti aside.

You mentioned week long rides: The Ti bikes’ durability will tolerate the off-the-road schlepping around better than a carbon. If you are riding over unfamiliar roads and find yourself and the bike in, er- an unintentional event, the Ti bike has a better chance of survival. If you are particular about the bike’s climbing manners, the custom geometry can accommodate your personal preferences. For instance, the slacker angles and lower bottom bracket of an all day ride don’t work so well in the mountains….

If I were to take a bike on an all week ride that was predominately flat, the Eriksen would go. Depending on how much and how severe the climbing is, at some threshold the Vamoots would go. If I had to toss every bike right now and could keep only one…. I dunno which of _those two_ it would be. The justification for that choice could involve questions about the afterlife, spiritual eternity, and the apocalypse…and that’s another post.


----------



## vespajg

You should definitely ride the Cervelo before pulling the trigger. Apple vs Oranges is an understatement . . . you may not like the stiffness of the carbon frame or desire the more solid feeling of the titanium. These are two very different bikes. You could definitely tell a difference between them if you were blindfolded, whereas the difference between the Moots and the Eriksen will be much more subtle, if there is one at all (blindfolded w/ same set up that is).


----------



## jlebens

You are absolutely right about the test ride of the Cervelo - I need to do it. 

But what did you mean by "stiffness" on the carbon vs. "solid" ride on the Ti. Having ridden a Moots I think I know what you mean, but I would add that the Ti is also compliant and supple. It felt very firm, but with a bit of give. What I am afraid of with the carbon is that it would absorb high frequency vibrations very well, but would feel stiff legged on bigger bumps.


----------



## vespajg

I think once you ride the Cervelo, you will understand what I mean. You are correct that titanium is compliant and supple, which is arguably its best quality as a frame material. But IMO, it is a very solid feel compared to a Cervelo. By that I do not mean that the Cervelo is squirrelly, but it is rather rocketship-like compared to titanium. Particularly in the Cervelo BB - do not expect much give (the R3 frame is rumored to not even need the seat stays because the BB is strong enough without them). While the seat stays are designed to add "compliance," it won't be the same feeling as titanium. Not the best description I am sure, but I would imagine that test riding will seal the deal one way or the other because the ride characteristics of these two frames are substantially different.


----------



## chiup01

The Moots and the Cervelo are definitely two different creatures. Although Cervelo advertises the comfort properties of the R3, I did not feel it when I rode it. The Cervelo BB is very stiff and so is the ride. The R2 is much closer to the Moots in terms of ride quality, but that one is no longer in production. 

I liked the Moots better when I test rode it, so when Cervelo gave me the R3 as a replacement for the R2, I sold it to get the Moots. I do not regret that decision, but the bottom line is that you should ride the R3 beforehand if you have the chance. If you don't, then you just have to know that they are NOT comparable bikes.


----------



## NealH

You don't need to test ride anything, just get the Moots. High zoot carbon bikes come and go, there will always be plenty of them to test ride, and even from Cervelo. If you fancy one, take your time and ride them at your convenience. But, Titanium is not getting any cheaper and, the Moots quality of construction is in a league virtually by itself (same for Eriksen). They make them today just like they made them yesterday and, just like they will make them tomorrow. Their sublime ride qualilty needs no introduction. Its a benchmark bicycle.


----------



## BizkitShooter

I've ridden the heck out of carbon, and my Ericksen is simply beautiful. The carbon was nice and I never had a complaint other than it started to look old and dingy (not much of a complaint, it's still a great bike). On the other hand the Ti is just a dream to ride. Completely different and very nice.

One more thought, don't underestimate the value of working with Kent directly to build a bike just for you. Kent is awesome and so are his bikes. Carbon is nice, but it aint custom Ti.


----------



## dleroy

*How 'bout Parlee*

Now I may not know what I'm talking about here but I'm wondering if a Parlee carbon might be a better reference since it too is a custom, perhaps more of an artisan frame than the Cervelo. What if one were choosing between an Eriksen and say a Z3 or Z4 Parlee? Wouldn't that be a more even playing field? Further thoughts?


----------



## eazyrider08

*I own an R3 and a ti bike (Merlin CR Works)...*

and am very happy with both bikes. I haven't ridden a Moots or Eriksen - I can't provide feedback on how either of those bike rides - but I consider my Merlin a high quality Ti bike too. It has been echoed so many times on the previous posts the excellent ride quality of a high end Ti bike - it is really that comfortable and supple...but I do find my R3 not too far in terms of comfort level. I don't disagree with comments that they are both different bikes, the fact that it is Ti & carbon and I'm not going to start the "Ti vs carbon" discussions, there are a lot of posts you can find about that. What I could comment is the ride quality of the R3- it is very stiif but at the same time pretty comfortable. I have ridden a number of high end bikes and I could tell you that R3 is one very stiff (especially on the BB) but forgiving ride. Also since you also mentioned that you do a lot of climbing, it is pretty interesting to note that all my personal best on big climbs ( i do record every single one of them) is on R3 though some of the difference in time is not huge. Maybe it's the geometry, the reduced weight (R3 is a sub 900 gram frame), the BB stiffness or maybe it is just me...but it's pretty compelling that all of my personal best for climbs are on R3. 

Again, these comments are only personal opinions from an owner of an R3 and a very good quality Ti (Merlin) bike.


----------



## jlebens

Thanks very much to all of you who posted. I think I am going to buy a custom Eriksen. In the end, I love the liveliness and suppleness you can get from a metal bike. Durability is important to me. I have had custom machines in the past, and love getting exactly what I want for ride and fit. I may get a carbon bike later, but will need to spend more time riding them to calibrate my judgement. 

Next decision - components!


----------



## NealH

Shimano. Its a preference, but I like it the best, and always have. Their drive trains are smooth and refined. And, the nice large brake hoods are without peer.


----------

