# R3 and R3sl ride differences?



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Hey Cervelo guys,

What are the differences in vertical compliancy and ride quality between the two R3's?
I noticed they each use different diameter seatpost. 

Being a Tarmac SL owner, what am I geting myself into?

Thanks.


----------



## Zwane (Jun 30, 2006)

I'd wager that you wouldn't notice a difference.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

a stock R3sl rides a bit smoother because of the 27.2 seatpost. the oversized seatpost on the R3 will not offer the same compliance as the 27.2 post.

I had the chance to ride an R3 that was shimmed and used a 27.2 seatpost and then a R3sl and they felt the same to me.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

That's exactly what I thought. I had a Scott Cr1 that was too harsh. I shimmed it to a 27.2 Specialized seatpost and it was a little more comfortable.


----------



## ralph1 (May 20, 2006)

*R3 feel and ride*

Hi all,

I am thinking of becoming a member of the R3 family and was wondering what difference I will get from my current Cannondale CAAD 8 frame, weight, ride, and feel? I ride a 60cm Dale, so will probably need the 61cm R3, any advice would be great.

cheers

Ralph


----------



## tknc (Dec 19, 2007)

ralph1 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am thinking of becoming a member of the R3 family and was wondering what difference I will get from my current Cannondale CAAD 8 frame, weight, ride, and feel? I ride a 60cm Dale, so will probably need the 61cm R3, any advice would be great.
> 
> ...


You'll lose a lot of weight in the frame. The frame will not feel as snappy as the CAAD 8. I don't have stiffness numbers, but I imagine the R3, at least the SL version is probably a bit stiffer in the bottom bracket, but will be more compliant vertically.

I ride a R3SL and like the ride. I wouldn't recommend it, though, if you do a lot of flat road riding. It's not the most aerodynamic of frames by any stretch.


----------



## mobileops (Oct 20, 2007)

I've ridden pretty much everything, shopped at stores that have everything, and considered every price point. The one constant, if you go to a store that's not biased by brand, or any other factor, is that Cervelo bikes are top rated. And when I say top, if my local store sells 15 brands, and I ask for a sick road bike no budget in mind, they'll recommend an R3 or Soloist Carbon without hesitation. I just purchased an R3-SL, and its a dream bike. Light, stiff, cool looking; it feels like it pushes me up the hill. Is it worth the extra loot over a standard R3, probably not. But my shop was out of '07 R3's, and I didn't want a white bike. Recently I saw CSC in the Amgen Tour of California, their riders were exclusively on R3's and Soloist Carbons, no SL's at all. If its good enough for them, its good enough for the rest of us. 

Save your money, get an R3, a great pair of wheels, and enjoy truly a top road bike.


----------



## gitoutdaway (Nov 28, 2007)

I am not knocking the R3 (I actually likeit) but prospective buyers should be ware:

Just because a bike is "top rated" in measureable terms (ie "stiffness" and weight) it is no guarantee that it will ride well, be comfortable to ride or fit correctly. Cervelos are nice on paper and in stats, but those specs are used to sell people on frames made SPECIFICALLY for racing and used by ELITE riders SPECIFICALLY TO RACE that don't really apply to 99% of the civilian ridership who buys them, even those who race. I have known more than one excellent racer (far better than I) who hated the R3 because they felt that it was too stiff and uncomfortable for longish rides. One made the descriptive point that he felt as though someone had been smacking his rear end with a baseball bat while riding it and found he could not stay comfortably seated for long periods due to the severity of the bumps even the small ones. There is a trade off between comfort and "performance" (as often defined by stiffness to weight ratio) that can mislead many who don't think it through or are new to the game. Rider performance may actally be decreased if/when stiffness and weight are the primary determining factors used to judge a frame. One might actualy go farther faster on slightly less stiff frames due to significant increase in comfort in other words.
R3 and other frames designed for specific riders who are at levels of fitess way beyond the average mortal and thus maynot necessarily be ideal for anyone not physically qualified to race at those levels, much less train or do the average century ride. Indeed, even CSC team members seem to be looking for slightly more comfortable rides these days (hence theRS) as they break the 30 year mark.
Just my 2 cents..


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

That's why Cervelo makes an "RS" model, to provide a bit more comfort for those that find long distance comfort their preference. But, all is not lost with R3 - put on Michelin ProRace 25s at 85 or 90 lbs and the ride will be smooth and super comfortable. The choice of saddles will also have an effect on comfort. Nothing says that just because you have a lightweight stiff bike that you must put a lightweight and stiff with almost no padding saddle on. It's better to have a stiff frame and, get your ride by selecting the right components, the right tires and inflation pressure - imho.


----------

