# Cervelo R2.5 - Is it really THAT bad?



## VeloFish (Jan 15, 2005)

I've read a couple of reviews of Cervelo's R2.5 carbon bike that have said the bottom bracket becomes unbonded or that the seatpost slips. Obviously, the first problem would be more of an issue. What can anyone tell me about their experience with the R2.5 - aside from those reviews posted. 

Thanks!


----------



## Zac Fisher (Aug 1, 2004)

I've read the same reviews, and I see there's a new one from a couple of days ago too. I've had my eye on this bike, and a lot of people suggest it on the forums, but these reviews have me a little spooked. I can understand an occasional problem, but it sounds pretty consistent for a bike that is supposed to be the strongest frame around, at least according to Cervelo's own web site (I read it on the Internet, it must be true!) It sounds like a QC problem, if properly built it is super strong. The warranty covers you, but as the reviewers have said, you don't want to be without a bike while they take care of it.

When I was looking at the R2.5 Chorus last week at the shop I asked about this problem and they were surprised by the question. 

That last reviewer took a Kestrel Evoke in exchange, but I've read that these have a similar problem with the seat stays. I also saw that a lot of the 2004 evokes were available as close-outs, never a good sign.

Do a search on the R2.5 on this forum, and also on Bikeforums.net, and you'll see a lot positives too.


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

Zac Fisher said:


> The warranty covers you, but as the reviewers have said, you don't want to be without a bike while they take care of it.


Its not a warranty concern. It is a question of whether you want to sustain a severe injury when the frame fails during a long, steep descent, or in a very fast moving, tightly packed peloton. I couldn't care less about the warranty.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

VeloFish said:


> I've read a couple of reviews of Cervelo's R2.5 carbon bike that have said the bottom bracket becomes unbonded or that the seatpost slips. Obviously, the first problem would be more of an issue. What can anyone tell me about their experience with the R2.5 - aside from those reviews posted.
> 
> Thanks!


http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/cervelor25.shtml


----------



## Florentine Pogen (Dec 5, 2004)

*Wow!*

An unbiased review.


----------



## Zac Fisher (Aug 1, 2004)

asgelle said:


> http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/cervelor25.shtml


I've read that review, too, but the problem seems to be with their production frames sold to the general public. I don't doubt that it is a great bike, if you don't have a problem. 

So the questions are: are the reviewers with the problem the only ones with the problem, did all of their bikes come from one bad run, did a few bad ones slip through, is it a general QC problem with CF? Is it a design issue? All of the above?

I was still gung-ho on getting one until tonight. Since the lbs I'll buy it from is probably Cervelo's biggest retailer, I'll ask at the LBS about problems they know of. Funny thing is, they never steered me to one, but they showed me a lot of stuff. Maybe that's because the DA model is out of my range, and a built up frame is also. The Chorus edition was at the top of my range though, but still unavailable at the time.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*low credibility..*

Every article this guy writes reads like TV infomercial. Mostly BS. For example, a frame that's no more than 1 pound lighter than his previous LOOK frame somehow ends up being a 4-pound lighter bike. Must be magic.

He wrote an equally flawed article on Colnago geometry. You need hip waders to get through it. http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml

One thing I'd get clarification on is their geometry. The drawing on the Cervelo website shows the STA as a line from the center of the BB through the center of the seat rail clamp at some unspecified saddle height. If this is the case, then the STA by the "normal" definition would be steeper than advertised, making the TT length longer than expected.

http://www.cervelo.com/bikes/2005/R25-Team.html#Geometry


----------



## tintin1610 (Jan 26, 2005)

Have you tried emailing Cervelo and questioning them directly? I had a worry about the geometry of their Soloist and I dropped them an email. I got an answer back within a day or so, and I was happy with the information I was given.

Apparently Gerard Vroomen responds to some of the technical questions, so maybe drop them a line and attention the email to him?

Good luck!

tt


----------



## bigdeal (Jul 24, 2002)

*.....*

yes, it is true that Gerard responds to email regularly, I have actually gotten responses (yes, more than one) from him regarding their products. As far as the R2.5, I've inspected one of their 2005 bikes and all I can say is 'beautiful'. When I asked them about their 2004 vs 2005 models they responded by saying the tubes are made in Taiwan but the assembly and finishing are done in Canada.


----------



## power1369 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Cervelo 2.5*

Going along with the 2.5 questions, I thought I read somewhere that the frame used for the 2.5 Chorus model and the 2.5 Team model are slightly different, with the Chorus model being slightly inferior. Am I mistaken? Anybody know?


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*Agree with that. The geometry chart is indeed quite unprofessional*

The toptube length is not even center to center. Makes me doubt whether they know what they are doing. Aesthetically, I think the Cervelo is still a couple of levels below Time, which I unfortunately cannot afford.

As for the review, it just cannot be from someone who does not have an economic interest in promoting the sales of that bike.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Ask Gerard*



bigdeal said:


> yes, it is true that Gerard responds to email regularly, I have actually gotten responses (yes, more than one) from him regarding their products. As far as the R2.5, I've inspected one of their 2005 bikes and all I can say is 'beautiful'. When I asked them about their 2004 vs 2005 models they responded by saying the tubes are made in Taiwan but the assembly and finishing are done in Canada.



Gerard has responded to me as well in email andI have to say that he is very responsive to any questions concerning the performance of a Cervelo product.

He is also grounded, and will also tell you the shortcomings of a product he provides. Thats rare and impressive.

Warranty issues stopped me getting a Cervelo as the 5 year warranty on a bike over 1500 bucks aint my speed. But, thats me and again, email him.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

elviento said:


> Makes me doubt whether they know what they are doing.


You can have whatever opinions of Cervelo bikes you want. But it's hard to believe Bjarne Riis and CSC would continue to use them as their bike supplier if they didn't know something about what they were doing.


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

asgelle said:


> You can have whatever opinions of Cervelo bikes you want. But it's hard to believe Bjarne Riis and CSC would continue to use them as their bike supplier if they didn't know something about what they were doing.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*got an address???*

I sent a detailed e-mail to cervelo's contact address and got a canned response with the answers to FAQ. Totally worthless.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

C-40 said:


> I sent a detailed e-mail to cervelo's contact address and got a canned response with the answers to FAQ. Totally worthless.


As I recall, they send a form response to acknowledge receipt of e-mail questions with a detailed answer coming later.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*Lol*

Or: CAN$CAN$CAN$CAN$CAN$CAN$CAN$





yzfrr11 said:


> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*not exactly an opinion*

Not having ridden their bikes I can't really give an opinion. I am not saying they are crappy bikes, but those little things can indeed reflect how focused manufacturers are about making good products. 

As for the sponsorship, like zyfr11 pointed out, it's a money issue. Fuji and Tsunami sponsor pro teams too. 



asgelle said:


> You can have whatever opinions of Cervelo bikes you want. But it's hard to believe Bjarne Riis and CSC would continue to use them as their bike supplier if they didn't know something about what they were doing.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

elviento said:


> As for the sponsorship, like zyfr11 pointed out, it's a money issue. Fuji and Tsunami sponsor pro teams too.


Money may control which bikes a team may choose to ride but a team won't continue to ride bikes that simply don't work. I would submit that the fact that CSC continues to ride Cervelos and was able to win both Classics and Grand Tour stages on them shows that Cervelo can't not know what they're doing. I don't know about Tsunami, but no one ever lost a race because they were riding a Fuji.

Also, everyone harps on the fact that Tom Demerly sells Cervelos. This is true but he sells many other brands too, he could boost any of those if he didn't believe in Cervelo. What caught my attention in the review was the first line: "I bought a Cervelo R2.5 bike long before they were available because of a conversation I had with Cervelo's Gerard Vroomen." As a dealer, knowing what he does and given the range of bikes he had to choose from, he was willing to pay his own money for the Cervelo.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*slippery slope*



C-40 said:


> I sent a detailed e-mail to cervelo's contact address and got a canned response with the answers to FAQ. Totally worthless.


He can be contacted at the Cervelo Yahoo group which is

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cervelo/

His user name there is gocaillou and so far, he has mailed me back.


However, as you may note: Gerard has created countless prototypes and really done some great stuff as far as making a better aero machine for the masses. You might want to check the "took a materials class 20+ years ago and own a bunch of carbon bikes attitude" at the front door.  

Not all Cervelo products are great, I agree, but I would be hard pressed to find any line of bikes where all of the models are perfection.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*its dejavu all over again*



yzfrr11 said:


> Its not a warranty concern. It is a question of whether you want to sustain a severe injury when the frame fails during a long, steep descent, or in a very fast moving, tightly packed peloton. I couldn't care less about the warranty.



Any bike, on any given day could have the issue you describe.Bikes fail, its a fact.

The issue is where to get unbiased reviews. Thats a tough one and I agree, if there are "rumors" about a certain model failing, ride another bike to be safe. Otherwise, the argument that all of these bikes are unsafe because I heard....is pretty useless.


----------



## IvanK- (Jan 28, 2005)

*Haven't got mine yet, but...*

...I've had a few of these frames in my hands and they're obviously well made. The finishing is as good or better than anything else I've seen. No poorly finished edges (around the lugs, etc), no excess drops of glue, no uneven clearcoating. 

I'm satisfied that this is a fine bike and I've put a deposit on an R2.5 Team. Everything I know about Cervelo gives me confidence that if there was an issue with some of the earlier frames, that they've been ironed out. Cervelo isn't in business to loose money, and they're still offering a lifetime warranty. If they backed-off and suddenly only offered a 5yr warranty, that would worry me, but they haven't done that. 

I've looked over a few of these frames and they're solid. I'm only suffering from the wait for it now....  

"The R2.5 was the first frame in its weight category to obtain the coveted EFBe certification. This means that the frame has survived what is arguably the toughest fatigue test in the bike industry. In fact, the R2.5 has survived it twice, because when EFBe couldn't break the frame in the first 100,000 cycles we asked them to run another 100,000 cycles. The frame still wouldn't budge. That's why we have no problem offering a limited lifetime warranty on all our frames. Keep in mind that most manufacturers do not dare send their frames to EFBe, and of all the frames that are sent, roughly two-thirds of them do not even make it through the first 100,000 cycles. "

http://cervelo.com/bikes/2005/R25-Team.html

Their geometry is explained here too.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

It didn't survive the toughest test nor is it the first in its weight class to obtain that certification:
http://www.efbe.de/erenn.htm


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*cool link*



divve said:


> It didn't survive the toughest test nor is it the first in its weight class to obtain that certification:
> http://www.efbe.de/erenn.htm



Thanks for the link.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

.....just be very careful when interpreting that info. Rumors have it that several manufacturers have identical rigs in-house. They design frames to score well on the rig and use the results for marketing purposes. I don't want to sound like a Scott basher, but those guys now have a 980 gram MTB frame which passed. Fall with that frame and it breaks in half rather quickly.


----------



## Zirius (Jan 26, 2005)

ttug said:


> Any bike, on any given day could have the issue you describe.Bikes fail, its a fact.
> 
> The issue is where to get unbiased reviews. Thats a tough one and I agree, if there are "rumors" about a certain model failing, ride another bike to be safe. Otherwise, the argument that all of these bikes are unsafe because I heard....is pretty useless.


I totally agree! Its seems there is a lot of undeserved "that frame is weak and will break" talk in these forums and reviews. I'm sure there are failures, I'm not saying there are not, but it is very rare. 
I challenge anyone to go to their local shop and ask how many failures they have seen lately. I bet that you won't hear of many road frame failures. 
Maybe I'm wrong or everyone who has had a failure or knows someone that has had one is here on this site.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

The LBS is the wrong place to look unless a specific frame is failing due to a widespread manufacturing defect. You have to look at racing or find people who spend a lot of hours on their bikes. Most high-end shoppers do not ride 300-500 miles a week or even 100 for that matter.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

"I would submit that the fact that CSC continues to ride Cervelos and was able to win both Classics and Grand Tour stages on them shows that Cervelo can't not know what they're doing." 

Truth is races can be won on most decently made sub 3lb aluminum frames that cost $500. What I was saying was if I was selling $2K+ frames that is allegedly the very best in the world, I'd want to be a bit more particular about the geometries.

"As a dealer, knowing what he does and given the range of bikes he had to choose from, he was willing to pay his own money for the Cervelo."

Is the Cervelo his only bike? Did he say how much he paid for it? Probably cheap enough so he can use it for 2 years and still sell at a higher price. So why would he care? I remember when Cannondale released CAD3, they made such a big deal out of Indurain buying one, but how much can you get for a CAD3 frame on ebay today? Maybe $90-120?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

elviento said:


> What I was saying was if I was selling $2K+ frames that is allegedly the very best in the world, I'd want to be a bit more particular about the geometries.


You can say that now, but it's easy enough to see that before you said


elviento said:


> The toptube length is not even center to center. Makes me doubt whether they know what they are doing.


I'm not sure that the top tube isn't measured c-c. I'd want to check with a dealer rather than rely on a sketch on a web page; but even if it isn't, what difference does it make as long as Cervelo states what the measurement points are. If they measure from the back of the seatpost, as the sketch shows, it's easy enough to subtract the seatpost radius.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok, why?*

Why does it matter how a Top tube is measured as far as c to c or c to t etc etc? as it pertains to the quality of the bike?

Sure the chart on their site is at best nebulous, but I hope that anybody would actually, test RIDE a 2+ grand bike before buying it........


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Not just "a web site". It's Cervelo's own web site. 



asgelle said:


> You can say that now, but it's easy enough to see that before you said
> 
> I'm not sure that the top tube isn't measured c-c. I'd want to check with a dealer rather than rely on a sketch on a web page; but even if it isn't, what difference does it make as long as Cervelo states what the measurement points are. If they measure from the back of the seatpost, as the sketch shows, it's easy enough to subtract the seatpost radius.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and.............*



elviento said:


> Not just "a web site". It's Cervelo's own web site.


Its not just a web site, its also a bug killer and hair spray! Call now with 4 payments of 19.99 etc etc etc

Just a thought.......


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Because little things reflect how focused a manufacturer is on making a good product. Sloppy geometry chart, misprinted/misapplied decals, rough finish, confusing instructions, lousy customer service, none of these will subtract your next 40km TT time, so will you even want to test ride bikes of a manufacturer with such lack of attention to detail? 



ttug said:


> Why does it matter how a Top tube is measured as far as c to c or c to t etc etc? as it pertains to the quality of the bike?
> 
> Sure the chart on their site is at best nebulous, but I hope that anybody would actually, test RIDE a 2+ grand bike before buying it........


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*got it*



elviento said:


> Because little things reflect how focused a manufacturer is on making a good product. Sloppy geometry chart, misprinted/misapplied decals, rough finish, confusing instructions, lousy customer service, none of these will subtract your next 40km TT time, so will you even want to test ride bikes of a manufacturer with such lack of attention to detail?



I see what you are saying. However, I would find it very hard to believe that the person who actually builds a frame is the same person who is posting a very poorly done schematic on a web page. 

Maybe a better web design would be the answer as opposed to wow, your bike is made poorly because your web page sucks........ 

As an example, when was the last time Ben Serrota dropped you an email and asked you about the new stays on his frames? In all honesty, I dont like either product, but I do admire the interaction you can receive even with todays market place.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

I still can't believe the chart is done by the web page designer (a friend of mine does web sites for companies for around $5k-10K per site) and not provided by the designing team.

Maybe I am wrong. 



ttug said:


> I see what you are saying. However, I would find it very hard to believe that the person who actually builds a frame is the same person who is posting a very poorly done schematic on a web page.
> 
> Maybe a better web design would be the answer as opposed to wow, your bike is made poorly because your web page sucks........


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*I agree*



elviento said:


> I still can't believe the chart is done by the web page designer (a friend of mine does web sites for companies for around $5k-10K per site) and not provided by the designing team.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong.


I would have to agree that its odd at best. Personally, for that money, I would want a near perfect web interface etc etc 

But, there is no other way to slice the fact that that chart blows. Oh well.


----------



## j-son (Jul 16, 2002)

So, because you, and a few others, don't like a diagram on a website you infur that Cervelo's bikes are inferior and they don't know how to design a frame? Give me a break. Vroomen and Phil White are two of the best, if not the best, engineers and aerodynamicists in the industry today. Their designs have been widely copied and knowledgable industry folk acknowledge that Cervelo is on the leading edge of bike (particularly tt and tri) design/engineering. 

As far as frame failure, it happens. With everyone, occassionally. Maybe not with Sachs. But everyone else. The R2.5 is the equal, functionally, of any carbon frame out there. Maybe not as pretty (vis a vis Parlee, etc) but as good functionally. If you get a bad one, it will break within the first few hundred miles. Otherwise, it will last a long time. The R2.5 is a frame that the designers -- Vroomen and White -- actually designed and engineered; unlike a whole bunch of carbon copy carbon frames that makers contract in Taiwan and slap decals on (funny thing ... most of these bikes are probably pretty good also). 

Re: the EFBE test. So what? It's more marketing than relevent data. 

If you guys are going to bad mouth something, at least have the decency to know what you are talking about. 

Re: Demerly. He's an intelligent and honest guy selling bikes for a living. He probably rides more than 95% of those pontificating on this forum. And he's a tri guy. Thing with him, he doesn't buy into the tradition for tradition sake argument. Which, I think, is why a lot of pure roadies don't like him all that much. Sure, his review is positive, and he sells it ... but, maybe he sells it because it;s good. Read the rest of his reviews, when stuff sucks he tells it like it is. Except for the Colnago article, methinks he missed the mark with that one!

Cheers.


----------



## jhbeeton (Dec 8, 2004)

I've known the owner of Wheels on Bloor ( Toronto, Canada) since I started riding ('89) and he's a huge proponent of what Cervelo is up to. He's spent time in Cervelo's facility and really made the line a backbone of his business (along with Bianchi & Kestrel).

There's a lot of copy cat designs out in the market place and discount Dura-ace carbon frame specials ... however, Cervelo's key designers aren't hiding behind a name in some kind of anonimity that allows them to risk the public's hard earned dollars and available riding time. * note crashing as a result of frame failures generally takes you out of commission.

The R2.5 is a flowing balance of material and good engineering practices ... I'm personally assured that failure is not an option and that between the shop and Cervelo my trust will not be taken for granted.

Oh ya, it's a bike ... a beautiful world class frameset with a really solid parts mix to keep me rolling for years to come... Go ride it, turn the cranks ... if it doesn't do it for you, try another... There's worse things that could happen.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*well well well*

all-

The mail below from Gerard is very impressive and worth reading.Noty bad for the company pres to care about web site content huh?



My apologies, there is an error in the standover height column on the 
website for the P3 Carbon. I'll have that fixed today. In reality it is 
very close to the current P3, so nothing to worry about.

Thanks for pointing out the error,

Gerard Vroomen,
Cervélo Cycles Inc.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*no answer to my question...*

I asked a question on 1-28-05 about the unusual definition of seat tube angle on Cervlo geometry drawing and haven't received any response yet.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

C-40, please let us know if you hear from Cervelo. I'm curious to know what hey say about the seat tube angle.


----------



## jcospolich (Feb 2, 2005)

*r2.5 fit question*

i am hovering between a 56 and a 58cm. I am 6' with a 33" inseam. My old 58cm GT ZR1.0 has a bit longer top tube than the 58cm Cervelo, so I think the 58cm R2.5 is the way to go. 

Any advice asap is appreciated....


----------



## key (Mar 8, 2004)

*My $0.02*



VeloFish said:


> I've read a couple of reviews of Cervelo's R2.5 carbon bike that have said the bottom bracket becomes unbonded or that the seatpost slips. Obviously, the first problem would be more of an issue. What can anyone tell me about their experience with the R2.5 - aside from those reviews posted.
> 
> Thanks!


I purchased my R2.5 in Sept. and got it from excellsports. I have seen the messages and the reviews since, but in the past 5 months on mine ( 2005 model) it been awesome! I will admit that the stories make you wounder but as far as real world my experience has been a dream. I just bought the frame and build it with record and I'm 6'1 205 so if this sucker was going to break it would be my fat ars that would do it. 

all I can safe is I have zero regrets so far and the ride is awesome compared to the Trek 5900 I had. 

Again my $0.02


----------



## tintin1610 (Jan 26, 2005)

jcospolich said:


> i am hovering between a 56 and a 58cm. I am 6' with a 33" inseam. My old 58cm GT ZR1.0 has a bit longer top tube than the 58cm Cervelo, so I think the 58cm R2.5 is the way to go.
> 
> Any advice asap is appreciated....


Seems we are almost the same in physical measurements - I'm 6' with 33" inseam too. I say 'almost' as there are other measurements like armpit-to-wrist, torso, etc which are taken into account during a bike fit session.

I got professionally fitted to a 56cm Team Soloist, and it is very comfortable for my dimensions. If I were 6'1 or taller (with a longer inseam), then I'd probably go to a 58cm.

Hope that helps.

tt


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*R25 geo chart reply by Gerard*



MWT said:


> C-40, please let us know if you hear from Cervelo. I'm curious to know what hey say about the seat tube angle.


Thanks for the question. This will be a rather long answer, but it 
touches on several fairly important issues so I hope you'll take the time 
to read it in its entirety. The image is actually of a Soloist bike, and 
the line is drawn that way to illustrate the concept of effective vs. 
perceived toptube length.

Obviously when you flip the seatpost head on a Soloist forward, you are 
making the effective seattube angle steeper and you are also making the 
effective toptube length shorter (the steep seattube line intersects 
the toptube closer to the headtube, so that distance is shorter. This is 
even more extreme on the P3, where the length of the actual tube has no 
relation to the toptube length for the purpose of geometry. 

Or in other words, if the seatpost clamp is in a certain position, you 
can get there with a straight, curved or zigzag seattube, this does not 
effectively change the geometry of the frame, and hence it should not 
affect the seattube angle and toptube length for the purpose of geometry 
discussions.

So, whether it is a curved seattube like the P3 or a seattube that is 
offset at the bb like on the Soloist, and whether there is one seatpost 
head position or two, the effective seattube angle is intrinsic to the 
frame. 

Or looking at it differently, if you build a frame with exactly the 
dimensions as listed in the geometry chart, it will fit you exactly the 
way an R2.5 or a Soloist in that size would fit you. There is no 
difference; it will put your saddle and your bars in exactly the same spot. Yet 
if you were to overlay that frame on the R2.5 or Soloist frame, you 
would notice that the seattube of that frame does not exactly overlap the 
seattube of the R2.5 or Soloist, as both use offset seattubes (to a 
smaller and larger degree respectively). Yet you would find that the 
seatpost clamps are in the same position, assuming that you use a fairly 
standard setback seatpost on the "standard" frame, like a Campy Record 
post.

How big are these differences? On a Soloist, the offset at the bb is 
such that the physical seattube angle is around 69 degrees (adjusted for 
each size to match the average seat height of people using that size) 
while the effective seattube angle is 73 degrees. At the 
seattube/toptube joint, the offset between the effective and actual seattube lines is 
smaller (it is maximal at the bb and zero at the saddle) but the offset 
is still large enough that the effective toptube/seattube intersection 
is well behind the physical joint, hence you can see in the geometry 
figure that the effective seattube line intersects behind that joint, not 
through it.

One more thing, you may think after reading the above that this only 
works for a certain seatpost or a certain saddle height, but they are 
actually not a factor at all. Just like on any bike you can swap seatposts 
that have slightly different offsets, as long as you make sure the 
horizontal setback from tip of the saddle to the bb remains the same. It 
may just slightly changes where the seatpost clamps the saddle, nothing 
else.

One more way to look at it, which is really the best way, is to look at 
stack and reach instead of toptube length and seattube angle. Many 
people think they know exactly what toptube length they need yet don't know 
exactly what seattube angle that correlates to, and as the above should 
show knowing one is useless if you don't know the other. A 543mm 
toptube on a 73 degree seattubed bike is a much shorter frame than the same 
toptube on a 74 degree frame (about 10mm shorter). This is why the 
smaller frames often don't work for people, as manufacturers shorten the 
toptubes (pulling the headtube closer to the rider) but at the same time 
steepen the seattube (pushing the toptube and therefore headtube away 
from the rider. 

Stack and reach eliminate the co-dependency of toptube length and 
seattube angle, by looking at the frame from the bb forward. In combination 
with your saddle setback from the bb rearward (which any good rider 
should know) it completely defines your set-up on the bike. Toptube length 
and saddle seatback together never will give you that exact an answer, 
as it won't reveal at which "point in space" you started with this 
toptube, i.e. where exactly in relation to the bb the seattube/toptube 
joint is. Of course it can be figured out and stack and reach can be 
calculated from seattube and toptube data, but nobody ever does. Stack and 
reach are easy to measure for anybody at home, and will allow you to 
accurately compare frames.

I hope this explains the background to the figure and table.

Gerard Vroomen,
Cervélo Cycles Inc.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

.....in other words as long as your stack and reach are identical it's completely okay for your saddle to be slammed all the way forward or to the back of your seat post clamp, or even have your seat post set-back facing forward and maybe sideways


----------



## LeGrimper (Dec 1, 2001)

*Vroomen says...*

e-mail sent to Cervelo and Vroomen's response:

Hi

I am set to purchase a R2.5 but have unearthed two reviews that point to possible problems with the bonding of the bottom bracket and seat tube.

My LBS has no knowledge of this.

I would appreciate if you could tell me how many frames you have seen with this problem, (as a number and a %) and what the procedure would be if I was unlucky enough to purchase one of these frames, as with an investment of this size it would be more than unfortunate to be without your bike.

http://www.roadbikereview.com/2004,Road,Bike/Cervelo/PRD_290800_5668crx.aspx

Hi:

We've seen a couple in a couple thousand sold. Obviously this has our attention, the biggest problem right now is that some people think they have this problem (after reading the reviews you mention) when in reality it is just a crack in the clearcoat. to be sure, a crack in the clearcoat is also annoying, but sometimes hard to avoid with a male lug lay-out as we have at the bb. Even Lance's Trek at the Tour had a paint crack in that spot. We've had three people send back a "cracked" frame that then turned out to be fine, in fact I am riding one of them with no problem.

As for our warranty, as you may know there is a limited lifetime warranty, as long as you're the original owner. In the case of a warranty request through a dealer, we usually send out a replacement frame without waiting for the old frame to come back. We can do this because warranty claims are so few and far between, so it is no big drag on us. 

Sincerely,

Gerard Vroomen, 
Cervelo Cycles Inc


----------



## IvanK- (Jan 28, 2005)

Thanks for the post Grimper. I got my R2.5 last night and did 45km on it today. It's beautiful. Very stiff and responsive.  
I didn't hesitate to buy mine. Cervelo's reputation is so good (except for the reviews here)that I reaaly doubt I'll ever have a problem. And did I mention it's beautiful? And stiff? And responsive? 
Oh ya.....and it's not another dime-a-dozen Trek. Sure they're good bikes, but they're _everywhere_.


----------



## jhbeeton (Dec 8, 2004)

tintin1610 said:


> Seems we are almost the same in physical measurements - I'm 6' with 33" inseam too. I say 'almost' as there are other measurements like armpit-to-wrist, torso, etc which are taken into account during a bike fit session. I got professionally fitted to a 56cm Team Soloist, and it is very comfortable for my dimensions. If I were 6'1 or taller (with a longer inseam), then I'd probably go to a 58cm.tt


I'll be picking up my R2.5 in a week or so and at 6'1" w/ 35" inseem I've been pegged at a 58cm.

I would be curious to see what constitutes a professional fit up. I have relied on basic rules of thumb such as:
1) Setting seat height to get 90 deg knee bend at 12 o'clock crank rotation with 90 deg ankle. 2) Setting saddle at level and then adjusting for/aft to get plumb line from below knee cap to pedal spindle. 
3) Setting stem to get flat back and elbow to knee distance within an inch when in the drops... stem height to suit flexibility.

Everything after that is to be customized to suit individual preferences...

Has anyone spent a bunch of time on the R2.5 to identify if there are any fitting quirks that perhaps can be taken care of up front? The Team issue comes with an FSA cockpit ... the bar looks a bit awkward with the oversized bulge to straight gauge transitition. Is it worth upgrading to a carbon bar with improved riding positions right at the get go?

Hope the comments help and perhaps someone can add some insight...


----------



## VeloFish (Jan 15, 2005)

*Finally heard back from Cervelo...*

While it wasn't from the man himself, I did get a response from Cervelo. Not the one I wanted, mind you, but a response. According to Chris Bastie at Cervelo, this issue has caused enough of a concern that they stopped production of the R2.5 and are doing a frame-by-frame analysis. This is good and bad. Good from a business and quality control standpoint, but bad in that there must be something to this otherwise why hold up production on a very popular frame.

It's enough to move me over to the Scott or Orbea camp at this point.


----------



## Skippy D (Feb 7, 2005)

*r2.5*

I was a bit worried when I read your post as I have an R2.5 on order so I asked Cervelo about this, they said they had indeed halted shipping for a few days when the problem was reported but they are shipping again. So I assume that either there was no problem or it was fixed. And anyway, if it is a few in a few thousand sold, that doesn't sound too bad and from what I have heard, their warranty is pretty solid. To top it all off, my shop called me today that my frame is in transit so good news all around! I can't wait, unfortunately I'll only be able to ride it on the rollers for a while.


----------



## fippet (Aug 5, 2002)

VeloFish said:


> I've read a couple of reviews of Cervelo's R2.5 carbon bike that have said the bottom bracket becomes unbonded or that the seatpost slips. Obviously, the first problem would be more of an issue. What can anyone tell me about their experience with the R2.5 - aside from those reviews posted.
> 
> Thanks!


hey,just read whats been going on with the r2.5 and I CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND .I WATCHED MY FRIENDS FALL APART!!!! This concerns me because I am jonesing for the new P3 carbon but now have many concerns.I e-mailed cervelo and they told me the p3 is being produced with similar specs! Hope this helps.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

fippet said:


> hey,just read whats been going on with the r2.5 and I CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND .I WATCHED MY FRIENDS FALL APART!!!! This concerns me because I am jonesing for the new P3 carbon but now have many concerns.I e-mailed cervelo and they told me the p3 is being produced with similar specs! Hope this helps.


Given that Gerard (you know, the owner) has written in detail about the manner and number of R2.5 failures and never mentioned anything like this, I wonder about your statement that "you watched your friends [sic] fall apart." Do you mean it was leaning against a wall or something and tubes started falling on the ground? Which tube fell first? Or was your friend "just riding along" and suddenly several bonds failed and the bike disappeared under him? I'd just like to hear more details of this "falling apart" failure mode.


----------



## LeGrimper (Dec 1, 2001)

*could you post that for us?*



VeloFish said:


> While it wasn't from the man himself, I did get a response from Cervelo. Not the one I wanted, mind you, but a response. According to Chris Bastie at Cervelo, this issue has caused enough of a concern that they stopped production of the R2.5 and are doing a frame-by-frame analysis. This is good and bad. Good from a business and quality control standpoint, but bad in that there must be something to this otherwise why hold up production on a very popular frame.
> 
> It's enough to move me over to the Scott or Orbea camp at this point.


would you be kind enough to cut and paste the response here for us. I am interested in anything Cervelo may have said.

Thanks


----------



## LeGrimper (Dec 1, 2001)

*Could you elaborate?*



fippet said:


> hey,just read whats been going on with the r2.5 and I CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND .I WATCHED MY FRIENDS FALL APART!!!! This concerns me because I am jonesing for the new P3 carbon but now have many concerns.I e-mailed cervelo and they told me the p3 is being produced with similar specs! Hope this helps.


Could you tell us the nature of the failure in a little more detail? Maybe your friend could post something with the nature of the failure and how he feels about what happened and what Cervelo did about it....

Thanks


----------

