# Moving to an Felt AR3 from a Cervelo R3



## lagoonakin (Sep 2, 2013)

Both frames are 2014 models. Anyone have experience with both or offer ideas of what to expect with the ride? Components (Ultegra) and wheels (Zipp FC 303) will be the same.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

That's a strange move. The geometries of those two bikes is way different. Is your stem slammed all the way down on the R3 but it's still not even close to low enough? Hopefully your position on the R3 is super aggressive, otherwise you won't even fit an AR3 properly.


----------



## lagoonakin (Sep 2, 2013)

MMsRepBike said:


> That's a strange move. The geometries of those two bikes is way different. *Is your stem slammed all the way down on the R3 but it's still not even close to low enough?* Hopefully your position on the R3 is super aggressive, otherwise you won't even fit an AR3 properly.


No, but the R3 was my first road geometry bike after moving away from tri specific bikes (Scott Plasma/Kestrel AirFoil Pro). I'm back to doing some short tri races, so the goal is to find the happy medium between pleasure riding and competing in a few triathlons - with 1 bike.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

MMsRepBike said:


> That's a strange move. The geometries of those two bikes is way different. Is your stem slammed all the way down on the R3 but it's still not even close to low enough? Hopefully your position on the R3 is super aggressive, otherwise you won't even fit an AR3 properly.


A 56 R3 v. AR the HTA is the same; the HT is 13mm shorter on the AR, the stack is 13mm less on the AR; the reach is 5mm more on the AR, and the STA is 73.5 on the AR v. 73 on the R3. IMO that's not way different and setback, saddle height and reach should be fairly easy to reproduce on the AR. Doesn't seem strange to me I guess is what I'm trying to say. It's a bike.

OP I have a Felt F frame built with the same components as my AR. Same wheels, saddle and even the same crank which I move back and forth. I realize it's not an R3 but, similar. I have the setback, seat height set up exactly the same in relation to the BB on both bikes and therefore the reach is the same. They feel very similar in all areas of operation. There is a subtle difference when I sprint. Very hard to put into words. Not better or worse just different. After a couple hours the AR seems not as comfortable but, to be fair I don't have enough time on the AR to be that critical. 

Main point being if you know your fit and reproduce it on the AR I bet it will feel similar. Both stellar bikes.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

MMsRepBike said:


> That's a strange move. The geometries of those two bikes is way different. Is your stem slammed all the way down on the R3 but it's still not even close to low enough? Hopefully your position on the R3 is super aggressive, otherwise you won't even fit an AR3 properly.


I was under the impression that the AR geometry is not super aggressive, and by stack and reach measurements it falls in between Felt's Z and F series. I believe I have seen SuperDave say that the AR frame is also nearly as compliant as the Z. As woodys says the geometry between the R3 and AR is not too far off and could easily be matched with a slightly different stem and 10mm spacer.


----------



## Superdave3T (May 11, 2009)

cobra_kai said:


> I was under the impression that the AR geometry is not super aggressive, and by stack and reach measurements it falls in between Felt's Z and F series. I believe I have seen SuperDave say that the AR frame is also nearly as compliant as the Z. As woodys says the geometry between the R3 and AR is not too far off and could easily be matched with a slightly different stem and 10mm spacer.


The AR is not as low as the F but to say the geometry isn't aggressive is not accurate. From a handling and reactivity perspective it is among the steepest-angled short wheelbased bikes on the market. The F is the industry benchmark in this category.

-SD


----------

