# Cervelo S1 vs. Cannondale CAAD9 4



## thebikebeat (Dec 2, 2009)

I realize from the thread title this might seem out of place in the Beginner's Corner, but I'm putting it here since I'll be making the jump from a flat-bar road/fitness bike to a "real" road bike. I've done a lot of research on the whole alu vs carbon debate, and it seems like it makes more sense to get a top-of-the-line aluminum bike with a better groupo than an entry-level carbon with 105 components. Also, I'm throwing these bikes out because I do some web management work with a local Cervelo dealer and could probably work a deal on an S1 with them, and know that the CAAD9 is a direct competitor.

I'm 25, 5'9, 155 lbs and have been an athlete all my life, so flexibility isn't really an issue with the race-inspired geometries with these bikes versus something with a taller head tube like a Specialized Roubaix or the Cervelo RS. On my fitness bike I regularly put in 25-mile rides with an 18-19 mph average over the course of it, and I've been hitting the trainer all winter.

I'm more concerned about which of these bikes are better to put in long base miles on. My goals for the season are to complete a century and get in with a couple of the groups that ride so I can learn tactics, etc., so I guess my end-game is to eventually try racing. But for now I just want something that I'll be able to head out for a couple hours on and hammer out some good mileage, but will still be fast when I ride with a group.

Am I on track with these bikes?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I think you are on track with these bikes. I was tempted to 'argue' the CF versus alu point, until I saw that racing was in your plans. In that case, I'd stay with an alu frame.

Realistically, most that own one or the other of these bikes is going to tell you the positives of each, which is understandable because I'd do the same if you were looking at a Tarmac.  But the best way to decide is to head to the local dealers, have them determine sizing requirements, fit the bike to you and head out on test rides - of some duration and ideally on roads emulating what you'll be riding/ training on.

Fit is very important, so pay attention to contact points, fit/ feel, ride and handling and decide from there. IME there really is no substitute for simply spending time on the bikes being considered to help you decide.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

From what I understand if you think might want to go with the TT set up in the future the S1 is much better for that (I,m not exactly sure why).

But beyond that any info saying one is better than the other is bound to be purely anecdotal.

They're both time tested great frames. One is better than the other for each individual but who knows which is better for you.

So you'll have to test ride 'em both. There's not objective way to recommend one over the other IMO. (I'm speaking of the frame specifically, you could probably make a case one has 'better' specs than the other though I haven't looked at them)

I have a CAAD9 and really like it alot. I'm sure plenty of people have an S1 and feel the same.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Hank Stamper said:


> *From what I understand if you think might want to go with the TT set up in the future the S1 is much better for that (I,m not exactly sure why).*
> But beyond that any info saying one is better than the other is bound to be purely anecdotal.
> 
> They're both time tested great frames. One is better than the other for each individual but who knows which is better for you.
> ...


That's true, and a point worth noting. The reasoning behind it is explained pretty well here:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/frame/2010-Cervélo-s1-6517.html

And an excerpt:
_"You should think of the S1 as an aero frame fully suitable for TT's or Tri, but since it has road geometry it's equally ideal for road racing. It comes stock with Cervélo's proprietary Aero Carbon seatpost. The post has a reversible design. When you situate its head to the rear it gives the frame a 73 degree effective seat angle, the standard for road riding. When you position the head to the front it converts the frame to a 76 degree effective seat angle, making it ideal for TT's and Tri. It uses ICS internal cable stops to give the frame an extra measure of aerodynamics and a clean appearance"._

IMO it's not a feature that would take the C'dale out of the running. More, all else being relatively equal, it might tilt a buyer towards the S1.


----------



## thebikebeat (Dec 2, 2009)

Thanks for the input! And especially thanks for the TT angle, I hadn't thought much about that. But needing a TT bike is probably still way into the future for me. If/when I get into racing, crits are most likely what would be most accessible to me around here (I live in Chicagoland) without having to travel very far.

I guess my main concern even though flexibility isn't really an issue, but with these race-specific geometries on both bikes, will they be comfortable enough to survive on for long weekend group or training rides/centuries? Because that's most likely the use that the bike will be getting most of this season. I know that question brings the alu vs. CF debate into play, but I'm asking more from a muscle fatigue standpoint than from feeling the effects of the road.

I know the Specialized Tarmac has a four-point adjustable stem for more versatile positioning, would swapping stems be something to look into for either of these bikes?


----------



## hellcat405 (Jul 19, 2009)

I rode a Cannondale Caad5 for years and it was a great bike. From what I hear, the Caad9 is just as stiff and more comfortable. I did a couple of solo centuries on my Caad5 and survived ok. I was amazed when I swtiched to a GOOD carbon seat post and it made a huge difference in comfort. I would be willing to bet that the post that comes stock on the C'dale is an aluminum post wrapped in carbon. I would swap it out for a higher end carbon post. I don't have any experience with the aluminum Cervelos. My R3 was pretty rad, but it never fit right. 

Good luck...


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

thebikebeat said:


> I guess my main concern even though flexibility isn't really an issue, but with these race-specific geometries on both bikes, will they be comfortable enough to survive on for long weekend group or training rides/centuries? Because that's most likely the use that the bike will be getting most of this season. I know that question brings the alu vs. CF debate into play, but I'm asking more from a muscle fatigue standpoint than from feeling the effects of the road.


It doesn't matter for short rides but eventually the effects from the road become muscle fatigue so road buzz and muscle fatugue aren't really separate issue.

But anyway, I wouldn't want to speculate how a particular individual would feel about the applicability of race geo for training rides/centuries but personally I feel race geo is MORE comfortable for long hard rides. Being in a position to get the most out of your legs and cut through the air better, for me, makes a century alot easier than being on a more 'relaxed' position. I only find 'relaxed' more comfortable for slow sight seeing type rides. An extreme example but I'm not even sure I could do a century on my hybrid, which is super relaxed. But it's just a routine ride on my CAAD9.
Not to say it'll be the same with your body but it's certainly realisitic to do centuries with race geo for a lot of people. You don't necessarily need to be set up super aggressive on a race geo bike by the way. Stem angle can be used to put you a little more upright. By the same token you don't need to be totally upright on a 'relaxed' geo bike.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Test ride if you can. Forget about groupos. Those can be changed if you can't live with them. What a high end aluminum frame gives you is a high end aluminum frame vs. an entry level carbon.

The S1 is a great bike. I have one and do rides similar to yours. I've never ridden the CAAD9, but understand it's a great bike, too.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

thebikebeat said:


> Thanks for the input! And especially thanks for the TT angle, I hadn't thought much about that. But needing a TT bike is probably still way into the future for me. If/when I get into racing, crits are most likely what would be most accessible to me around here (I live in Chicagoland) without having to travel very far.
> 
> I guess my main concern even though flexibility isn't really an issue, but with these race-specific geometries on both bikes, will they be comfortable enough to survive on for long weekend group or training rides/centuries? Because that's most likely the use that the bike will be getting most of this season. I know that question brings the alu vs. CF debate into play, but I'm asking more from a muscle fatigue standpoint than from feeling the effects of the road.
> 
> I know the Specialized Tarmac has a four-point adjustable stem for more versatile positioning, would swapping stems be something to look into for either of these bikes?


As was mentioned, you really can't separate effects from the road transmitting up through your hands, arms and shoulders, from general muscle fatigue. After a period of time, no matter the source, you'll feel fatigued.

It's an arguable point, but IMO/E, generally speaking and all else being equal, I find a full CF bike to be more comfortable over the long haul that alu. I'd say it's on a par with my previous bike (steel) and I have what is now considered a lower end CF model - '08 Tarmac Comp. BUT, as mentioned in my initial post, if racing is in your future I'd advise against CF. 

Regarding using an adjustable stem. I use the Spec adjustable stem you mentioned and have adjusted it down from -8 to -10 since purchasing the bike. But I'm of the opinion that the bike is set up and fits properly - or it isn't. I don't think it'll be necessary for you to keep tweaking fit (stem angle) to accomodate the length/ type of your rides once fit is dialed in.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

One thing to rebutle the S1's Tri/TT-friendly design is the possible offset in price. You can easily get a forward seatpost, and the aerobar setup with the money saved buying the CAAD9. You could also get a better wheelset as an option.

But in the end, it really still comes down to fit. Just saying to elaborate on PJ352's point where that aspect of the S1 doesn't put the CAAD9 out of the running.


----------

