# Is the R3 or the R3 SL stiffer?



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

I just bought an S2. It's a missile on the flats and in headwinds. You notice it. The problem is that it's also a jackhammer on my back. After 30 miles, forget it for me. 

So, I am interested in getting a *R3 *or *R3 SL*. I don't care about the 150g weight savings. 
I just need to be stiff in the BB and have it reasonably comfortable for a 200 pound rider. 
Is there a stiffness difference between the two models?


----------



## John Kuhl (Jul 20, 2007)

To me it sounds like you should be
looking at the RS.

Best, John


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

Ditto on the RS.


----------



## Svooterz (Jul 29, 2006)

skygodmatt said:


> I just bought an S2. It's a missile on the flats and in headwinds. You notice it. The problem is that it's also a jackhammer on my back. After 30 miles, forget it for me.
> 
> So, I am interested in getting a *R3 *or *R3 SL*. I don't care about the 150g weight savings.
> I just need to be stiff in the BB and have it reasonably comfortable for a 200 pound rider.
> Is there a stiffness difference between the two models?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Cervélo claims that both frames have the same stiffness. I remember reading that somewhere on their website, but I do not feel like taking the time to verify that claim 

Anyway. Stiffness-to-weight will be better for the R3 SL, because it is lighter, but pure stiffness should range from very similar to exactly the same as the R3's stiffness.

I have no experience on any Cervélo yet, but from their reputation, they're all extremely stiff frames and this holds true for the "performance" oriented RS. The RS' stiffness is likely to be more than what you need and it will certainly be more comfortable than the R3 - if only because it has a more relaxed geometry and longer chain stays.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

You guys are all correct.

I rode the R3 and RS...both were amazing. 
I loved the slightly more snappiness of the R3 and I like the short stays. I don't like long head tubes so the R3 was it. The thin seat stays took the edge of the firmer ride which I felt with the S2. 
So, I bought it today. 

Standby for some pics.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I had an early R3 and recently got a new R3SL as a replacement (the R3's BB insert came unbonded, warranty covered it).

The SL's rear is slightly softer. A lot of that is due to the smaller diameter seat post (27.2 vs the 32.5mm post I had in the R3).. But there is some difference when out of the saddle as well, so I think there is some other difference... smaller seat tube, smaller top tube near the seat tube, who knows? I like it though, even though there's a couple times that I have thought I had a soft rear tire due to the added flex in the rear.


----------



## Jrmccain (Apr 11, 2007)

Congrats on the new bike! I think you will be really happy with your R3.

I am more than pleased with my R3. It really does all things well.


----------



## 1stmh (Apr 7, 2007)

I have and 2009 R3, and I love it. From my understanding the stiffness is about the same but the SL is lighter. Personally I love the R3 - very smooth ride, very stiff and stable and fast too.


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

I demoed the R3 for a weekend. Great bike. The 2009 seat post definitely absorbs more bumps than the 2008. I didn't ride the SL, but the guy at the bike shop said the SL is just as stiff. If you don't care about the slight weight different, the SL is not going to be worth the extra money, IMHO.


----------



## thavisri (Mar 29, 2007)

For the price difference you pay on SL, you get not only 150g lighter frame but also lighter fork 3T team (save 40g) and 3T LTD Doric seat post (save 20g), better headset with carbon cab and magnesiam bottle cage screws. If you want to save weight, I think -210g for the SL is a good investment.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Actually there is about* 100g* weight difference in the frame and *50g* on the fork since you get a Funda Team and not a Funda Pro like on mine....at least that's the way I understand it. I dumped the seatpost. Why? I needed some setback as most riders do. I put on a Deda Superzero. 

*R3 Frame*: 
I weighed mine on an Ultimate digital scale. I bought a size 58cm. It came in at* 920g* with the seat clamp, derailleur hanger, all bottle bolts and no headset. I was VERY happy. 

*Funda Pro fork:*
After the aluminum insert was glued into the fork and the starnut was added with the bolt and top cap it came in at 398g. Not too bad considering it had the headset tensioning system in. A typical compressor nut and cap are very heavy. 

Two weeks ago when I bought it, I built it with a 7800 driveline and 2007 rival parts. It ran very smooth. Then, just yesterday I built it with a Shimano 7900 full groupo which I bought piece by piece new from Ebay and sniffed out the deals. I rode it today and.....

*I love it *even more --as I am a Dura-Ace man all the way. The crank is no doubt the shining star of the group. It's amazing for us 200 lb riders. Absolutely no flex. Shifting with 7900 is awesome and really quiet. I used the Gore cables and set it up very carefully with no drastic bends or burs and lubed the cables. It feels just like 7800 shifting. Shimano's claimed reduced throw rates for 7900 is totally false. That's still fine by me.

By the way--it weighs *15 lbs 8 ounces in the REAL World *and not on paper. I have it set up with a 25c rear tire, heavy tubes and a 1550g training wheelset and cromo axle pedals.
It's bulletproof for tough rides. As soon as I can afford to get another camera, I'll snap some photos.


----------



## Getoutandride (Sep 1, 2008)

It is but as already mentioned you have a smaller diameter seat post to consider as well. The SL uses a higher module carbon which is obviously lighter and can be molded thinner but retaining the stiffness. The two frames would be similar, the smaller seat tube would give much more vertical compliance but side to side stiffness would be slightly better on the R3SL


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

I rode both the R3 and R3 SL. 
I couldn't tell any difference in stiffness and I was specifically looking for that. If the SL is stiffer then I'm not good enough to tell. They both came with 27.2 seat posts. 

Actually, I found 27.2 carbon posts to be a little too flexy in this frame as I show 8.5 inches.
You can visually see the seat post flex and the the frame seat stays actually bow when you press down hard on the back of the saddle. So the shock absorption works for sure. I want a stiffer ride. I feel like Goldy Locks and the three bears....too hard...,no... to soft....

I will be switching to a Thomson aluminum masterpiece setback post to reduce post flex. I see Christian Vande Velde put one his slipstream bike to ride tune it . I'll let you know how it works out. This current set-up has so much compliance that sometimes I feel like my tire is flat. I can ride this baby ALL day and not have a single ache anywhere...haven't done that since I was 21 years old.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

skygodmatt said:


> I will be switching to a Thomson aluminum masterpiece setback post to reduce post flex. I see Christian Vande Velde put one his slipstream bike to ride tune it


he did it because 3T didn't/doesn't have a setback post option (yet). The Thompson is/was easy to disguise as it is simply black with minimal graphics.

Starnut


----------

