# Aero advantage or weight savings?



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

It's between the R3 and S2. The R3 is similar to my current ride in frame type and positioning. I've never ridden an 'aero' bike. I understand that, similarly equipped, the S2 is heavier, but the sleekness should make up for it. I am not a racer or super fast rider, averaging under 20mph on 30 to 75 mile rides, yet always working on my personal best. My routes always includes flats and hills. 

Seems that I don't race or go fast enough to benefit from aero, but maybe it's still a benefit at my speeds. Any advice for a 60 yr old serious recreational rider?


----------



## Rival (Jan 19, 2011)

I was just like you a month ago.. I love the way the s series look and I'm totally bought into the whole aero advantage thing.. But in the end I decided to buy the R3. To me it's just a better bike overall. Lightweight, comfort, great fitting bike, and the BBright is so rigid!


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

I'd go with feel, and not worry too much about aero or weight. IMO, you can't go wrong in either case.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

If you are looking for the fastest of the two frames the S2 is the one to pick. Unless you are riding at speeds under 10ish MPH the aero frame will still offer an advantage over a slightly lighter frame, including uphill. 

The interesting thing with aerodynamics and speed is that a faster rider will save a larger percentage of time but a slower rider will save a larger amount of absolute time (over the same course) 

Looking at the two frames based only on their aero dynamics, the S2 WILL be faster than the R3, but that does not take into account your personal preference for one bike or the other. Both are great bikes that will serve you well


----------



## giro_man (Oct 29, 2003)

chase196126 said:


> If you are looking for the fastest of the two frames the S2 is the one to pick. Unless you are riding at speeds under 10ish MPH the aero frame will still offer an advantage over a slightly lighter frame, including uphill.
> 
> The interesting thing with aerodynamics and speed is that a faster rider will save a larger percentage of time but a slower rider will save a larger amount of absolute time (over the same course)
> 
> Looking at the two frames based only on their aero dynamics, the S2 WILL be faster than the R3, but that does not take into account your personal preference for one bike or the other. Both are great bikes that will serve you well


+1

Also take note that there is a difference in stack height between the S2 and R3, with the S2 being lower. In a given size, adding/subtracting headset spacers and adjustment of stem angle can result in both bikes having the same fit. The aesthetics of the fit can be an issue depending on how aggressive or how lax is the riding position.


----------



## fredstaple (Jun 2, 2003)

*Slight Advantage*

Somebody did a side by side comparison a number of months back, I can't remember which magazine it was. As I recall, the bottom line difference between the bikes was very little for someone who is a recreational rider.

It made a difference for a racer in the area of speed where a win may be measured by seconds or fraction there of. There is a reason TT bikes are very areo and people/companies spend huge money on these. There is spill over to road racing where an areo bike may give a person an advantage in the break, or where it saves some energy for late race bursts of speed. 

For the average recreational rider, there was just not that much difference. Does it really matter to save you a second or two over a few kilometers. As a recreational rider, does finishing your ride in 10 seconds less time or using a few less watts to do so make an areo bike worth it? If yes, get one and outfit it with Zipp 404s and enjoy it. On the other hand, if the slightly higher head tube of the R series makes the bike more comfortable on those 75 mile rides, get it.

I prefer the more upright comfortable fit of the R series. A friend of mine, same age and riding style, perfered the slight areo advantage. We are both happy.


----------



## fredstaple (Jun 2, 2003)

*Weight*

You can get both those bikes pretty darn light. A few hundred grams here or there, which is a matter of ounces, half a pound. I don't begrudge anyone going for as light a bike as they can manage, but for a recreational rider, I don't think the small difference in weight amounts to enough to be concerned with. Get the one that feels better on your longish rides.


----------



## tlclee (Jun 9, 2009)

fredstaple said:


> Somebody did a side by side comparison a number of months back, I can't remember which magazine it was. As I recall, the bottom line difference between the bikes was very little for someone who is a recreational rider.
> 
> It made a difference for a racer in the area of speed where a win may be measured by seconds or fraction there of. There is a reason TT bikes are very areo and people/companies spend huge money on these. There is spill over to road racing where an areo bike may give a person an advantage in the break, or where it saves some energy for late race bursts of speed.
> 
> ...


Perfectly said, I bought into the Aero thing and got a Felt AR1. The riding position is way too aggressive for a rec rider and the cross wind is nerve racking. I am prob going to switch to a R5 to be more comfortable so I can ride more miles and enjoy it with back pain.

Tom


----------



## IchDien (Nov 27, 2011)

As others have said it is more of an aesthetic choice at the end of the day.


----------



## GR68 (Feb 4, 2008)

giro_man said:


> +1
> 
> Also take note that there is a difference in stack height between the S2 and R3, with the S2 being lower. In a given size, adding/subtracting headset spacers and adjustment of stem angle can result in both bikes having the same fit. The aesthetics of the fit can be an issue depending on how aggressive or how lax is the riding position.


and which frame your dealer has in stock and wants u to buy


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

I have both a R3 and the older SCL-SL. The frames were within 100g of each other. I have built the SL up at 14# 4oz which is a full # lighter than the R3. I find myself riding the SL more these days even though the R3 is more comfortable on longer rides. And I have had it longer. My answer would be to find a cheap S3 while there are still a few around.

Surprizingly I find myself riding a much more aero position with some comfort on the SL. Enough that it likely dbls or better the aero advantage of the SL frame.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

First, I really think you have to test them, they ride very differently in my opinion. In the end, it's a total preference thing as both are great bikes. That being said, I would take the added comfort of my R3 on long rides over the slight (real world) aero advantage you get from the S2 or S5 any day (the S3 was a different bike and a different discussion). I tested them all & on long group rides, the aero technology just doesn't make a difference for most people (even if you watch the pros of Garmin Barracuda in a peloton, the R3's are right next to and can at times pull away from the S5's or any other aeor bike out there and vice versa). Anytime a race goes uphill though (Giro, ATOC stages) you see both the pros and amateurs reach for their R3's and R5's. I love my R3 and though I really thought the S5, S2 and S3 were REALLY fun to test, for the day in day out riding I do, I could not escape the conclusion that R3 was the best bang for the buck. It's, fast, light and climbs like a hungry billy goat, descends like it's on rails and is a joy to ride for hours. What more can you really ask for and what are you willing to sacrifice to get an aero advantage that is going to make a what difference in your group ride or gran fondo, etc.????


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Here's a pretty straight forward unbiased review:

http://redkiteprayer.com/2011/12/cervelo-r3-part-i/

http://redkiteprayer.com/2011/12/cervelo-r3-part-ii/


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Finally, for what it's worth, of the four Cervelos I tested, I would rank them like this based on bang for buck value and performance:

1) R3
2)S3
3)S5
4)S2


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

Agreed, they are all great bikes. I missed the 60year old part of the equation. Not that it is likely to mean anything now with the OP almost 7 months old. Being just a few years younger that the OP you can take this with a grain of salt. 

If I had to have just one Cervelo it would be the RS. I like the longer wheel base and the comfy ride. Bang for the buck? The RS is the BIG bang from Cervelo. it wouldn't take much to build a sub 15# RS.


----------



## Doc1911 (May 23, 2012)

I am an older rider too. I ride for exercise, recreation and will be riding with a group occassionally. Initially, a few weeks ago, I was leaning heavily towards the S series Carvelos. However, after researching and riding them, I finally decided on the R3 Team. 

My reasoning, while one could/would be satisfied with either, the R3 IMO offered more comfort in distance riding then the S series (but this does not mean the S series is uncomfortable). For lack of a better one word description I would call the R3 'gentler.' The R3 has a more upright ride to it and thus - the bike for me.... It is fast - real fast (as a friend said, 'looks that book'). At my age and intended use the R3 just fits.

That is my experience, but riding styles and intended uses vary from rider to rider. So, (1) know yourself, (2) know the bikes, and (3) ride both to clarify the choices. 

Enjoy making the final choice. :thumbsup:


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

I thought about this last night and failed to mention the important stuff  As Doc mentioned and I didn't the "upright position" of the RS and R3 series will generally be more comfortable as you age and loose flexibility.. If you have a big stack of spacers under your stem the RS and R3s will better serve your purpose and be more comfortable.

from Giro-man above:
*"Also take note that there is a difference in stack height between the S2 and R3, with the S2 being lower. In a given size, adding/subtracting headset spacers and adjustment of stem angle can result in both bikes having the same fit. (and aero body position) The aesthetics of the fit can be an issue depending on how aggressive or how lax is the riding position. "*


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Went with the S2 because of the lower riding position. Tried the R3 with the stem slammed and it still felt too high. The stem is slammed on my S2. I actually like the livelier ride of the S2...the R3 felt a bit too "dead" when I rode it.


----------



## greg12666 (Mar 29, 2012)

I have about 1000 miles on my S2 and the ride is awesome. I rode the R3 and didn;t like the feel.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Congrats on your choice! Please post some pics when you get it.


----------



## RoadrunnerLXXI (Jun 3, 2012)

AvantDale, I too test rided the S2 and R3 last fall during Cervelo Demo Day at a LBS. I fell the S2 was more responsive than the R3 when I am accelerating and going uphill. I don't know why since most people said the R3 is a better climber. It different for each person I guess. That is one of the reason I went with the S2.


----------



## Nob (Nov 24, 2006)

This is an interesting conversation in light of what is being ridden in the Tour this week. But it looks like it mostly R5s to me over the more aero S5. That choice suprised me!


----------



## config (Aug 16, 2002)

Please read the article "Aero vs. weight" under the Aerodynamics Section of the Tech Presentations and see what Cervelo engineers came up with.

Engineering - Tech Presentations - Cervélo


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

Nob said:


> This is an interesting conversation in light of what is being ridden in the Tour this week. But it looks like it mostly R5s to me over the more aero S5. That choice suprised me!


A lot of times you will see breakaway specialists on aero bikes, while everyone else will ride the "normal" race bike. The biggest reason is, they ride what they are comfortable with. If you were going into the world's biggest 3-week stage race would you ride the bike you had trained thousands of miles on, or the one that would give you a minute performance benefit? Neither choice is wrong, but it goes to show why different riders choose different bikes. Fabian Cancellara has been riding the Domane with mechanical Dura Ace while everyone else on the team is riding the brand new Madone. It is just more comfortable for him. 

In the end, all things being equal (which they never are, the real world is too messy) the S2 will be the faster bike. That said, since things are not equal, the faster bike for you will probably be the bike you are most comfortable on, especially over distance. Comfort could mean better ride, better fit or more confidence in the handling. Heck, even the psychological benefit of knowing that you are on a "fast" bike could help.

The point is, while the differences are real, they are not all that significant. On a TT course, sure. But tucked in a peloton or on your weekend rides, probably not.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Great points xjbaylor, I could not agree more. Which is why I highly recommend test riding both (maybe even multiple times) and just choosing the one you like better (both are great bikes as I said before). I can push it on my R3 and feel as though I can sprint with anyone I need to for the most part and I'm sure there are folks out there that can climb like crazy on their S Series bikes. It comes down to preference.


----------

