# cervelo r3 2008 vs soloist carbon 2008



## !!!shaunie!!! (Jun 16, 2008)

hi
which is better the cervelo r3 2008 or soloist carbon 2008 i can get them for a similiar price which is $6400 for the r3 and $6300 for the soloist carbon both with dura ace and everything is the same i just want to know which one is better and why?


----------



## edorwart (Aug 9, 2007)

They are both better than the other one.......

That is to say, it all depends on what you want to do, where your ride, how you ride, etc.

Generally speaking if you ride rougher roads or a super light weight bike is your concern then R3. If you want to go fast and do not mind a cycle that is a little harder on the bumps then Soloist.

Ride both and see what one you like the best. If after riding you still can't decide then buy the one you like the look of the best!


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

!!!shaunie!!! said:


> hi
> which is better the cervelo r3 2008 or soloist carbon 2008 i can get them for a similiar price which is $6400 for the r3 and $6300 for the soloist carbon both with dura ace and everything is the same i just want to know which one is better and why?


According to Cervélo, the soloist line is more aerodynamic, thus faster.
The R3 is lighter thus should theoretically climb better. It was also originally built for Paris Roubaix so it should be more comfy.

Bottom line is, you should test ride both and see which one suits you.
If you still can't decide go with the one that looks best to you.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

MG537 said:


> According to Cervélo, the soloist line is more aerodynamic, thus faster.
> The R3 is lighter thus should theoretically climb better. It was also originally built for Paris Roubaix so it should be more comfy.
> 
> Bottom line is, you should test ride both and see which one suits you.
> If you still can't decide go with the one that looks best to you.


Cervelo eventually modified the R3 to make it more appropriate for Paris-Roubaix, but that version is not availble. The R3 ridden by Stuart O'Grady when he won last year is different from the standard R3, in particular, the chainstay is 1cm longer.

-ilan


----------



## mobileops (Oct 20, 2007)

i had the r3-sl and changed to the SLC-SL, but I imagine the differences between the non-SL versions are the same. Both bikes are incredible. The soloist carbon looks nicer I think, and feels faster when youre out there. Plenty of times on descents I'm passing riders who are pedaling hard and I'm just coasting. It rolls very well. The R3 is nice, but I found the squoval tube to not be nearly as aerodynamic, and since I wanted an all around bike, the Soloist seemed the best of all worlds. If you have the cash, spring for the SL, its a sweet bike.


----------



## bradendan (Apr 3, 2007)

My friend bought a Soloist. Rode it a couple of times and sold my Scott CR1 SL. Tried a R3 first since I live in Colorado and climb a lot. Bought a R3SL and Climb 10 times better. I'm 45 and need all the help climbing and it is comfortable for all day rides. I ride 200 plus a week, ok some of that is my sweet new Blur LT2. Anyway both bikes rock and rock better than anything out there. I thought those people up there only made great beer and play hockey.Go PENS .. Both go real fast,the R3 I think out climbs the Soloist but the Soloist wins on the flats...just buy one...lifes good on a Cervelo...


----------



## !!!shaunie!!! (Jun 16, 2008)

*shaunie back again*

hi guys
thanks for all your help but it hasnt realy helped much because both bikes are great what would you recommend if i told you that i was an okay climber but not the best which means i should get the r3 to help me but im also one of the top sprinters in my state which means i should go for the soloist carbon.
with this info what do you think i should do?


----------



## edorwart (Aug 9, 2007)

!!!shaunie!!! said:


> hi guys
> thanks for all your help but it hasnt realy helped much because both bikes are great what would you recommend if i told you that i was an okay climber but not the best which means i should get the r3 to help me but im also one of the top sprinters in my state which means i should go for the soloist carbon.
> with this info what do you think i should do?


Well what do you plan on doing more of Climbing or Sprinting? Maybe you should get the Soloist and do lots of climbing, you will get better, the bike can only help so much the rest is up to you.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

ilan said:


> Cervelo eventually modified the R3 to make it more appropriate for Paris-Roubaix, but that version is not availble. The R3 ridden by Stuart O'Grady when he won last year is different from the standard R3, in particular, the chainstay is 1cm longer.
> 
> -ilan


Aren't you essentially describing the RS?


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*hybrid*



gatorling said:


> Aren't you essentially describing the RS?


IMO
CSC Paris-Roubaix bikes (in 2007 and 2008) looked like R3-RS hybrids to me, the front end was more like R3 and the rear end (10mm longer stays) were more like RS. Either way RS would perform as well as R3 in most stage or most one-days races. R3 might have an edge in criteriums due to sharper handling on tight corners. But some riders might find R3 more nervous, particularly in smallest 1-2 sizes (51cm and smaller). RS has 10-11mm longer wheelbase in all sizes which makes it less nervous and more predictable at expense of somewhat slower handling. And the taller head tube means less spacers. I applaud Cervelo for making RS.
I doubt in *most real life conditions* Soloist (which is more aero in a tunnel) would get you there any faster than RS or R3.


----------



## tour (Jun 4, 2008)

i looked at both this spring. my personal opinion boiled down to something simple is the soloist is faster, the r3 is more comfortable. i went with the r3. i live around breckenridge colorado, and i know the soloist would be faster even on the hills, but i want comfort more than speed.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

!!!shaunie!!! said:


> hi guys
> thanks for all your help but it hasnt realy helped much because both bikes are great what would you recommend if i told you that i was an okay climber but not the best which means i should get the r3 to help me but im also one of the top sprinters in my state which means i should go for the soloist carbon.
> with this info what do you think i should do?


It is ridiculous to say that the R3 is going to help you climb due to a 200g or less difference. In fact, a lot of pro teams (and the women's team which just won the Women's TdF) have used the SLC successfully in mountain stages, this is explained on the Cervelo website in their article "Col de la TIpping Point". The weight difference really makes a difference when putting the bike on a roof rack after a hard ride. So, I would say get the R3 if you're driving to a lot of your rides. (This is not so ridiculous as it sounds, I was on a team RAAM crew and we were all very happy that they were sponsored by Trek which had the lightest frame at the time, due to changing riders every hour and having to take the bikes down and up from roof racks.)

If you notice that the SLC gives an aero advantage, then you should definitely get that bike given your racing style. 

-ilan


----------

