# R3 or not?



## gitoutdaway (Nov 28, 2007)

Ok, so I know I'm posting this in the Cervelo forum so responses will probably be pro-R3, but here;s the question:

I'm considering a new frame as my "old" one (2 years) its too small, I'm 6-6'1 and its a 56, moots compact. I absolutely love it and was going to sell it and buy another in a bigger size or perhaps customize, but then I got to thinking... the R3 has always attracted fascinated me and thus wanted to get opinions from owners, experienced reviews, etc.

What I like about it also worries me, I know they claim its very strong, but I was told of an owner whose frame fell (not riding, just while leaning against wall) and was cracked and had to be replaced (he did have a good response from Cervelo, but still...) I guess I'm worried about overall durability/reliability for such a lightweight frame. Is it more of an engineering marvel/technical achievement than a realistically rideable, long term bike?

And does anyonme fell that its squoval tubes are too un-aerodynamic for sustained speed?

Lastly, I've read very positive reviews of Look's frames as well so how would anyone compare a 585/595 to an R3.

Thanks


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Just a thought, but if you're looking for feedback on how the LOOK's you mentioned compare to the R3, try posting in the bikes, forks forum. Also, do a search in that forum because this subject has been broached before.

I can't offer any firsthand experience regarding LOOK's, because I've never ridden one, but I found the R3 to be too stiff and rough riding for my tastes. It handles well, so if that's of paramount importance, you may like the bike.


----------



## veloci1 (Nov 29, 2005)

i had a 2006 R3, loved it, but, i fell in love with the SLC-SL. i got the SLC-Sl and loved how fast and responsive it is. sadly to say, it was a little too stiff for me. i am 5'11" and 185 lbs. after 2 to 3 hours of riding, i could feel everything on the road. keep in mind i had carbon wheels (Easton EC90) and that did not help. but, after all was said and done, SLC_SL is an amzing machine, just a tad too stiff for me. now, i have test ridden the look 595 ultra for a whole weekend. the Look is a beautiful, comfortable and climbs like a goat. I did not feel the the look had anything over the R3. so, you guessed it. i got another R3, but, this one is 2008 in white. i cannot say good enough things about the Cervelo. one thing to be very cautious about is the fork. i received my R3 with an Easton eC90 Superlight. i did not even bothered taking it out of the box. i sold it and ordered a Alpha Q QS-20. that is by far the best fork i have had so far.i hope this helps a little.


----------



## gitoutdaway (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks, all good advice..What is the problem/shortcoming of the Easton fork? I guess I am also worried about longer term durability of the frame as well, Look's feel a bit more sturdy.


----------



## HBPUNK (Mar 25, 2006)

Look 585 is on a different level, from your first view of them side by side to putting the hammer down on both of them.

I doubt you'd find anyone that would prefer the Cervelo thats spend sufficient time on both


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

gitoutdaway said:


> Thanks, all good advice..What is the problem/shortcoming of the Easton fork? I guess I am also worried about longer term durability of the frame as well, Look's feel a bit more sturdy.


Depends on who you ask. The Wolf SL fork previously supplied has been referred to as a jack hammer by some, so in that context the Easton is an improvement.

As far as the weight/ durability issue is concerned, the R3 isn't any lighter than many other higher level CF bikes on the market. LOOK would be comparable, the new Madone lighter as is Cervelo's own R3 SL. The warranties vary, with Cervelo's being lifetime and LOOK's being 5 years. Some would argue that CF is as durable as any frame material, while others are more wary (me, for one). 

On that topic, there was a thread going not too long ago in the bike, fork forum on the topic of CF bikes, so you may want to search that for more info. The one thing I caught in your original post was the fact that a bike fell over and cracked. The crack was obviously noticeable, but I wonder about CF's susceptibility to fatique cracks or internal damage not seen by the naked eye.


----------



## gitoutdaway (Nov 28, 2007)

Hi,

Yeah, apparently this guy's wife knocked it over (by accident?...) and it broke impacting the floor, Cervelo helped out on a replacement. The rep told me this type of impact was not what the bike was "designed for" and assured me the frame was plenty strong given the dynamics of riding, pedaling etc. I was not reassured. When I flexed the top tube I noticed it bended a little too. Obviously withstanding crash-damage is not ever going to be something a frame can be held responsible for I guess I'm wondering too about long-term fatigue on Carbon. I bought a Ti frame for just that reason. But the R3 is so sexy...


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I don't disagree, the R3 is a nice looking bike. But after checking it out, riding it and reading about it, I find it to be overrated and overpriced. There are numerous other bikes I'd sooner purchase, but that's just me.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I like my R3. I do know of one that broke- a teamate crashed during a group ride and some big sprinter dude landed on his frame as it was on the ground. Low speed crash, everyone was ok, but the frame broke. OTOH I had a high speed crash on my R3 and it was fine, not even a scratch. The cost of the damage to me far outweighed the cost of a new bike, but that's a different topic. As far as frame damage goes, it's all up to how the bike lands or what lands on it.

Ti isn't immune to failure either... I had one fatigue crack after a few years. No frame material is 100% failure proof, if it was the frame would be so heavy that no one would ride it. So I look for manufacturers that have a good warranty and will be around to stand by that warranty in the years ahead when I'll be riding the bike. Cervelo's a good sized company and won't disappear overnight, and they have shown in the past that they'll stand behind their warranty.

The aero difference between an R3 and a SLC is pretty small compared to the overall aero drag of bike+rider.

The R3s come with a pretty short head tube so you may have problems getting your bars high enough if you have long legs. The RS is pretty much the same thing but with a taller head tube. If you can, ride the different frames and buy the one whose feel appeals to you.


----------



## AZ Cruiser (Apr 20, 2006)

The R3 is a very good bike. Good geometry, good stiffness and good ride quality. I'll agree that the Wolf SL fork sucks. The people at Cervelo are stupid to build a great frame and put souch a lousy fork on it. The Alpha-Q is an impressive fork. My brother had one on his R3 SL and he liked it. He and I both have Look 595s now. It's unbelievable how good the Look 595 is. Seriously, I was blown away when I first rode it. I saw all the greattesting results on the R3 and it's stiffness, etc. The 595 Ultra is way stiffer and way better. Do yourself a favor and loook into the 595. I was amazed by it and am still mazed everytime I ride it.


----------

