# 2010 R3 Rival vs. 2011 RS Rival



## bbelanger (Jan 15, 2011)

Buying my first road bike this spring after logging several thousand km's on an old, heavy Nishiki last year. Have mountain biked for 15 years and am excited about the Road world. I'm fit, 6ft, 180lbs, and enjoy riding hard group rides/interval sessions, as well as longer (4+ hr) rides. Goal this year is to complete a century locally (6500 ft climbing). I'll probably never race crits, realistically. I'm more intereted in completing 1-2 epic rides per season.

My question to you Cervelo lovers...What would be the best deal (i.e. best value for the money). My LBS is offering me the following: 2010 R3 or a 2011 RS. Both are orignal stock Rival builds. The R3 is $300 more. Thoughts?


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

R3 since you are fit and if you are flexible. RS is the bike I will ride when I can no longer sit on race geometry. It is also the cooler bike.


----------



## simonaway427 (Jul 12, 2010)

2010 has the racier geometry. That said, the RS is no slouch, and might be more conducive to the "epic" rides.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*+1 for the RS*

First off, IMHO fit trumps everything. Get the bike that fits you best. That said there are only pretty minor differences between the two bikes. My vote would be for the RS given the "epic rides" portion of your plans. It is specifically designed for "comfort" and all day in the saddle, higher head tube and slightly longer chainstays. mimason is correct that the R3 is more of a "pure race" geometry. However, according to Cervelo, there have been two Paris-Roubaixs won on the RS (2006/Fabian Cancellara) and 2007/Stuart O'Grady), so it is safe to conclude that the RS is plenty racy enough for most people. Depending on how you are proportioned, you can get pretty low position on an RS. Bottom line, they are both great bikes.


----------

