# R3 vs RS



## tocoldmn (Feb 18, 2007)

Any ideas on how much harder the ride is on an R3 VS the RS?


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

It would be a very subtle difference. I had a 56cm R3, and a R2.5 before that, but never rode a RS. The RS has a rear center (chainstays) that's 11 mm longer, and the seatstays have the curve to them, which I guess adds a little more damping but I bet you can't feel it. The RS is about 100 grams heavier (cheaper carbon, greater density). Buy now if you can, the new prices will probably have a steep hike. I loved the ride, ate up bumps.


----------



## elo (Jan 28, 2008)

I rode both extensively before buying the RS. In my opinion, the R3 corners a bit better and the RS is a bit more comfortable overall. The head tube on the RS is 2 cm longer than on the R3 which is ultimately what sold me since I am not as flexible as I used to be.

Bottom line either bike is great and you really can't go wrong. Happy shopping.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

the 27.2 seatpost on the RS will flex more than the 32.4 on the R3. I've ridden an R3 with a 27.2 shimmed seatpost and it felt more comfortable than a stock R3


----------



## kkowalsk (Sep 5, 2005)

I LOVE my RS. The RS geometry fit me better than the R3. It is just a great bike and a joy to ride. Looks great and no headset spacers. The difference in weight is minimal in my opinion for the cost.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

cocoboots said:


> the 27.2 seatpost on the RS will flex more than the 32.4 on the R3. I've ridden an R3 with a 27.2 shimmed seatpost and it felt more comfortable than a stock R3


The original poster, tocoldmn, doesn't say if he/she is buying a '08 or '09 bike. the new R3s are going to a 27.2 seatpost, still with the white paint job. The RS will be unchanged except for decals. I think the taller headtube (20mm) on the RS would be the determining factor, besides cost.


----------

