# S2 or R3



## RACE-PACE (Apr 8, 2010)

Hi all, looking at taking the leap and getting a Cervelo frameset, been training for the Tour of Flanders sportive over the last couple of months and the event has really got me back into road riding after nearly 15 years of pretty much just riding dirt.

Anyone got any advice on S2 or R3, I ride mainly rolling hills on smooth roads, mostly for fun but some sportives and looking to take some long weekends with the blokes riding in Spain / France etc...

For reference I am 5'10" and 13.5 stone, quite strong rider, riding upto 100 miles at one go

Thanks for your advice...


----------



## WhyRun (Dec 29, 2008)

I was standing in my LBS last week listening to a guy go through the same questions in his head, trying to decide which of the two he wanted to buy. I think the guy left the shop still trying to decide without getting either. I like the R3, some prefer the S2. 

Some say the S2 feels faster. If you have a riding routine with fewer climbs, the S2 may be a better choice. The extra grams are eliminated by the aero advantage. My R3 (I rode a friends for a bit before I bought mine) is currently in the shop from crash damage. The first two rides I did on mine, prior to the "incident", total of 100 miles, were the most comfortable I'd done in a while.

Good luck, can't really go wrong. (I ride a 54cm at 5'11" perfectly comfortable)


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

This is the question most people end up wrestling with when buying a Cervelo road bike. I don't think the extra weight of the S2 makes a big enough difference to care about, but that's just me. 

I like the aero concept of the S2; who doesn't want to go faster, eh? However, for me, two things pointed me to an R series over the S2. First was a more forgiving ride than the S2. Second, is the lower cost (I got an RS). 

You say you will be on smooth roads - that might favor the S2. If you're average speed is around 20mph or faster, that would favor the S2 as well.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

if you talk to a cervelo engineer they'll tell you the difference in ride quality between the 2 is minute compared to the difference you can make w/ bigger/softer tires, bar tape/handlebar choice, and saddle choice. they engineer their bikes to all have nearly indentical ride quality. there is really very little vertical compliance on any road frame.


----------



## RACE-PACE (Apr 8, 2010)

Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated, because I weigh 190 lbs does this have any bearing on the R3 or S2 debate? I like the idea of the S2 aero but my concern is will it be too stiff? on the other hand will the R3 be too "soft" for my size? I guess my style and type of riding is very middle of the road and if I use the Cervelo "what bike you should buy" thingy on there site it says S2...


----------



## sappie66 (Oct 28, 2009)

Forgive me but the only real way to decide is to test ride them.

My friend recently bought the R3 after testing both the R3 and the S2. He liked them both, but liked the R3 just a little more. I, on the other hand, have an SLC (S2), and could'nt be happier.

I think what cxwrench said makes sense -- wheels, bartape, tires make a big difference. I suspect an R3 with very stiff wheels might ride harsher than the S2 with compliant wheels.


----------



## balatoe (Apr 15, 2009)

I agree with sappie66. When I built my S2 last year, I put on a set of Easton wheels and the ride was rather harsh. I started having pains after spending about 3 hours on the saddle. After I changed the wheels to HED Jet 4, the ride quality on my S2 is much better. I actually did a century on my S2 a couple of weekends ago and I didn't feel beat up after the ride at all. 

I have never ridden a R3 before and have no feedback regarding the comparison between S2 and R3. But what I know is this, my S2 descends really well and fast. I usually pass other riders during descends and I wasn't even trying to pass them. 

One drawback with aero bikes is that they don't handle well in cross wind condition.


----------



## skizzle86 (Apr 15, 2010)

The model I tested were the S3 and R3sl which are the next model up from the S2 and R3. From what I could tell the S3 had more responsive handling than the R3sl and the ride on the S3 was ever so slightly more stiff. Both are good bikes either way. Test ride is the only way to know for sure.


----------



## Ghost234 (Jun 1, 2010)

If you are unsure, go R3. I personally think it is a more "versatile" bike to the S2. No matter where you decide to take it, or road you put it on the R3 will perform exceptionally well. Whereeas the S2 as good as it is, really excels in flatter areas with smooth pavement. 

They are both fantastic and I doubt you would feel bad for any decision you made.


----------



## RACE-PACE (Apr 8, 2010)

After much deliberation I went for the S2 in the end, I factored in my size (180lbs) and the good tarmac rolling hills we have locally, I know on the few trips away to other roads I maybe at a disadvantage compared to the R3 on very hill and rough roads but for the vast majority of riding the I do the S2 seemed to fit the bill...

Ridden a couple of hundred miles in mainly windy conditions and couldn't be happier, stand out attribute so far has been the descending, unbelievable! like a knife!

Thanks for all the input...


----------



## WhyRun (Dec 29, 2008)

where oh where is the picture?


----------



## Kenacycle (May 28, 2006)

R3...


----------



## oroy38 (Apr 27, 2010)

I own both an R3 and an S3.

Both spectacular bikes. Depends mostly on where you're riding. The S3 has more "get up and go" and I think it's overall a better race bike. For longer days in the saddle, I think the R3 is a better bike, especially if you have some pretty rough roads. I've done numerous centuries on both, of all flavors (flat, hilly, rollers, etc), and I noticed that while the S3 was a bit faster on the rides, my body felt like it took less of a beating on the R3.

Overall, I find that I ride my S3 a little more than I ride my R3.


----------



## truble930 (Jul 31, 2007)

oroy38 said:


> I own both an R3 and an S3.
> 
> Both spectacular bikes. Depends mostly on where you're riding. The S3 has more "get up and go" and I think it's overall a better race bike. For longer days in the saddle, I think the R3 is a better bike, especially if you have some pretty rough roads. I've done numerous centuries on both, of all flavors (flat, hilly, rollers, etc), and I noticed that while the S3 was a bit faster on the rides, my body felt like it took less of a beating on the R3.
> 
> Overall, I find that I ride my S3 a little more than I ride my R3.


I would agree with these comments. It should be noted that I'm a mountain biker who does a bit of road riding but I'm certainly not a top tier roadie and do not race.

I went from a Soloist Carbon to an R3. The main difference to me was the stiffness in the rear seatstays. The Soloist (S2) had much beafier stays and being a light 145-150 lbs guy I felt like I was being 'bumped' out of the saddle too much. The R3 for me had just enough 'bump flex' in the seatstays to be more comfortable. The Soloist was a rockship however and if you are looking for fast that is your bike. Again like the above comment the R3 to me is a more comfortable bike and my body too less of a beating. Could be that as I reach 40 years I'm just getting old


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

1 - depends on the kind of riding you do
2 - Test Ride both

I was torn, but I think I am going to end up just getting the S2.

I have an S1 now and it harsh after the 60 mile mark. I want a more comfortable bike. But, I do a lot of BOTH flatland and climbs. S2 suits me well.

good luck and post pics when you get it!!!!


----------



## pagey (Oct 30, 2009)

I love my S2. Putting 25c Conti 4000s on made a huge difference in handling


----------

