I had the Soloist Aluminum and had to sell it because it hammered me, my shoulder would kill at anything over 20miles.

I liked everything about it, probably my favorite frame but a torn rotator cuff from baseball couldnt take the unforgiving ride. I used to ride Aluminum Cannondales and the Soloist is even less forgiving then those, thats saying a lot

How much better does the Carbon Soloist suck up the road? Major difference?


My daily ride is a Ridley Excalibur (Carbon) which doesnt hinder my body on long rides

Thanks

Interesting question. I've read here quite a few times how harsh the alu Soloist feels - but I haven't ridden one, so I can't make a direct comparison.

I can say the Soloist carbon isn't the plushest ride ever, but it compares favorably with all the descriptions I've read of the alu Soloist.

I can make a direct comparo between it and other bikes I've ridden the 206 mile STP (Seattle-to-Portland) with. This past July I rode the Cervelo - last year it was an older carbon Look, the years before that was an alu Felt. In the meantime, I've put as much miles on a scandium Salsa CX and a newish carbon Look 555.

To make a long story short, the Cervelo is admittedly the "harshest" bike out of all of them. BUT, not so harsh that it made the 206 mile ride difficult. In fact, I would say that tire choice, fit, and even handlebar tape play as big a role in ultimate comfort as does the frame itself.

The Soloist easily felt the "snappiest", and I set a PR on this year's STP because of it. After the Look, it's also the easiest to ride fast downhill.

dude its a freakin raod bike, they arent meant to be comfy, how about you just harden the **** up, what do you think the guys in the 50s did. they didnt pansy about with comfort issues, they just drank some gin and rode hard.

when youre spending 6k for a bike, you dont settle for less then the best

get an education, which will enable you to get a career and earn enough money to someday ride these machines.

go drink your gin and ride your Trek

If I remember correctly, you have the steel Cervelo Super Prodigy?

I got back this afternoon from test riding a R3 and a Soloist Carbon. All I can say is that I love the R3. Stiff and very comfortable ride. I really noticed the performance of the bike when I was out of the saddle. Was very smooth descending.

The Soloist was stiffer and harsher on the ride. I can't imagine doing STP or LOTOJA (206 mile race) on the Soloist. However, I felt the Soloist was more stable when cornering downhill.

Bottome line, ride a lot of bikes and find the one that you fall in love with.

I'm planning on test riding a Supersix and a Blue RC8 to see how they compare to the R3.

FWIW.

Scubad

However, I felt the Soloist was more stable when cornering downhill.


I would tend to think that this would be more due to the specific setup of the bikes (saddle height and position and handlebar height and stem length) than to the actual frame difference (their geometries are identical) Any change in setup will affect your weight distribution on the bike and will affect cornering.

-ilan

Man, I just don't understand this internet stuff. My SLC-SL is one amazingly smooth, fast and amazing rides I have had. This includes steel and two other carbon frames. I really have to believe that all this urban legend stuff is just that, manufactured by people who either have never ridden a specific bike or just want to be argumentative.

The SLC-SL is an amazing bike. I have ridden the R3-SL and in honesty, with my eyes closed I just don't think I could tell the difference.

Would I give up my SLC-SL for another frame? Not on your life!

LazyRider (FRED), I think youre lost. This isnt the Trek forum and sweet bike in your gallery, lmao dork.