Here we have it. 2 carbon bikes. One lugged, one not. I need as much info on each as I can get. All the good, the bad and the ugly.
Are they good for racing and with clip on tri bars.
Then I can buy one with my mind at ease. Ride one, ride the other. Still no idea!

I've got 900 km on my R2.5 and my rides have ranged from 1 hr to 3.5 hrs in the saddle...
I have a good friend who's riding the soloist ( same geometry but full aluminum frame) for comparison between the aluminum & carbon ...

1) Geometry is quick. It took a bit of practice to keep it going straight ... shoulder turns led to wandering lines at the beginning .... now I ride with light hands and all is good.

2) Riding compartment appears to be slightly shorter than classic frames ... I'm 6'1' with a 35" inseam riding a 58cm frame ... reasonable stem length 10cm and seat not quite at the limit pushed back

3) Construction quality is good, nice clearcoat over natural carbon with reasonable amounts of stickers ... not overkilled like the CR1, Note as I have mentioned before ... stickers don't sit flat w/o wrinkling on multishaped tubes ... better to skimp on the color rather than live the wrinkes or better yet paint then clearcoat...

4) Ride quality is excellent ... from new ashphalt to pave, the bike just soaks up the noise and allows you to concentrate on turning out the watts ... solid BB to drivetrain response.

5) Seat clamp (Campy) holds Cervelo post well ... seatpost a little finicky to adjust but it holds well once set.

6) NOTE: Watch for the cable routing at the BB ... I had to install teflon tube to prevent Fr Der. cable from sawing through the BB ... this is apparently an issue for the soloist as well.

7) The soloist is the duathlon/multisport specific option, a lot more cost conscious, comes with a reversable seatpost head ( you can have a TT and std setup with a turn of a screw and an extra seatpost head ... ~$25) and you can clamp on some clipons for speed .. Note that the bike is super stiff ... Doesn't appear to have the dampening properties of the carbon.

The R2.5's been written up as having suitable geometry to do the same as far as switching disciplines ... but really, I think that if you're looking for an all day racing machine for climbing and aggressive handling ... this bike is the bomb...

ORCA (haven't ridden)... there's a number of monocoque bikes out there .. Trek, Giant, Devinci ... the rides are stiffer due to the one piece design in my opinion ... as well, it appears that there;s more flexibility in sizing options with the lugged design...

Good luck

ORCA (haven't ridden)... there's a number of monocoque bikes out there .. Trek, Giant, Devinci ... the rides are stiffer due to the one piece design in my opinion ... as well, it appears that there;s more flexibility in sizing options with the lugged design...


Trek does not make monocoque frames, they are lugged, just internally.

ORCA (haven't ridden)... there's a number of monocoque bikes out there .. Trek, Giant, Devinci ... the rides are stiffer due to the one piece design in my opinion ... as well, it appears that there;s more flexibility in sizing options with the lugged design...

I don't think that Trek makes a monocoque bike.

Thanks all. Very helpfull. You learn alot on these forums, some complete bulls**t, some fact. Really puts the stoppers on bike manufacturers hype with real world truth's.

Note as I have mentioned before ... stickers don't sit flat w/o wrinkling on multishaped tubes ... better to skimp on the color rather than live the wrinkes or better yet paint then clearcoat

Do you perhaps mean specifically in Cervelo's case? I have bikes with lots of multi-shape tubes and the decals don't wrinkle or bubble. In my opinion it's a matter of using the correct materials and applying them properly.

I have owned an Orbea Orca since summer of last year. I just sold a Kestrel Talon and currently own a Trek 5200. The Orca is by far my favorite ride because it is stiffer than the other two bikes and it handles better. The Orca does not have the "dead or wooden feel" of carbon bikes because of the stiffness. Orbea has done a nice job of blending just the right amont of stiffness and comfort in the Orca. I have completed centuries with it and because of the comfort level it felt like I just finished a 30 mile ride. When I get out of my seat and hammer it feels like all the energy gets put down on the road. There is no sense of wasted effort here. The handleing is good because it is very predicable and stable which means to me it is much better than the Talon and a little better than the 5200. I bought this bike because of the performance it brings and I like the styling. It does turn many heads.

Here we have it. 2 carbon bikes. One lugged, one not. I need as much info on each as I can get. All the good, the bad and the ugly.
Are they good for racing and with clip on tri bars.
Then I can buy one with my mind at ease. Ride one, ride the other. Still no idea!

I bought an Orbea Orca about a month ago. Full Record components, Deda newton bar and stem, Mavic Ksyrium SL wheels. It is by far my best bike ever. I've owned multiple cannondales, a 98 Trek 2300 (partial carbon frame), and currently own a Litespeed Palmares, and (dare I say it on this site) Motobecane (good rain/winter bike. Love it for what it is, not what BikesDirect purport it to be!!). I did the research, wanted a new full Carbon bike, and although Treks and Giants are great bikes, wanted something a little different than what everyone else has. My final two choices were the Orca and R2.5. Either one is a fine bike which I'm sure you'll be happy with. Both are used by teams on the pro-tour, so you've got full bragging rights.

A couple of things I like about the Orbea. The front derailler cable is routed through the bottom bracket housing, which solves the problem one poster indicated with cable routing on the R2.5. There is also some discussion about frames coming unlaminated on this site-- look in product reviews on older frames. Cervelo has apparently fixed the problem. That really did not weigh heavy into my decision, but it was a factor. Ultimately, it was just that that (too brief) test ride left me liking the Orca a little better, for intangible reasons I can't really describe. I also like the Basque factor and the legacy of the company. I believe the Cervelo is manufactured somewhere in the Pacific Rim. I do not believe this adversely impacts quality, because many fine bikes are manufactured there.

The Orbea geometry has a higher stack, which works well for me because I'm not a hardcore racer, and you can set the bike up with higher handlebars with less difficulty, which is my preference. I've noticed Euskaltel cuts the forks down to the minimum and don't use any headset spacers.

Anyhow, I've put 430 miles on it so far. No problems at all, although you wouldn't really expect any on a bike in this price range. This bike particularly loves to climb. You can hammer out of the saddle with no frame flex (and I ride a 60 cm!!). This frame has good road feel, unlike some carbon frames I've ridden, which are dead. If you ride on a lot of tarred and feathered roads, it smooths them out a bit without feeling dead. I didn't test ride the R2.5 long enough (or on bad enough roads) to know how it compares. Handling and steering is very responsive on the Orca. It also gets attention!! It's a beautiful bike.

Had I gotten the R2.5, I'd probably be just as pleased at this point, but I would recommend the Orca without reservation.

So, it's spring, pick one, start riding, and don't look back.

Look at Ridley,,,