Hi,
I'm very interested to cervelo R3 and I'd like to know if the measure of top tube is measured horizontally (as if it is a traditiona frame).
In particulary I saw that this measure is 565 mm and now I have a tarmac size 56 with 565 mm. Do you think that these measures are the same?
I'm 178 cm with 86 cm inseam. what's size of cervelo is right for me, 54 or 56?
Thanke in advance.

if u get no where on this message board, u might want to e-mail or call Cervelo. they are in Canada so it might cost ya if u r not. They seem like a somewhat small company so they might have someone there that could help. the cervelo webpage does have a question section, might want to give that a try.

From the Cervelo geometry diagrams, the TT is measured horizontally. I tested rode a 56cm R3 and a 56cm Tarmac. The TT length did feel the same, and the same stem size was required for both. The HT length is slightly longer on the Cervelo (0.5cm), and did feel a tad higher than the Tarmac. However, with an uncut steerer, you could get the same front end height on either.

What was your impression of the R3 vs. Tarmac in stiffness vs. vertical compliance? I ended up ordering the Soloist Carbon over either the R3 and Tarmac.

did u guys notice that on Fridays stage basso and one of his teammates were on the R3 instead of their usual soloist carbons. Basso and his team have been on soloist everyother day, except of course TT days.

Thanks a lo Sklingus, you was very clear.
I read some reviews about R3 and it seems the best bike for stiffness and lighteness.
Read this review: http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing%20Their%20Muscles.pdf
You can see that R3 is the best.
Today Basso rode the R3 in "colle San Carlo".
Bye
Gian

The reason I ask is my impression of the R3 was that while the stiffness of the frame was beyond doubt, the vertical compliance of the frames was reduced. The ride was in fact too harsh for me, and I wanted to see if your opinion (or others) is similar.

According to the Cervelo website, here is the reason Basso has been riding the R3 lately.

http://www.cervelo.com/news.aspx?m=About&i=CerveloNews

What was your impression of the R3 vs. Tarmac in stiffness vs. vertical compliance? I ended up ordering the Soloist Carbon over either the R3 and Tarmac.


It is a pretty stiff frame. But I set mine up with Neutrons, and find the combo slightly plusher than my Seven Axiom with Ksyriums. At this point, no hesitation about doing long rides on the R3, and I think I prefer it overall to the Axiom.

Have not yet had a chance to swap wheel sets and compare apples to apples

According to the Cervelo website, here is the reason Basso has been riding the R3 lately.

http://www.cervelo.com/news.aspx?m=About&i=CerveloNews

It's seems strange because Basso rode R3 saturday (Alessandria - La Thuile) and the road was perfect.
In any case I have some doubts about the declarations of the Factories. They have interest to sell the bikes, new and old models.
I have the impression that R3 is not too emphasized to allow the great entry of the Bayonne on TDF (it's very similar) and to not diminish the soloist (great bike but old geomtery).
About the ride my tarmac s-works (not SL) is very smooth.
What's your impression about the tarmac sl? It's a good bike compared to R3?
Ciao

I felt the R3 was stiffer than the S-works Tarmac, however both were plenty stiff for me. However, I also felt the ride of the R3 was a bit too harsh, more so than the Tarmac. However, the wheels/tires were setup differently on the 2 bikes, so the comparison was not apples-to-apples. The weight of the R3 was lower, however did not come in play w.r.t my preference. I test rode several bikes (Six13, S-works Tarmac, S-works Roubaix, Look 585, R3, Soloist carbon); the R3 was definitely the stiffest, but also harshest ride. The harsh ride came into play in my decision. My final decision came down to Soloist carbon vs. Look 585. The Look 585 was definitely more plush; however stilll stiff as hell. My decision came down to aerodynamics vs. ride plushness. For my type of riding/racing, aerodynamics was a greater factor. I haven't heard anyone else complain about the R3 ride being harsh, so I wanted to see your opinion. BTW, the R3 geometry is the same as the Soloist carbon.

[QUOTE=sklingus]. My final decision came down to Soloist carbon vs. Look 585.
[QUOTE]


I like both the bikes.
From an aesthetic point of view I think that Soloist is better, because it's more original, while 585 is more traditional.
In any case, your choice is difficult beacuse these bike are on the top.
Did you consider the Specialized Roubaix s-works?
I heard that it's vey light, enough stiff to racing but very very comfortable.

Sorry about not getting you the ST info, but I have been distracted by my Carbon Soloist!! I just picked it up on Friday, and haven't been online since. I see you did get that info form a different post.

I did test ride a Roubaix Pro (not S-works). The Roubaix geometry was too relaxed for me; the head tube felt too high. Although, I probably could have gotten a more aero and lower position via stem height/length/spacer adjustment, I concluded that if I wanted to get a Specialized then it would be the Tarmac.

In the end, the bikes that were in the final running were the Soloist Carbon, Look 585, Cannondale Six13, and S-works Tarmac. I did prefer the Look 585 over the R3, but the Soloist Carbon won out because of the aero advantage at a very negligible penalty in weight.

Where are you located? Wheelworks in Davis has all of these bikes in stock. Ride them and compare them yourself. I too was caught up trying to analyze the different choices, but test riding them really gives you something tangible to compare against.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.

How do you compare the ride between the Soloist Carbon and 585? I'm 99% positive that I'm going with the 585, since I have not been able to find any other frame that improves on all of the characteristics the 585 has to offer (i.e. smooth ride, stiffness, handling, etc.).

How do you compare the ride between the Soloist Carbon and 585? I'm 99% positive that I'm going with the 585, since I have not been able to find any other frame that improves on all of the characteristics the 585 has to offer (i.e. smooth ride, stiffness, handling, etc.).

Funny. It seems that a lot of people looking in this price range narrow their search to those two bikes. They were my final two selections as well. I loved my old Look, and really though the 585 would be my next bike, but the Soloist fit me better and was a little less $$. The Soloist was a bit harsher, but no by so much as to be a deal breaker.

I still like the look of the Look better. And I really like the look of the Look 486 Special Edition.

Does anyone know the size of the Basso's Cervelo solist Carbon?Thanks
Stefano

58 according to this thread: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19402&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

It is a pretty stiff frame. But I set mine up with Neutrons, and find the combo slightly plusher than my Seven Axiom with Ksyriums. At this point, no hesitation about doing long rides on the R3, and I think I prefer it overall to the Axiom.

Have not yet had a chance to swap wheel sets and compare apples to apples

what do you think?

$4857.30
R3 with the lighter fork Wolf SL
campy chorus carbon groupset
Wheels: Campy neutrons ULTRA wheels (lighter)
Stem: FSA OS-99
K-force compact carbon handle bars
Arione wing flex Fizik

Any thoughts as to which bike would suit me better?

R3 SL or the Soloist Carbon ? it will be my first road bike coming from a mtb
I am also 200+ lbs!
I have campy neutron ultras fro the bike...?

What type of riding do you plan on doing? I would make sure that the bike fits you being your 1st road bike as a new rider sometimes you may feel like the bike fits but as you become more educated and get more miles under your belt it may change your wants/needs and that is allot of $$ to invest right off the bat. I would def make sure you can test ride either

I test rode the new trek madone,roubix,tarmac,tuscany,sysnapse and once i rode the R3 it was like "wow" this is my bike. i rode it for a half hour.

it also fit me better than the rest and i did not have to move to a 90mm stem i was able to almost ride the 110mm. so i think its the R3. but i only rode it for a half an hour with spd's but without my bike shorts. Another shop has the R3 SL for nearly the same price but its not built up and the test ride shop's price of the R3 is high so i cant go back and test ride again because they know i am not going to buy with them.... i guess i will take the plunge and pick up the frame set and work with my lbs. i just wonder about the carbon soloists geometry and that many say it faster. I do live in an area with lots of hill and mts but still lots of flats around??? that why i wonder about the soloist?

Any thoughts as to which bike would suit me better?

R3 SL or the Soloist Carbon ? it will be my first road bike coming from a mtb
I am also 200+ lbs!
I have campy neutron ultras fro the bike...?


At 200+ lbs why would you even consider the SL.

The extra grams won't mean much to you but the extra strength might.

At 200+ lbs why would you even consider the SL.

The extra grams won't mean much to you but the extra strength might.

As I mentioned in the other thread to you ereyes, I echo his remarks--89grams is litte weight difference (89 g is the diff b/t R3SL and R3).

Sorry, I meant reyesjames.