I am a smaller climber who usually goes for the lighter frames. Cervelo seems very good and I like the soloist carbon and the R3. Now I have seen their presentations and realize how much aerodynamic factors matter, but for the climbs I am not 100% satisfied with the soloist carbon. So if anyone can reinforce wich one they like better or would be better for me( without going into fitting issues) it would be appriciated.

thier old superprodigy steel frame ride the best

First, I would talk with Cervelo. Give them a call before you pull the trigor.

I rode both bikes (R3 and Soloist), and I am super heavy rider, with fittness issues. ( I will explain why I bought the cervelo later.) I believe both bikes share the same geometry, and being areo climbing is a rare occurance. The R3 is a little lighter, the sololist is faster after mid -teens mph. Comparing the R3 to the soloist, what you might gain in climbing in the R3 will be minigated by the clean (clean: aircraft term for "less drag - no drag") soloist.

I consider three things of three things.

1.) is the 76 deg seat angle need for fitting?

2.) Can you handle not having the slim "aero advantage" when racing?

3.) How does the bike ride -- (this what sold me). The soloists rides like a true race bike, which is what I accepted. The R3 rides really smooth (not what I expected), I was really impressed with the ride.

Hope this helps Take the advise above with grain of salt and call Cervelo.

Kroettger

Why did I buy: I am a rider but I have not been serious for a decade and I am out of shape. I read the book "Heft on Wheels" and got all spooled up to ride my (###) off. went in for a steel frame and came out with a cervelo r3 after being fully fitted.

Good luck.:thumbsup:

I would like both bikes to be honest but somehow I don't really like the thin top tube look on the soloist carbon and hence, would get the R3 or R3SL. Of course, that's just my preference.

Soloist carbon is my "dream/cost-no-object bike", but I'd be satisfied with the R3. Given my heft, and riding area (flat around here) the Soloist would make sense for me. A lighter rider in hilly area might be better served with the R3. Either way, you won't be going wrong.

I want a new bike with all these talk bout new bikes. :D

I've rode the R3 and have to say it's probably the nicest bike I've ever rode, not that I've rode every bike however.

I've only rode an aluminium Soloist so can't comment on the carbon version, but the consensus is that the R3 rides nicer. So the trade is ride vs aero. Pick what is most important to you.

Both bikes are sized the same and have identical geometries.

just got my R3 a few weeks ago and it's amazing, very light for climbing and extremely responsive going down!
:)

i currentl have a (non- re-called) R2.5 and love it. My next bike will be the R3. I love the ride on my current bike and my undersanding is that the R3 is that much smoother.

the soloist is great i think. maybe for crits and break aways. but R3 I think is better all around.

my .02

tete

I purchased the R# in Jan and have loved it but seem to have issues getting the front derailleur dailed in. I have the SLK cranks and have seen some write ups that the issue my be there instead of the ultegra derailleur. Any comments?

I think the biggest issue is the cost. i read everything i could find on both bike, and am still trying to decide between the R3 and the Look 585 ultra. for me, on the diff between the R3 and the Solist Carbon was cost. I didn't think the 2 sec advantage i would get if i did a break away in a race was worth the extra $600. remember in a race, when you are in the pack, how often are you going totally full out. the areo is good, and may save some energy in the pack, but my buget would not allow it.

just my .02 cents. if money was not an issue, go with the solist, heck go with the soloist carbon sl. if money is an issue, go with the R3. again, for the money i wouldn't bother with the R3 SL. its a lot for 200g or so, heck most of that is in the fork