I find it interesting that they are giving it a distinct name. As, it claims to be the same frame as the R3. Unless the fork is significantly different, it's an R3 with a 105 (11-speed) grouppo.

I think they upgraded the R3 frame significantly this year, maybe they are going to introduce an even more significant change to R3 next year. (R3 Mud... or R3CX..?)

Isn't the R2 to the R3 as the S2 is to the S3? (same frame, different build)

---

Head down, thumbs up, give'r
@barrettdj

Good point. And New P2 = New P3 (but different forks). Weird.

As an owner of a white R3... they are beautiful when they are clean... (but a giant welcoming canvas for the slightest bit of grease or gatorade). Keeping it beautiful is another sport altogether.

S2 has a different (and less aero) fork than the S3.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hi bx3,

Good thinking about the fork. Interestingly, the R2 fork comes from the same mould as the Cervelo R3 Mud fork:



Compared to the team issue "Mud" fork, we:

• shortened the legs a few millimeters (so standard brakes reach the rim every time) and
• changed dropout material from CNC aluminum to moulded carbon fibre.

CNC dropouts made sense for the small quantities the team needed, but now that we have production volumes, we can justify the expense of the mould tools, and get tougher and lighter dropouts for the R2 as a result.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

So the R2 will accommodate larger tires? I have a tough time not rubbing with 25s on my R3 (2012 R3 Team) on the fork and on the seat stays . . .

Hi kmill23,

Correct. Your R3's frame and fork were only designed for 23C tires, though some 25C tires have been fitted, with varying success, depending on rim and tire details.

The latest R3 (and now R2) frame was designed around 25C tires, so frame clearance should be no problem. However, the latest R3 fork is the same as before, designed for 23C.

But the big news is the R2's fork was designed (as the R3 Mud fork) to have as much clearance as the brake caliper itself; no limits from the fork! In fact I just measured almost 45 millimeters of tire space between left and right legs. And the top of the fork is higher than the caliper. Basically, any tire that fits through the brake should fit through the fork.



Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Awesome. Thank you for the response. One more question: Will the R2 be available as a frameset? Or full build only?

Full build only.

You can buy an R3 or R5 as a bike or frameset, but 2-series Cervelos as bikes only, no framesets.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Damon-
If the current R2/R3/R5 frames can take a 25C tire what was the rational behind Garmin using the R3 Mud for the cobbles in the Tour?

Hi pyrahna,

If the cobbles are dry, a 24 mm tub is enough, and the stock R3 works.

But if the cobbles are wet, some riders prefer a 27 mm tub, and the stock R3 doesn't work.

Of course, we're making the bikes for the team long before the weather forecast is firm, so we have to "hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

One more thought - interestingly enough, not only do the RCA, R5, R3 and R2 frames take a 25C tire, but so do the new S3 and S2 frames and forks.

Makes one wonder which is the better race bike for a flat, windy race over open terrain, that often separates into solo riders or small groups: the light bike or the aero bike...?

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

The rapid prototyping CF machine not up and running yet? :)

It might be easier to work on better long term weather forecasting.

In all seriousness it makes perfect sense if they want to run a 27mm tire.

And to answer your other post...I would prefer the Aero bike...but I need as much help as I can get in reducing the forces slowing me down.

LOL!

I'd take the aero bike too.

To quote Landyachtz, I've never signed up for a race and thought to myself, "I think I'd like to have to pedal 9 watts harder all day today."

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Oh too bad, I was hoping the R2 = production R3 MUD.

#gravel

-SD

Hi Dave,

Funny, some of us were wishing the same, but we never made R3 Mud molds in all the sizes (the team didn't need all of them). And all the other tooling (bonding jigs, etc.) was only ever intended for limited production, not hardened for series production. Knowing that, we would have been looking at too much money to put it into production as it sat. Plus we had a few ideas to make it better, which would have made the Mud a completely new bike...

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hey Damon,

What size tire with the rear stays on the new R2 fit?

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Is that a hint?!

Really though, I can't even afford the _2's (r2,s2). Want an SLC-SL tho! So don't make any more new bikes right now ;)

what about this?

---

You can't fix stupid ..

I was so glad I got a 2013 P2, rather than a 2014 which comes from the P3 mould.

I mean, everyone gets caught up in the sexiness of the uberware bikes at the pointy end of the race, but there are way more MOPer's than guys that podium and a taller head tube suits those athletes with less than ideal flexibility or simply wanting to ride at a different place on the comfort/speed continuum

Just like when the original P3 became the P3C and the P2 was still ali, I thought that Cervelo should have morphed things like the P3's seat stays onto the P2 as an upgrade, to give it a longer lifespan. I still think an Ali P2 with a few parts stolen from the ali P3 would be an excellent entry level bike, especially considering the relove that Ali is getting these day. Hell, change the ali P2 seat tube to accept the current P2/P3 seat post, and you'd be onto a winner with 105 on it.

And when will Cervelo hire a graphic designer to come up with paint schemes. the colours are OK, but the colour patterns continue to be atrocious. I bought my P2k because a friend had a P2k that was eye catching red with white Cervelo decals. It stood out like dogs bollocks, but in a good way. The P2K I ordered showed up blue and white. While it looked better than the current Cervelo paint jobs, I immediately had it stripped and professionally repainted red! Too bad Cervelo voids the warranty if you paint their carbon bikes these days. I know why, but don't hand cuff us with some of the butt ugliest paint jobs on the planet at least!

If Cervelo is going to revisit the past, I've got a downpayment for a Super Prodigy ready and waiting!

but they never asked me........

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

You do know that the new P2 is very similar, if not taller in stack, than the version you have?

Really? That's not how I read the geometry charts before I bought the P2 last year. I could be wrong (my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time).

When I jumped on my new P2 (vs my old P2k) I didn't adjust anything (the seat just happened to be in the right location (+/- 3mm) and I immediately felt freakin awesome. I could stay on the aerobars for 45 minutes straight (not easy to do in this hill ridden area!) while on my P2k it was 15 minutes max before my back would scream.

It was my understanding that the P3 has always been 'more aggressive' (lower in front) than the P2. I will have to check over the weekend.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

The old P3 did, the new one doesn't. The new P3/P2 has ~5mm less reach and ~10mm more stack for a given size than the old P2.

Old P2 Geo
New P2 Geo

And just to confuse the situation, the P2 range and the P3 range have gone through quite a few name changes over the years. A P2 is not a P2 is not a P2 :-)

when you say "old" it's hard to know how old you mean.

From what I recall, the P2 bike has been
P2 (with seat mast)
P2K, about Y2K, with seatmast removed and some other subtle changes
P2K upgrade from 1"steerer to 1-1/8"
P2SL same frame but anodized rather than painted to save a few grams and become the (super light? SL)
P2C completely different bike but genetically related, with monocoque carbon frame
P2 name re-introduced, but really a P2C. C was dropped since the ali version was renamed P1 (not to be confused with the original green P1 TT bike they made), then P1 dropped altogether
P2 produced in the P3 mould but with lesser carbon and/or not as refined carbon layup.

As far as I'm aware, there are really only 4 P2's
P2 with seat mast
P2K with or without paint
P2C, with or without "C" sticker
P2 from P3 mould

Damon and/or Gerard may be able to correct me but with TdF on, I doubt either of them will have time to clarify just at the moment.

As for the P3, it's gone through a similar development, but at different times, just to create confusion.

P2 & P3 used to have different geometry, but now they are the same. When any geometry changes happened, I'm just not sure. We'd have to do a ST sleuth hunt, comparing say 54cm frames throughout the years. And with the TdF on at the moment, I bet I won't be that sleuth :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Old P2 54: 51.2, 41.8
New P2 54: 52.2, 41.1

I see Trek did that with their "pro" fit bikes with low head tubes and also only made whatever sizes they also made for the team. I think Specialized used to sell the low-head tube Tarmacs but I don't think they ever sold the low head tube Roubaix bikes with 30mm tire clearance. No doubt there are a couple rolling around Morgan Hill. We did some special bikes for Garmin and then Argos for the cobbled classics and I was always worried they'd run afoul of the "no for public sale" UCI rules. They also had one-off CNC dropouts w/o lawyer tabs for faster wheel changes and precise thicknesses so all the QR could be set to the same pre-threaded position; I'm sure JV, Matt and Co made the same requests for you guys. We never sold them commercially though.

I'm not a Cervelo customer but with the current market trends I'd think an RCA Mud made in China with thru axles and disc brakes would be awesome and everything the non-UCI racer would want.

Hope to see you and the new toys at Eurobike,

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

Hi Damon,

So just to clarify, is the R2 frame the same as the current (2014) R3 Ultegra frame, as opposed to the current R3 105 frame, which I think is the prior generation 2013 and earlier R3?

Thanks.

Correct. One way to tell is by the internal cables, rather than external.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Dave,

Yep, I noticed the limited size run at Trek, too. We finally got busted by the UCI for the Mud bikes after VeloNews did a write up before Paris-Roubaix, I think it might have been the year tall Johan Vansummeren won on his 61cm(!) R3 Mud. Luckily we had produced a few extra frames and were able to satisfy the UCI by selling them. All gone now! :-(

Yes, hope to see you at Eurobike!

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi kjmcawesome,

All 700x25C tires should fit fine.

We designed the frame for the biggest 700x25C tire we could find at the time, a Vittoria Diamante Pro Light we measured at a whopping 28.67mm wide. Since then some wider rims have been introduced, so if you're pushing the tire width be sure to check.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi dork,

Nice summary! Off the top of my head I don't see any great errors, except your last row: In fact, the current P2, produced in the P3 mould, uses the identical carbon fibre type and layup as the P3. It is the P3 frame. Only the fork, paint and parts make the bikes different.

Most (all?) of these P-series models, in all their naming confusion, are summarized at cervelo.com under Support, in four glorious pages of photos, manuals, and yes, geometry tables.

http://www.cervelo.com/en/support/products.html


Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

We thought some of the same things. (Great minds think alike. And so do ours! :-)

But, to use the P3 seat stays as an example, that part of the frame was really tricky to mould and bond, which is the main reason the P3C cost more than the P2 in the first place. The reason we spent the money to do it was to reduce aero drag, by extending the seat tube cutout to cover more of the fastest moving part of the rear tire and wheel at the top. We got a significant increase in speed, but there was just no way to put that feature on the P2 without raising the price ... to the P3 level.



A similar cost increase exists from the S3 (partial seat tube cutout) to the S5 (extended seat tube cutout).

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

i ride a 2012 P2....in my mind, it is the best of the older P2's. Why? its geometry is/was still long and low, it had the decent black paint job with red accents and it was ultegra everywhere as standard. Also the bars were carbon 3T aura pro's. The 2013 P2 (yours?) went to a silvery type of colour, had a downgrade in components and the bars went to a cheaper profile design model or something from memory. The 2014 model, however, is a different kettle of fish.

Are you trolling, Mr Rinard? ;)

I have a couple of questions I've been thinking about. The first is whether you have done any analysis/simulation on weight vs. aero in typical critical road race situations. What I'm specifically thinking of can be exemplified in the nationals here this year with 15 loops on a course that had one major climb (1 km, 7% - about the biggest climb you can find around these parts). Obviously, the race was largely decided on that climb as that was where most of the attacks were made. To be crude, the race could be divided into two determining parts:

1. Endurance/exhaustion part (e.g 5 hours at 240W avg), if you can't handle his you will be dropped before the race is over.
2. Explosive part (e.g. 2 min at 500W up the hill with some bursts in it), again, if you can't handle this you will be dropped on the hill.

With an aero bike you will come out ahead on the first part, let's say you save 5W (in the draft). With the light bike you will likely save some on the second part, let's say 5W (if you go lightweight with both shallower wheels, light frame, etc.).

From this comes two things (well, probably more...). First, if you get dropped on the explosive part you will lose the wheel in front giving you more drag for some length of time - forever if you get dropped completely and can't make it back. Second, maybe different rider types would benefit from different bikes? Some may find it easy to go 5 hours at 240W so could care less about a 5W improvement there, but really struggle with the explosive part - and vice versa.

Also, corners are a road race classic with bursts. If you ride alone I get that an aero bike will usually be faster. But in a race you often follow a wheel, which means both that your drag is lower (so you save less with aerodynamic equipment) but it gets higher if you can't follow the wheel in front, so.e.g. you get a 20 cm larger gap with a heavier bike. How much drag does this cost? Have you simulated these sorts of things rather than just the 'going up a mountain alone' simulation?

Second question, is there a specific reason you don't sell the 2 series frame-only? Or rather, why you sell the 3 series frame-only when it's about the same cost as a 2 series bike with components? Seems pretty weird. Is inventory-driven, image-driven, or something else?

I see SuperDave took care of the UCI legal thing with regards to the Mud fork - because it didn't seem legal to me :)

Hi MTM,

Very insightful thinking.

Of course, you're familiar with Col de la Tipping Point, a.k.a. Weight versus Aero on our web site. http://www.cervelo.com/.../weight-vs-aero.html
Riding alone, aero is better for every rider on every road, until the up hill is so steep the speed drops enough so that a lighter bike is the same speed as a heavier aero bike.

Then there's also "Aero in the Peloton," here: http://www.cervelo.com/...-in-the-peloton.html
As you mention, the aero benefit decreases (but doesn't vanish) when riding in a group. Even when drafting, aero drag is still the biggest consumer of your power. Until a very steep climb...

Which brings us to your insight: the best bike for a hilly course might be different, depending on rider profiles. For example, I love a fast echelon on rolling terrain, but my colleague David hated them. One day we were rotating beautifully, I was so happy I said "David, don't you just love this?" but he answered "NO! I can't wait 'till we get to the hill, so I can rest!" I was shocked, and finally realized not every rider experienced the course the same way I did. David didn't need a light bike; he needed an aero bike. So consider your strengths and weaknesses - if your critical moment in the race is on the climb, look closely at the math for that section: gradient, weight and aero differences, etc. and decide if the light bike might serve you better. But if, like David, your critical moment is on flat or rolling terrain, then probably the aero bike will help you race better overall.

It's this kind of thinking that makes a good pro team choose different Cervelos for different riders and different events. Team Garmin-Sharp's sports scientist Robby Ketchell wrote about that on our web site here:
http://www.cervelo.com/...-robby-ketchell.html

For your nationals course, the 7% grade is within the range of tipping points (5 to 8%), where the aero bike and light bike are often close in speed. But as you mention, that's for solo riding. In a group, during hard uphill attacks, power and speed are higher, which makes aero more important than during steady solo climbing, extending the tipping point to higher grades, about 1-2% steeper depending on rider weight and power. Assuming rider body types typical at a nationals level race, I'd choose the aero bike, even based only on the up hill and not considering the rest of the course.

You also asked about accelerating out of corners. Corners are exited at speed, so the expected faster acceleration of the light bike is actually a myth; in fact the aero bike accelerates faster than the light bike. (Only from a standing start is the aero bike slower, and then only for the first few pedal strokes, after which it catches and passes the light bike.)

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Damon,

In a day and age where an aero bike IS a light bike, why do we still look at both of these in a different light. If you are riding to UCI rules then 6.8 kg is the rule and you should have the most aero road bike possible at that limit. If you are not riding a UCI event and you can have a lighter bike, you can still have a very light aero bike. I have always looked at these as a single component were aero always trumps weight BUT weight does matter. Aero saves your minutes and weight saves you second most of the time but as you mentioned when you get up to a tipping point then weight can save minutes but aero is saving second.

I think it is a mistake to look at these separately and everyone should be riding the most aero, light bike they can afford.

Hi BMANX,

We think the same. Speaking for myself, my personal "ultimate road bike" isn't a round-tubed light frame that takes 25C tires; it's my S5 VWD, with a frame lighter than most companies' "light" bikes, yet it's the most aero road bike in the world. At the end of a long all-day adventure ride, dead tired, sun going down, and the last 30 km are into a headwind, I want every part of my bike (and body!) to be aero.

Light or aero? You can have them both. (Theoretically, of course. I'm lucky, I work here, I could never afford this otherwise.)

On the other hand, a lot of the composite layup magic that makes the S5 VWD so light, came from Project California - and that light technology can bee seen in its most pure expression, in the lightest production frame in the world: the Cervelo RCA at just 667 grams. It's not as aero as the S5 VWD of course, so there will always be the question: Aero or light?

As you mention, for racing under UCI rules, it's amazing to me to see pro riders like Contador and others, choosing obviously un-aero parts when aero ones are available, "because it's lighter," when the team just has to add dead weight in the end. (When I moved to Canada I learned UCI rules apply in most of the world, amateur or pro; the US is the exception, though it is a large market.)

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

By "Old P2" I mean 2013 P2, the one you bought.

I'm curious if cervelo has quantified saddle deflection for their various models?

People on ST tend to dismiss frame/seatpost comfort aspects, but the velonews test below showed about 3-4mm of difference in deflection between the best and worst seatpost and the test didn't include any of the newer seatposts like syntace hi flex or the ergon cf3. It seems to me, the potential for seatpost deflection contributing to comfort is equal to that of going from a 23 to 28mm tire.

http://velonews.competitor.com/...m-your-post_267560/4

Damon,

I'm hoping you can help me with a decision I'm trying to make. I'm currently on the fence between the S2 and now R2. There's obviously the weight vs. aero argument and what best fits your needs of the bike. My question to you, is now that the S series shares a similar geometry and rear triangle design with the R series, how close does it come regarding all day comfort? Is it now so similar that the only difference in the two is weight vs. aero?

Thanks for being here to answer all of our questions!

Hi Runless,

Yes. I don't have much time (just leaving the office for an appointment), so I apologize for being brief, but basically, two things:

1. Comparing two bikes (R5ca and S5 Team), with the same wheels and components), the difference in vertical compliance is just 1%.
2. The tires account for the bulk of the total deflection.

Bottom line: look first at the tires.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi nikenum9,

Hope my answer above can help.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

 Which makes me wonder why the Garmin-Sharp team seems to consistently choose the S3 over the S5 for road stages?

Hi craigj532,

This article "Pro Bike Choice" might shed some insight:
http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/ask-the-engineers/pro-bike-choice-by-robby-ketchell.html


Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Weird, I thought it was a budget thing somehow.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

I guess, I'd be curious to hear more when you have a chance. How do you compare a bike that accepts a standard post to one with an aero post? What's the test method? In bikes that accept round posts have you tried non setback aluminum versus something like the ritchey flex logic or similar?

Hi Damon,

I've been waiting for 2014 R4 model with 105 11-speed, but now it is R2.

Is this an absolute R3 frame, not just based on R3 frame?

The only different is the new fork that allows larger tires?

Does it come with only color white?

I've been thinking to get the 2014 R3 and have the dealer to install 105 11-speed, but the dealer it would cost almost ast getting the 2014 R3 with Ultegra.

If your answers to all three questions as "YES", then the only thing I have to think about is the color (of course, I love the black/blue 2014 R3).


Thanks,
Van

Damon,

While we're on the subject of history, I have one of the ~2007 era R3's with the 32.4mm seatpost. How and why did you guys come up with that? Fortunately Thomson still makes them, but that size hasn't been seen on a road bike (I think) since!

Note - I think I asked you about this a loooooong time ago and you said you'd get back to me after the S5 launch. So I think we're due :-)

Hi Jesse,

Sorry for my (years!) late reply.

Our mission is to make you faster, and we believe riders want the best bike possible.

The odd seat post diameter came about as one of the outputs of the C-TOP iterative parametric software Cervelo engineers wrote (in 2004) to automatically run a wide range of dimensional parameters through FEA to discover the first Squoval tube shapes, as implemented in your R3. It was marginally better than a 27.2 post, but at Cervelo we've always done everything possible to be even a little bit better, so we went with it. Campagnolo, FSA, Thomson and a few others supported the size for many years. We go so much push back that within a few years we switched to the more common 27.2 diameter. You can also get a shim to reduce your frame to fit 27.2 if you want.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Van,

Yes, the R2 frame is absolutely the R3 frame. Same mould, same carbon, same layup, same everything. As you said, only the paint and fork make it different. (And the component parts of course.)

Also yes, it's only available in white. So just think of all the choices you have to add color: handlebar tape, saddle, cable housings, bottle cages... it's all up to you!

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

So, this fork would be ideal for a trispoke, right?

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Hi Damon,

Great reading and im pretty excited about this R2 ...and enjoy refreshing white ....stealth is just over done these days!!

With regard to the 'new mud' fork ...do you have any indications on weight ? I imagine it would have to be quite beefy to cop the pounding it was designed for (cobbles etc) ? and will ultimately affect (possibly not?) the handling ...nimbleness of cornering & steering etc ? as well as add additional grams to the frameset ?

Also - is the R2 frame BBright ? as per R3 ? ....the official website omits that fact ...just having FSA PF30 for R2 ...with R3 having BBRight PF30 ...probs just a glitch on terminology ?

Thanks in advance for you time!

Paul

Just ordered a - custom - R3 ... My 4th cervelo (Soloist, R3, T1, P3) and 5th I owned (sold a P2 when buying the P3).

If I did not already have 2 roadbikes, I would give the R2 some real thought, perfect rig to upgrade little by little, add race wheels and you have a TDF ready bike. Love it :-) If I was not married, a white option as a third option ... that said, if I buy the white R2 as well, i won't be married much longer anyway :-)

Great work, love that brand!

Hi Damon,

Thanks for the confirmation on the R2 frame (which is R3 frame).

What would be the ride characteristic of the R2 fork?

One LBS said the R3 fork is much more stable for fast descent on winding mountain road than the R2 fork. Is this correct?

Also, R3 fork can accept tires width 25mm easily.


Thanks again,
Van

I was thinking about buying an S3 today as it was just killing it out front of the Tour de France for 220km but in the end I decided to wait as it lost by seconds in the end so how great of a bike could it be.

Damon are you able to say what the watt savings are between R2/3 and new S3 at 40kmh?

I would have much preferred a 2012 P2. I take a long time to make big ticket item purchase. I'd been coveting a P2 for a long time.

Here in NZ, the MRRP was NZD $5500. (about $4500 US depending on exchange rates). Well, it took a while to save that much money. I went to the local Cervelo dealer and lo and behold, they wanted $6400. $900 OVER retail. I checked the build etc and sure enough it was straight out of the box, just as mentioned on the Cervelo website. Well no way was I gunna pay over retail so I searched around and found Nytro in Encinitas had them waaaaaaaay cheaper. I tried to get one from them, but with Cervelo's (and some other companies) policy of having to walk into the store, I had to fly from NZ to LA, get down the coast, find they didn't have my size in stock and fly home empty handed! Boy was I disappointed when the silvery grey thing came out of the box. I'd have loved a 2012 instead of a 2013.

With air fare, transfers, and even having to pay shipping, then the NZ tax on it, I still managed to save $1100 NZD compared to MRRP and a whopping $2k compared to the thieves at the LBS here in NZ. It wouldn't be soooo bad paying over retail, but at that bike store, service is crap and they are so arrogant I half expect them to speak French!

Thankfully a good friend of mine has just bought a bike store, they sell Cervelo, but as I've retired from tri, I can't see getting a new Cervelo tri bike any time soon.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Hi Runless,

As you might imagine, there is more than one way measure that. The numbers I gave above are actually for the complete bikes, so they include the effects of the different seat posts.

And as you guessed, it's so convenient to instrument a seat post, in some other tests the effect of the post is not measured (since the instrumented post is the same post in all those test bikes). Such a test is good for measuring the effects of downstream components, thus answering questions about frames, wheels, etc., not posts.

There is a lot to the science of comfort, that's for sure. I can't share all we're learning, but it's not a simple topic and there're a lot of details to get right before you can claim to test realistically and with significant confidence.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Van,

The two forks, the R3 fork and the R2 fork, look very different, but in fact perform very similarly. They have virtually identical stiffness (both laterally and fore & aft), and of course the geometry is the same (43 mm offset for most frame sizes, and 53 mm offset to match the head angles on the size 48 and 51 cm frames).

One small difference: the weight of the R2 fork is a few tens of grams more than R2 fork, mostly due to the larger shape needed to clear bigger tires.

So based on the data (and confirmed by ride testing), both forks are good for fast descending on winding mountain roads. Fun!

It's good to hear your experience of the R3 fork accepting 25 mm tires. Officially, we only claim compatibility with 23C tires, because depending on the tire and rim, not all 25C tires fit. This is where we have to be careful, using 25C or 25mm - the biggest 25C tire we measured was actually 28.67 mm wide! So the letter(s) following the number, either C or mm, have become somewhat important. :-) Bottom line, just check the tires you're considering, to make sure they fit in the R3 fork.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Damon,

You have made my day! Thanks!

I always wanted to have the current R3, but with the Ultegra groupo, the price jumps over my budget.

Now that with your confirmation on the new R2, I'm no longer worry about R2 is less than R3, I'm really happy with the price.

I'm ordering one with in the next few days, even though I'm not a fan of "plain white" bike, but with the money saving, I can upgrade wheels, crankset...etc, later.

Thanks,
Van

Hi Van,

Makes me happy to hear that. Enjoy your new Cervelo!

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

If I recall correctly, the change from 1" to 1-1/8" fork didn't come until mid-way through the P2SL era. I had a ~2005 anodized black 55cm P2SL with a 1" fork (loved that frame!), while my buddy had a circa 2008 P2SL with a 1-1/8" fork.

...but that's just part of the nitty-gritty details of an otherwise very detailed summary.

hey damon,

I just bought a new 2013 grey r3 105 build. 2 days after came out with a new R2 what am I missing?

And, for my part, the R2 matches my New P3, and is at the top of my list if I get a new roadie this winter. It's the most attractive R I've seen outside of the R3 Dark. What was the deal with not bringing that over to the US, anyway?

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

That's no joking matter, many tears have been shed in NZ over that stage.
I couldn't help but think 'if only he'd picked the S5 for that day'
and maybe the ugly POC aero helmet

I'm assuming this was done with stock wheels?
This is most relevant feedback to me Damon. You've restored my hope that perhaps the R2 may work to combat fatigue with 27/28c tires, so perhaps this combo will work with less trial and error thanks to your experience. When and if I get the R2, I'll post up my tire experience with the frame.

Hi Donnie,

Yes, not measured with the newest "very wide" rims. 27 or 28C is technically bigger than we've planned for, but 27 or 28 millimeters should fit fine.
So please do check when you get a chance, and let us know what you find about your tires and wheels.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi JMatroni,

Congratulations, you own a great bike!

You can easily compare components (crank, etc.) from the specs, so other than 11 speed, I'll mention a few differences in the R2 frameset.

• Internal cables (cleaner lines, less aero drag)
• Squoval 3 tube shapes (7.4 Watts better aero performance)
• R3 Mud fork (fits bigger tires)
• Different color (white versus grey)
• Different graphics (this one has a "2" and yours has a "3.") (Not actually trying to be too facetious; in a few years yours may have higher resale value because of that.)

Other than that, the frames are very similar: Same weight, same stiffness, same great ride quality, same fit & handling.


Enjoy!

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi paulm,

Glad to excite you with the R2!

The new R2 fork (nee R3 Mud fork) is indeed a few tens of grams heavier, mostly due to the extra carbon used to get 'round the bigger tire clearance. Otherwise it's virtually identical in stiffness (both fore & aft, and laterally) so comfort and handling are essentially no different. All our forks are strong enough for the cobbles; the layup of the R3 Mud fork is the same. In fact, if you add too much extra carbon (for strength), the fork can become too rigid - with less flex, it doesn't absorb the impact energy as well, raising peak forces - hopefully not beyond the strength of the the fibres! A little flex is good, even (especially!) on heavy cobbles.

Yes, the R2 frame is BBright (after all, it's simply the R3 frame...). We'll update the specs on the web site - thanks for catching that error.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Damon,

Thanks again for your help...cant tell you how aweosme it is to be abel to talk to the ppl that actually really 'know' the answers ....so good, and v much appreciated!!

Another small query ...in a 54cm ...do you have weights on the R3 frame & fork off the top of your head at all ? ...im just spec'ing out a build and looking at trying to get her to a certain weight ...not sure when the R2 will be available 'ere in OZ ...but I am more than happy to wait for her now that you have confirmed the fork is pretty much the same as the R3 with extra clearance ...

thanks again!

Paul

Awesome. I do have a set of zipp 404 10 speed and a p2. So having the ability to swap on 10 speed. I almost returned bike and upgraded but like I said I got it for 1999 and I do like internal but idk if it's worth the extra hundreds. And if it's 11 speed I believe I won't be able to use the same cranks for putting on 10 speed quarq Riken or the zipps. I figured it would be smarter to hang on the r3 for those reasons. Thoughts? I almost went s3 for 2499 and decided not to. I use sram gxp on p2 so I figured I could possibly put the adapter on r3 and leave it installed but that would mean I would need an additional sram crank so I can still have a crank installed on the p2

Hey also another quick question. I use finish line polish and cleaner on both frames and I do that once I see it's visabley dirty and it puts a wax effect and shine. Probably once a month or so, is that ok for the frame and paint?

You might find the seatstays and brake calipers to be the limiting factor here. As Damon Rinard posted below, the largest tire they tested that fit was a "whopping 28.7mm" Vittoria Diamante Pro Lite. I sent Cervelo tech an email and received: "Hello Don, Thank you for contacting Cervelo with your inquiry. The largest size of tire that you will be able to run on the new R2 is a 25 mm.
Sincerely
Shawn.

So what I gather from this is: 28mm will fit but not all 28c will fit due to tire manufacture and measurement inconsistencies. So if you want a wide comfy/grippy tire for bumps or wet terrain, try and hope for the best, but keep your receipt.

I bought the new R3 frame in the early spring and have been very pleased with its comfort. I built it up with ten speed Shimano Ultegra & Dura Ace (my race wheels at 10 speed and I cannot afford replacements), and run Flo 30's (24+ mm wide) with Vittoria Open Pave tires that 24/25 mm clinchers. The wheel/tire/bike combo is very comfortable, especially now that I have learned to run slightly less air pressure. I've had no issues with these somewhat higher volume tires, and the speed of them has been great in training rides and races.

Hi J,

I think you've considered the important factors and made a very good decision for your bike stable. The paint is very normal, so I expect the Finish Line polish should work well. It'll have no negative effect on the frame; even if a paint chip exposes the carbon, both carbon fibres and cured epoxy are inert and won't react with polishes nor most workshop chemicals.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

What kind of trispoke did you think I meant? I was talking about the old Specialized Trispoke, or HED3 (don't know why I used to the old name), which I read was best with a wide fork so the fork blades didn't interfere with the large blades.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Cool, but the response is for another reason! I just don't want people to be dissapointed with lack of clearance. Just enjoy your bike!

That's awesome tri! Appreciate the feedback. Do you ride all pavement? I'm known to do some crushed stone, where the width means grip, stability, and additional air volume to support what you describe re air pressure.

Damon, I work for a Trek Store primarily, its owned by the same people who own to full on Trek stores, but at my location, we also sell Cervelo. In the last 2 months I have sold 3 S3's and 0 R3's. All 3 guys race and tried both the R3, S3, and S5. All went with the S3 over the other bikes. The R3 weighed lighter, but preferred the S3. They all liked the overall ride of the S3 over the S5 as well. I am curious if the S3 sells better across the board over the other 2. We aren't moving R3's much at all.

Hi Geek,

Thanks for your background, sounds like a nice set up! We know that some stores (and some regions) sell more S-series, some sell more R-series (and naturally some sell more P-series), depending on the local preference for light weight or aerodynamics.

In terms of what makes you fastest, nearly every paved course favors the aero S-series over the light R-series, but not every customer believes that, or cares about that. We've published a short write up on weight versus aero that hopefully begins to explain some of the reasons behind that fact:
http://www.cervelo.com/.../weight-vs-aero.html


"Weight vs Aero" is one part of a collection of Ask the Engineers articles:
http://www.cervelo.com/...k-the-engineers.html
Lots of interesting engineering topics there!


Enjoy,

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

That is what makes this sport so awesome. So many different variables come into play. If we were having this discussion over on WW then it would never be about the S-series and would be a lot more about the R-series. I want aero and light. Some want aero and some want light.

Hi paul,

Like most responsible bike companies, there's enough normal variation in manufacturing that we're not claiming specific weights (exception: the closely controlled RCA), other than saying the frame is under 1000 grams in size 54, with paint & hardware.

The R2 is a good choice for a light bike project because the frame is so light, compared to other frames at that price point, and even compared to many frames at much higher price points.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Damon,

Not to be a pest, but do you have any comment on why the R3 Dark didn't come over here? That made me sad, but the R2 is cheering me up considerably!

As for the R vs S point, as a tri geek, I have an NP3 for when I care about aero. The aero disadvantage of the R2 actually makes it favorable to me since I only use it on training rides, and it makes it easier to ride with my girlfriend.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

I'm convinced it's simply psychological. The rear triangle of the S5 just doesn't "look" like it could be comfortable because it's all filled in...at least in the mind of a pro bicycle rider, anyway :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Just when you think you've made your frames wide enough...someone's going to want to fit fatbike rims in them :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Just curious, but did they try them with the same wheels/tires/pressures?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Me too. That said, if it's outrageously expensive to get both, I'll pick the aero over the mass.

Also, I'm loathe to give up aero for weight savings...Crr wins out over mass as well.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yes sir! We ALWAYS go through our bikes and put the same amount of tire pressure before we send them out on a ride.

Awesome. Same wheels/tires?

The reason I ask, as Damon mentioned above, is that the difference in vertical compliance between an S5 and an R5ca is 1%, so one would expect the difference between an S5 and an S3 to be even smaller...and judging by the fact that the geometries of the 2 bikes are identical otherwise (and thus should ride similarly)...well, that goes back to my theory of "psychology" for the apparent ride preference of the S3 over the S5 ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Totally agree. I just think sometimes a lot of people get wrapped up in only having one when I believe that the right thing to do is try to get them all within your budget.

Hi Toby,

Sorry for missing your question before. It's a simple explanation: we already had extra frame sets in our EU warehouse, which our EU partner Derby Cycles was able to assemble into the R3 Dark complete bikes. To ship them to North America was cost prohibitive, so the Dark remained an EU model only, sorry. Glad the R2 is cheering you up. :-)

Your P3 is a bullseye: When aero counts, the P-series is the best choice.

But don't count on the R-series aero "disadvantage" too much. For example, it has less drag than some companies "aero" bikes. Maybe your girlfriend deserves a little more credit than you thought. ;-)



Data from TOUR Magazin. More info here:
http://www.cervelo.com/...4-8a305634944f-2.PDF

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Thoughts on the increased torsional stiffness in the front end due to the larger lower headset bearing/steerer tube?

Could that be what the racers prefer? Or is that another red herring?

The last guy who bought the S3 rode all 3 bikes twice. And I can't remember if the S3 had the same Vittoria Diamante Pro light tires and racing 5.5 or not. (Btw, this guy bought and took the S3 home IN a Porche 911 Carerra) Loves the bike and when I inquired again as to why he preferred it over the S5, he said the S5 just felt a lot heavier.

Dunno...but, I don't think I've ever thought my S5 wasn't torsionally stiff enough in the front end (steering response)...and, one take-away I got from the recent Specialized S-Works Tarmac intro info is that sometimes too much torsional stiffness isn't necessarily a good thing. IIRC, they specifically "de-tuned" the steering response on the smaller sized frames as compared to the medium sized frames (http://www.specialized.com/us/en/news/rider-first)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Interesting. What's the actual weight difference, if any?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The R3 with pedals actually weighed less than the S3 without pedals, (58cm frame) but the S5 weighed more than the R3 AND the S3. His second choice would have been the R3.

Then he was looking at the wrong S5. VWD is the only choice.

My guess is that he thought the S3 was prettier - it is. That has more of an impact on enjoyment for most of us enjoying our ride than the difference in speed between the two bikes.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Which gets back to my psychology comment. I've had people tell me that the tail of an S5 looks too much like a TT bike, and just doesn't look right for a road bike.

I don't agree with that, of course. I think fast is pretty :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Anyone know the availability of these? I read through the thread and didn't see it, though could've missed it.

---

------------------------
Loud pawls save lives

Hi Bionic,

We're delivering to Cervelo retailers from our warehouse stock as we speak. Call your local retailer to find out when they're expecting theirs:

http://www.cervelo.com/en/find-a-retailer.html

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Thanks, Damon. I am awaiting a return call from them but thought I would check here as well. I have a 2011 R3 w/DA that just had the right shifter crap out on me, so I've been trying to decide between getting it replaced or upgrading to an 11 speed setup. My dealer is willing to give me trade value for a new bike and I want to see if he'll trade for the R2. The trade value isn't great but it seems to be close to what they are going for on eBay plus I wouldn't have to hassle with shipping.

edit to add: He has an R3 Ultegra in stock in my size but the cost difference between and an R2 isn't really worth it to me.

---

------------------------
Loud pawls save lives

Sounds like a cool offer from your dealer. Hope it works out the way you want!

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Damon,

I had asked about comfort levels of the now R2 and S2 earlier in the thread and am hoping to get your opinion. Now that the S2 shares a similar rear triangle as the R series, where do you compare them in terms of all day comfort? If say the R5 rates as a 10 and the R2/3 as an 8/9 respectively, where would you place the S2? My thinking is that the geometries and comfort levels are so comparable now that one would choose the more aero frame. I know it's all a bit subjective, but it's difficult to test these bikes personally on such long rides. Thanks for your input!

Thank you and I appreciate you responding so quickly!

I was editing my previous post when you responded. He has an R3 Ultegra in stock in my size but for the price the R2 seems like a great deal.

---

------------------------
Loud pawls save lives

Hi nikenum9,

I've ridden both, and subjectively I agree with your statement. Geometries are identical, and my subjective judgement of the comfort levels is that they are very, very close.

As well, by the end of an all-day adventure ride, the aero S-series has reduced my fatigue in another way, in the sense that the aero performance has saved me energy I would have otherwise had to expend.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Sorry it took a while to respond. I do mostly pavement but I live in a rural-ish place and so I get the occasional dirt road. This set up has been great. I find the Open Pave are still quite fast and hold up really well. The assurance in turns and corners is really good, and the comfort of the tires along with the R3/R2 frame has been a total revelation for me (I am used to riding 23's on narrow rims at 110 psi or higher). I run 80-90 psi in front and 100 or so in the back, but can go lower. The Open Pave's are available in 24/25 mm and 27 mm, though the bigger ones are harder to find. I run the narrower option.

I even did an Olympic Triathlon with the Open Paves and didn't feel like they slowed me down a lot.

Thank you for the response. I'll certainly take that advice into the purchase of Cervelo #2!