The difference between an S series and an R series on a climb is a couple hundred grams of mass on the S series, and less aero drag on the S series. There is still aero drag on a climb!

Depending on how many watts you are going up the climb, the point at which the S series becomes slower than an R series up hill is between 6% and 12% (or more! especially if they are short climbs being attacked hard in a race)

Also important to remember both frame weight and frame aerodyanmics will rarely make the difference in your bike races. Aero will tend to make a difference more often than weight, but both are not a huge deal in and of themselves.

But making a lot of smart aero choices can add up, and if you have to have a bike under you, it might as well be aero.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

If i had any inclination to race, I'd go S series, which you do. If I didn't have any race inclinations, I'd go with whatever my gut liked more but probably err toward the r series.

The current s series bikes are getting great ride reviews and are not that much heavier than the r series.

The determining factor for me was tire clearance. I think you're limited to 23mm with the S5. I ride dirt roads and terrible pavement all the time, so prefer a wider tire.

The new S5 just released can do 25 just like the S2/S3

Oh, and to the OP - pro tip - The S2 is just as aerodynamic as the S3, so it is a nice buy.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Darn it, I should have waited.

Just kidding. I love my R3, but then I'm not worried about racing on it.

I'd encourage you to ride both the bikes you're considering from each line. We can argue all day on ST about the perception of ride comfort, but this is an individual choice. I've got a lot of miles on riding my S5 on decent roads and crappy roads. I don't like the ride. With the first generation you are stuck with using a 23c tire on the rear so no way to go to bigger volume and smooth the ride a bit. If you go with an S series I'd recommend getting a model that allows for larger tire sizes.

24C Specialized Turbo Cottons on Bontager Aura 5 fits in the rear of my S5 just fine.

Try letting out some air, and/or switching to latex tubes if you're looking for more "comfort" with the S5.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Choose the bike for racing that helps your weaknesses, not your strengths ;-)

Edit: BTW, this article elaborates on this idea nicely...it's in regards to MTBs, but it's still appropriate for road racing.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

To add to what Jack is saying....aero benefit is ALWAYS there...every single moment the bike is moving, aero means less watts. Weight benefit only kicks in when you are accelerating or going up a hill. If/when I buy another road bike, I will only get an aero road bike...and I don't even bike race. I have no clue why Pro Tour cyclists mess around with non aero road bikes aside from purpose built bikes for the likes of Paris Roubaix etc....why is my browser opening the Cervelo S3 web page?

Lol. I could guess you'd be the first to comment. I'm not going to bother debating the S5 ride quality with you. I find it harsh. You like it. That's the way it's going to be. This same topic comes up with you here on ST over and over, ad nauseam.

You typically demand testing to resolve answers on aero, Crr, etc. if you have non-anecdotal tests on ride quality, post 'em. Otherwise, your perception of ride quality has no more validity than anyone else's on ST.

I bought a top end road bike after owning other top end road bikes. I'm disappointed in the ride quality. I ride the same wheelsets and the same tires, at the same pressures as I did on my last road bike and my current tri bike. I already ride latex tubes. I'm not going to run a Specialized tire. Just making a tire clear doesn't mean it won't rub on bumpy roads or sand the frame when the road is gritty or wet and gritty. This aspect of the first gen frame design was a compromise that has evidently been addressed in the second gen frame.

The bike is fast. The bike handles good. The bike rides harsh and it gets tiring.

The OP asked for some firsthand experiences with the Cervelos. I provided my experience. I wasn't asking for your's.

I always find it humorous that someone proclaims wheels felt "fast" and "came alive" but can't detect ride quality between two different frames. Not to mention always questioning pros who probably ride more in July than he does all winter, but their perception is wrong.

Get an S3 unless you can wait for a new S5- and also ride the S5 to see if you like how it rides.
Old S5 was not so special in either weight or ride quality.

It does not appear that riding a lot does anything to improve pro's ability to accurate perceive these kinds of things:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=4945729#4945729

and

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5096793#5096793

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

How about with me? I don't think it is harsh either.
Of course if one knows themselves to be a princess and the pea type of person with bike frames, the S2 would be the one to look at, with the spindly seat stays.

If you don't know yourself to be that sensitive, ignore the people who are so you don't end up having that as something in your head that you worry about. Saves you a lot of trouble.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Jack, does the S5 have the same seat stay as the new P3? Kind of looks like it

Dev, the mystery of why road racers don't always choose aero is probably something you could take up with them and the learnings would be interesting. I've often wondered the same but put it down to them and their mechanics being experts and me not. Also, as Jack noted above - in road racing, weight and aero are not everything. Or something like that.

Many pros I've met are keen bike tech geeks, like a lot of us. Many more are not.

Typically, a pro enters cycling by winning their first race. And their second. And so on. Because of that, every year the bike shop (and later sponsored teams) gave them a different bike, and they still won. These guys know what it takes to win: push hard on the pedals! In their experience, that works on "any" bike. That's a long time learning again and again the bike makes "no" difference.

On the other hand, a loser like me frets every detail - I need all the help I can get!

---

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

That sounds like my take on it (although I don't have first hand experience). Thus, many of the fast dudes are fast in spite of their equipment, or because of it - or neither......It is, mostly not about the bike.

I know a guy who did not cycle until 3 years ago, aged in his late 40s. I lent him a bike as he wanted to join his wife in triathlons. From there he just kept going and he just won the local area B grade champs (goes down to D) having ridden incessantly for the last three years on a variety of bikes. Most ordinary, some nice, none outstanding. Its not about his bike, its the pushing of the pedals for sure.

Which perhaps takes us back to the OP - buy the one you like. Or perhaps, buy the R2 AND the S2 (!).

I was just having this discussion with one of the kids I coached in XC skiing. He's a local champion and Ontario/OFSAA Podium guy. Anyway, I said, something along the lines of, "Last year, you were bigger and fitter than all the kids and you beat them. This year, you're not as much bigger, but you're fitter, and you're on fast skis this year (last year you were not), so you're winning. But your technique needs a lot of work. Eventually all the kids are the same size, have the same equipment and everyone's technique converges. Then if you want to win, you have to squeeze out every miniscule second out of technique, out of fitness, our of wax, out of skis". See that big baggy hat you wore at OFSAA???...2 seconds from the win...could have just been pushing more air with that hat. Eventually you have to take care of all the detail because everyone has a big engine, they have good equipment, they have good technique and all the champions are pretty well the same body type."

Most XC ski coaches actually don't even get that. But I digress. Back to the bike thread.

How much further does the Cannibal go on an S5? He did 49.431 on this set up. Jack would have his hooks higher so that his forearms are parallel to the ground and MITaerobike would have him totally shave down.

See Jack's links above concerning the testing done by Zipp. I believe Damon Rinard has related similar test results as well.

4 psi...<shakes head>...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You aren't as quick to jump on the S5 ride quality posts these days Jack. Maybe more objective or open to other opinions? I know where you stand on it. To me it really is a matter of riders having different viewpoints. Is one or the other wrong? I don't think so. This is why I recommended the OP try both the standard and aero frames before buying.

I thought it was valuable to point out the tire size limitation on the gen 1 S5 to the OP. We can take ride quality completely out of the equation and the lack of tire clearance is still a PITA. I don't ride super smooth roads and we have snow half the year so there is always leftover aggregate migrating around the roads and shoulders. I would've never believed how much of this stuff gets sucked up and jammed through between the tire and cutout on the S5.

I just think that something like ride "quality" is always going to be subjective. I've seen Josh's posts on blind testing various frame types. It would be great to see something like this written up in detail someday (likely proprietary). We don't know what products were tested or where this fell on the development timeline of carbon frame manufacturing. The S5 is likely one of the strongest, stiffest frames made to date.

Before buying the S5 I wouldn't have classified myself as a "princess and pea type of person!" Lol again! I used to ride a full aluminum mtb and thought it was wicked fast before I graduated to an aluminum hardtail with a suspension fork and finally a full suspension bike. Maybe it was all in my head, but my back sure felt better with each upgrade...

As mentioned earlier, I ride latex tubes. I regularly ride 3-5 hours. I don't want to focus on it too much because I don't want it in my head, but I'd guess I have at least 4psi pressure loss in the course of these rides!

57.09 with Boardmans technology( Medical included)...yes...he was the best...ever!

This position:



or this one:

subtract another 3.5% for Mexico in Superman position.

Hi PT,

Well said. As a career (lowly) Cat 3, it seemed every season there was one of those guys. He'd just started riding, but was winning every Cat 3 race for a few weeks, then gone. Upgraded to the next level. No doubt winning there as well.

Some riders are just naturals.

I remember experiencing this very clearly several years ago. I showed up at a local crit and saw an unfamiliar rider in the parking lot, wearing our club jersey. Must be a new member. I like to think I'm a friendly guy, so I introduced myself and asked what strategy he was thinking of.

He answered: We'll attack from the gun, and keep counter attacking until we establish a break. Then we'll attack the break until one of us gets away for the win. The other will keep attacking the break for second.

To me, a veteran Cat 3, this was a shockingly bold plan but I thought the new guy could learn a humbling lesson, so I said, "Okay, I'm in."

Little did I know, he was a natural. He did exactly what he said he would: repeatedly attacked, made the break, attacked the break and soloed to victory.

After two or three more races he'd upgraded. Within a few more, he'd been poached by a "real" (local) team, and wan't in our club any more. Amazingly talented guy.

There's always a natural.

Cheers,

---

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

Sooooo, did you get second? :)

No, I'm not that good. :-(

I "blocked" as best I could while the Natural and his buddy (almost a Natural) executed the plan up front. In the end, the Natural got first, his buddy got worked over by the two teammates in the break and he ended up in fourth.

---

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

See if you can rent one (or both). I rented the "old" R3 (from 2012 or 2011) and rode it for three days ~200 miles while on vacation. Loved it. When I heard about the 2014 R3 with the trickle-down technology, I bought it and have been very pleased (sold my 10-year old bike and built up the R3 frame).

The S3 looks great too and with the narrow seat stays looks similarly comfortable. It is maybe a few seconds faster -- and those are a few seconds I will never care about. I love the comfort of the R3.

For me: I am likely to do lots of long rides where comfort matters. I am not likely (ie: I will never) race it and wonder what could have happened if I were a few seconds faster. So the R3 is great for me.

Indeed...it's the rider not the bike.

That said there are a few ideas floating around in this thread that I would like to comment on.

#1. The aero benefits to a road bike are far overstated in this thread in my opinion. Unless you ride like Jensie, you are riding in a pack for most of your race. The nominal benefits of an aero bike are really not a factor in this environment...only a supercomputer could detect the difference...for those of you who will say...aero is still more aero...well.....

#2. I think the MOST important information is the very information bike manufactures seem reluctant to publish...stiffness. Yes yes, 20% stiffer than last year's frame etc etc....how about uniform data across the industry. I realize different test measure different things....well...come up with a host of tests and protocols...I want to know how many newton meters of torque a BB can withstand before bending....then I can make informed choices about what is REALLY going to make a tangible difference when I ride...stiffness. Numbers please cycling industry....I'm tired of the paint schemes, kamm tails, etc etc... WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? Ahhhh...informed consumers who are not as easily manipulated by marketers!

Agree with point one. How many times do you see a superbike at a race, sculpted and honed by CFD and wind tunnel hours, only to have gels and foam canisters electrical-taped all over it.

Point 2 is more difficult as stiffness isn't always the determining metric. It is bit one facet of overall ride quality and an arms race to produce the stiffest bike purely to pump up a published number, whether industry standardised or not, wouldn't benefit the consumer.

Journalists play a huge part here as most of us don't ride such a wide variety of bikes, especially back to back, to be adept at appreciating the nuances in a frames characteristics. Plus often the overall package dominates a bikes character. I like Marcel Wurst's tests for Procycling. My 2c.

Ha, point number two is just some really well planned trolling, right?

No, I'm not trolling.

I know a guy here in Taiwan who designs bikes. If you ask him what makes bikes great...stiffness....everything else is window dressing in comparison aside from aero....and on that...he has data that shows most aero bikes aren't very aero...with the exception of Cervelo, which he says are truly aero. But as I pointed out in #1, that is largely a moot point for the kind of racing the OP is interested in.

I have seen lots of stiffness data on frames(nm/mm at headtube, bottom bracket and such) but never any which quantifies actual time gains from stiffness. I wonder why?

Runless. I'm not here to debate you. If you think stiffness does not affect performance and efficiency of power transfer as well as handling, you don't know very much about mechanical objects. The nice thing about living here in Taiwan is the number of people I know who build design and manufacture bikes as opposed to simoky marketing them. Comparing what they say and know against what the marketing types say has been a real eye opener.

But you do know as stiffness is so often vaguely represented in marketing terms. Eg. 10% stiffer than old frame etc. The limited comparative data that's out there is from tour magazine. If you have the data for the new s5 vs r5 I would love to have it since for me that would be a huge part of the equation I would evaluate to determine which bike I would want.

All the best.

Some reading for you:


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...atest_reply;#3194547

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...g=stiffness;#4273942

http://forums.cervelo.com/...383.aspx?PageIndex=1

The best argument though is that plenty of models bicycling and can accurately predict the performance of a rider on a certain course (see bestbikesplits.com for example). Notice that none of those models have any input for frame stiffness. How could they accurately predict the performance if stiffness is important?

Be careful with that tour test though. The test rig they were using did not apply constraints similar to what would happen to a bike on the road, that means that a frame that did well on the test or designed for that test, would be stiffer than another frame that was designed for real loads.

http://www.cervelo.com/...standards-part2.html

I cannnot offer a comparison as I haven't ridden the R bikes.
I have first generation S2 and love it. Have had it for a year. Previous 6 years had been spent on P2 and an alloy/carbon Scott speedster.
This year I have been focussing on road biking and road racing.
Things I like about the S2: very aero; comfortable, handles like its on rails downhill, gives nothing away on the climbing; pretty light (whole set up with training wheels, powertap and pedals is 7.5kg).
Oh and did I mention AERO. This thing leaves other road bikes for dust on downhills and on high speeds on the flats and rollers.
If I do lose 30metres or so on a climb to a really good climber I'm always confident I'll get them on the downhill. When you crank it up on the flat to ~40kmh the aero watts you save are going to come at high cost to someone on a less aero frame who's near their threshold.

I ride in hill areas with chip seal roads most of the time and this is the most comfortable bike I've ridden. I do bunch riding with guys who podium at regional races so have to work hard on most rides with them, but this bike gives me ample opportunity to get my own back especially on downhills.

Basically, this is one of my favorite toys ever.

I said nothing about handling. I think stiffness can have an effect on ride quality, but overall speed?

I wasn't necessarily trying to debate you, I was inviting you to insert some objective measure into the stiffness debate. I've never seen data suggesting stiffness is actually faster. Until I do, I remain skeptical that the decision between two frames that are 100 grams different in drag at 30mph should be decided by mm of stiffness differences.