Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
dunno how many of you have ridden each - but I am looking for:
1) crazy light
2) handles like it is on rails (for loooooonnnng scccccaaaarrry descents)
these things would be in the 51-53cm range -
what say you?
i have heard good things about the new Lemond Tete de Course and
naturally the Scott
I know the R3 has a different ride than the soloist, and there would be zero cobbles, soooooo
currently on a CAAD8 and have had a giant tcr, a Six13 and various steel and ti road bikes, so whatever compares
ps - ya ya ya "get what fits...." well, they BOTH fit (infact, so does the Scott, and the Lemond)
-----
"I do my best to slay" - Matt Pike
Last edited by:
Buck Turgidson: May 15, 07 13:38
Never rode the Scott. The R3 is really nice. Did I say really nice. I'd expect the new carbon Lemond Tete de Course to probably be comparable.
Errrrr, if you're looking for a fast descending bike, you'd be better off with crazy heavy rather than crazy light. . .
(oh, and "crazy aerodynamic" wouldn't hurt either)
well, to get up the crazy hills (mountains) - it had better be silly light. The aero thing has me slightly interested, although I have a feeling the main thing holding the rocket back will be my skills.
I guess my main question was how the R3's rear stays affect high speeds and tight turns, etc (vs the soloist)
-----
"I do my best to slay" - Matt Pike
don't forget the huge pie plate big ring so you can still give'er when you hit 80km/h. you are a brave man.
___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments
"I guess my main question was how the R3's rear stays affect high speeds and tight turns, etc (vs the soloist)"
I'd think that if it's up to what the pros in Europe can dish out then it'll probably be just fine for you, too.
Good descending bikes have good, well balanced geometry and weight is non-relevant. I haven't ridden the Cervelos so I can't comment, though in smaller sizes their geometry is odd. The three best descending bikes I have ever ridden: Merckx Team Sc; Serotta (lugged steel ... blanking on the model right now); Colnago Dream. All of these bikes are/were scary fast downhill ... much much faster than I am capable of riding. The Merckx (my current bike) is so fast down hill it can get me in trouble before I realize it on some of the front range descents. I'd stick with something with traditional Euro geometry with a stiff toptube.
I've ridden several bikes that were scary on fast downhills ... Raleigh Technium (the 753 bike, Raleigh's top of the line bike at the time; Tomac won the US crit championship on it); terrifying highspeed shimmy, almost unrideable going downhill. Cannondale CAAD somethingorother; horrible horrible. GT road bike; horrible downhill, and bad everywhere else. And several others I can't think of right now. I think the common factor was a flexy toptube that couldn't keep the front end in line with the rear end.
*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"
Last edited by:
jcurtis: May 15, 07 18:47
I have ridden alot of bikes but the best handling bike I have ridden is the mercxx team sc not that light by modern standards but climbs very will and descending even better stable on the straights and corners on rails. Stable enougth that I have no problems going hands frees putting on jackets will over 60kph.
80kph? That's not fast!
I routinely go faster than that. However over 80 I have long since given up pedalling and I'm tucked in tight, focussing on making myself as small and aero as possible.
A friend just advised me of a great new local hill for top speed shootouts. He managed just over 100kph on a standard road bike. He weighs about as much as a large order of fries. I weigh more like I've lived my life eating nothing but fries :-) so with my tri bike, my love of speed and my past exerience as a pro skier (with a LOVE of screaming down hills at crazy fast speeds) he reckons I could go over 110kph with ease. In the right wind conditions, 120 is possible in his view! I can hardly wait!
I used to push a 55/11 on my old QR and managed to get to 97kph and toyed with getting a 60+ big chainring, just for fun, but never got around to it. Now I run just 53/12 so I spin out much sooner. I still love crazy fast downhills tho'.
Remember, above 80kph, reach up and unclip your helmet. You just don't want to live if you come off, going over 80kph! :-)
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"
Can't speak for the R3 on fast descents, but I go down like a madman on my Soloist Carbon. In fact, I have to be really careful when descending on my tri bike (Planet X Stealth Pro Carbon) as I'm used to speed (and a daredevil I'm told by friends) from the Soloist, and they do NOT handle the same at 35+ for sure :) I've tried several roll on tests with friends of similar weight on the hills and I always seem to out roll them (even heavier ones). We pretty much all ride ProRace2 or Corsa Evo tires as well. I really think the aero frame and internal routing makes a little difference at those speeds (i.e. over 35 to 50 mph). Interestingly, I've never discovered a "death wobble" yet on her up to about 53 mph. Ever other bike I've owned (including my new Planet X at about 41-42 mph) get some sort of harmonic vibration somewhere along the way. Mine came with the Wolf SL fork and I use mostly Ksyrium SLs, 404s or Reynolds Alta Race wheels. If you are just looking for rock solid stability, I'd think the R3 would be just as stable (perhaps more?) minus the aero benefits.
____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD
My R3 is a dream come true; Cervelo has threaded the needle with this one. I can bomb down hills fearlessly, not a claim that I can make with my Yaqui Carbo.