Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3
Quote | Reply
I tested them back to back.

I could tell that the R3 was obviously more comfy.

Though I did have to intentionally run over pot holes and large cracks in the pavement to do so.



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
same wheels, tires, tire pressure, etc?
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [sxevegan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had a debate within our team re: S5 v. R3 as we all ride Cervelo. Given most the team does bike racing and the key races are stage races like GMSR and Catskills, the R3 with Zipp 303's is the ultimate race machine. while I get the aero argument, when the rubber hits the road going uphill to hilltop finishes that decide GC you need light, nimble, power transfer....also not much wind to cut at 10MPH.

If you are racing flat stages or tri's; S5 is golden.

my $.02 worth.

@rhyspencer
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The S5 doesn't transfer any less power than the R3 going uphill. They both transfer, to a close approximation, all of it.

You should be able to get the S5 to the minimum allowable weight as well.

rhys wrote:
I had a debate within our team re: S5 v. R3 as we all ride Cervelo. Given most the team does bike racing and the key races are stage races like GMSR and Catskills, the R3 with Zipp 303's is the ultimate race machine. while I get the aero argument, when the rubber hits the road going uphill to hilltop finishes that decide GC you need light, nimble, power transfer....also not much wind to cut at 10MPH.

If you are racing flat stages or tri's; S5 is golden.

my $.02 worth.



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
You should be able to get the S5 to the minimum allowable weight as well.

For most people on the forum, minimum weight isn't an issue. They did weigh bikes before the TT at the Joe Martin Stage race, but only for the p/1 race. For the 1/2, 3, 4, and 5 racers you could ride a 10 pound bike if you had one. For some of the national events they might have a weigh in, but all the Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri races I've been to don't.
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [sxevegan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sxevegan wrote:
jackmott wrote:
You should be able to get the S5 to the minimum allowable weight as well.




For most people on the forum, minimum weight isn't an issue. They did weigh bikes before the TT at the Joe Martin Stage race, but only for the p/1 race. For the 1/2, 3, 4, and 5 racers you could ride a 10 pound bike if you had one. For some of the national events they might have a weigh in, but all the Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri races I've been to don't.


IIANM, the minimum weight rule applies to UCI sanctioned races. USA Cycling does not enforce a minimum weight unless sanctioned by the UCI.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [sxevegan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Which model did you ride. I'm starting to hear conflicting information that there is a difference in frame stiffness. I'm hoping that it is not true and dealers are just trying to push customers to the team model. Cause 60 grams for 1k doesn't make sense.
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [rickn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I rode the team. There is no difference in stiffness, only weight.

and I agree with you, the team doesn't make much value sense over the standard.

and, like I said, its not like the S5 is an uncomfortable bike, unless you are used to the R3 or roubaix, I suppose =)

I was used to normal aluminum frames and the p3c. the s5 seems more vertical compliant than the p3c, the same as my normal aluminum frames.

rickn wrote:
Which model did you ride. I'm starting to hear conflicting information that there is a difference in frame stiffness. I'm hoping that it is not true and dealers are just trying to push customers to the team model. Cause 60 grams for 1k doesn't make sense.



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
I tested them back to back.

I could tell that the R3 was obviously more comfy.

Though I did have to intentionally run over pot holes and large cracks in the pavement to do so.

I don't know about the S5, but I bought an S3 with the olympic paint job off competitive cyclist on clearance (ridiculous price). It is my favorite bike to look at! It is not my favorite bike to ride!

It is ridiculously stiff. I used to think this "stiff" or "comfortable" stuff was just crap and that no one could tell the difference, but these aero bikes Cervelo is putting out can really beat the crap out of you (well, me at least). Maybe the fact that mine is a 48cm and I don't put out a ton of power, so don't need a super-stiff frame, makes a difference.

Dimond Bikes Superfan
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
damon_rinard wrote:
It's a little old now, but you might be thinking of Bob Bundy's FAQ article measurements.

From http://draco.nac.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8e.2.html

========== quote ==============


Subject: 8e.2 Frame Stiffness
From: Bob Bundy <bobb@ico.isc.com>

As many of you rec.bicycles readers are aware, there have been occasional, sometimes acrimonious, discussions about how some frames are so much stiffer than others. Cannondale frames seem to take most of the abuse. The litany of complaints about some bike frames is long and includes excessive wheel hop, numb hands, unpleasant ride, broken spokes, pitted headsets, etc. I was complaining to a friend of mine about how there was so much ranting and raving but so little empirical data - to which he replied, "Why don't you stop complaining and do the measurements yourself?". To that, I emitted the fateful words, "Why not, after all, how hard can it be?". Following some consultation with Jobst and a few other friends, I ran the following tests:

The following data were collected by measuring the vertical deflection at the seat (ST), bottom bracket (BB) and head tube (HT) as a result of applying 80lb of vertical force. The relative contributions of the tires, wheels, fork, and frame (the diamond portion) were measured using a set of jigs and a dial indicator which was read to the nearest .001 inch. For some of the measures, I applied pressures from 20 to 270 lbs to check for any significant nonlinearity. None was observed. The same set of tires (Continentals) and wheels were used for all measurements.

Note that these were measures of in-plane stiffness, which should be related to ride comfort, and not torsional stiffness which is something else entirely.

Bikes:

TA - 1987 Trek Aluminum 1200, this model has a Vitus front fork, most reviews describe this as being an exceptionally smooth riding bike

SS - 1988 Specialized Sirus, steel CrMo frame, described by one review as being stiff, hard riding and responsive

DR - 1987 DeRosa, SP/SL tubing, classic Italian road bike

RM - 1988 Cannondale aluminum frame with a CrMo fork, some reviewers could not tolerate the rough ride of this bike









Code
  
TA SS DR RM
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
ST BB HT ST BB HT ST BB HS ST BB HT
diamond 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0
fork 3 11 45 3 9 36 4 13 55 3 10 40
wheels 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
tires 68 52 66 68 52 66 68 52 66 68 52 66
total 74 66 113 75 65 104 76 69 123 74 65 108




What is going on here? I read the bike mags and this net enough to know that people have strong impressions about the things that affect ride comfort. For example, it is common to hear people talk about rim types (aero vs. non-aero), spoke size, butting and spoke patterns and how they affect ride. Yet the data presented here indicate, just a Jobst predicted, that any variation in these factors will essentially be undetectable to the rider.

Similarly, one hears the same kind of talk about frames, namely, that frame material X gives a better ride than frame material Y, that butted tubing gives a better ride that non-butted, etc. (I may have even made such statements myself at some time.) Yet, again, the data suggest that these differences are small and, perhaps, even undetectable. I offer two explanations for this variation between the data and subjective reports of ride quality.


Engineering:
These data are all static measurements and perhaps only applicable at the end of the frequency spectrum. Factors such as frequency response, and damping might be significant factors in rider comfort.

Psychology:
There is no doubt that these bikes all look very different, especially the Cannondale. They even sound different while riding over rough roads. These factors, along with the impressions of friends and reviews in bike magazines may lead us to perceive differences where they, in fact, do not exist.

Being a psychologist, I am naturally inclined toward the psychological explanation. I just can't see how the diamond part of the frame contributes in any significant way to the comfort of a bike. The damping of the frame should be irrelevant since it doesn't flex enough that there is any motion to actually dampen. That the frame would become flexible at some important range of the frequency spectrum doesn't seem likely either.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that people are often very poor judges of their physical environment. They often see relationships where they don't exist and mis-attribute other relationships. For example, peoples' judgement of ride quality in automobiles is more related to the sounds inside the automobile than the ride itself. The only way to get a good correlation between accelerometers attached to the car seat and the rider's estimates of ride quality is to blindfold and deafen the rider (not permanently!). This is only one of many examples of mis-attribution. The role of expectation is even more powerful. (Some even claim that whole areas of medicine are built around it - but that is another story entirely.) People hear that Cannondales are stiff and, let's face it, they certainly *look* stiff. Add to that the fact that Cannondales sound different while going over rough roads and perhaps the rider has an auditory confirmation of what is already believed to be true.

Unless anyone can come up with a better explanation, I will remain convinced that differences in ride quality among frames are more a matter of perception than of actual physical differences.









========== end quote ==============
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [ericlambi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
huh, the S3 has pretty dainty seat stays, wouldn't expect it to be too bad.

I think i recall reading that the s5 had a bit more vert compliance than the s3, but not sure.

and yeah, size 48 frame...thats going to be stiff in all directions pretty much! what tire pressures do you run and how much do you weight?



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
I rode the team. There is no difference in stiffness, only weight.

and I agree with you, the team doesn't make much value sense over the standard.

and, like I said, its not like the S5 is an uncomfortable bike, unless you are used to the R3 or roubaix, I suppose =)

I was used to normal aluminum frames and the p3c. the s5 seems more vertical compliant than the p3c, the same as my normal aluminum frames.

rickn wrote:
Which model did you ride. I'm starting to hear conflicting information that there is a difference in frame stiffness. I'm hoping that it is not true and dealers are just trying to push customers to the team model. Cause 60 grams for 1k doesn't make sense.

I find the aluminum Soloists to not "beat up my rearend" as much as an SLC-SL that I had the chance to ride for a couple of weeks (should be same as an S2). Same wheels/tires/tubes...

It's funny...aluminum frames tend to have the rep of being "harsh"...but, I still remember replacing my Diamondback Apex steel hardtail MTB with an aluminum framed Diamondback Arrival and noticing that the ride felt more "damped", especially off road. Then again, those aluminum frame tubes were relatively small OD, sort of like the S1 chainstays...

Just like with many things, it's not so much the material itself, it's what you do with it that counts ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
while I get the aero argument,

Uhh, well, I would argue that you don't get the argument. You just perpetuate the weight myth with stuff like this:

when the rubber hits the road going uphill to hilltop finishes that decide GC you need light, nimble, power transfer

Let's say you are riding a 100-mile (162K) race and you have 30 miles of climbing at 8 percent for 12,500 feet of climbing. And let's say for the sake of argument that you could only get an S5 with zipp 808s to 17 pounds vs. 15 for your R5. Your R5 will save you 2 min (est.) over those 30 miles of climbing by being two pounds lighter. Meanwhile, I'm going to conservatively say that your S5 will save you 5 seconds per kilometer by being more aero. That's like 9 minutes. We'll call it 30 percent less for drafting so about 6 minutes. At the end of your race you may have to use a few more watts to get the S5 up the hill, but you will have save quite a bit of energy in the previous 95 miles.

Aero is just faster unless you are going up a hill that is very steep and not coming down. Whether the differences is 3 minutes or 5 minutes or greater (which I suspect it is), the total effort is what is really important. If I can ride at 20 watts less effort for 3-4 hours then I am going to be capable of putting out more effort at the end.


Chad
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [cdw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When talking about bike racing, the S5 will save you 0s on the flats, and cost you time on the uphills.

Also, if you consider training load is power^4, (155^4-150^4) is 17X less than (400^4-395^4)

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [cdw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dude, I get the math frame v. frame "in the wind."

But if you are riding in a pack of 80 riders along a winding road checking out the beautiful scenery that is Vermont or upper State NY at 25-30MPH with a few team mates around you and 20 guys in front of you...sorry, you're barely pedalling. In fact, you don't pedal about 15-20% of the time in a road race. There is nothing to save in that sense. Where you save is going uphill at 10MPH.

The other side of our 2 pint debate with the boys was, "well if you are in breaks..." Then I say AGREED, spend the money if your winning moves stems from being in breaks. Then yes aero beats weight ALL DAY LONG assuming the weight difference isn't measured in kilos!

I have an R3. I love it. I like the S5 from what I have witnessed, I think it will again really challenge other makers to stretch (TREK where art though with aero road frame?) but if as a purchaser i prefer race opportunities going uphill then in the wind.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am not saying R3 over S5; I am saying pick the machine that suits racing needs.

@rhyspencer
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
jackmott wrote:
I rode the team. There is no difference in stiffness, only weight.

and I agree with you, the team doesn't make much value sense over the standard.

and, like I said, its not like the S5 is an uncomfortable bike, unless you are used to the R3 or roubaix, I suppose =)

I was used to normal aluminum frames and the p3c. the s5 seems more vertical compliant than the p3c, the same as my normal aluminum frames.

rickn wrote:
Which model did you ride. I'm starting to hear conflicting information that there is a difference in frame stiffness. I'm hoping that it is not true and dealers are just trying to push customers to the team model. Cause 60 grams for 1k doesn't make sense.


I find the aluminum Soloists to not "beat up my rearend" as much as an SLC-SL that I had the chance to ride for a couple of weeks (should be same as an S2). Same wheels/tires/tubes...

It's funny...aluminum frames tend to have the rep of being "harsh"...but, I still remember replacing my Diamondback Apex steel hardtail MTB with an aluminum framed Diamondback Arrival and noticing that the ride felt more "damped", especially off road. Then again, those aluminum frame tubes were relatively small OD, sort of like the S1 chainstays...

Just like with many things, it's not so much the material itself, it's what you do with it that counts ;-)

Tom, I have an aluminum soloist and an SLC-SL, and I can certainly notice the difference in the rear ends between the two. The aluminum soloist is much more comfortable. I've told this to a few people, and all are surprised to hear this.

I was running some Hed jet 60s on the SLC-SL for a couple of months, and I really didn't like it. Even though those wheels are essentially box rim with a fairing, I find them also quite stiff - the combination of the two is not pleasant. I now run some Ksyrium SLs on the SLC-SL, and it really smooths the ride out for regular training. The Heds are now on the aluminum soloist, which is a much better match.

It took me a while to accept this as true, but the aluminum soloist really is more comfortable.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [msuguy512] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can promise you I could build a base s5 with aero wheels in the 12 pound range. But my wife would get really pissed.
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [msuguy512] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
msuguy512 wrote:
When talking about bike racing, the S5 will save you 0s on the flats, and cost you time on the uphills.

only if the uphills are sufficiently steep, and sufficiently free of wind.

Quote:
Also, if you consider training load is power^4, (155^4-150^4) is 17X less than (400^4-395^4)

right, and this is a good point. If the peleton is moving such that you are at 60% of ftp and the S5 drops you down to 55%...this probably wont affect how tired you are at the end of the race much

but, sometimes you are at redline just to stay attached even on flats and downhills, even in the pack.

and sometimes you are at the front, of have to bridge when splits happen.

for the handful of grams of weight you give up, there are many benefits to the handful of grams you gain in aerodyanmics =)



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
but then if you are a strong climber, you are probably still faster on the s5 up most hills, like up to 8%

now, 12%...yeah. if thats where you plan to attack, r3 might make more sense.

just make sure you don't use too much cable housing or something and end up just as heavy as the s5 ;)


rhys wrote:
dude,
I get the math frame v. frame "in the wind."

But if you are riding in a pack of 80 riders along a winding road checking out the beautiful scenery that is Vermont or upper State NY at 25-30MPH with a few team mates around you and 20 guys in front of you...sorry, you're barely pedalling. In fact, you don't pedal about 15-20% of the time in a road race. There is nothing to save in that sense. Where you save is going uphill at 10MPH.

The other side of our 2 pint debate with the boys was, "well if you are in breaks..." Then I say AGREED, spend the money if your winning moves stems from being in breaks. Then yes aero beats weight ALL DAY LONG assuming the weight difference isn't measured in kilos!

I have an R3. I love it. I like the S5 from what I have witnessed, I think it will again really challenge other makers to stretch (TREK where art though with aero road frame?) but if as a purchaser i prefer race opportunities going uphill then in the wind.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am not saying R3 over S5; I am saying pick the machine that suits racing needs.



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
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [rhys] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, your version of bike racing doesn't remind me of anything I did when I was younger. It was always windy, even when it was hilly. I can't think of any race I did, excepting the Snowbird hill climb, where a light bike might have been faster than an aero bike based off what I have learned from riding with the power meter. The difference in wattage needed to move an extra pound or two are not going to be the difference between making the break or not.
Chad
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
huh, the S3 has pretty dainty seat stays, wouldn't expect it to be too bad.

I think i recall reading that the s5 had a bit more vert compliance than the s3, but not sure.

and yeah, size 48 frame...thats going to be stiff in all directions pretty much! what tire pressures do you run and how much do you weight?

tiny seat stays, but absolutely ginormous chain stay. I weighed 124.6lbs this AM and generally run 100lb on gatorskins for training, which is all I ever do on that bike. Maybe all bikes are like this now, I was coming from a 5yo Fuji carbon.

Dimond Bikes Superfan
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I tested them back to back.

I could tell that the R3 was obviously more comfy.

Though I did have to intentionally run over pot holes and large cracks in the pavement to do so.



Are you joking ? Your posts seem to indicate that you are a 'physics' inclined guy and yet, you let yourself being fooled into that 'frame comfort' thing ????


Francois in Montreal
Quote Reply
Re: Confession regarding comfort - S5 vs R3 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perfect thread for me, I'm currently trying to decide between the 2 frames. No real need to change, but I'm a little tired of my aluminum Soloist. Though, imlove the geometry, and handling. I just prefer the feel of carbon. Guess I just need to ride them both and decide.
Quote Reply

Prev Next