he did it:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=5338014#5338014

---

---

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

Reviving zombie thread because it's 2016 and I still can't decide between these 2 bikes.

Have a 2011 S2 that needs to be warrantied due to some quality issues (frame delamination / cracking) and Cervelo offered me either a free replacement to a 2013 S2 (identical frame) or $600 to replace with the newer 2016 S3 design. For the same $600 they'll also replace with a 2016 R3.

Really torn because I want an R3 but I don't think my rationale is really backed up by much hard evidence. Almost all of my riding is in the foothills/mountains and I am drawn to the idea of a 'climbing bike' and the idea that the R3 frame might be comfier. Yet from everything I've read I gather that there really isn't that big of a weight or comfort penalty on the S3 while the aero benefits are quite tangible. I remember reading a quote somewhere from Gerard (I think) saying that they don't understand why the R-series consistently outsells the S-series and implied that the S bikes are objectively better.

Kind of blasphemous for me to admit on ST but I'm kind of over the whole aero-geek thing and kind of drawn to the classic skinny tube bike design again yet I can't stop thinking I'd be throwing away free speed for no substantial benefit on the R3.

I'd get the 2016 S3 because I think it looks better than the R3.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I had an R3 that needed a crash replacement about a year ago. I test rode the 2016 S3 and the 2016 R3. I understand that many say that you can feel no difference, or that any difference is attributable to wheels/tires/inflation, but I felt that the R3 was buttery smooth, much more so than the S3. I had previously test ridden an S5 vs R3 a few years back, and reached the same conclusion. While I liked the idea of an aero bike, in the end a few watts does not matter to me, so I got the R3 and could not be happier.

Both are fine bikes.

I had a 2009 R3SL that I upgraded to a 2014 S3 and don't feel like I am giving up any comfort (I changed only the frameset and moved over the components and wheels).

Either way you won't be disappointed.

---

Suffer Well.

Regardless, you should upgrade to a 2016 frame. 600 sounds a pittance for a 5 year upgrade.

Agreed, all but certain I'll pay for the upgrade.

Thanks for the responses so far, though it seems to line up with what we saw in the original thread and the blind test spin off. A lot of people are convinced the R3 is more comfortable and there is a perception that aero-road bikes are less comfortable as a whole, but really hard to separate out these kind of personal biases and make an objective determination of something so subjective as "comfort".

I'm pretty convinced that the S3 is the better all-around bike. It seems like the design was an intentional and intelligent compromise between the S5 and the R-series. But, I'm still leaning R3. Partly because I really enjoy climbing and make as much of my riding climbing as possible, and probably mostly because it's just new and different and somehow that sounds more exciting at the moment.

Ha isn't it funny. I recently bought a 2015 R3 Di2 because I 1) liked the look more, and 2) wanted the lighter climbing type bike.

No2 above is probably the biggest reason I got the R3, I have a TT bike for triathlon and the R3 is perfect for my training in the hills etc., oh and the K2 race I've got coming up soon.

This is one of the reasons I went with the R3. I figured if I wanted something aero for fast riding then I'd use the TT bike. I wanted something a bit more 'upright', riding for hills, really long rides, riding for fun, etc.

I test road both for 20-30 min each on the same course, back to back. I did multiple 200m sprints on the same spots with both. Searched for the same rough pavement spots on both. Same tire pressure, setup, blah, blah. The R3 felt more comfortable and snappier when out of the saddle climbing or sprinting. Placebo effect? Maybe, but I figured I'd continue to feel it after the purchase as well.

The other selling point is I got the R3 for 3000 while the S3 was gonna be 4000. So I could/did take that money and put it towards a wheelset upgrade

But either way, you're gonna end up with a sweet bike.

---

Matt

Per the general consensus here, both are good bikes and either should make you happy. If you typically ride fast group rides on flatter terrain and stay on the front more than your fair share, I might lean towards the S3......might, that is. Any other venue and I would get the R3 or R5.

Sounds like you’re worried about the comfort vs aero factor – with that in mind, first pass should be to read through the series that josh@silca put together recently. You asked for hard evidence – it’s not cervelo specific, but it’s the best available. Start with this one: https://silca.cc/...pressure-and-comfort


Summary – the comfort frame factor matters, but maybe not as much as you might think.


Probably won’t help though, sounds like you really want the R3!

First off, take the 2013 S2 off the option list. You really shouldn't consider that because either S3 or the R3 will be a much better bike by a country mile.

As for S3 or R3, I bet you in a blind test on either flat or hilly ride, you won't be able to tell the difference in terms of comfort or weight, but you will feel the aero effect on flat roads if your speed is over 18 mph. So, my pick would be S3 over the R3, also by a country mile. Really it's not even close.

Just my opinion. YMMV

Weight wise, R3 is only marginally lighter than the S3 whereas the R5ca is a much lighter frame. FWIW, my 56cm S3 with DA9000, alloy Zipp cockpit, Speedplay stainless Zeros, Zipp 404 tubulars with Pave 24mm tires and 6800 11-32t cassette, Specialized Romin EVO Pro saddle, is 15 lbs 2 oz. My daughter has a 51cm S2, with carbon 3T cockpit, DA9000, Stages, Zipp 303 clinchers with Campy SR 12-29t cassette, Specialized Power Pro saddle, it weighs less than 15 lbs and we actually have to add weights to make it legal for some of her crit races.

That's another thing. The S3 with Di2 was going to be more expensive than the R3, plus they put the battery in the seat post for no extra $$$ (the 2015 model has the external battery - yuck)

Are you ever going to race your road bike? If not, then who gives a poop whether it's aero.

On top of that, I seem to recall that the R3 isn't a complete dog for aerodynamics, it's above average for a bike of it's type.

I agree..who cares about aero down tubes on a road bike if you aren't going to race.. ! bought an s3 a few years back when it was a rarer bike (2011) and 4k just for the framset, now i am dying to get rid of it..never raced it..was pure impulse..i ride my my Pegoretti and Colnago the most followed by my R3..TT bike when close to racing..so get the R3 and dope it up

Just went through this buying decision about a month ago (except I was paying more than 600). I really wanted an S series. Was even offered an ultegra S5 for 4k that made the decision even harder. Ultimately, I wanted a comfy bike for longer group rides. So far, the R3 that I ended up with nails that. My fit is not too aggressive (I'd probably talk myself into a much more aggressive and "uncomfy" fit on the S5) and the ride is smooth. And that's not to say this thing is some grandpa'so endurance bike. Bike is responsive and fast. Also looks awesome with 60mm wheels. Aero option might be just as light, and some will say not really any less comfortable. But I do think there is a ride "feel" factor in the R frame (or other top traditional frames) that isn't there in aero options.

The facts are the geo of R3 and S3 are identical, and the weight difference between the 2 framesets is less than 100 grams (mostly due to the fork and seatpost).

The myth that R3 is more comfy than the S3 is just that, a myth: a proper marketing machine at work.

If you choose R3 over S3 because of the look, I am ok with that. But if you don't care about the look, why not the free speed?

R3 won Paris-Roubaix three times. O'Grady, Cancellara and VanSummeren. Its not "aero" but it's a race bike.

A good read: http://redkiteprayer.com/...e-cervelo-r3-and-s3/

Even though the review was based on the 2014/15 models, these 2 bikes haven't changed since 2014 I believe.

BTW, when those guys won the PR on the R3, the S3 was a completely different bike: apples and oranges. Yes, R3 was/is a great bike, but it has no relevance to this discussion.

So the fit geometry is the same, but you think tube shapes, carbon layups, compliance, etc. isn't different between the two bikes? It may be small, but they are going to react differently to road noise and power transfer.

Even in the article you stated, he never says the S3 is just as good as the R3 coming off of stop signs or riding out of the saddle. He simply states the difference is surprisingly minimal. He never says it's just as comfortable, just that the difference isn't much.

The weight is only ~100 grams different, but it is 100+ grams. Doesn't carry much weight here (or to me really), but it's that much cheaper when trying to hover right at the weight limit.

Then (I'm taking this from the article, not knowing if it's factual), he states the difference is 7 watts. Yes, that's not nothing, but it's not monumental (although impressive for just a frame shape). And it's probably at 25 mph. Probably decently less at 20 mph (where most of my riding get will be).

I probably couldn't tell a big difference myself. I admit that. I do like the look of both bikes. I do think that over a 5 hour ride, the small difference in comfort will show itself though. And in a group ride, that 7 watts is even less noticeable.

Read the first posts in this thread. There are differences in those aspects, but they are not discernible and overwhelmed by the wheel, tires, and pressure.

I had the R3 (2012 version) and still have the S3 (2015 version). In fact I sold the R3 to fund the S3, so I never really had them at the same time to do back to back rides. The fact that I really couldn't tell the difference the RKP article described doesn't mean the differences weren't there, just personally I don't remember them to be any different. Mind you, I am just a recreational rider and don't do this for a living, and I didn't really set out to test ride the 2 bikes back to back. If anything, I think the S3 is MORE comfortable than the R3 when going over rougher road surfaces.

I think a lot of the differences between bikes at the pointy end of the price range are more "ascribed" than real. My other "climbing" bike is a Colnago C59 I recently built that's less than 15 lbs with everything on it. Yeah, I can tell the difference between that and the S3, but I am not sure it's better. Do I feel better that I am on a lightweight Colnago than a S3 when going uphill, sure. And that's probably more important than anything else.

What does Cervelo really get out of perpetuating this myth? My first thought was not much, an S-series bike is generally more expensive than an R-series so unless R-series are still just that much higher margin I would think they would rather just sell more S-bikes. Then I consider that Cervelo is a brand that is borne out of TT/triathlon and essentially defined by aero, so who else better to double down on aero-frames and dispel the myth entirely that aero bikes are inherently compromised in some areas?

The only real advantage I can think of to the idea of promoting that these bikes excel at different niches is that some people actually buy them both. That or they fear that if they don't offer a classic road / climbing bike then they will still lose that market share to other brands.

I remember a post awhile back from Cervelo indicating that they don't perpetuate this myth. There is no discernible difference between the bikes other than one should be a by faster on average. They sell them because people want them.

The modern S bikes can be ridden on any terrain given their tire clearance. I don't see a functional reason to go with an R series over an S.

I raced my S5 over dirt and gravel with 26c tires this year with no issue. The guys that struggled on these roads were the ones with too much pressure in their tires.