Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Q for Gerard re: R2.5
Quote | Reply
The reviews on roadbikereview.com reference an unusually thin clearcoat layer on the R2.5 that seems to be prone to chipping. Any information on whether this is was a myth, early production problem, or something that has been fixed either in the late 2004 production run or in the 2005 run?



Thanks!


Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [chris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The new R2.5s (which we introduced in June 2004) are completely different from the previous version. no lug, no tube, no decal is the same. The paint proces is also changed, to a more ductile clearcoat to prevent chipping and other problems, especially around the lugs and the edges of the headtube. There is really no comparison, but the best thing to do is to check it out for yourself.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So what's that say about my original 2003 R2.5?
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
under the Prices section of the website it has three different R2.5 versions listed....and a P3 SL...can you give us some more details on what the differences are between the frames and this new P3???
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [trischnitz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That it's a nice frame, but not as nice as the new one. And if we revamp the R2.5 again a few years from now, it will likely be even nicer again.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [madisonbucky] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The R2.5 is basically the new frame at the old price with the standard decals. There were some back-orders still outstanding when we had finished the overhaul of the R2.5 so those customers got the new frame, the standard decals and we honored the old price. The R2.5 Team is the new frame, the new decals and the new price.

P3 SL is a slightly lighter version of the P3, aerodynamically there is no difference.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

P3 SL is a slightly lighter version of the P3, aerodynamically there is no difference.


Gerard,

How much is "slight"? Can I strip my paint and save the same amount of weight? Just kidding. :~)

Aloha,

Larry
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [Larry Mackey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, it's a start! but it would be a shame to do that to your frame. That said, the SL does have an anodized finish instead of paint.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is there any way to tell the old 2004 R2.5 vs. the updated 2.5 for the untrained eye?
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [chris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes. If you see Aluminum flanges on the outside of the bb (which are part of the cups that have the bb threads), it's a new R2.5.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What's the R2.5 Bayonne frameset (available September)?

JW
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is the geometry of the r2.5 the same as the geometry of the soloist? if not why wouldn't you make it the same?

Gotta say god forbid I actually see one of these up close cause I would surely be several thousand dollars poorer afterwards.
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [taku] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gerard...what fork comes with the r2.5 team?
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [taku] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well, then if you see one afar (is that one word or two?) run away. this is the nicest, bestes, beautifullest frames i've ever seen.......and i've seen alot. damn you cervelo man. i must have one.

it has an easton fork. not sure of the model but it is all carbon.

also, the frame was 350 grams lighter then my giant tcr aluminum.
Last edited by: Frank Rehnelt: Jul 20, 04 5:42
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Gerard,

just to second taku's question : I saw on the geometry charts that the R2.5 and the Soloist share the same stack and reach dimensions, but their head tubes have different lengths ... how, why ?

I think those 2 dimensions are very interesting to compare frames, but I am a little bit confused with the charts ...
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [TheBigFrog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We always put some small errors in our geometry chart so that when Aegis copies it their frames get screwed up :-)

Seriously though, the geometry of the Soloist Team and the R2.5 is now actually the same. We went through some small tweaks in the Soloist geometry, and part of that was making the headtubes on the three largest frames 10mm longer. That latest tweak was not included in the geometry yet.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: Q for Gerard re: R2.5 [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks Gerard,

so I'll just consider the R2.5 chart for the two frames ... it's OK for me as I had some difficulties to compare the frames to my current ride ...
Quote Reply