http://www.cervelo.com/index2.html

Does anyone know how many stages CSC used the R2.5 on? It seemed like everytime I saw one of the riders, they were on a round tubed bike. I'm sure they used them for the mountain stages, but did they also use them on the flat stages? And if so, why?

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

You'll have to ask Gerard that but I thought they were using Soloists on the flat stages, R2.5's on the mountains and P3's during the TT's.

They also use Prodigy's in races that have rough roads, but know if any were used at the TDF.

I think CSC used R2.5's throughout the tour. I think the R2.5 will be available at the end of this year. They used them for all stages because this bike is the real deal.

"I think CSC used R2.5's throughout the tour"

Are you absolutely sure?? To me they seem very similiar to a composite Giant TCR in design and don't see any design advantages between the two. At least with the Soloist you could make the arguement for a few theoretical seconds gained on the strait sections or on a break away because of the aero tubing. I'd be surprised if the Soloists weren't used at the TDF.

Gerard where are you?

I seem to remember some of the rouleurs on the team riding a Soloist here and there on the flat stages, but by and large I remember seeing the R2.5s under the CSC guys. If I remember correctly, Gerard explained his and CSC's theory somewhere that they wanted EVERY CSC rider to have the best equipment, not just the stars like TH and Sastre. The "best" right now means the R2.5 (but its not like the Soloist is a slouch in any way!). If you read the lit and web on the R2.5, you'll see that Cervelo designed this bike to be first and foremost strong, and then made it light. It passes stringent strength and durability tests. Its a great all around bike with the same geometry as the Soloist. The Soloist may be marginally more aero given its tube shapes, but unless you are on a long, flat solo break, the advantage is null and void.

Ah, yes, to the naked eye they look similiar. Compact frame and all; however, living up to the Cervelo name (which means brain bike) the R2.5's differences are under the skin. If you read the explaination on the Cervelo sight, you will see the differences. I don't remember seeing any Soloists being ridden.

"the R2.5's differences are under the skin."

I doubt if the two bikes are all that much different. Cervelos are great bikes but so is the TCR if you fit one of the T-shirt sizes. I own and love both. And Team Once is no slouch. It's a shame about Beloki. I'll have to ride a R2.5 and a comp TCR back to back to make a comparison. I'm sure they're both sweet rides.

Let me know the results of your comparison.

             "Let me know the results of your comparison."


Reminds me of the time many years ago when my brother and I walked into the local Ford and Chevy dealerships to test drive the Mustang GT and Camero Z28. We had no intention of buying either but it was a great way to pass an afternoon!

My experience says the R2.5 and the Giant will be quite different in terms of ride qualities. Their geometries are the same as the aluminum Soloist and TCRs. Those bikes ride much differently to me, and I ride the same stem and seatpost measurements on the 54 Soloist and M TCR. The aluminum TCR rides and handles similar to the Composite TCR. Therefore I'm going to assume that the differences I feel between the Soloist and TCR will be the same differences I feel between the R2.5 and Composite TCR. Specifically, I feel the handling is slower with the Giant. It tracks well, but is not as quick on technical rides. Whether that is + or - to you depends on your typical riding.

To locate where these differences come from you have to look at the specifics of the geometries. The angles are quite different and in different relations. The wheel bases are different for bikes nominally the same size. Its the combination of all of this that makes the difference between bike designs.

These bikes may look the same to the naked eye, but their respective rides are going to be different. Both are nice bikes, I'm sure. Which one do you like better? Well, contrary to Tom D's assertion that test riding bikes gains nothing of substance, I like to test ride bikes for these subtle differences. To be sure, though, you need to make sure that the bikes are as close as possible in measurements. By this I mean that of course I'm going to feel a difference if I'd compared riding a 54 Soloist (which was damn near a perfect fit with everything standard measures and the saddle absolutely mid rail) with the small TCR that would have forced me to use an ungainly long 13 or 14 cm stem and shove the seat nearly off the back of the post (In other words, the small doesn't fit me too well)

"a 54 Soloist (which was damn near a perfect fit with everything standard measures and the saddle absolutely mid rail) with the small TCR that would have forced me to use an ungainly long 13 or 14 cm stem and shove the seat nearly off the back of the post "

I would also ride a 54 Soloist and a medium TCR. My wife has the small size Giant and it's too small for me. Both the 54 Soloist and medium TCR seem to fit me very well, but since the Soloist is made in six sizes compared to the TCR's three, I suspect more people can get the perfect fit with the Cervelo.