I have a 2009 R3-SL. thinking selling it and buying a 2012 S5.
does this make any sense to you? Part of the upgrade would be going from an older Dura groupset to a
Di2 10spd etc.
I could also just upgrade what I have, but I think the money would be about the same.
So the question is R3-SL or S5?
Thanks!
If its the black and white R3-SL, keep it, that bike is a classic.
Aero is in. So many companys’ R&D dept.s are now claiming you get significantly greater benefits in power saved and improved performance from aerodynamics than you do with frames focused on being lighter and stiffer. The S5 is even stiffer than the R3-SL and even though it might not be as light, weight only matters when you’re going uphill. SO much more time and effort is spent on rollers and flats fighting the wind that you are almost always getting more bang for your buck with a good aero frame. And even if you do lots of climbing races, what goes up must come down and you want that aero advantage descending as well. I’d go with the new S5 any day!
Really cause the RCA is cervelo flagship frame, makes you wonder why…
I think it all comes down to business and making money. I often wonder why every company has at least 2-3 gotta-have-it models in their line-up. For instance, Specialized has the Venge for aero, the SL4 is their Tour bike and the Roubaix for rougher courses. Why so many options? Remember when pro racers just had one great tour bike for everything? Because it’s more stuff for us to buy. Sure, the pros can pick their bike of the day but for the rest of us, it’s one bike for road racing and one for TT’s and Tri’s (if you’re even that lucky). So back to the Cervelo RCA. What’s the biggest showcase and testing arena for bicycle companies? The Grand Tours! And who wins Grand Tours? Amazing climbers. Because those races are won in the mountains, and there are lots of mountains, the bike that shines is the lightest, stiffest climbing bike. Enter the RCA. But you need to ask yourself, what kind of riding and racing do you do most? I race with the winningest amateur cycling team in Colorado. We have an aerospace engineer/Cat 2 among our ranks. He says aero pays way more dividends for the vast majority of amateur races in the US when compared to “Tour” bikes. Consequently he rides and races an S3 (and probably an S5 by now) but he also climbs like a Mtn. goat. Another guy on my team who was seriously considering the Spec’d Venge going into last season opted for the SL4. However, he is a pure climber who only races the bigger stage races and hill climbs here in Colorado.
Ride quality is the only other factor. I think ride quality is totally subjective and matters more to bike tourers than racers. So I guess it comes down to what you like and what riding you do. But I wouldn’t let marketing, or Ryder Hesjedal’s personal preferences factor into my decision making when buying a bike. I do however like the Velo Magazine Test Lab bike reviews because they are so science-geeky about those tests. Personally, I currently ride and race a 2012 R3 but my next bike will definitely be an S5 or Venge.
Hi
I have both bikes.
I intended to sell the R3SL and can not.
The S5 is not for very hilly or rough roads
this coming from a 54 year old at a 140lbs
R3SL with RZRs 100 psi
S5 with 808s 100 psi
Do I like the S5 yes it,s totaly the fastest bike I’ve ever rode.
If your over 170 lbs the rough ride may not be a issue!
Also I had to down size from the R3 56cm to S5 54cm to get the stem low enough
Jere B
For road racing purposes? Sure, less drag!
For fun group riding / training purposes? Maybe if you love di2, or love aero.
The rear wheel cutout is sometimes annoying, reduces tire choice and is sometimes noisy if you are on wet, gravel surfaces.
Other than that it is just a normal bike!
I have a 2009 R3-SL. thinking selling it and buying a 2012 S5.
does this make any sense to you? Part of the upgrade would be going from an older Dura groupset to a
Di2 10spd etc.
I could also just upgrade what I have, but I think the money would be about the same.
So the question is R3-SL or S5?
Thanks!
Then just get a new S2/S3. Plenty of room in the cutout for a 25c. Stiffer and lighter than a base S5, too.
As others have said it comes down to a personal choice. Yes, the aero road bikes are faster, blah blah blah. I’ll not argue against the numbers. They make complete sense to me.
I own an R3 myself. Love the bike. I’ve also spent decent time on a loaner S5, and it’s a great bike to. The Di2, in road configuration, while it will not make you faster per say, is an absolute joy to ride with.
One thing you’ll need to consider is that Cervelo changed up their head-tube lengths from the vintage of your R bike to what they offer now on both the R series and the S5 - the head-tubes are quite a bit taller in each size. You’ll need to consider this if going for the newer S5. You might need to drop down a frame size or go with a flat stem, or zero-stack head cap.
Then just get a new S2/S3. Plenty of room in the cutout for a 25c. Stiffer and lighter than a base S5, too.
and less expensive, and less likely to break in a crash!
Get the bike you want! Keep the old one, too - as others said, it’s a classic.
Unless you expect to swap the gruppo in the future, I’d stay away from di2 10sp, unless you get an unbelievably good deal on it. It doesn’t plug and play with any of Shimano’s other electronic systems, wasn’t around that long and may be difficult to get replacement parts for in a couple of years.
Get the bike you want! Keep the old one, too - as others said, it’s a classic.
Unless you expect to swap the gruppo in the future, I’d stay away from di2 10sp, unless you get an unbelievably good deal on it. It doesn’t plug and play with any of Shimano’s other electronic systems, wasn’t around that long and may be difficult to get replacement parts for in a couple of years.
Ultegra Di2 10 speed 6770 is 100% “compatible” with the newer 11 speed bits with the exception of the rear derailleurs. You can also retro-fit the newer multi-tap and internal battery option to older groups. The new bar end shifters can also be installed using the 5 port junction box. The only thing you cannot do with 10 speed Ultegra Di2 is use the new sprint shifters (SW-610). The key is to buy the e-tube system. The original Dura-Ace 7970 did not use this soft/firm ware.
-SD
Aero is in. So many companys’ R&D dept.s are now claiming you get significantly greater benefits in power saved and improved performance from aerodynamics than you do with frames focused on being lighter and stiffer. The S5 is even stiffer than the R3-SL and even though it might not be as light, weight only matters when you’re going uphill. SO much more time and effort is spent on rollers and flats fighting the wind that you are almost always getting more bang for your buck with a good aero frame. And even if you do lots of climbing races, what goes up must come down and you want that aero advantage descending as well. I’d go with the new S5 any day!
The Aero vs Weight/Stiffness/PowerTransfer debate seems to me to be the new Clincher vs Tubular debate.
I’m assuming if you’re going to race this bike it’ll be in a bike race and not a triathlon or TT.
The aero benefits of the S5 type frames are beyond doubt. Going in a straight line in the wind it takes less power to keep it moving at the same speed as an R type bike.
But it seems to me that the drag saving of riding one of these frames is tiny compared to the aero advantage of staying on someone’s wheel.
So, if the traditional tube frame is lighter and stiffer and can accelerate just a fraction of a second faster than an aero frame and that fraction of a second of acceleration enables you to stay on your competitors wheel when they make a jump it’s probably going save you many more watts. If you lose the wheel the few hundred grams drag savings of the aero frame is not going to enable you to cruise back up after you’ve been dropped.
Your logic is sound.
But one of your axioms is that the lighter/stiffer frame accelerates a tiny but faster than the aero frame. It doesn’t. It accelerates slower.
All aero all the time! (except up huge steep hills!)
Aero is in. So many companys’ R&D dept.s are now claiming you get significantly greater benefits in power saved and improved performance from aerodynamics than you do with frames focused on being lighter and stiffer. The S5 is even stiffer than the R3-SL and even though it might not be as light, weight only matters when you’re going uphill. SO much more time and effort is spent on rollers and flats fighting the wind that you are almost always getting more bang for your buck with a good aero frame. And even if you do lots of climbing races, what goes up must come down and you want that aero advantage descending as well. I’d go with the new S5 any day!
The Aero vs Weight/Stiffness/PowerTransfer debate seems to me to be the new Clincher vs Tubular debate.
I’m assuming if you’re going to race this bike it’ll be in a bike race and not a triathlon or TT.
The aero benefits of the S5 type frames are beyond doubt. Going in a straight line in the wind it takes less power to keep it moving at the same speed as an R type bike.
But it seems to me that the drag saving of riding one of these frames is tiny compared to the aero advantage of staying on someone’s wheel.
So, if the traditional tube frame is lighter and stiffer and can accelerate just a fraction of a second faster than an aero frame and that fraction of a second of acceleration enables you to stay on your competitors wheel when they make a jump it’s probably going save you many more watts. If you lose the wheel the few hundred grams drag savings of the aero frame is not going to enable you to cruise back up after you’ve been dropped.
Dude, it’s great that you’re back on this forum.
I’d never contradict your input unless I was absolutely sure what I’m talking about and in this case, probably every case, I can’t say that I am!
Why do you say that the aero frames always accelerate faster than everything else (except on the super steep climbs)?
It’s one of those things I’ve taken for granted; that the aero frame traded off some of the “snap” for the aero benefits.
Because this is Slowtwitch I have to ask: “do you have data to back that up and can you share it?”
Well so we have two things, one is easy to confirm the other isn’t.
Comparing the acceleration of a lighter, less aero frame, to a heavy, more aero frame is easy, and aero wins. You can check that yourself using free tools like analytic cycling.
Stiffness is the hard one. A lot of people think significant watts are lost due to frame flex. One way to test this is ride around doing big sprints with a powertap and a crank based power meter, and see if there are signs of power loss at higher torque loads.
People have done this and not found anything significant, but that is a hard thing to measure, maybe there are a couple watts getting lost in some cases.
Other confounding variables might include increased rolling resistance if the frame is flexing changing the way the tire interacts with the road.
I’m fairly confident that there isn’t much going on there from personal data (I’m not good aerobically but I have pretty big peak power), and from the observation that frame stiffness perception tends to disappear when people don’t know what frame they are on.
With enough trial runs though you could certainly tease out if the aero or round frame accelerates quicker, especially on a velodrome (where, you will notice, HUGE HUGE men doing over 2000 watts don’t choose round frames)
modern aero frames are pretty stiff.
Dude, it’s great that you’re back on this forum.
I’d never contradict your input unless I was absolutely sure what I’m talking about and in this case, probably every case, I can’t say that I am!
Why do you say that the aero frames always accelerate faster than everything else (except on the super steep climbs)?
It’s one of those things I’ve taken for granted; that the aero frame traded off some of the “snap” for the aero benefits.
Because this is Slowtwitch I have to ask: “do you have data to back that up and can you share it?”
Ok I’m almost convinced.
The crank powermeter + powertap comparison experiment sounds like a great idea. One of those “why didn’t I think of that before” ideas. Now that you’ve mentioned it it does seem plausible that power lost from pedal to where the rubber meets the road should be easy to measure. Makes me wonder why there isn’t more data. It would mean more to me than stiffness data measured in experiments with frames loaded up in jig vices.
but what about handling? ? ? Can’t measure that, right? Don’t aero frame bikes skitter through corners like Kenny Roberts used to ride his GP bike back in the day?
In your honour I’ve also added a quote from you as the first signature I’ve ever used on my profile 
Handling/Comfort are tricky to quantify as well, but I think this post from Josh is instructive:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=4945729#4945729
Ok I’m almost convinced.
The crank powermeter + powertap comparison experiment sounds like a great idea. One of those “why didn’t I think of that before” ideas. Now that you’ve mentioned it it does seem plausible that power lost from pedal to where the rubber meets the road should be easy to measure. Makes me wonder why there isn’t more data. It would mean more to me than stiffness data measured in experiments with frames loaded up in jig vices.
but what about handling? ? ? Can’t measure that, right? Don’t aero frame bikes skitter through corners like Kenny Roberts used to ride his GP bike back in the day?
In your honour I’ve also added a quote from you as the first signature I’ve ever used on my profile