How much difference between the two? I understand the P3C is lighter and more aerodynamic but by how much? Probably stiffness issues as well I have a 2003 P3 with a good wheelset (hed 3 front, hed 3 and zipp disk). Curious how much of a disadvantage the standard P3 is compared to the carbon? I am tall so I ride a 61 cm frame, but I was surprised that with the disk on back the bike is 20.5 lbs.
Although Cervelo would have us believe differently, I suspect there is really very little difference between the two. My son won time trial nationals on a P3SL over several riders on P3C’s, some of whom also may have had better wheels.
The engine is more important than the minor difference between these two bikes.
Unfortunately, we’re now looking for a replacement since the P3SL was destroyed in a crash at worlds.
The 58 cm P3SL was also about 20.5 pounds. However, the fork on the P3 is heavy (alloy steerer) and there are really no light weight parts on it. On the other hand, how many hills are there on the courses you’ll race on?
Cervelo don’t really try to con anyone about it. A bit lighter, a bit more aero is about all they claim.
How much? About this <… > much. What’s that worth to you?
I upgraded from the P3 to the P3C this year and I’m more than happy with the decision. I think it made me about this <…> much faster, but no doubt at least this <…> much is psychological. It was a real “go for it” year for me, and I qualified for Kona by about this <… > much, so I felt happy that every little benefit helped with that goal.
If you just want a bike for the Sunday morning cafe cruise, though, the choice is easy. The P3C has WAY more pose value.
How much lighter is the p3 carbon built out - you said the sl was 20.5 lbs, what does the carbon p3 weigh? I am surprised cervelo doesnt list those items on its website.
Thanks
“Cervelo don’t really try to con anyone about it. A bit lighter, a bit more aero is about all they claim”
That’s very true, but what’s your opinon on the comfort factor of having a carbon vs aluminium frame. I’d suspect you’d probably notice a bit of a difference on the longer rides?
My buddy built up his 54 cm P3 (not ever a P3SL) to just 16 lbs. He spent a bit of coin doing this but it shows that if you are willing to buy all the lightest gear, you can make any bike light.
My P3C built up with Chorus is over a 1lb heavier than his P3.
Cerveloguy,
I asked Gerard about the differences between the P3SL and P3C at Ralph’s about 18 months ago. This is purely MY recollection of the conversation and how I interpreted what he said:
-
Aero - P3C is designed to be faster/more aero. It seemed like he felt this was the biggest difference between the 2 bikes. He didn’t give me any numbers. I can’t imagine the difference could possibly add up to much for us AG’ers.
-
Weight - P3C is lighter. We all know 1 lb means nothing in our races, but we still all want the lightest stuff - its measurable at least.
-
Comfort - this is where I focused the conversation. I knew the above 2 mattered very little to me, but I wondered if a carbon ride would be more comfortable as I like long course races. He basically said that they can’t test for comfort. I got the impression that he did not feel there was a difference in comfort between the 2 bikes.
So I went out and bought a P3SL.
Now I did not get the impression that Gerard is a salesman type guy - he seemed more the engineer. He did not come across at all like he was pushing the P3C at all - he may have even down-played the differences, so take the above for what it is…
Given all that - I’d still likely buy a Carbon soloist vs. alum…or a P3C over P3SL but a lot of that has to do with disposible income/personality.
Dave
dukyle, can you elaborate on your buddy’s build up? Approximately how much coin? I’m thinking of doing the same in the offseason - my P3 feels like it’s in the 20 lbs+ range.
My experience:
-
It’s taken me 4 months to get fit correctly and comfortable on my P3C (54cm). It’s been a real challenge trying to replicate my measurements from my old P3 (over to my P3C) which fit me well but, admittedly, was slightly on the large side for me. Cervelo’s web site claims that the “effective” top tube length of the 54cm P3C is shorter than the 55cm Cervelo but my measurements seem to come out differently and this would be consistent with other previous P3 owners I’ve known who had to return their 1st P3C because it was too large. My belief is that you can’t get the P3C’s effective seat angle as steep as the P3 (ie with your saddle pushed all the way forward and all else equal). I have also heard this from others.
-
I have no real idea about weight and aerodynamic differences between the two but I was faster on my old P3 than I am on my new P3C. However, I suspect that has much more to do with my fit challenges up to this point than anything else.
-
Comfort over 112miles? No comparison. The “ride comfort” of the P3C over 112miles is noticeably much better than the P3. This should be no real surprise for anyone though (ie alum vs carbon).
Thanks, Chris
Cervelo’s web site claims that the “effective” top tube length of the 54cm P3C is shorter than the 55cm Cervelo but my measurements seem to come out differently and this would be consistent with other previous P3 owners I’ve known who had to return their 1st P3C because it was too large. My belief is that you can’t get the P3C’s effective seat angle as steep as the P3 (ie with your saddle pushed all the way forward and all else equal).
What would the latter have to do with the reach measurement published by Cervelo?
from the top of my head…
-replaced pretty much every bolt with Ti bolts
-stronglight cranks
-campy record shifters and dereileurs
-zero gravity brakes
-carbon seatpost
-selle italia carbon saddle (ouch, but he claims no issue)
-Profile Design Carbon-X bars (he drilled holes in the elbow rests)
-I can’t remember which BB he switched to but with edit when I remember
-Corima tubular wheels
-pretty much the lightest carbon water battle holder he could find.
Pretty much he replaced every part that he could with the near lightest components. It wasn’t a cheap project.
First, isn’t the virtual seat angle (which is a relatively tricky due to its curve) used in determining the effective top tube length? Secondly, I was trying to state my opinion (in a somewhat nice way) that there seems to be a disconnect between how they determine the effective top tube length between the two bikes. Bottom line, I considered it just might be me as I can be rather slow at times but when I’ve spoken to so many others who share a similar experience then there seems to be something wrong (ie I’m having a hard time agreeing with their charts).
Andy, Did I understand your question correctly?
Thanks, Chris
First, isn’t the virtual seat angle (which is a relatively tricky due to its curve) used in determining the effective top tube length? Secondly, I was trying to state my opinion (in a somewhat nice way) that there seems to be a disconnect between how they determine the effective top tube length between the two bikes.
What Cervelo calls “reach” is what I would call “effective top tube length”, i.e., the length of the top tube forward of the bottom bracket. If you know this distance and the headtube (plus headset) length, then transferring your position across bikes should be easy. For example, I can tell you that a size 54 P3C is 1.4 cm longer and 0.3 cm lower than my old size 54 Javelin Arcole. To achieve the same position on the Cervelo I’d therefore need a stem that is 1.4 cm shorter, and would need to place a 0.3 cm spacer under the stem (assuming that I were just swapping over the same components). Alternatively, I could ride a size 56 P3C with a stem 2.8 cm shorter, but I wouldn’t be able to get the bars as low since the the headtube is 1.7 cm longer than on the Arcole.
As another example, I know that even if I were trying to save a few $$, the P2C also wouldn’t fullfil my needs, because even a size 54 has a headtube that is 1.2 cm longer than on the Arcole. Since I rode the latter bike with no spacers, my only option would be to use a negative rise or adjustable stem, which seems a bit of a kludge if you’re going to the trouble of buying a new bike (at least this is my excuse for why I need a P3C instead of a P2C ).
In addition to the above measurements, the only thing that you might need to know when determining how to replicate your position on another bike is whether you can push the saddle as far forward (or backward) as you like. This shouldn’t be an issue, though, for bikes (such as the Cervelos) with their multi-position seatposts.
First, isn’t the virtual seat angle (which is a relatively tricky due to its curve) used in determining the effective top tube length? Secondly, I was trying to state my opinion (in a somewhat nice way) that there seems to be a disconnect between how they determine the effective top tube length between the two bikes.
What Cervelo calls “reach” is what I would call “effective top tube length”, i.e., the length of the top tube forward of the bottom bracket. If you know this distance and the headtube (plus headset) length, then transferring your position across bikes should be easy.
I heartily agree on what should really be called the top tube measurement.
IMHO, even easier than what you propose (reach and head tube length) is to use the “reach” measurement along with the “stack” measurement (i.e. the vertical distance from the BB to the top of the head tube).
In fact, when I needed to select a new road frame last fall, I converted the frame manufacturer’s “traditional” style of dimensioning to the “reach and stack” style before deciding. Then, as you said, the only other thing I needed to determine was if I could put my seat in the same position vertically and horizontally relative to the BB as well…which with most road seattube angles being in a pretty narrow range and all manner of setbacks to to seatposts out there, is a pretty trivial worry.
The way I see it, the BB is the basis of everything when trying to replicate a position on 2 different frames. Then, it’s just vertical and horizontal measurements to the other 2 point of contact (bars and seat). Sounds pretty simple to me…I wish ALL frames were listed with their “reach” and “stack” values.
Not sure how helpful this discussion is to the original poster but I hear what you’re saying, Andy. I do have all of the measurements. Admittedly, there were other factors as to the timeframe it has taken me to get fit correctly that I won’t go into. The frustration on my part is that I’ve had to go with a stem that is 1cm shorter (9cm to 8cm) and a saddle that is longer (Selle San Marco Azoto to Fizik Arione) in order to achieve the same “reach” when, according to the Cervelo charts, I should have needed to go in the opposite direction.
Again, I don’t want to focus on my specific issue as much as I think it’s important to note how so many others have struggled with the P3 to P3C upgrade. Apparently Tom Demerly struggled with it too (enough to write an article on it).
Thanks, Chris
Thats what spreadsheets are for…
I can use my “grand master geometry sheet” to calculate comparative position for all sorts of bikes with far more precision than I could ever set them up
I like your observation as it the thread has really moved away from my original question. I was really hoping someone would come along and tell me the comparative frame weights or someone from cervelo would quote some aero drag factor. The only comfort I get is since I am 6’3", I really dont have to get into all the sizing issues as with most bikes, you just end up getting the large size and going from there.
Cheers.
Rob’s crazy…
For me, a decision between P3 and P3C would never come down to weight and aerodynamic differences between the two. Honestly, I think the differences are negligible to the point where a decision should be focused on other factors. In that case I guess I have nothing useful or helpful to add to your decision-making process.
Thanks, Chris
As others have noted, the P3C ‘feels’ more comfortable, but it’s a subtle difference, and it is usual for a new bike to feel sweet compared to one that was, in my case, 5 years old.
I didn’t compare frame weights (and I understand Gerard’s rationale for not publishing them) but including the much upgraded grouppo, wheels, bars I dropped the whole weight of my race ready bike by an entire kilogram, which I do consider a significant benefit. The mere frame v frame difference is small - I hope someone will post some numbers.
I also concur with lakerfan that it’s not nearly as straightforward as you would hope to replicate the fit. I went from a 55 P3 to a 56 P3C with a 10mm shorter stem (I’m about 5’11"). It was a tricky choice and I’m not certain that a 54 wouldn’t have worked out as well or better. “On paper” the 56 is the closer size, but the bike’s geometry does seem to have have a relatively long top tube.