I’ve enjoyed reading the “R3 vs. Soloist Carbon” thread. Can anybody compare and contrast the R3 with the CR1? I’m having a really difficult time figuring out which new frame I should get my hands on.
Have you ever bent a derailuer hanger?
It’s a great topic…but my guess is folks are going to steer you back towards a Soloist. I’m yet to find a CR1 owner who doesn’t give it rave reviews. Then again, I don’t know any R3 owners.
Tough call…might come down to your local dealership and service.
I believe both bikes were part of the Euro review…
Easy (other than ride both and pick your poison). Cervelo - lifetime warranty. Scott - 3 years. No replaceable rear derailleur on the Scott. R3 frame is lighter (since this likely matters if you are looking at these 2 flyweights). And, Velo news tested the R3 stiffest of them all (even though it was lightest).
So, on “paper” it is a no brainer. I’ve ridden both frames very briefly and I “think” I actually liked the Scott CR-1 better - but for no reason other than my brief seat-of-the-pants spin. Of course, I also ended up with a Soloist Carbon which “on paper” is better still 
edit: Oh, and I almost forgot - with the R3, you also get to join the slowtwitch Cervelo brainwashed Mafia fanclub as well. At least you will have something in common with some winning riders in Europe
Go with the Cervelo the Scott is ugly with mega sized tubing or even better go for a Aegis Victory and get the best ride available
.
rroof’s 1st paragraph says it all. The warranty and hanger issues are big for me.
I ride with a couple of guys who, within the last several months, have broken their dropouts on frames w/o replaceble derailleur hangers and had to buy new frames - one of them actually rode a bike the same as your old one(the Klein)
Remember how I broke mine at Boulevard? 1 week later I had a new hanger & it was good as new.
As much hard riding & racing as you do, I wouldn’t take the chance. Besides, a 3 year warranty on a top of the line carbon frame*** *really sucks.
And of course it’s personal preference, but Scott’s are rather ugly. Those forks…ugh.
I’ve yet to ride an R3 but it can hardly be worse than the CR1. The only bike I’ve had that felt worse than the CR1 was an alloy scott frame. It felt stiff vertically but didnt put the power through well - felt as if someone was holding on to the seatpost when I really put effort in. My cannondale slice tt frame was smoother over the same roads. second biggest disappointment of a high end bike that I’ve ever used.
The tubing on the Scott becomes an issue if you ever care to replace the 380 gram fork(heavy by standard of the frame) that comes with the frame, because very few forks align with the head tube and even fewer look good with the frame. However, people who own Scotts like them.
second biggest disappointment of a high end bike that I’ve ever used.
which was–the cannondale, or the Scott?
check the geometry. dont scotts have steepish (74 deg or so) STA with minimal setback? that would do it for me (push me away from the scott, that is).
the warranty thing is a diversion … if a carbon bike is going to break from a warranty issue, it wont take 3 years. more like 3 weeks, the way you ride.
The scott, I could never say that about a cannondale ;-). Most of my friends gave the scotts a try as part of their never ending series of bikes and all got rid of them pretty quickly as they just didnt compare well to the other bikes. It depends on your range of experience - if you had a clapped out old bike and went to the scott it would feel great (as would any new bike), if you’ve been spoiling yourself with some of the nicer road bikes around it compares very poorly.
FWIW the biggest disappointment was a colnago ct1.