Weird. Usually better in each company = more expensive. Wonder what the gag is?
That is it $3800 frameset compared to $4500.
Weird. Usually better in each company = more expensive. Wonder what the gag is?
That is it $3800 frameset compared to $4500.
I have a feeling the “tradeoff” between that particular $3800 frameset (the team S5 version) and the S3 is aerodynamics vs. weight. The team S5 frame apparently weighs ~1300g, but has 9w less drag at race speeds. Oh, and the S3 might be a tad “comfy-er” in the rear triangle…
Cervelo is going to offer various “levels” of the S5(good, better, best). The S3 comes in one level(excellent).
So you are seeing the “better” price of the mid level S5 at $3800. I’d imagine that the top level S5 will be more expensive or close in price to the S3. Though, their layups and carbon level will be in line as well.
I touched on this issue in one of the threads started on the S5. Cervelo typically hasn’t differentiated models by layup and carbon quality while maintaining the same shape, it’s not like the Ultegra and Dura Ace P2 were different frames.
Doing so with the S5 kind of clashes with the current line up. The R5 is already kind of like this, in the idea of the R5, R3 are essentially the same(and now with the geometry changes in the R3/5 the RS is more similar).
Though it is much more in line with the rest of the bike industry. What I’d be curious to see is if the trend spreads to say, the S2.
I am surprised to see Cervelo doing this as well.
I’ve always believed (based on price) that the layup and “carbon quality” were different on the P2 and P3. The front triangles are identical, I don’t see the differing rear triangles accounting for a 2x price difference. However, they have never gone out of their way to discuss this. And in return have sold a million P2s, who knows if they would have sold as many had they highlighted that fact and it was perceived as “lower quality”.
I think they’ve talked about this quite a lot, actually. The P3’s rear bits are a lot harder to make, and that accounts for the big difference in price. I don’t think there’s any difference in the carbon.
S3, not P3
and the price is for the frameset only
S3 frameset is 4500$
S5 frameset is 3800$
hummmmm
.
I think they’ve talked about this quite a lot, actually. The P3’s rear bits are a lot harder to make, and that accounts for the big difference in price. I don’t think there’s any difference in the carbon.
Define “a lot harder to make”. And that mold is what, 6+ years old now? You say they’ve talked about it a lot, but I’ve never seen a mention of the “quality” of the cabon in the P2 and the P3.
Is the rear triangle more difficult to manufacture? Sure. Twice as costly? I doubt it.
I have no information either way, but I’d wager the layup quality is different.
Cervelo is going to offer various “levels” of the S5 (good, better, best). The S3 comes in one level(excellent).
So you are seeing the “better” price of the mid level S5 at $3800. I’d imagine that the top level S5 will be more expensive or close in price to the S3. Though, their layups and carbon level will be in line as well.
I touched on this issue in one of the threads started on the S5. Cervelo typically hasn’t differentiated models by layup and carbon quality while maintaining the same shape, it’s not like the Ultegra and Dura Ace P2 were different frames.
Doing so with the S5 kind of clashes with the current line up. The R5 is already kind of like this, in the idea of the R5, R3 are essentially the same(and now with the geometry changes in the R3/5 the RS is more similar).
Though it is much more in line with the rest of the bike industry. What I’d be curious to see is if the trend spreads to say, the S2.
Runless, you get it.
However I just want to point out that the concept of a single mold, with different carbon layups, weights and prices isn’t exactly new at Cervelo: the R3 and R3-SL are a good example, as are the SLC and SLC-SL. And as you point out the current R3, R5 and R5ca (though named differently) also follow the same concept.
How about the P2 and P3, is the only difference the mold?
It doesn’t bother me, I infact ride a P2, just always been curious. Is there a layup/carbon difference?
You’re right, clearly the P2 and P3 don’t follow the “same mold, different carbon” concept.
(1) There is a genuine increase in complexity to mold and bond the P3 compared to the P2 (seat stays at seat tube), which is a permanent part of the cost difference.
(2) We also chose to upgrade the carbon in the P3, including a more complex lay up, which explains the rest of the cost difference.
The benefit of taking on the P3’s additional cost is that it’s a faster bike.
However I just want to point out that the concept of a single mold, with different carbon layups, weights and prices isn’t exactly new at Cervelo: the R3 and R3-SL are a good example, as are the SLC and SLC-SL. And as you point out the current R3, R5 and R5ca (though named differently) also follow the same concept.
Interesting…I guess I didn’t realize that with the “update” of the R3 to include the BBright BB that the external shapes of the R3 and R5 became the same. For some reason I thought that the attachment of the seatstays to the seat tube was slightly different between them, or was that changed too?
But wait…don’t the R3 and R5s have different geometries? Color me confused, I guess…
You’re right, the R3, R5 and R5ca are in fact from different molds, with small manufacturing details as you mention differing as well. But geometrically, structurally and in the model range they are in line with the same concept. In other words, they are not vastly different in overall appearance, nor do they perform differently aerodynamically, etc.
Straight from the horse’s mouth (Damon at Cervelo).
(1) There is a genuine increase in complexity to mold and bond the P3 compared to the P2 (seat stays at seat tube), which is a permanent part of the cost difference.
(2) We also chose to upgrade the carbon in the P3, including a more complex lay up, which explains the rest of the cost difference.
You’re right, the R3, R5 and R5ca are in fact from different molds, with small manufacturing details as you mention differing as well. But geometrically, structurally and in the model range they are in line with the same concept. In other words, they are not vastly different in overall appearance, nor do they perform differently aerodynamically, etc.
Aaah…now I see what you mean. I guess I was being a bit more literal with the “one mold, different carbon” concept…
Yeah, you were right.
Think about the S5 as a mac product. there will be a nano, a touch an ipad or ipad2. they now wanna target all the markets available.