Hi,
I’m hoping to get some opinions on the Cervelo Caledonia.
It’s comfort factor.
If using it mainly for road cycling how is it?
Thanks
+1 to OP. I haven’t had a chance to test ride one yet, but am quite curious. I haven’t raced a crit in several years, but I still want something pretty aggressive yet suitable for the potholes, frostheaves and general crud that I have to ride over regularly.
Excellent bike. I have the Caledonia 5.
Previous bike was an S5. Before that a Specialissima and before that an Oltre XR4. So I have some good points of comparison.
Okay would love to hear your opinions. I am currently riding a Cervelo R5.
Thanks
Okay would love to hear your opinions. I am currently riding a Cervelo R5.
Thanks
It’s a little heavier than your R5 (assuming yours is the previous generation, not the one that came out this past Fall). And it won’t feel as snappy as it has a slightly slower steering feel to it. I find it sufficiently stiff (I’m 195 lbs) and I like the looked of the dropped seat stays. The cable integration is nice (full integration only for electronic drivetrain).
The stack and reach are a bit different than an R5. It taller and if I remember correctly it’s a little shorter. It’s a more upright bike which is better for most people…practically everyone who is not looking for a low slung race bike.
The Jumbo Visma team raced them at Roubaix (maybe some other cobbled or dirt classics) and that’s says something about the bike. This in itself doesn’t automatically make it a great bike but they had other options and they rode the Caledonia.
I have a Caledonia 5 DI2 , came from a R3 .Definitely a different feel , sturdy , upright not as twitchy , slightly heavier , but very comfortable , very responsive , once you are are speed it flies .I run 28mm tubeless and love the feel .
Hi, I’m hoping to get some opinions on the Cervelo Caledonia. It’s comfort factor. If using it mainly for road cycling how is it? Thanks
i own a new R5. i spent some months riding the Cal-5. the comments above are pretty accurate. the Cal and Cal-5 are designed for comfort and i think you should look at the cervelo bikes as a continuum. you have:
S-series: high speed road. aerodynamics in a road setting.
R-series: general road riding, differing in use case from the S-series in that the emphasis is on climbing.
Caledonia: you’re stipulating here that “road” is a term used loosely. if you intend on riding anything thinner than a 30mm tire then i question what the value is for you in a caledonia. you may as well then just be on an R-series bike.
Aspero: now you’re into gravel, full stop. but even the aspero is a bike that wants a 700c wheel and tires in the mid-40s mms or below. there is a bike further along this continuum that cervelo has not yet made, that would be optimized for “gravel” that is more appropriately ridden by an MTB if you were looking at the best bike for the purpose.
the one thing i’d add about geometry and fit is that the caledonia is the R3 geometry. it’s the classic cervelo road geometry as regards fit, but with a slightly pushed forward front wheel axle: 72° head angle + 50mm fork offset, keeps the trail the same, but adds front center. this makes the bike a steady handler, gives the rider a little more shoe overlap clearance if you want to put some bigger tires on this bike.
if i was riding, say, BWR in san diego, that bike you ride for the win is a road bike, not a gravel bike. but there are really nasty sections. if i was in charge of equipment for pro cyclists and i had to choose a bike for the win, this is where the caledonia would shine. this bike with 30mm or 32mm road tires. perfectly good on the pavement, fast enough certainly, but with 32mm road tires you’d be great on rideable dirt.
the alternative is to do what i did, which is put 32mm tires on an R5. the bike is still really lite, at high-15lb, a snappy handler, but those big tires are great for rideable dirt and freeze-cracked asphalt. but if the only thing i ever rode was rideable dirt, maybe riding the occasional unrideable dirt, and really bad roads, it would be the caledonia.
I have a previous gen R5 (last ever rim brake version) and the non-integrated Caledonia. The previous comments cover most of the differences between the two well. In terms of rider position, the only difference in geometry is that the R5 has a head tube which is about 10 mm shorter. With a suitable stem, this means that I near-as-dammit have the same position as on my race R5, but on a bike that I can use with 28 mm tyres and mudguards for winter training, or use for gravel with larger tyres.
Other differences – the front end of the previous gen R5 is harsh over bumps (an aspect that is supposed to have been addressed on the new one that Dan has after feedback from TJV riders). Front end of the Caledonia is much more forgiving. The front end geometry of the Cal gives it a remarkable stability, together with feeling of carving through corners, which make it a very easy companion for long outings. While the R5 can make terrifying “bang” sounds when you hit potholes, the Cal is near silent – all these resonances appear to have been damped out. The frame is a good bit heavier, but with that comes an extra solidity for taking abuse. Although it’s not the lightest, fastest or raciest bike I have ever owned, given its ride characteristics and versatility, it’s quite possibly my favourite.
Super helpful post-thanks Dan!
Hi, I’m hoping to get some opinions on the Cervelo Caledonia. It’s comfort factor. If using it mainly for road cycling how is it? Thanks
i own a new R5. i spent some months riding the Cal-5. the comments above are pretty accurate. the Cal and Cal-5 are designed for comfort and i think you should look at the cervelo bikes as a continuum. you have:
S-series: high speed road. aerodynamics in a road setting.
R-series: general road riding, differing in use case from the S-series in that the emphasis is on climbing.
Caledonia: you’re stipulating here that “road” is a term used loosely. if you intend on riding anything thinner than a 30mm tire then i question what the value is for you in a caledonia. you may as well then just be on an R-series bike.
Aspero: now you’re into gravel, full stop. but even the aspero is a bike that wants a 700c wheel and tires in the mid-40s mms or below. there is a bike further along this continuum that cervelo has not yet made, that would be optimized for “gravel” that is more appropriately ridden by an MTB if you were looking at the best bike for the purpose.
the one thing i’d add about geometry and fit is that the caledonia is the R3 geometry. it’s the classic cervelo road geometry as regards fit, but with a slightly pushed forward front wheel axle: 72° head angle + 50mm fork offset, keeps the trail the same, but adds front center. this makes the bike a steady handler, gives the rider a little more shoe overlap clearance if you want to put some bigger tires on this bike.
if i was riding, say, BWR in san diego, that bike you ride for the win is a road bike, not a gravel bike. but there are really nasty sections. if i was in charge of equipment for pro cyclists and i had to choose a bike for the win, this is where the caledonia would shine. this bike with 30mm or 32mm road tires. perfectly good on the pavement, fast enough certainly, but with 32mm road tires you’d be great on rideable dirt.
the alternative is to do what i did, which is put 32mm tires on an R5. the bike is still really lite, at high-15lb, a snappy handler, but those big tires are great for rideable dirt and freeze-cracked asphalt. but if the only thing i ever rode was rideable dirt, maybe riding the occasional unrideable dirt, and really bad roads, it would be the caledonia.
So is this basically the R3 Mud from a few years back?
Hi, I’m hoping to get some opinions on the Cervelo Caledonia. It’s comfort factor. If using it mainly for road cycling how is it? Thanks
i own a new R5. i spent some months riding the Cal-5. the comments above are pretty accurate. the Cal and Cal-5 are designed for comfort and i think you should look at the cervelo bikes as a continuum. you have:
S-series: high speed road. aerodynamics in a road setting.
R-series: general road riding, differing in use case from the S-series in that the emphasis is on climbing.
Caledonia: you’re stipulating here that “road” is a term used loosely. if you intend on riding anything thinner than a 30mm tire then i question what the value is for you in a caledonia. you may as well then just be on an R-series bike.
Aspero: now you’re into gravel, full stop. but even the aspero is a bike that wants a 700c wheel and tires in the mid-40s mms or below. there is a bike further along this continuum that cervelo has not yet made, that would be optimized for “gravel” that is more appropriately ridden by an MTB if you were looking at the best bike for the purpose.
the one thing i’d add about geometry and fit is that the caledonia is the R3 geometry. it’s the classic cervelo road geometry as regards fit, but with a slightly pushed forward front wheel axle: 72° head angle + 50mm fork offset, keeps the trail the same, but adds front center. this makes the bike a steady handler, gives the rider a little more shoe overlap clearance if you want to put some bigger tires on this bike.
if i was riding, say, BWR in san diego, that bike you ride for the win is a road bike, not a gravel bike. but there are really nasty sections. if i was in charge of equipment for pro cyclists and i had to choose a bike for the win, this is where the caledonia would shine. this bike with 30mm or 32mm road tires. perfectly good on the pavement, fast enough certainly, but with 32mm road tires you’d be great on rideable dirt.
the alternative is to do what i did, which is put 32mm tires on an R5. the bike is still really lite, at high-15lb, a snappy handler, but those big tires are great for rideable dirt and freeze-cracked asphalt. but if the only thing i ever rode was rideable dirt, maybe riding the occasional unrideable dirt, and really bad roads, it would be the caledonia.
So is this basically the R3 Mud from a few years back?
in use case yeah, exactly. i remember when the R3 mud was made, for hushovd, and i really wanted one of those. tried to get one. but the caledonia is not really built using that bike’s design. remember, the R3 mud was an R3 with reworked chain stays. it had the R3’s front end. the caledonia has a different front end geometry. but the way the caledonia fits is exactly the R3, and it’s kinda the R3 mud from the BB back. one of the things i like about the caledonia is that the R3 mud was the most authentically cool, steeped-in-culture road bike cervelo ever made. to go back and pluck that moment from history and recreate it from the drawing board was a great idea.
and didn’t Specialized do something similar for the Monuments with a Tarmac front triangle and a Roubaix Rear? But 100% agree the cool factor of the R3 Mud, I still look on eBay and see a 54 on occasion, but if I see a 56 or 58…it will be mine.
and didn’t Specialized do something similar for the Monuments with a Tarmac front triangle and a Roubaix Rear? But 100% agree the cool factor of the R3 Mud, I still look on eBay and see a 54 on occasion, but if I see a 56 or 58…it will be mine.
specialized: i don’t remember. i remember the R3 mud because i paid more attention to cervelo, but also because it was just this bike-athlete project. cervelo had great classics riders like cancellara, hushovd and roger hammond. as i recall the R3 mud was a hushovd project. he got 3rd, then 2nd at paris roubaix on that bike and then vansummeren won on an R3 mud in 2011. when i wrote about the cal 5 i brought up the history of the R3 mud because the first thing that occurred to me when i saw the cal-5 was that cervelo finally made a commercial version of that bike.
i lot of pro cyclists rode an R3 mud, well into the 20-teens.
one of the things i like about the caledonia is that the R3 mud was the most authentically cool, steeped-in-culture road bike cervelo ever made. to go back and pluck that moment from history and recreate it from the drawing board was a great idea.
How much of what Gerard went on to with OPEN and 3T, happened in that moment?
It was kind of the birth of the “All Road” movement - well before the Gravel craze had even started!
one of the things i like about the caledonia is that the R3 mud was the most authentically cool, steeped-in-culture road bike cervelo ever made. to go back and pluck that moment from history and recreate it from the drawing board was a great idea.
How much of what Gerard went on to with OPEN and 3T, happened in that moment? It was kind of the birth of the “All Road” movement - well before the Gravel craze had even started!
i may well be wrong, but if there was one, single, pivotal moment you’d point to that started gravel, i think it’s l’eroica. you would be right to argue that i’m an ignorant slut here, because gravel bikes aren’t even allowed in that event, and that’s not the point of that event. but i think a lot of folks who were captivated by the idea behind that event - that gravel roads were the beginning of bike racing - began to think about bikes that were optimized for gravel. i don’t know.
the earliest gravel races took place in, maybe, 2006 or 2007. dirty kanza. almanzo. it would be interesting to talk to jim cummins and chris skogen and folks of that era and see how many of them were l’eroica-inspired.
I’m curious to see what Cervelo plans to do with the R3 for 2022 and beyond considering the caledonia geometry is so similar to the R3. The Cal-5 and R5 are out of my budget. The Caledonia with Ultegra di2 is priced at $5k, which I could swallow as it’s a do-it-all bike, but if a R3 with Ultegra di2 and wider tire clearance was released at a similar price point that would be a very compelling bike. For some reason my ego just can’t look past the connotations of “endurance frame” as something that’s less than an a aggressive race frame.
I’m curious to see what Cervelo plans to do with the R3 for 2022 and beyond considering the caledonia geometry is so similar to the R3. The Cal-5 and R5 are out of my budget. The Caledonia with Ultegra di2 is priced at $5k, which I could swallow as it’s a do-it-all bike, but if a R3 with Ultegra di2 and wider tire clearance was released at a similar price point that would be a very compelling bike. For some reason my ego just can’t look past the connotations of “endurance frame” as something that’s less than an a aggressive race frame.
i think there’s a difference between endurance and classics. these are my distinctions. endurance geometry means less reach, more stack. i get it. i get the idea. but they’re rarely raceable bikes, for me.
however, a classics bike is - to me - a raceable geometry with features that make it classics-friendly. cobbles. strade bianchi. rideable dirt. freeze cracked pavement. that’s the R3 Mud. that’s the caledonia. the problem with the caledonia is it’s too pretty. it’s like if brad pitt actually decided to become a prize fighter. why risk ruining that pretty face? boxing needs a face like a dick tracy character.
To nobody in particular…could this bike be a cyclocross/road all-in-one bike?
I see “35mm tire” but is that with knows or slicks? If it could fit a 35 with a little gravel tread, a 33/32 standard sized mud cross tire…I’d be looking to sell my roadie and cross bike and just get that.
Once upon a time on website a man called Slo, wrote about a bike (Caledonia) and also wrote about the greatest thing since sliced bread (Zipp 303s wheels).
I was thinking of culling my herd from 7 bikes to 3 and decided to heed Dan’s wisdom and research.
I bought a Caledonia, the infinitely changeable 105, not the take it or leave it (at your peril) 5.
Then I started changing things, handle bars, seat post, and yes put on those Zipp 303S.
And then aero bars!
It’s truly a jack of all, master of none machine…sorta like its owner.
I’ll be using it in fondos both gravel and pave, as well as crits and road races, and even though with the aero bars and 303S it is sorta aero, it’s not going to any club TTs.
Easy to adjust, stable to ride, not TOO pretty (sorry Dan) , to get scratched and dirty.
Just adding a few statements on the geometry comparison between the current generation R5 and the Caledonia-5.
- Size 56 R5 has a stack & reach of 572mm & 389mm respectively (https://www.cervelo.com/en/r5)
- Size 56 Cal-5 has a stack & reach of 580mm & 387mm respectively (https://www.cervelo.com/en/caledonia-5)
- Both framesets now ship with a -8 degree stems
The prior generation R5 (circa 2018) also had a stack of 580mm and it was for the MY2018 edition that the stack was reduced to 572mm in size 56. At that time the R3 still had the same 580mm & 389mm measurements.
Here is the fit comparison between how my MY2019 R5 fit vs. my MY2021 Cal-5.
Also, note that http://www.yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php is a good site to input tire size into the trail calculation as bike manufacturers don’t show the tire size they use in their geometry charts.
The fit points are the same and unless you’re going for an extreme slammed position I can’t see how the Cal-5 would be considered “upright” by comparison. The differences are going to be:
- Cal-5 has longer chain stays
- Cal-5 has both more trail and more front center; less toe overlap which is nice with fenders and on dirt
- Cal-5 has a lower BB (albeit a tiny amount) that accounts for the assumed taller tires that people would use
- Cal-5 is longer overall (longer chain stays + more front center), which combined with more trail is going to have slower, albeit more confident steering at speed
The Cal-5 has also been stated to be as stiff as the pre-MY2018 R5 at the headtube and BB, and the current generation R5 has also been reduced in stiffness as well compared to the prior generation.
This is my personal opinion, but having ridden my MY2018 R5 extensively and having had it nearly skip off the road with bumps at times (on 28mm tires around 75-80PSI) I can’t say I miss it.