I am considering the R2.5 and the Madone 5.9. Anybody have any thoughts on the relative advantages and disantages of each? Thanks.
There was a Madone on ebay so I started researching forums and reviews a bit. Great bike but really stiff.
Tom’s got a great review of the R2.5 on his website.
The R2.5 has had serious problems with bonding and frames coming apart. This from my LBS, from friends of friends, and from the reviews on roadbikereview.com. Best to steer clear of the bike until Cervelo has addressed these problems, and to go for a model that has been proven reliable. No matter how great a bike is, it’s no fun if you’re waiting 8 weeks in the middle of summer for a warranty replacement. If you demand carbon, the Madone is a very nice bike, as is the C’dale 6-13, Orbea Orca, Colnago C40, etc. If you’re not going to be riding up the Alpe d’Huez, why not consider a Cervelo Soloist?
The really stiff version was prior year models. I think they have addressed this in the 2005 model line.
At one time I had a hard on for both those bikes, but less so now. If I was buying tomorrow morning I’d also be giving this one a very serious look.
C-guy
I think I’m going to jump on this one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7148945639&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
.
there are zero bad reviews or instances of any frame malfunctions, nothing but rave reviews, on roadbikereview.com, as long as you’re looking at 2005 bikes. problems only on older models, when they first came out. which can be said of just about every new style of bike.
your LBS needs to be named and, in fact, you need to be named, if you’re going to spread unsubstantiated rumors, such as what “friends of friends” say. my suspicion is that only older, first-year, models had any problems, that’s the scuttlebutt i’ve heard, and if you can’t verify problems with 05 bikes then the proper thing to do is to take back your insinuations, publicly, here.
or, give an actual example of a problem with this bike now that it’s in its second year. mission bay bought 20 of the new '05 r2.5 models, sold them all, and has had zero problem with them. likewise with all other retailers with whom i’m in contact.
Thanks for raising the bullshit flag, Dan. I suspected the writer of that post was reporting aged semi-truths, but I had about as much info to rebut his statements as he apparently had in writing them.
Well, I own both bikes you are looking at. However my Madone 5.9 SL is set up as my tri-bike, so comparing them specifically as roadbikes is a little difficult. Even if both bikes were set up as roadbikes they are very different bikes, but I will offer you some generalizations. Both are very stiff, very light, very comfortable for the long haul, and very well made. The Cervelo is much more rare, so you may get some style or envy points here. Treks and those that ride them get bashed for being Lance followers/worshipers which I think is complete BS as they are very well made bikes. I bought my Madone 5.9 SL because it fit when I set it up as tri-bike, there were only two other carbon fibre bikes that fit at the time and one was (still is not) available. Now that being said if I had the money I would have bought a Calfee Dragonfly Pro ($3,495.00 just for the frame).
There are six reviews of the 2005 model year R2.5 on roadbikereview.com. Of those, two describe a problem where “the bonding on the seat tube split away from the bottom bracket shell.” One of the posters even notes “this is a recurring Cervelo problem - previously noted in '04 models, but that Cervelo failed to correct for the '05 models.”
Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself: http://roadbikereview.com/latest-bikes/road-bike/Cervelo/PRD_290800_5668crx.aspx#reviews
I am not a Cervelo basher–I have a P2K, and think it’s a great bike. But I also think it’s a public service to let consumers know when a bike model is flawed. And I don’t appreciate being called a bullshit artist, nor will I name my LBS so they can be put on someone’s blacklist.
Since we have Gerard on this forum, perhaps he can give us the lowdown? I’d be very happy to be proved wrong.
“And I don’t appreciate being called a bullshit artist, nor will I name my LBS so they can be put on someone’s blacklist.”
i didn’t call you a bullshit artist, but now that you bring it up…
i’m quite certain any bikes with problems were '04. but, yes, perhaps gerard might want to comment. if your LBS is not afraid of the truth, then your LBS won’t mind being named. otherwise, your LBS and its good word does not exist. and frankly, unless you’re named you don’t exist either (which makes me wonder why i’m answering something that doesn’t exist).
it’s HIGHLY likely any problems your LBS had was with an '04 model, and likewise your “friend of a friend.”
unless you KNOW of an '05 that has a problem–not a guy who bought an '04 bike in '05, but an '05–then you ought to reconsider writing potentially damaging posts on a public forum. the alternative is to back it up with names and verifiable accounts of things that actually occurred.
Supergo of Fountain Valley was very vocal about the first two of three R2.5’s having problems with tube separation (I thought both were seat stay at dropout separations) back in November/December '04 - I always assumed they were 05’s since that’s when they were shipping, but now I wonder. I didn’t know the owners who’s bikes had the problems, and I took the information with a grain of salt as it was second, third, or fourth hand (but from management). And, of course, Cervelo left Supergo right around that time which makes me believe they were the older frames given that Cervelo has plenty of dealers who they’re committed to who’d probably get first shipment of the new frames. Lastly, Supergo did say the customers who had the problems were taken care of by Cervelo very quickly.
I wouldn’t hesitate to purchase the R2.5.
Well, we haven’t made things easy on ourselves by changing colors out of sinc with changing model versions.
The biggest problem we have is cracking paint, which is something that is hard to avoid (even Armstrong’s Treks have it). Unfortunately it is tough to distinguish from a cracked frame until we have it back here. But the frames we’re shipping out are rock-solid, we wouldn’t be shipping out thousands of frames if we thought they’d be coming back. A very small group of customers with older frames are experiencing some problems, and we have replaced those with newer ones. Of course, if a few guys out of thousands of frames sold has a problem, that’s pretty good (though not good enough for us). But if those guys write about it on roadbikereview, it suddenly seems like the world is coming to an end. And as far as the cracking paint goes, it appears that that problem is almost completely solved too, we see fewer and fewer cases of that after adjusting the paint process.
Gerard,
I have no doubt about the R2.5 frame quality. I’m sure it is awedome. The real impetus for my initial post was trying to determine what the objective differences between the R2.5 frame and Madone are. Essentially, I want to use the bike for IMLP and am thinking a road geometry might be preferable compared to my p3. Accordingly, I am considering the R2.5 and Madone. Thanks.
Well, if IMLP on a road bike is the question behind the question, I’d get a Soloist. I’m sure that’s not the answer you wanted either, but that’s my honest opinion.
Gerard,
You know a heck of a lot more about bikes than I do, so I don’t have any preconceived notions. Just of curiosity, why do you suggest Soloist over R2.5 for IMLP? As always thanks for your advice.
I can think of at least two good reasons to use a Soloist:
-
More Aero
-
Some guy named Lessing won IMLP on a soloist.
Well, in short the difference between the Soloist and the R2.5/Madone style frame is a weight differential vs. an aerodynamic differential. There is not enough climbing at IMLP to tip the scale in favor of the weight argument. If properly set up for you, I don’t believe you will notice much difference aside from the weight/aerodynamics trade-off, all three are quite comfortable, stiff in the bb and well-made. Geometry for the Soloist and R2.5 is identical.
I know that one can argue for days over carbon here and tube shape there and I’ll leave that to those who want to, and perception certainly speaks against the Soloist from that point of view, but the reality is that I have never heard of any issues from people riding a properly fitting Soloist, in fact most people are quite amazed about how comfortable it is.
but the reality is that I have never heard of any issues from people riding a properly fitting Soloist, in fact most people are quite amazed about how comfortable it is.
I am one of those who is very surprised by the Soloist. I raced harris roubaix, which has 3km of gravel in a 10km loop recently. We were riding the gravel a little under 40km and I was sure it was going be much more uncomfortable that it was. As an all round road bike its a fine bike, now if you could make a road only seat post that required less fiddling around to adjust it would be even better.
I seem to be one of those people who constantly has a creaking seat post! This means constant application of grease and adjustments. I have a P2k as well which seems to have the same problem.
Carbon is the in material but at 2500 CND for a Chorus Soloist is not bad value at all. I would not hesitate in buying another if I break this one! In fact I am in the process of selling my Trek 5500 as I prefer the Soloist, part of the reason is the fit is better but even so I really like the Soloist.