A non-TdF related post for once. 
I’m building it up myself and the frameset costs are close enough to remove that consideration from the equation.
It will be a road bike only, not a dual-purpose machine…I already have a tri bike. Getting the road bike primarily for longer, hillier training rides and so I can feel more comfortable doing some of faster group rides in my area.
I have ridden both and I must say that the R3 would be my choice. The SLC is an amazing and beautiful bike, but the slightly more comfortable ride of the R3 is what does it for me. This is truely an all-day bike that you can also sprint and climb on. As an extra plus the R3 has wider tire clearance so you can run 25mm or even 28mm tires if you want to hit some dirt/gravel roads.
sounds like a win-win to me…
according to the marketing hype:
R3 - a bit stiffer, slightly better ride
Soloist - more aero
honestly… you can’t go wrong with either machine.
i have an alumin(i)um soloist that I like quite a bit.
but if my choice was btwn those 2 bikes, I’d probably get the R3, just to have the normal seatpost. (i think i read somewhere that it’s a bit narrower than the standard, or something like that, but it’s still round). the soloist is a great bike but the seatpost head is horrible. i have the 2 position, but i’ve looked at the 1 position and it’s pretty similar. not a reason to not get the bike, but enough to sway me btwn those two bikes.
-charles
Funny you should ask this question as it is one I have pondered personally. Now, as I saw it, there is a hefty price gap from the R3 to the Soloist Carbon. That being the case I was initially attracted to the R3 on price alone.
Here is my take after fitting and demo-ing both frames though:
The R3 is a rather versatile all-rounder that is light and stiff enough to climb very nicely but robust enough to soak up the cobbles or even be re-worked by Cervelo into a cyclocross prototype version as seen on their website. Remember, this is the very bike that won Paris-Roubaix twice and the SL version used this year in the mountains of the Tour de France. Given, two different versions but essentially a similar configuration in terms of frame shapes. -So, want somethinglight, durable and comfortable at a darn fair price? The R3. So nice.
But…
What if you are mostly on the flats at higher average speeds and really feel you need something that might provide an aerodynamic benefit? In terms of aerodynamics the squoval down tube on the R3 is, well… did I mention how nice that bike rides? Now, the down tube, head tube, rear end configuration on the Soloist Carbon is likely more aerodynamic than the R3- at least Cervelo says so and I do drink the Kool-Aid on that thinking. Also, I’ll go one further and suggest that even with Squoval shapes on the R3 the Soloist Carbon feels stiffer in my size. It also seems to steer slightly more attentively.
I owned and loved an R2.5. My sense is I will replace it with a new R3. I lust after a Soloist Carbon SL but unless I win one on Versus it hovers well out of my price range.
Tom, it’s intersting that you have pondered the question too. I have given some thought to why the SLC has not been a bigh seller over here (is it the same stateside?) compared to the r3. I think a lot of it is that it stands in an uneasy middle ground between the R3 for road and the P3C for tri/TT. It has a blurred area of use to my mind, neither completely road or completely TT.
My r2.5 is definitely a keeper, the only bike they would have to prise from my cold, dead hands but I would like to try a SLC out. If I needed the aero advantage that the SLC offers I think I would be reaching for a P3C, but if money were no object…
R3
I have a P3 for Tri and pulled the trigger on the R3 for road and group rides. It is unique from all the aero tri bikes which you state you already have. I have to say that my private peleton I ride in makes many comments on my R3. Those tiny seat stays still blow people away. Seeing Sastre on it in the mountains is also a lot of fun although I figure by now he is on the R3 SL but no matter.
One thing I have noticed on the less aero side is that on downhill decents above 40 mph the front end of the bike sort of whistles. Definitely cool, but not likely fast. Does it really matter…not likely. It actually seems like the sound is coming from around the headset and stem vs. the downtube.
Have fun.
Good feedback all,
I’m leaning towards the R3. It seems the best tool for the job and hey, it will save me a few bucks which is always nice
Tom:
Your post is interesting as I assume that you’ll be getting a shop deal on the Cervelo and even at that discount, you’d still go with the R3. No valure judgement or anything like that, but it is very interesting. A true statement about the R3.
Bob
I have had the opportunity to ride a number of the top-of-the-line road frames - the Colnago C50, The Orbea Ordu, The Cannodale 6-13, Pinerello Paris to name a few and of them all the R3 was the best. Now I am no bike test expert, but the R3 had the best feeling to me while riding deep in a ride - not just on a spin around the parking lot - and that to me is the true mark of a great bike. How does the bike feel the 60 mile mark of a 100 mile ride?
My choice was the SLC, i went with the aerodynamics because of the efficency aspect. I work for a shop in Fla and have test ridden both and found that with the right tire (compond and size) the SLC can ride just as comfy as the R3. But the R3 can go to a larger width tire if that is what you are looking for. I am not sure of the exact savings in terms of watts, I will have to ask my Cervelo Rep next time he is in. But it is something to consider.