Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all, I run a YouTube channel about cycling and have a video about the R5. When I was shopping for a bike, most reviews I found focused on specs and what not, and one video even had a guy reviewing the bike without pedals on it, telling us how it was to ride it!

Anyway, I've got about 7000 miles on the frame and am sharing this video in the hopes that it helps you make a more informed decision. I do my best to tell what it's like to actually ride and own the bike.

Hope this helps!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddKPD0vefUA
 

·
Forever a Student
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
Nice review.

I also own an R5, previous color, about the same amount of miles. I don't have the paint durability issues you have. Maybe they use a different paint now than they used to?

I agree on the twitchy/accurate/sharp/tight steering. Makes high speed descents interesting.

I agree on the bottom bracket standard and the issues with creaking. I've stuck with the Rotor and gone to an Enduro TorqTite but the whole process has been mind numbingly terrible. A threaded bottom bracket would have been the tits. Never dropped a chain or had a missed shift at all and I find the Rotor rings to be dead silent, seriously dead silent.

I don't agree on it being harsh. I find it very compliant vs. other bikes of mine. Front end maybe but I find the seat tube/seat post/seat stays to be very comfortable. Only bike I've ridden more comfortable is the BMC Granfondo and it's about a tie there. I have tried your seat though and find that to be very uncomfortable. A more plush seat could very well change your thoughts on comfort for the frame. (I run 23s with low pressures on training wheels on mine)

Again, nice review. Sucks your paint isn't holding up at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yeah, what happened to the good old days of a threaded bottom bracket? Anyway, you may be right about the saddle. I did a 10 hour ride on it a few weeks back and am still messed up. The seat post does have a decent amount of flex in it, and I am now running on a Williams Aurora SLC. I've only got one ride in it so way too early to tell, but I'll for sure post back here if it's still the same results with harshness.

To be fair, the bike felt just as rough from the first ride on the stock saddle.
 

·
Forever a Student
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
Well also to be fair I compare it to tanks of bikes that were made before anyone had come up with the small stays or moved to the slim seat posts. Ones with horizontal top tubes and raised seatpost collars for 31.6mm seatposts that only stick up a few inches and have no flex. Ones with overbuilt seat stays. The Dogma 65.1 is a good example.

The R5 with the pencil thin (to this day still scares me how thin) seat stays, sloping top tube and 27.2mm seatpost with good exposure is a noticeable difference to me, quite noticeable. I forget about it if I stay on the R5 a lot but I tend not to, I tend to switch it up often. Just the ability to notice any flex or compliance at all is a change for me and I can certainly feel it on the R5.

Side note though about seat compliance: Best soft-riding rigid seatposts for road, dirt, and gravel - BikeRadar USA

That Canyon VCLS 2.0/Ergon CF3 (brother companies) is exceptional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
Crank set and bottom bracket probably speak to Cervelo trying to save money where buyers aren't focused. 100% agree on the switch to Dura Ace. I prefer a BSA bottom bracket which is why I'm on a C-59. Another way Cervelo saves money is by building the same rear triangle across frame sizes. Your discussion tells me crit riders will love the bike , but likely view it as banged and scratched up relatively quickly and feel the need for yet another upgrade.

Could the wheel wheel choice be contributing to the harsh ride? I'm on C-24's which are not deep rim. I've heard that deep rim wheels tend to ride stiffer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,658 Posts
Crank set and bottom bracket probably speak to Cervelo trying to save money where buyers aren't focused.
I think it's more like where buyers ARE focused thanks to con-job marketing. I think a lot of people are catching on but we all remember how the masses just had to have bb30 or whatever when it came out.....stiffness blah blah.....I have to have that.

Anyway, really nice job OP. I have no interest in the subject of the review really but still enjoyed watching it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Well also to be fair I compare it to tanks of bikes that were made before anyone had come up with the small stays or moved to the slim seat posts. Ones with horizontal top tubes and raised seatpost collars for 31.6mm seatposts that only stick up a few inches and have no flex. Ones with overbuilt seat stays. The Dogma 65.1 is a good example.

The R5 with the pencil thin (to this day still scares me how thin) seat stays, sloping top tube and 27.2mm seatpost with good exposure is a noticeable difference to me, quite noticeable. I forget about it if I stay on the R5 a lot but I tend not to, I tend to switch it up often. Just the ability to notice any flex or compliance at all is a change for me and I can certainly feel it on the R5.

Side note though about seat compliance: Best soft-riding rigid seatposts for road, dirt, and gravel - BikeRadar USA

That Canyon VCLS 2.0/Ergon CF3 (brother companies) is exceptional.
Yeah those seat stays are almost invisible. From what I understand though, they are almost redundant in some cases, especially on bikes with beefy chainstays (like the R5). It's almost comical the difference between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Crank set and bottom bracket probably speak to Cervelo trying to save money where buyers aren't focused. 100% agree on the switch to Dura Ace. I prefer a BSA bottom bracket which is why I'm on a C-59. Another way Cervelo saves money is by building the same rear triangle across frame sizes. Your discussion tells me crit riders will love the bike , but likely view it as banged and scratched up relatively quickly and feel the need for yet another upgrade.

Could the wheel wheel choice be contributing to the harsh ride? I'm on C-24's which are not deep rim. I've heard that deep rim wheels tend to ride stiffer.
The Enve are light years stiffer than the HED Ardennes, but the bike still felt fairly rough even with the stock wheels. Admittedly, I'm no expert - I'm just a typical Cat 6 guy doing my best to help out in ways I wish I had help when buying bikes. But the 2 most noticeable differences in the Enve wheels are they spin up very quickly and just want to keep on rolling.

I'll be doing a review on the 4.5 this weekend and will post it here for sure. I've got some great feedback and constructive criticism on the video so hopefully can give you guys some better insight than I did with the bike.

Cheers,
Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I think it's more like where buyers ARE focused thanks to con-job marketing. I think a lot of people are catching on but we all remember how the masses just had to have bb30 or whatever when it came out.....stiffness blah blah.....I have to have that.

Anyway, really nice job OP. I have no interest in the subject of the review really but still enjoyed watching it.
All good points you guys, and I replied about the wheel choice in a different comment - sorry.

Jay - what sort of reviews would you be interested in seeing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,658 Posts
Jay - what sort of reviews would you be interested in seeing?
It's not the 'sort' of review per se I wasn't interested in. It's just that I'm not in the market for a light Carbon race frame and if I was Cervelo wouldn't be a consideration so it was more the particular product I wasn't interested in. Not that I didn't think it was interesting none-the-less. I had not incentive to pay attention but still did. I think you did a great job and it was exactly the style and content those of us who have come to not take magazines and bike companies seriously want to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,658 Posts
What's up with the tall headtube of Cervelos!
.....and the 73 degree seat tube on all sizes. I've read their explanation but it doesn't add up to me. I'm fairly short but pretty normal as far as proportions go and I'd need to have a 'set forward' seat by about .5 cm. Which I suppose would be fine but a bike designed so set forward is the norm seems weird to me. n/a for the bigger sizes though.
 

·
Cpark
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Nice review!
I have a 2005 S5, and I have experienced many common issues that you described.
I have had several paint chips appeared under the chain stay and seat stays with no apparent impact.
I had/have several CF bike and this is the only one with the paint chips.
Just like you, I didn't care for Rotor crank sets/BB due to noisy shifting and creaking noise.
I replaced it with DA cranked/3rd party BB, and it has been noise free ever since.
I almost went with R5 in 56 but the head tube was way too long for a racing machine in my opinion.

It's a great riding bike though, so I'm ok with the extra money I put in to replace crank-set, saddle, handlebar, stem and wheel-set.
I imagine the S5 rides very much like the R5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
I rode with someone who interacts with hundreds of cyclists as part of a sportive held around here. He had an interesting word for describing the bikes, 'delicate'
 

·
Cpark
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
By the way, I'm pretty surprised that the R5 is not very comfy.
I run a set of ENVE 4.5 with 25mm Continental GP clinchers and run 80/90psi, and I find my S5 to be pretty comfortable.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top