About to succumb to the Hype.

Anonymous

Pokerface wrote:

Nap - are you going to purchase the Rotor cranks and Q-Rings too?

The Rotor cranks are just extra money for the sake of extra money. ALthough they look the business.

You can get the Q-Rings and fit them to your Sram Red (as I did). Let me know if you want pics.

Sram have recently released 52 36 110BCD chainrings, so may get some of them...

But yes, you should post pics of the Rotor chainrings...

cal_stewart

pokerface what do the q rings ride like? are they worth the money as they are not cheap.

Chip \'oyler

NapoleonD wrote:

The beauty of the 2009 model is that MrsNapD probably won't notice the difference due to the mainly black appearance...

Chip, the Cervelo is stiffer and more responsive than the Look. The Look is more of an all rounder I'd say.

So the S2 for Racing, Look for general riding and Sportive's then?

Pokerface

Cal_Stewart wrote:

pokerface what do the q rings ride like? are they worth the money as they are not cheap.

That's a tough question. They were worth it FOR ME - but can't say for everyone. They smooth the pedal stroke out and put the power where I want it to be. Make climbing a lot easier. Even though they they are oval rings - they make me feel like I'm turning in a much more circular motion than before.

I think they have improved MY riding experience - but can't guarantee they will make EVERYONE a better rider - if you know what I mean.

But as my good friend NapD said to me - if you buy them and don't like them, it's pretty easy to re-sell them on ebay and get most of your money back. You don't see them listed very often - so I guess most purchasers are happy with them!

Pokerface

NapoleonD wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

But yes, you should post pics of the Rotor chainrings...

Here you go pal:

markos1963

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

Anonymous

Chip \'oyler wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

The beauty of the 2009 model is that MrsNapD probably won't notice the difference due to the mainly black appearance...

Chip, the Cervelo is stiffer and more responsive than the Look. The Look is more of an all rounder I'd say.

So the S2 for Racing, Look for general riding and Sportive's then?

I'm selling the Look. The Look was my racing bike but it was more suited to general riding. I love it but can't afford to keep it because MrsNapD would notice the extra frame...

Litespeed is for my training/general riding and sportives (if I can be ar5ed to do any) and TT bike for, erm, TTs.

Anonymous

Pokerface -

Can't see the images at work, I'll have a look later.

Anonymous

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

Nor did she seem compromised during her world cup win in Canada when she attacked from the first kilometre and held on to win.

hopper1

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

No point in joining your club then, Markos, someone already has the same bike that I want..... Hers was cheaper (freebie) and is probably a bigger frame, too!
Ah, perhaps I should lay a trap, and mug her :twisted:

markos1963

hopper1 wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

No point in joining your club then, Markos, someone already has the same bike that I want..... Hers was cheaper (freebie) and is probably a bigger frame, too!
Ah, perhaps I should lay a trap, and mug her :twisted:

Careful her boyfriend isn't with her, he's about 6' 17"

redddraggon

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

A few points about that statement:

1. AFAIK they don't make S2/S3/R3/R3SL that take 650c wheels.

2. And the frames are geo compromised because the small frames use 700c wheels, if she has 650c wheels well that eliminates the poor geo.

3. However the 51cm takes 700c, and the geo is crap. Far better small frames out there with better geo.

4. She's a Pro and doesn't really get a choice what she rides. I could "happily" ride a 51cm Cervelo, but the Geo is still crap.

dave_oc

According to the Cervelo website it's only the RS that comes in a special XS size that takes 650 wheels:

"Special XS size - Optimized fit for the smaller rider with 650c wheels to create zero toe overlap (no chance to touch the front wheel with your toes). Comfort is improved by not having to worry about toe overlap every time you ride slowly or make tight turns. No compromises just because “standard” wheels are bigger than they should be for small bikes. "

I assume she was riding one of those?

hopper1

redddraggon wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

A few points about that statement:

1. AFAIK they don't make S2/S3/R3/R3SL that take 650c wheels.

2. And the frames are geo compromised because the small frames use 700c wheels, if she has 650c wheels well that eliminates the poor geo.

3. However the 51cm takes 700c, and the geo is crap. Far better small frames out there with better geo.

4. She's a Pro and doesn't really get a choice what she rides. I could "happily" ride a 51cm Cervelo, but the Geo is still crap.

I could happily ride a 5' Emma Pooley

Crankmeister

here is a link to the lady and bike in speculation
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pho ... lues/84529

Crankmeister

Hopper
i see you are about 5ft 8 ish??? have you had a problem in the past with your toes catching the front wheel ?
you see im 5 ft 8 and im just wondering about geo and all
After Nap bought the cervelo ive been looking at those myself but you also mentioned that there geo is not the best for the vertically challenged.
There are no decent shops that i know of in my area where i can take a relatively short drive and get fitted to a decent frame.if anyone has details of shops that are near me then speak up as the new year beckons and im getting ready to take the plunge for a new ride.

markos1963

I'm very sorry. I'll tell Emma she's wrong next time I see her. I just assumed when she told me they had made a 48 for her with 650 wheels and it said S2 on her bike that she was right. Anyway how can the geo change just by putting smaller wheels on a bike, the wheelbase stays the same so trail and rake should be the same, the bike will steer quicker due to lower forces and a lower ride height.

cal_stewart

hopper1 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

Would sooner wait for the white, then...

If you are short, I'd avoid the Cervelos, their geo is compromised for shorter riders.

Miss E Pooley didn't seemed too compromised by the geo on her S2 when she came out with the club recently. She was running a 48 with 650 wheels and looked very comfortable despite being about 5' nothing.

A few points about that statement:

1. AFAIK they don't make S2/S3/R3/R3SL that take 650c wheels.

2. And the frames are geo compromised because the small frames use 700c wheels, if she has 650c wheels well that eliminates the poor geo.

3. However the 51cm takes 700c, and the geo is crap. Far better small frames out there with better geo.

4. She's a Pro and doesn't really get a choice what she rides. I could "happily" ride a 51cm Cervelo, but the Geo is still crap.

I could happily ride a 5' Emma Pooley

I'm with hopper

hopper1

Cal_Stewart wrote:

I'm with hopper

:shock: Spit roast :shock:

redddraggon

markos1963 wrote:

I'm very sorry. I'll tell Emma she's wrong next time I see her. I just assumed when she told me they had made a 48 for her with 650 wheels and it said S2 on her bike that she was right. Anyway how can the geo change just by putting smaller wheels on a bike, the wheelbase stays the same so trail and rake should be the same, the bike will steer quicker due to lower forces and a lower ride height.

Well if she's riding a custom 650c S2 the Geo won't be compromised.

But it's custom and not available as a production model to everyone else. So it's got little to with the point I was making that Small Cervelo have compromised Geo.

To be totally honest, all small bikes that use 700c wheels have poor geometry, but small Cervelos are worse than most IMO (apart from the RS).

650c wheels sort out most of the problems that come with 700c on small bikes.

hopper1

Crankmeister wrote:

Hopper
i see you are about 5ft 8 ish??? have you had a problem in the past with your toes catching the front wheel ?
you see im 5 ft 8 and im just wondering about geo and all
After Nap bought the cervelo ive been looking at those myself but you also mentioned that there geo is not the best for the vertically challenged.
There are no decent shops that i know of in my area where i can take a relatively short drive and get fitted to a decent frame.if anyone has details of shops that are near me then speak up as the new year beckons and im getting ready to take the plunge for a new ride.

I've not had a problem with my toes catching the front wheel, I dare say that I could do it, but you just automatically adjust for it.
My geography not too hot, so how far are you from Epic Cycles, nr Bromyard? Excellent for bike fitting, loads of bikes to choose and test ride, and they'll spec just about any of them with your choice of blingy bits
Well worth a drive, IMHO. I drove 420 mile round trip for them.

Anonymous

redddraggon wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

I'm very sorry. I'll tell Emma she's wrong next time I see her. I just assumed when she told me they had made a 48 for her with 650 wheels and it said S2 on her bike that she was right. Anyway how can the geo change just by putting smaller wheels on a bike, the wheelbase stays the same so trail and rake should be the same, the bike will steer quicker due to lower forces and a lower ride height.

Well if she's riding a custom 650c S2 the Geo won't be compromised.

But it's custom and not available as a production model to everyone else. So it's got little to with the point I was making that Small Cervelo have compromised Geo.

To be totally honest, all small bikes that use 700c wheels have poor geometry, but small Cervelos are worse than most IMO (apart from the RS).

650c wheels sort out most of the problems that come with 700c on small bikes.

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

redddraggon

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

I get toe overlap on all my frames, but the R3 (which I nearly bought awhile back) would have been ridiculous.

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

But yeh for you Alex, it'll be fine, and the 58cm won't look like a gate

Anonymous

redddraggon wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

I get toe overlap on all my frames, but the R3 (which I nearly bought awhile back) would have been ridiculous.

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

But yeh for you Alex, it'll be fine, and the 58cm won't look like a gate

The 48 has a 72.5 deg head tube angle...

Anonymous

redddraggon wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

I get toe overlap on all my frames, but the R3 (which I nearly bought awhile back) would have been ridiculous.

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

But yeh for you Alex, it'll be fine, and the 58cm won't look like a gate

The 48 has a 72.5 deg head tube angle...

redddraggon

NapoleonD wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

I get toe overlap on all my frames, but the R3 (which I nearly bought awhile back) would have been ridiculous.

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

But yeh for you Alex, it'll be fine, and the 58cm won't look like a gate

The 48 has a 72.5 deg head tube angle...

I'd take a 51cm though and that has a 73deg HTA

jibberjim

redddraggon wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

So your basis on "geo is crap" is decided because of Toe Overlap? A complete non-issue for racing, or most riding (I just raced Hillingdon today with someone on a 48cm Cervelo Soloist who had no trouble at all...)

Rather than leaving the head-angle the same, and ensuring the same weight distribution as the larger bikes, what do you think they should do? Moving a person forward will just put too much weight on the front wheel and ruin the handling much more than a little toe overlap would do.

redddraggon

jibberjim wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Just out of interest, is that from trying one, someone else's opinion or just by looking at the charts?

Not that it affects me!

From Analysis of the geometry. I mention nothing of the ride quality,

Most small frames suffer from it, but Cervelos insistence on maintaining 73deg seattubes throughout their size range, and the 73 deg headtube, along with the short top tube means the front-centre is ridiculously short, and toe overlap is v. large.

So your basis on "geo is crap" is decided because of Toe Overlap? A complete non-issue for racing, or most riding (I just raced Hillingdon today with someone on a 48cm Cervelo Soloist who had no trouble at all...)

Rather than leaving the head-angle the same, and ensuring the same weight distribution as the larger bikes, what do you think they should do? Moving a person forward will just put too much weight on the front wheel and ruin the handling much more than a little toe overlap would do.

Read what I wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

jibberjim

redddraggon wrote:

Read what I wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

The geometry is fine for pure racing, but it's not something I'd want on an everyday bike.

So what is it not fine for? Club runs you never turn corners sharp enough that toe overlap is an issue. Cycling around the shops where you may want to turn that sharply on at least a 1000 quid frame is not something many sane people do.

And you failed to answer my point about how you make a bike that small suitable, since changing the head tube angle changes the weight distribution, which changes the handling mostly for the worse as it forces weight over the front wheel.

jibberjim

redddraggon wrote:

And you failed to answer my point about how you make a bike that small suitable, since changing the head tube angle changes the weight distribution, which changes the handling mostly for the worse as it forces weight over the front wheel.

So you reckon Cervelo geometry is right, and everyone else's geometry is wrong?[/quote]

Np, I was asking a serious question, but instead of answering it you've just descended into attacking me. Can you try again and actually address the points of bicycle design rather than simply attacking the messenger.

redddraggon wrote:

I see you own a Cervelo RS, and are probably a Cervelo fan boy.

I do, and it's a great bike, but it's s*#t for a lot of my riding, I find it pretty inappropriate for racing for example - currently being forced to after my winter race bike was stolen, and my previous race bike died in a crash.

redddraggon wrote:

Compare the RS geo to the R3 geo, and you'll find there's more than the difference in headtube length.

Yes, the 650c Wheels for example and the same head tube angle. Which suggests that it head tube angle (and fork rake obviously, but that's pretty fixed for the forks in use) which Cervelo see as the most important thing for maintaining weight distribution. Which is why I'm not surprised by the decision to accept toe overlap which is matters little unless you're cornering sharply at very low speeds.

And also obviously if you raise the headtube, you change the position of the rider, so the other dimensions need to change. And of course the change in purpose between the RS and R3.