Help me out: Soloist v. R2.5 ?

[Catabolic Jones]

I see that CSC seems to prefer the Soloist over the R2.5 except in mountain stages. Is this because of the stiffness and tighter rear triangle of the soloist? Better power transfer?

Just confused as to why one would go for alu over carbon. Help out this newb!

 

[mrowkoob]

I see that CSC seems to prefer the Soloist over the R2.5 except in mountain stages. Is this because of the stiffness and tighter rear triangle of the soloist? Better power transfer?

Just confused as to why one would go for alu over carbon. Help out this newb!

No offence if you are indeed a newb to cycling an R 2.5 seems like overkill as a first bike. No matter which pro rides it. Getting the Soloist would be the wisest choice. Although if money is no option why not the R2.5 just make sure you get properly sized before spending money on a bike.

 

[artmichalek]

From what I've read, a lot of riders (Iban Mayo in particular) prefer to use different geometries on their climbing bikes. Usually shorter chanstays and steeper seat tubes. Since it's impractical to make these bikes out of carbon, they use aluminum.

 

[531Aussie]

One reason for the Soloist preference by the CSC riders on flat, faster stages is that the frame is a bit more aerodynamic.

I think one of the CSC guys actually changed to the Soloist during a stage of last year's Tour because he was planning a solo break away!

I assume you've looked around the Cervelo site
http://www.cervelo.com/

 

[Catabolic Jones]

No offence if you are indeed a newb to cycling an R 2.5 seems like overkill as a first bike. No matter which pro rides it. Getting the Soloist would be the wisest choice. Although if money is no option why not the R2.5 just make sure you get properly sized before spending money on a bike.

True enough, however i've been doing tri for a few years, plus hockey all my life; quite fit and already winning races. Besides, why not get the right bike now, so in 5 years or so I won't need an upgrade?

Thanks for the input, still going to be a hard choice.

 

[wilmar13]

Besides, why not get the right bike now, so in 5 years or so I won't need an upgrade?

Well there is a difference between an informed newb and someone that doesn't know which end is up. I totally agree with your statement...if you know you like cycling, and are going in with both feet, get the best bike you can or want whether you have been riding for 3 months or 30 years. I don't have an opinion about which of your two choices to go with, but I do think your relative newness to the sport has no bearing on the decision.

 

[tcklyde]

True enough, however i've been doing tri for a few years, plus hockey all my life; quite fit and already winning races. Besides, why not get the right bike now, so in 5 years or so I won't need an upgrade?

Thanks for the input, still going to be a hard choice.

No question: get the Soloist. It's cheaper, more areo, much more durable (read the roadbikereview.com reviews on the carbon cervelos), and just a cool bike. And if you want pro style proof, wins in Paris-Nice, C-I, and second in L-B-L are pretty good recs. Get the Soloist.

 

[Vector7]

I see that CSC seems to prefer the Soloist over the R2.5 except in mountain stages. Is this because of the stiffness and tighter rear triangle of the soloist? Better power transfer?

Just confused as to why one would go for alu over carbon. Help out this newb!

I think it really depends on your riding style and what type of racing you plan to pursue for the long-term. Tri and Crits and Road Racing are all completely different disciplines. Your bike geometry and material make-up needs to reflect what you think will occupy majority of your time when cycling. Good Luck!

Tailwinds,
Vector7

 

[sperky]

I went through the same questions as you although this is not my first road bike. I ended up getting the Soloist Team (vs. R2.5 Chorus) for a few reasons:

- probably a bit more durable (see R2.5 de-bonding issues)
- more aero
- better bike for the occasional triathalon or time trial (with geometry adjusted)
- came with Dura Ace
- it looks damn cool
- CSC uses it more than the R2.5...they must know something

Both the R2.5 Chorus and Soloist Team (Dura Ace) were the same price so that wasn't a factor. From what I've read the Soloist is a comfortable frame...plus coming off my Specialized it must be more comfortable than that.

I pick mine up on Friday. Can't wait!

 

[tfstrum]

They've made the soloist for a lot longer than a carbon bike. It's a nice proven frame. The R2.5 isn't much longer, so maybe the soloist is a little stiffer and that's why it's picked for the mountains.

 

[safrorider]

It all depends what your strenghts are and what kind of riding you're planning on doing. I'd opt for the soloist if crits and sprinting are your forte, and the R2.5 if you like climbing.
Also, your newness to the sport shouldn't influence your decision. If you serious about being a cyclist, then you might as well invest in something you can ride for a while. I won my first race and was instantly better than a lot of "experienced" cyclists.

 

[Catabolic Jones]

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clear it up a bit, I'm no longer doing triathlon. The races in my area seem equally divided between short, hilly crits, longer road races, and time trials (both hill and rolling). I intend to do pretty much a bit of everything, although my strength is definitely climbing.

Last week, I was the only guy out with a steel bike, everything was carbon fibre, and I still came 2nd, so I expect I'm ready for a CF/titanium ride!

 

[S. Thomas]

I work at a pro bike shop in Dallas, TX, and I recently heard a few pros going at it over this exact same issue.

Apparently, due to the TdF minimum weight requirements, weight is a non-issue. They will both have no problem being right at the minimum because of Cervelo's reputation for prioritizing weight and cutting unnecessary material. Further, CSC was riding the new carbon prototype soloists rather than the aluminum ones last TdF in '05. Since the soloist is more aerodynamic and known for being slightly stiffer due to its extremely compact geometry, most of the team chose to stick with the Soloist rather than opting for a R2.5.

That said, the new carbon Soloist does not come out for another couple of months (I have not seen any in the shop, nor has our Cervelo distributor seen any yet). At this point, the advantages of carbon, generally, so far overwhelm the soloist's aerodynamics that I have seen very few people purchasing the Soloist. This is most likely why Cervelo is creating a carbon version of the Soloist.

Okay - all of that jabber aside - I got to witness a USCF Elite cycling coach hashing it out with some of the local pro racers over his Soloist. As a coach, he's been riding the Soloist line since 2001. He works with pros using power output and aero efficiency to increase general awareness and having more than your legs in the race. He rides a good three hundred miles a week on his aluminum Soloist, and can honestly say that it is not a comfortable ride. Riding with his clients, he feels he needs that much "power" and "stiffness" to keep up, versus using a "cushier" frame like the R2.5.

One of the pros he works with uses an R2.5 because he has an amazing heart but lacks the big fast twitch muscle of a sprinter. He needs something as lightweight as possible that will give him a little bit more give on long rides while still maintaining Cervelo's stiff precedent set by the Soloist.

If I were to pick between the two, I would choose the R2.5, but then I do not race every weekend, nor is racing my #1 concern right now.

Just my two and a half cents.

 

[JTE83]

I've very happy with my AL Soloist and I'd rather have this bike than an R2.5. The carbon Soloist is too expensive for me and I'd rather get the carbon P3 instead. I hit a top speed of 32.9 mph on this bike in the flats with no wind.

My 51cm bike in the pic is 17.4 lbs built with Ksyrium SL's, 3TTT Less 199 bars, Syntace F99 90mm stem, FSA Superlights 170mm, all Dura Ace 9 drivetrain, 7800 brakes, Selle Aspide Aerohead seat, Weyless carbon cages, Vredestein Ricorso training tires (~312 g), Forte Mag/Ti pedals, and AL seat post.

I'm using the recalled fork with no problems.