Cervelo S1 vs Mediocre carbon

[Anonymous]

"Nowadays people are sometimes so blinded by “carbon” that they prefer a mediocre carbon frame over the best aluminum frame that is lighter, stronger, stiffer, more responsive and even more comfortable" - cervelo.com

So, I recently sold my carbon fibre bike, and without naming the brand, I happily admit that it would be classed as what cervelo calls a "mediocre carbon frame" (i.e the lower range carbon frame for that brand).

Compared to my old alloy road bike, I have to say, I preferred the feel of the alloy bike alot better (except for when the gradient exceeded 10%) and didn't really 'feel' much difference in weight (I had sh!tter components on the alloy bike compared to the carbon). I can't quite put my finger on it, but I really enjoyed riding the alloy bike alot better...

When I get around to buying a new bike, I considered buying the best alloy bike I could find, rather than a different carbon frame. I've known for some time that Cervelo are up there in terms of quality, and my trustworthy Cervelo dealer tells me that the pros still (or recently) have ridden the S1 in competition, and from personal experience, he agrees with the above quote about the S1 as he rides them often in races

So, my question, from experience does anyone believe, confirm, or disagree with, the quote stated above?

Is the S1 frame a better choice than a low range carbon frame?

Is it lighter, stronger, stiffer, more responsive?

What are your thoughts/experiences with this frame (or even the whole bike as sold with the ultegra kit/easton wheels etc)?

 

[Tapeworm]

A well made bike is a well made bike, regardless of material. I haven't tried the S1, but know several very good riders who rate them very highly.

Personally I sold my high end carbon frame and got a Bianchi FG Lite. Totally brilliant frame, the ride is just a sheer joy and very well suited for racing. With a pair of Zipp 404s it sits just over 7kgs. If it ever breaks, I'll get another.

 

[Anonymous]

A well made bike is a well made bike, regardless of material. I haven't tried the S1, but know several very good riders who rate them very highly.

Personally I sold my high end carbon frame and got a Bianchi FG Lite. Totally brilliant frame, the ride is just a sheer joy and very well suited for racing. With a pair of Zipp 404s it sits just over 7kgs. If it ever breaks, I'll get another.

I echo your thoughts on this one. That Bianchi sounds like a good ride, and the weight is awesome! Does it climb well? How bout compared to your old carbon ride?

 

[Tapeworm]

Ah, I am not the greatest climber, but for those who are, and whom also own one, they have vowed to ride no other. It was the last type of alloy frame to widely be used in a pro team, Liquigas. And for good reason too.

The FG, like many other alloy frames, has a certain "zing" in the ride quality. This is not harsh, just a different sensation. The carbon frame felt solid but when compared to the FG it was somewhat "dead".

Giving it a bit of thrashing it feels springy and lively, handles very well, solid and predictable, but can still be thrown into corners nicely. Not a bit of carbon on the frame. Only carbon I used is for the race wheels.

 

[elapid]

I cannot compare to aluminium, but I recently had similar experiences with a higher end carbon bike. I had owned a titanium Litespeed Ultimate and then purchased a custom titanium Lynskey. Beautiful ride, but the whole carbon thing kept gnawing away at me. I test rode a carbon Cervelo R3 and loved it. After eventually paying it off and riding it, I found my performance was no different between the Lynskey and R3, but the Lynskey was more comfortable. No matter how much I wanted the R3 to be different to justify the purchase, I couldn't and ended up selling the R3 after riding it for 6 months.

I also recently rented a Trek aluminium bike with carbon forks and rear stays (not sure which model) when I was in Austin for a conference. I have to say that the ride was harsher than I was used to on either titanium or carbon (or my steel single speed), but that may have been a lower end aluminium bike as well. I'll stick to my Lynskey for the time being!

 

[karlboss]

The value of a material is usually measured in specific strength or specific stiffness. Inline with fibres both of these measures are fantastic with carbon fibre, however once you layer it so the strength is even in all directions it really is about the same as any other material. Then the quality of the carbon fibre vs the metal matters. Not all metals are alike and not all carbon fibres are alike, there is a huge varitaion in properties.

In short there is no question that a well made, well selected metal frame will be better than a cheaper carbon frame. Whether the soloist is one, I don't know. I've seen reports its a very stiff bike, but uncomfortable.

 

[egtalbot]

This is perhaps an obvious thing, but also take into account the seatpost when you're evaluating comfort. I switched from a Giant TCR Team aluminum frame with a carbon seatpost to a Kestrel Talon carbon frame with an aluminum seatpost and experienced some differences I might not have otherwise. I actually can feel the road more with the carbon frame/aluminum seatpost, which I really like. But I can't say the new bike is faster other than I think it is stiffer in the bottom bracket so I get a little more pop when accelerating really hard.

 

[Anonymous]

The FG, like many other alloy frames, has a certain "zing" in the ride quality. This is not harsh, just a different sensation. The carbon frame felt solid but when compared to the FG it was somewhat "dead".

This seems to be the feeling I have when comparing my alloy to carbon bikes. When I rode the carbon, it had that certain "dead" feeling to it. It's really hard to explain it in words, but comparing to your experience, I believe that carbon frame didn't have that certain "zing" to it.

The alloy bike on the other hand, has much older/cheaper components, and was a slightly above entry-level racing frame 6ish years ago, but there is something about it that makes me feel like i'm riding better on it. Perhaps it is the 'zing' factor you speak of, or perhaps it is nostalgia of finally upgrading from that old bike. Either way, now that I sold my carbon bike, i have no regrets riding around this bike for a while (I have a long term injury, requiring surgery, so I don't need a super-dooper racing bike for some time, so i'll be looking to buy a new one in around 3-4 months)

The value of a material is usually measured in specific strength or specific stiffness. Inline with fibres both of these measures are fantastic with carbon fibre, however once you layer it so the strength is even in all directions it really is about the same as any other material. Then the quality of the carbon fibre vs the metal matters. Not all metals are alike and not all carbon fibres are alike, there is a huge varitaion in properties.

In short there is no question that a well made, well selected metal frame will be better than a cheaper carbon frame. Whether the soloist is one, I don't know. I've seen reports its a very stiff bike, but uncomfortable.

These are great points, thanks.

interesting about the 'uncomfortable' part, as I believe both Canc and Ogrady used the S1 (or soloist back then) for their roubaix wins - wonder how they felt after haha.


Good discussion everyone, let's keep it going!

Anyone out there with an S1/Soloist who can talk about why they prefer their quality alloy frame to a carbon frame???

 

[TheRouleur]

S1 & s2

Ok, well I don't have mediocre carbon, I have both a S1 and S2. I have had the S1 for about 3 years now, the S2 for about 4 months. I'm a powerful rider.

The S1 is stiff, responsive, and you can feel the road as expected with metal/alloy/titanium frames. Put your foot down and it says c'mon lets go! The S2 absorbs road shock a little more, but I find is a little wobbly when going full throttle. Overall its a stiff bike, but with my power transfer it does flex a little bit (as do most carbon bikes), in the rear stays and head tube/fork area. The weight difference is barely unnoticeable.

Both are good bikes. - Cervelos statement is correct, if your after a stiff, responsive pro bike over carbon without breaking the bank - this is the one!

The S1 is a classic specialist, as a general rule new riders to CSC used to race on them first, they used to be a training bike and were a classics specialist. From what I can gather, Cervelo TT are now using S2's for training and S3's in general for racing, S1's are still used for training but less frequent.

 

[notburt]

I have both a R3 and a team soloist (the S1), and have to say that I use both for racing and love them both. They are both comfortable for long rides and stiff and provide smooth, steady handling. I use the soloist for crits and the R3 for road races, and find that I could use either for any event. I ride the soloist for crits, because the likely hood of going down and having to replace the soloist is a lot cheaper. I have noticed though that my soloist (5 years old) will flex now if I do a big gear workout while my R3 is still as stiff as the first day. Would I buy another one of either? I would buy another S1, but I don't know if I can bring myself to buy another R3 for that much money (I didn't have to pay full price for the one I have, that is why I have it in the first place). Now that I think about it, it might be time for me to replace the soloist with a new one. You really can't go wrong with it. If you are worried about weight I would say that stuff is a bunch of hoopla. Look at the times of Eddy, and other guys who use to race on steel and other older heavier frames with heavier components and less aero wheels and they weren't that much slower. You gotta have the motor to move it forward.

 

[kreuzberg]

"Nowadays people are sometimes so blinded by “carbon” that they prefer a mediocre carbon frame over the best aluminum frame that is lighter, stronger, stiffer, more responsive and even more comfortable" - cervelo.com

So, I recently sold my carbon fibre bike, and without naming the brand, I happily admit that it would be classed as what cervelo calls a "mediocre carbon frame" (i.e the lower range carbon frame for that brand).

Compared to my old alloy road bike, I have to say, I preferred the feel of the alloy bike alot better (except for when the gradient exceeded 10%) and didn't really 'feel' much difference in weight (I had sh!tter components on the alloy bike compared to the carbon). I can't quite put my finger on it, but I really enjoyed riding the alloy bike alot better...

When I get around to buying a new bike, I considered buying the best alloy bike I could find, rather than a different carbon frame. I've known for some time that Cervelo are up there in terms of quality, and my trustworthy Cervelo dealer tells me that the pros still (or recently) have ridden the S1 in competition, and from personal experience, he agrees with the above quote about the S1 as he rides them often in races

So, my question, from experience does anyone believe, confirm, or disagree with, the quote stated above?

Is the S1 frame a better choice than a low range carbon frame?

Is it lighter, stronger, stiffer, more responsive?

What are your thoughts/experiences with this frame (or even the whole bike as sold with the ultegra kit/easton wheels etc)?

Cannondale CAAD9, is in my opinion, better than tons of carbon frames. It's light, stiff, comfy, and now comes with BB30 option.

 

[steelciocc]

Can't go wrong with the 'Dale

I've got to agree with kreuzberg. The CAAD9 is probably the ultimate aluminum racing frame. Stiff, relatively cheap, and proven (it's essentially the same geometry and build as the CAAD5, 7, and 8 before it).

Not sure how the C'dale compares to the Soloist but my guess would be that the cost of having Cervelo on the downtube isn't worth it.

 

[Anonymous]

Great suggestions, keep them coming!!

(Obviously, I'm posting this motivational response to get my thread moved up the top. I want people to see it haha. Once it's off the first page, well, its gone!)

 

[karlboss]

Can you still get a caad9 with SI hollowgram cranks? For an interesting carbon vs aluminium note that the top shelf cranks are alu and not carbon

 

[nightfend]

I'd recommend the CAAD 9 frame as well. It's not a lightweight, as it weighs over 1300 grams, but the 2010 frame/fork is lighter than in '09. It now uses a full carbon steerer for the fork.