“
’Twas Mulga Bill from Eaglehawk that caught the cycling craze. He turned away the good old horse that served
him many days. He dressed himself in
cycling clothes, resplendent to be seen.
He hurried off to town and bought a shining new machine. And as he wheeled it through the door, with
air of Lordly pride…he quietly wondered whether it was going to live up to the
hype”.
OK,
I made the last bit up (with apologies to Banjo), but that’s probably what most
of us ponder at some point during the transaction of sale.
The
good old horse, of course, was a Chinarello masquerading as a Wombat. After carrying me for 3 years and 44000 km I
thought it time to put it out to pasture.
Maybe I’ll keep it stabled for rainy day commutes.
The
shining new machine was going to be something more matte-finish and comprising
mostly element 22 (that’s Ti, for you non-chemists), but ultimately budget ruled
such exotica out (for now, at least). So
I opted for element 6 again, but stuck with a non-glossy finish in the form of
a Cervelo R5, 2013 vintage, kitted out with Ultegra 6800 11 spd bits, Rotor
crankset and Fulcrum Racing 5.5 wheels.
Unusually, for this color challenged individual, I preferred the 2013
finish (grey with red highlights), to the 2014 R3 at a similar price point
(gloss finish and blue highlights). The
2014 R5 (which is only sold with Dura-ace) was about $3000 out of reach.
A
few of you likely to be reading this are in the market for new rides, so I
thought I’d share my thoughts.
Weight. Light, but perhaps not as featherlight as
expected. Without pedals, cages, or
paraphernalia we are talking 7.2 kg (versus ~ 7.8 for the equivalently stripped
down Wombat). I should disclose that
this was with a temporary 400 ml seatpost comprising element 13, which post
weigh-in has been swapped for a 350 ml version constructed from element 6. The main contributor to weight, however, is a
Clydesdale wheelset. Just shy of 1700 g
for the rear wheel alone (including rubber, QR and cluster), which is despite
being shod with paper thin Vittoria Diamante Pros (lipstick on the pig) . That's even heavier than my handbuilt 32
spoke old-faithful shod with heavier Contis.
The wheels are certainly the standout weakness of the package, but
should serve nicely as bash-about commuters.
I’ll save the HEDs for weekends once I acquire cluster number 2.
Ride
quality. I was expecting the bike to
have a bit more pep than the Wombat, but I honestly wasn’t expecting the package
to be quite this good. The snap, out the
saddle, is astonishing. One profound
difference is the stiffness in the front end.
The Wombat wasn’t sloppy by any means, but stiffness-wise, the front end
of the R5 might have been caste from iron (element 26!). That said, the handling is weightless yet not
jumpy, there is zero road buzz, and the whole experience is soft on the hands,
even though the flat-top bars (3T ErgoNova Team – element 6) are much thinner
than the mega plush ITMs I’m used to (element 13 wrapped in element 6).
Accompanying
the rigidity of the front end is what’s happening (or not happening) under your
feet. Mega stiff, in spite of the fact
that there must exist squirm in the wheelset.
This
stiffness is due to some engineering advances that trump the outboard bottom
bracket format I’ve been riding. To my
mind stiffness is heavily influenced by both the diameter of the crank axle and
the width between the bottom bracket touch-points that interface frame and
crank. The standard crank axle diameter
used by Shimano is 24 mm. The diameter
of the Rotor axle is 30 mm. Fatter
diameters should make for stiffer axles
The
outboard bottom brackets found on most bikes (until more recently) are
typically set 68 mm apart (the 68 mm standard!), symmetrically positioned about
the central axis of the frame. Some bikes
maintain the 68 mm spacing but swap outboards for press-fit bearings, fattening
the frame and stiffening the ensemble in the process. This is the direction Cervelo have gone, using
oversized press-fit bearings housed 79 mm apart, but asymmetrically biasing
them to use all of the available space on the LHS of the bottom bracket area –
the space which on the drive-side is taken up by clutter in the form of
chainrings. The result is the so-called
BBright standard. Hence, not only are
the contact points 11 mm further apart, the fame itself is 11 mm wider on the
non-drive side than one utilizing outboard bearings. Both contribute to extra rigidity. Additionally,
whilst the crank spider on a Shimano groupset curves inwards to place the
chainrings back over the top of the outboard bearing shells, the Rotor rings
project straight out, perpendicularly, from the axle (again, lighter and
stiffer – so they say).
I
was initially a bit peeved that I wouldn’t be carrying the complete Shimano Ultegra 6800 groupset (the 11 spd progression
from the 6700 10 spd version I’ve been running), but I was advised not to opt
for the adapters and stick with the Rotor crank and axle assembly. Now I feel why.
This
thing is amazingly responsive – you can hear the rear tire suffering against
the road surface, even with el cheapo wheels in tow. I can’t imagine you’d want the thing any
stiffer, although the spin doctors claim that the 2014 version is 20% stiffer
again. How easily one would notice this
difference on top of what is already super stiff is another question.
But,
as is often the case, there are a few problems.
All that stiffness is also going to be sampled by ones posterior. And that is certainly the case. Whilst at speed I do indeed get the
impression that corrugations are dampened, I was expecting the bike to be a tad
more comfortable, given its cobbled-classic pedigree. I’m just glad I didn’t pick up a second hand
S5 a year ago, as the S5s are meant to deliver a considerably harsher ride than
the R series (Chris affectionately calls his, “The Boneshaker”)
In
its defense, there are some reasons for harsh ride. Firstly, while the guys at the shop were adamant
my anatomical dimensions fit the “54”cm frame (vs the 51 or 56), this required
swapping out the heavily set-back FSA seatpost supplied to a straight post in
order to get the position I wanted. In
recent years I’ve moved my road position forward to match that of my MTB, and
there are all sorts of advantages in XC racing to having ones arse in a more
forward default position. Even though
the post diameter is a relatively compliant 27.2, and at an angle dictated by
the compact frame geometry (73 degrees), a straight post is never going to
afford the generous flex inherent in a set-back post. Perhaps the ride will be kinder now that the
carbon post is installed, although I’d be surprised if this alone makes much
difference.
Second
reason. I was glad that the bike came
with a Fizik saddle of choice. I opted
for my favoured Arione (long and flat).
What I didn’t realize at the time was that such saddles no longer come
in simply 2 options – rails made of element 6 or 26. Now there are about 10 different
versions. This particular Arione (element 26 rails) is branded “CX”. I’ve since discovered that this means they started
with an Arione, removed most of the foam stuffing and then sewed the thing back
together. Not happy, and if my sit bones
fail to acclimatize to such minimal padding I’ll be ordering one of the less
racy versions.
Whilst
the excellent handling fills one with confidence, one point of difference in
the handling department is a bit of “toeverlap”, courtesy of the wheelbase
being 1 cm shorter than what I’ve been used to.
Should only be an issue navigating footpaths. I’m yet to pilot the R5 on proper sustained
descents just yet, although at no point has the handling felt twitchy.
Whilst
on quibbles – one last one, and potentially it’s a biggy. In my humble opinion, the frame has an
entirely preventable and very disappointing flaw.
The
last 2 frames I’ve ridden have been low end, admittedly, but they had, what I
viewed as poorly designed rear drive-side dropouts. That is, the bit that holds the derailleur
hanger. The hanger (element 13) bolts
directly to the frame, and the QR skewer clamps over the top of this. The axle, by contrast sits flush against the other
side of the carbon dropout. When the QR
skewer is tensioned, flexion in the carbon dropout results in subtle movement
in the derailleur itself, most pronounced at the bottom derailleur pulley. To my mind, at least, if you want bombproof
shifting, having a rock-solid derailleur position would be paramount.
Fully
aware of what I didn’t want, I opened and closed the QR on the bike on the
showroom floor. No movement. That was all I wanted to see. When I got it home, however, and applied QR
tension I’m accustomed to, movement was present. Not happy.
All that engineering and they can’t seem to get this part right? Was it just my frame in question? Appears not.
Same dropout for both the R and S series, including top-end 2014 models.
Apparently, Cervelo doesn’t consider it to be a problem nor limitation as the
dropouts have remained unchanged for years.
Maybe I’m overreacting. When I
mentioned this to the guys at the shop they just shrugged and said that the
Cervelos have always had “soft” dropouts.
They then asked me whether I was having any trouble with shifting.
Groupset. I don’t know what impresses me more – the
superb ride quality or the simply stunning shifting. Actually it just might be the shifting. The 11 spd Ultegra is just sublime. As well as going from 10 to 11 spd, the most
striking difference between 6700 and 6800 series is the redesigned front
derailleur. Throwing to the big ring requires
almost no effort at all. And I love the
new feature of being able to trim the big ring position to accommodate spending
more time with bigger cogs on the back.
I’ve gone from 39/53 rings and 25/12 cluster, to 36/52 and 28/11 – an
expansion at both ends of the gear spectrum.
Necessarily I’ll be spending more time in the big ring and the trim
features of the front derailleur make this easy peasy. Love it!
600 km in and despite the rear wheel having gone in and out half a dozen
times (with no doubt variable clamping tensions), the shifting has not missed a
beat. Just stunning.
So,
that's about it. Sublime machine in
spite of what I perceive to be a sub optimal rear dropout. The real proof, however, will be how
“sensations” are after 10000 clicks. By
that stage I might even have another 3peaks under the belt. Can’t wait.
