Jeez thats Ugly!!!!!

[Russity]

Sorry people, but the more I look at this bike the uglier it gets. Is it just me or is this thing just plain nasty looking???

Almost as bad as the old Soloist that looked like cervelo had taken a perfectly nice bike and run over it with an industrial rolling pin.

[TimmyB]

I didn't know 3t made wheels. The more you know.

I don't think it's that bad... or that good.

Just looks to me like another fancy $$$ carbon bike.

[jpw]

Form doesn't always follow function.

[gearguywb]

It may ride great and all that....but not on my wish list.

[victoryfactory]

all "aero" bikes with deep carbon rims look ugly to me.
It's finally happened... I've become a retro grouch.

VF

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . it might not be my first choice. But if somebody were to give me one for free I certainly wouldn't turn it down! :D

BBD

[El Chaba]

. . . it might not be my first choice. But if somebody were to give me one for free I certainly wouldn't turn it down! :D

BBD


Sounds exactly like the SRAM business model....

[Hartlin]

. . . it might not be my first choice. But if somebody were to give me one for free I certainly wouldn't turn it down! :D

BBD

+1 to that.

I find most aero frames unappealing.

[duke]

Think how fast you would be on something like that! Drop everybody....
duke

[Elefantino]

Given the choice between that and Guy's Della Santa? No question.

[54ny77]

If I were in a race coasting my fat ass down a hill from a standing start just like a soap box derby, I'd take that S3 all day long. :banana:

[Bob Loblaw]

That bar tape has got to go. I am also anti Rotor cranks. That is an idea that has come and gone and come again.

BL

[AgilisMerlin]

it's different, it's new, some call it progress

[ergott]

Smaller head tube and level top tube. That would be awesome. Level top tube would be more aero as well.

[Joachim]

That bar tape has got to go. I am also anti Rotor cranks. That is an idea that has come and gone and come again.

BL

Those are actually round Rotor chainrings....While I like the cranks, I ride mine also with round chainrings. The real funny thing is, that the Cervelo R3's geometry (size 54) is almost spot on with one of my custom frames.

[d.vader123]

Can't believe people are saying it's ugly. If a person posted a pic of his new bike on this forum, I'm sure people would reply with comments like "It's a beaut", "nice bike", "awesome", etc.

I know this because I never saw a thread that someone posted of a new bike where people wrote, "Eww" or "Congrats on the new bike, but it looks ugly".

[fiamme red]

Can't believe people are saying it's ugly. If a person posted a pic of his new bike on this forum, I'm sure people would reply with comments like "It's a beaut", "nice bike", "awesome", etc.

I know this because I never saw a thread that someone posted of a new bike where people wrote, "Eww" or "Congrats on the new bike, but it looks ugly".Most people here are polite, and they keep their thoughts to themselves when a fellow forumite posts pics of a bike that looks ugly to them.

[alastair]

I think it looks foul. I also imagine it's just a matter of time before a Cervelo zealot jumps in and starts throwing numbers and science at us. While I'm not generally a fan of these bloated looking carbon aero bikes; I think the Venge pulls the look off and manages to look pretty menacing.

[Earl Gray]

Sorry people, but the more I look at this bike the uglier it gets. Is it just me or is this thing just plain nasty looking???

Almost as bad as the old Soloist that looked like cervelo had taken a perfectly nice bike and run over it with an industrial rolling pin.


If I were looking for a fast, carbon wonder bike, that would be towards the top of my list.

I have always thought slopers "look" faster and I think Cervelo does a pretty good job with styling.

99% of the road biking population would take that before they even considered any lugged steel bike. Even a red and white one.

I'm just too fat and slow to ride somehting like that. Otherwise I would be all over it.

[benb]

There have been big threads on this bike on roadbikereview and weight weenies and I think "across the hall" as well..

I find it ugly. And on top of that when you do read the threads by the Cervelo zealots it sounds like the watt savings are pretty heavily exaggerated and they are based on the rider maintaining 30mph... something 99.9% of the public is never going to do.

Even if it was pretty if it has negatives compared to a more traditional road frame it seems silly for most of us. The rider & positioning is still way more significant to the aero picture.

One other thing.. hard to tell from the pic but this thing has larger headtubes then prior Cervelos.. so some of the argument against this frame is that the frame might be more aero but you're going to have to work to get as low as an older bike which might negate anything the frame saves. Sounds like that is a very complicated situation though.

I think these don't have to be ugly though.. the Specialized Venge is not as inherently ugly IMO.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Can't believe people are saying it's ugly. If a person posted a pic of his new bike on this forum, I'm sure people would reply with comments like "It's a beaut", "nice bike", "awesome", etc.

I know this because I never saw a thread that someone posted of a new bike where people wrote, "Eww" or "Congrats on the new bike, but it looks ugly".

. . . as saying this was HIS bike--or implying some other Paceliner had posted the photo as being THEIR bike.

I have read several magazine reviews of this bike that generally described it as love-it-or-hate-it, looks-wise. I have at times commented in the bike galleries that while a particular bike is not quite my style (rando, for instance) it's still a great representative of its genre.

For this one, some people LIKE being distinctly different. (like wearing zebra stripes! :rolleyes: ) This is definitely a bike that looks, well--different.

BBD

[Climb01742]

for me, that bike falls into the 'bike as tool' category. if it somehow cheats the wind, then it's a success. if it doesn't, then it's a failure.

it isn't pleasing to the eye, IMO, but that wasn't its goal methinks.

[Fishbike]

I kinda like it for what it is. Modern; testing technology; trying to be innovative. I'll leave it to better riders to determine whether it achieve its goals.

That being said, and this is probably too much information, but I have had dreams about steel, custom bikes. Don't think I would dream about that.

[old_fat_and_slow]

Integration of the forks and headset to the frame looks "off" to me. Forks look spindly compared to the beefy looking down tube.

Seat post looks a "kludgey" to me.

FAIL !

[krhea]

As a "design" type person I think it hits the mark, at least from a "form should follow function" design exercise, however, aesthetically it's just plain fugly to me. Also, after reading various real world reviews I agree with whichever person mentioned that it seems the stats are all over the place in terms of watts conserved/energy expended. If I was fast enough that I thought an aero design frame would make a diff for me this would be one I'd pass on. Couldn't gamble that many sheckels on something that fugly that might make a difference. However, perhaps we're all forgetting the power of the placebo effect...I look fast, my clothes are fast, my shoe covers are fast, my hidden cables are "fast", my frame is aero, says Cervelo on the downtube and cost $$$$$ therefore I am...still a 196lb average cyclist who doesn't like to do intervals to get faster,won't shell out a chunk of cash for a Powertap, isn't flexible enough to ride in the drops and is only fast when the road tilts downward at double digit percentages. aka KRhea

[palincss]

Sorry people, but the more I look at this bike the uglier it gets. Is it just me or is this thing just plain nasty looking???


It's not just you.

[Chance]

Smaller head tube and level top tube. That would be awesome. Level top tube would be more aero as well.
Can't really tell from picture but the effective length of that head tube is probably short already. Otherwise you are right that lowering the HT and using a stem turned up more along with more level top tube might be a little more aero.

Just a guess that they are trying to stay within UCI limits on how low seatstays can go. Not sure but think UCI allows top tube to slope up to a certain amount and then seatstays to start up to a certain amount below top tube.

[gaozilla]

it doesn't seem any more/less ugly than other high end carbon racing bike.

[AgilisMerlin]

I live on the coast, always wind wind wind, and that aint' no crosswind bike.

[Ken Robb]

Ugly! Ugly! Graceless!

[flickwet]

I think the frame is perfect 'cept for the "break" there at the seat post-tube interface. My cup of tea? no but then again all my bikes are steel, in 1988 someone may have disliked the swaged and oversize tubeset of the Colorado. When I look at the S5 I see someone trying to do something new and different with carbon because the material allows it. The rear triangle on the bike is awesome to me especially.

[flickwet]

from what I gather the frame is even faster in crosswinds.

[54ny77]

Remember when the Masi 3V came out? "Look at those tubes, my god they're HUGE!"

:D

...My cup of tea? no but then again all my bikes are steel, in 1988 someone may have disliked the swaged and oversize tubeset of the Colorado....

[BumbleBeeDave]

Ugly! Ugly! Graceless!

Tell us how you really feel! :)

BBD

[OTB]

Smaller head tube and level top tube. That would be awesome. Level top tube would be more aero as well.

+1

With a level top tube, I think it looks really good.

[Russity]

seeing as I started this thread, I'll put my head on the chopping block and give the forum and Cervelophiles the chance to get their own back....here is my own current carbon race bike, so tell me if it's ugly...I won't be upset...each to their own. Sorry if I annoyed anyone, but I hear all the waffle from the engineers and think..."yeah, but's it's ugly"!

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=100494

Just for the record, I also have some steel in the stable... A Speedvagen CX and a Carl Strong roadie...oh and a Moots Cinco...just for good measure

[palincss]

The wheels, stem and saddle are playing in one key, the frame in another.

[GregL]

Cervelo lost the plot when they extended the head tubes of every model across their road bike lines. Road racing bikes are meant for racing. Forcing the racers to resort to funky fittings (e.g., using smaller size frames with super long stems) so that they could make fewer frame molds was cheesy. If you want to make bikes for cyclo-tourists and non-racing enthusiasts, then do so. Don't try to make "one-size fits all" bikes. Rant over...

-Greg

[torquer]

I see someone trying to do something new and different with carbon because the material allows it.
New and different doesn't necessarily mean better.
Granted, I think many of us are letting our aesthetic preferences guide us, and if this stuff objectively "works," it will become the standard and we won't mind it so much.
Based on the evidence of the massively clunky BB shell on a new Cervelo I see on weekend rides, they do seem to be going out of their way to demonstrate function over form as a design philosophy. But for all I know, this could also just be tailfins and quadraphonic stereo.

[Louis]

As was said above, form follows function. In this case, for me the monster HT is a large part of the aesthetic problem. But clearly that's there for drag reduction. Same thing with the HT-DT-fork intersection. That looks like h3ll, but for a reason.

If someone's going to use this for club rides, then yes, it's horrible. If you're a tri-geek looking for that 0.5% edge, then it's great.

[Ken Robb]

Tell us how you really feel! :)

BBD

OK, It's REALLY UGLY and GRACELESS. :)

[rwsaunders]

It doesn't look like the industrial designers got the same memo as the engineers.

[4Rings6Stars]

Saw one of these rolling through Coolidge Corner tonight...looked pretty good to me at speed. Guy was going a lot faster than I was on my 25lb. fendered cross bike!

[tiretrax]

seeing as I started this thread, I'll put my head on the chopping block and give the forum and Cervelophiles the chance to get their own back....here is my own current carbon race bike, so tell me if it's ugly...I won't be upset...each to their own. Sorry if I annoyed anyone, but I hear all the waffle from the engineers and think..."yeah, but's it's ugly"!

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=100494

Just for the record, I also have some steel in the stable... A Speedvagen CX and a Carl Strong roadie...oh and a Moots Cinco...just for good measure
Only a lunatic would say that your Nag is ugly.

I rode with a retired fellow who was given a red S5 as a retirement gift. It looked very nice, however, in this picture, I don't like the sloping top tube. He was 75 and was riding steadily and able to talk at a 22 mph pace.

[foofighter]

it's kind of out of proportion because the main "tubing" is fat and you get this skinny looking fork just doesnt look right

[dream_theater]

I love it. To me function and from aren't mutually exclusive. Seeing something have a good function can give it good form.

[choke]

OK, It's REALLY UGLY and GRACELESS. :)+1 I'm reminded of the old saying "Ugly as a mud fence."

However, that would describe most new bikes these days IMO.....

[fatallightning]

Cervelo lost the plot when they extended the head tubes of every model across their road bike lines. Road racing bikes are meant for racing. Forcing the racers to resort to funky fittings (e.g., using smaller size frames with super long stems) so that they could make fewer frame molds was cheesy. If you want to make bikes for cyclo-tourists and non-racing enthusiasts, then do so. Don't try to make "one-size fits all" bikes. Rant over...

-Greg
They make just as many sizes as they ever did. It's also a sliding scale, a 51 is barely taller then the old geo, while a 61 is a couple cm. And barring pros, how many normal riders have you seen with slammed stems? The taller HT is more aero and stiffer. And uglier.

FWIW, I think the bike is uggo. But I bet it's the slickest around. For my money, on a new aero bike, I'd look at a scott foil. Lighter, stiffer, cheaper, not quite as aero, but close.

I have one aero bike, an SLC-SL with an Oval aero fork, and a round tubed ti Serotta. Horses for courses.

[tedschwartz]

hey i happen to like that tape. maybe more than the bike