Cervelo makes four road bike models and they all have discreet uses. They’re so clearly differentiated there’s no question what the use case is. This seems logical – almost axiomatic. But in my opinion most road bike makers often attach nonsensical defenses for the existence of one or more of their models. In fact, the most notable difference between (say) a Specialized Tarmac and a Roubaix, or between a Giant TCR and Defy, is geometry. So-called endurance bikes have shorter cockpits (saddle to handlebars) and their handlebars sit taller.
Endurance riding isn’t the best use, in my opinion, for these bikes. Nobody who’s a good athlete shortens his or her cockpit by a couple of centimeters, while raising sit bars once the distance gets longer (in my size the Roubaix’s handlebars sit 5cm higher than the Tarmac’s). In fact, the best case for so-called endurance road bikes are for those morphologically disposed to fit aboard them: riders with long legs and short torsos.
Meanwhile, Cervelo is making bikes that fit a single rider almost exactly the same way regardless of use. If you look at its bikes from the S5 (aero) to the R5 (climbing) to the Soloist (an affordable all-rounder) to the Caledonia (classics, cobbles and gravel) and all the way to the Aspero (full gravel) the bikes are made to fit pretty close to the same. The S5 and the Soloist are slightly lower in front than the others (by a centimeter on average), but the bikes from the R5 to the Aspero are all essentially traditional R-Series geometry. Cervelo apparently does not believe your position on your (climbing or all-round) road bike should be different than on your gravel bike and I agree with this.
The differences between these Cervelo road bike models are weight, tire clearance and aerodynamics. As it should be. All the bikes are designed to handle well and while some of the Jumbo Visma riders choose the S5 for every stage in a grand tour, and some prefer the R5 for every stage, most riders have one of each and choose the bike based on the stage.
If you could fault Cervelo it’s that they don’t make a bike for non-standard morphologies. But if they did they’d declare that this is the purpose of that bike model. While it does not make a long/low bike, nor a narrow/tall bike, its geometries arrive at of fat the bell curve. If you were to choose a geometry that fits most people most of the time, you described Cervelo’s geometries.
If you don’t pretty easily fit a Cervelo then I’d ask for your overall height, and your saddle height. From this I or any decent bike fitter should divine your morphology. If you’re 6 feet tall and your saddle height (BB to top of saddle, midway between tip and tail) is 72cm or 73cm, you’re a fireplug with stumpy legs and a long torso. If you’re 6 feet tall and your saddle height is 81cm or 82cm you’re all leg and no torso. These are reasonable excuses for why a Cervelo might not be an easy fit for you (assuming your saddle height is correct). If you’re not on a morphological edge, and if you don’t have a pretty striking musculoskeletal anomaly, and you still don’t fit Cervelo’s road geometries then I question the utility of your chosen bike position (i.e., you need a good bike fitter).
Cervelo’s other notable virtue and the reason for the images you see here: Fit adjustability is (mostly) not a casualty of aerodynamics. This brand is on a very short list of brands whose bikes are always adjustable regardless of how much aerodynamic performance is leads that model’s feature set. Take the S5 for example. The easy way out is just to make a stem/bar that’s 1 piece, aero, but not adjustable. The S5’s handlebar is anything but that. It’s almost as adjustable as an old-style standard stem and bar system, with lengths in centimeter increments from 80mm to 140mm. Without getting into the features of the 2023 S5 (beyond noting it’s lighter and more aero), there is one big deal: spacer height is adjustable using only 1 bolt length. As you see from the images highest up the V stem is also height adjustable.
The other images are of the just-reintroduced Soloist and while this bike has a standard stem, the hydraulics are routed into the frame via a slot in the headset top cap. This is a terrific system and I hope this makes its way to the R5 (that bike has a similar system but this new set up on the Soloist is better).
The only quarrel I have with Cervelo – because I expect more from this brand – is I’m not a huge fan of hydraulics that run through the stem. I think the Cal5 and the Aspero5 would be better bikes with a hydraulic motif like that used in the Soloist. It’s not that the bikes aren’t adjustable; it’s that it’s a lot of work to adjust them. I’m always a fan of changing stem lengths without rerouting hydraulics.
The company that I think comes closest to Cervelo in really thinking through its road offerings, themes like easy adjustability in aero bikes, is Cannondale. Of course it does that annoying “endurance road” thing but just about every major bike brand does that. That’s no accident. The designer there is Damon Rinard, ex of Cervelo, and I can count on one hand the bike brand designer teams whose judgment I trust and these two brands mean I have only three fingers remaining.
