{"id":281665,"date":"2025-07-22T05:18:17","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T05:18:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/281665\/"},"modified":"2025-07-22T05:18:17","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T05:18:17","slug":"colnago-y1rs-vs-cervelo-s5-battle-for-aero-supremacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/281665\/","title":{"rendered":"Colnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5: Battle for Aero Supremacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

“], “filter”: { “nextExceptions”: “img, blockquote, div”, “nextContainsExceptions”: “img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”} }”><\/p>\n

From the very beginning of the 2025 Tour de France<\/a> there have been two bikes standing out among the rest. Each ridden by a leading team, each with a similar cutting-edge aero focus. It only makes sense to compare the Colnago Y1Rs<\/a> vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Obviously the teams riding in the Tour de France are only choosing between sponsor bike options, but what if a rider somehow had the option to pick any bike they wanted? Which one would this theoretical rider choose and why?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m no WorldTour rider but right now I have both bikes and have been switching between the two and here\u2019s all the ways they are drastically different.<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Chris Ho)
\nColnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5 frame, fork, and handlebar<\/p>\n

In many ways these two frames are incredibly similar. Both are using a bayonet style fork with a non-traditional seat post that hugs the rear wheel and all accounts seem to point to similar aero performance. There are differences though, you just have to look.<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

Even in terms of the basic silhouette, things are not as close as you might first think. Overall, the Cerv\u00e9lo S5 uses bigger tubes and that includes a deeper headtube. In my size, 54 mm and the equivalent M on the Colnago, the headtube measures out to 14.5 cm for the Cerv\u00e9lo while the Colnago stops at 9.5 cm. Fork legs are the same 6mm deep on both bikes but the top tube slants more on the Cerv\u00e9lo S5 resulting in 20 cm of exposed seat post vs 12 cm for the Colnago (again in the same fit).<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

Along with those bigger tubes, there\u2019s also a difference in bottle cage designs. Colnago carves out part of the downtube, making it even smaller, to make space to further hide the front bottle. Cerv\u00e9lo on the other hand keeps things simple and allows the tube to hide standard bottle cages.<\/p>\n

\"Cerv\u00e9lo<\/a>(Photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

Given that an integral part of these two frames is also the one piece, uniquely shaped, handlebars this falls into the frame category as well. From the side they look the same with a Y shape. However, from any other angle, you can see that the Cerv\u00e9lo design isn\u2019t free floating. The Cerv\u00e9lo HB19 Carbon bar system has a bridge across the top and the outfront mount attaches in the center. The Colnago CY.01 bar instead does with no bridge across the center but instead uses a more relaxed ankle away from the center of the bike. Both bars are available in twelve size combinations although the makeup is slightly different with Cerv\u00e9lo offering more length options but less width options.<\/p>\n

\"Cerv\u00e9lo<\/a>(Photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

Both bikes use UDH derailleur mounts however Colnago uses a threaded BSA bottom bracket while Cerv\u00e9lo has a press BBright option.<\/p>\n

Of course you want to know the weight difference but it\u2019s difficult to granular here. Cerv\u00e9lo doesn\u2019t share weights at all while Colnago shares only weight for an unpainted frame without the handlebar. Here\u2019s what we do know: The previous Cerv\u00e9lo S5 model hit the scales at 1,447 for frame and fork + 413 for bar and stem while the new model is 124 grams lighter for that system. A little math puts an estimate at 1736 grams for the frame, fork, and handlebar system for a retail painted unit. Colnago states only that the Y1RS 1415 grams for an unpainted frame and fork with the fork consisting of 450 of those grams.<\/p>\n

\"Cerv\u00e9lo<\/a>(Photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

On my own scale a Colnago Y1Rs ready to ride with Enve SES 4.5 wheels and SRAM RED 2x was 7.54 kg without pedals. A Cerv\u00e9lo S5 With SRAM RED XPLR and Reserve 57|64 wheels was 7.36 kg without pedals. For the sake of comparison, I\u2019ve weighed SRAM RED vs SRAM RED XPLR as a 25 gram weight advantage to the XPLR groupset however the Enve SES 4.5 wheels are 1493 grams while the Reserve wheels are 1554 grams. That means the component difference is 36 grams lighter on the Colnago while the Cerv\u00e9lo enjoys a 180 gram full build advantage in my two example bikes.<\/p>\n

Remember, the saddle and tires are both different so it\u2019s not possible to perfectly extrapolate. That said, it would appear the Cerv\u00e9lo is a bit lighter.<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)
\nColnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5 geometry, builds, and prices<\/p>\n

You can glance through the geometry differences and specifics in the builds but Cerv\u00e9lo does a far better job on offering well thought out builds throughout the price ranges despite being slightly cheaper. I have Enve SES 4.5 wheels on the Colnago Y1Rs I\u2019m testing but it would come with low-end vision wheels and no option to change that. There\u2019s also no power meter and although the outfront mounts look similar, the Colnago doesn\u2019t hold the weight of a Garmin Edge 1040 without drooping over time. Colnago does offer a Campagnolo build but Cerv\u00e9lo offers a RED XPLR 1\u00d713 build that Colnago doesn\u2019t have.<\/p>\n

\"Cerv\u00e9lo<\/a>(Photo Josh Ross\/Velo)
\nCerv\u00e9lo S5<\/p>\n\nFORK<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo All-Carbon, Bayonet S5 Fork<\/td>\nCHAIN<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Red E1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHEADSET<\/b><\/td>\nFSA SL IS2 1-1\/8, 36\u00b0 x 45\u00b0 \/ 1-3\/8, 36\u00b0 x 45\u00b0<\/td>\nREAR DERAILLEUR<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Red XPLR AXS E1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFRONT THRU AXLE<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo Aero Thru Axle Front, M12x1.5mm, 122mm length<\/td>\nCASSETTE<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Red XPLR E1, 10-46T, 13-Speed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nREAR THRU AXLE<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo Aero Thru Axle Rear, M12x1.0mm, 169mm length<\/td>\nSHIFTER\/BRAKE<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Red AXS E1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFRONT WHEEL<\/b><\/td>\nReserve 57TA, DT Swiss 180 DICUT, 12x100mm, 24H, centerlock, tubeless compatible<\/td>\nCOCKPIT<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo HB19 Carbon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nREAR WHEEL<\/b><\/td>\nReserve 64TA, DT Swiss 180 DICUT, 12x142mm, XDR freehub, 24H, centerlock, tubeless compatible<\/td>\nSADDLE<\/b><\/td>\nSelle Italia NOVUS BOOST EVO SuperFlow Carbon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTIRES<\/b><\/td>\nVittoria Corsa Pro TLR G2.0 700x29c<\/td>\nSEATPOST<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo SP34 Carbon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nCRANKSET<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Red 1 AXS E1, 50T Aero, DUB, with power meter<\/td>\nBRAKE ROTORS<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM Paceline X Centerlock<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nBOTTOM BRACKET<\/b><\/td>\nSRAM DUB Ceramic, BBright<\/td>\nSIZES<\/b><\/td>\n48, 51, 54, 56, 58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\nACCESSORIES<\/b><\/td>\nCerv\u00e9lo Front Computer\/Accessory Mount 887, Cerv\u00e9lo Rear Accessory Mount, Hammerhead Karoo 3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nPricing<\/b><\/td>\nUSA<\/b><\/td>\nCAN<\/b><\/td>\nEUR<\/b><\/td>\nAUS<\/b><\/td>\nUK<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nShimano Dura-Ace Di2<\/td>\n14,100<\/td>\n18,500<\/td>\n13,999<\/td>\n18,000<\/td>\n12,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSRAM Red AXS<\/td>\n14,250<\/td>\n18,750<\/td>\n13,999<\/td>\n18,500<\/td>\n12,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSRAM Red XPLR AXS<\/td>\n14,250<\/td>\n18,750<\/td>\n13,999<\/td>\n18,500<\/td>\n12,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nShimano Ultegra Di2<\/td>\n9,950<\/td>\n12,000<\/td>\n9,999<\/td>\n13,800<\/td>\n9,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSRAM Force AXS<\/td>\n9,950<\/td>\n12,250<\/td>\n9,999<\/td>\n13,800<\/td>\n9,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFrameset<\/td>\n6,500<\/td>\n8,000<\/td>\n5,999<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n5,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSize<\/b><\/td>\n48<\/b><\/td>\n51<\/b><\/td>\n54<\/b><\/td>\n56<\/b><\/td>\n58<\/b><\/td>\n61<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSTACK<\/td>\n496<\/td>\n519<\/td>\n542<\/td>\n565<\/td>\n588<\/td>\n608<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nREACH<\/td>\n367<\/td>\n376<\/td>\n384<\/td>\n392<\/td>\n401<\/td>\n409<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSEAT TUBE ANGLE<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nEFFECTIVE TT LENGTH<\/td>\n520<\/td>\n535<\/td>\n550<\/td>\n565<\/td>\n581<\/td>\n595<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHEAD TUBE ANGLE<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73.5<\/td>\n73.5<\/td>\n73.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFORK OFFSET<\/td>\n58.5<\/td>\n52.5<\/td>\n46.5<\/td>\n43.5<\/td>\n43.5<\/td>\n43.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHEAD TUBE LENGTH<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n104<\/td>\n125<\/td>\n152<\/td>\n173<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nBB DROP<\/td>\n74.5<\/td>\n74.5<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n69.5<\/td>\n69.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFRONT CENTRE<\/td>\n579<\/td>\n580<\/td>\n581<\/td>\n588<\/td>\n604<\/td>\n617<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nCHAIN STAY LENGTH<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n405<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSTANDOVER*<\/td>\n712<\/td>\n734<\/td>\n758<\/td>\n781<\/td>\n804<\/td>\n822<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWHEELBASE<\/td>\n973<\/td>\n974<\/td>\n975<\/td>\n982<\/td>\n999<\/td>\n1013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

*5cm in front of BB<\/p>\n

Colnago Y1Rs<\/p>\n\nSIZE<\/b> (all measurements in mm unless indicated)<\/td>\nXS<\/b><\/td>\nS<\/b><\/td>\nM<\/b><\/td>\nL<\/b><\/td>\nXL<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHT Angle <\/b>(degrees)<\/td>\n70.8<\/td>\n71.9<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n73.5<\/td>\n73.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nST Angle <\/b>(degrees)<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n74.5<\/td>\n74<\/td>\n73.7<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nReach<\/b><\/td>\n368<\/td>\n377<\/td>\n386<\/td>\n395<\/td>\n404<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nStack<\/b><\/td>\n495<\/td>\n520<\/td>\n540<\/td>\n565<\/td>\n590<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFork Length<\/b><\/td>\n376.5<\/td>\n376.5<\/td>\n376.5<\/td>\n376.5<\/td>\n376.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTrail<\/b><\/td>\n61<\/td>\n59.5<\/td>\n57.5<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nHT Length<\/b><\/td>\n88.5<\/td>\n108.5<\/td>\n126.5<\/td>\n150.5<\/td>\n176.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWheelbase<\/b><\/td>\n974<\/td>\n976<\/td>\n978<\/td>\n987<\/td>\n1003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nCS Length<\/b><\/td>\n408<\/td>\n408<\/td>\n408<\/td>\n408<\/td>\n408<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFront center<\/b><\/td>\n577.5<\/td>\n579.5<\/td>\n581<\/td>\n590<\/td>\n606<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nBB Drop<\/b><\/td>\n74<\/td>\n74<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Frame kit includes seatpost, Headset, and CC.Y1 handlebar priced at $7500<\/p>\n\nGroupset<\/b><\/td>\nCampagnolo SR13<\/td>\nCampagnolo SR13<\/td>\nDura-Ace Di2<\/td>\nDura-Ace Di2<\/td>\nDura-Ace Di2<\/td>\nSRAM RED<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWheels<\/b><\/td>\nBora Ultra<\/p>\n

WTO<\/p>\n<\/td>\nVision Carbon 45<\/td>\nEnve SES 4.5<\/td>\nShimano C50<\/td>\nVision Carbon 45<\/td>\nVision Carbon 45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nPrice<\/b><\/td>\n$19,580<\/td>\n$15,664<\/td>\n$19,224<\/td>\n$17,800<\/td>\n$15,664<\/td>\n$14,596<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)
\nColnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5 ride feel<\/p>\n

This is the real meat of these two bikes and despite the similarities, the differences are quite stark. These two bikes are both the tip of the spear for modern aero bikes and yet in a Colnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5 battle they are obviously for different riders. If you go back to that premise of a hypothetical rider who can pick either bike, it\u2019s a different person who picks one vs the other.<\/p>\n

The Cerv\u00e9lo S5 is all about being stiff and efficient. I can\u2019t feel a single bit of flex in that bike. There\u2019s just no give anywhere in the frame. Then, at the front of the bike, the handlebars are the same with the triangulation of the y-shaped stem soaking up any hint of flex in the bar. The only reason this bike continues to be a good ride comes down to the wheels.<\/p>\n

Unlike the Colnago, Cerv\u00e9lo uses a vertically integrated supply chain for the S5. The Reserve wheels launched with the bike and were part of the development process. The frame and bars are stiff but the 25.4mm \/ 24.4mm internal width on the wheels brings everything together into something that feels both stiff and efficient while also quite rideable.<\/p>\n

The Cerv\u00e9lo S5 is designed to aid sprinters. It\u2019s aero so that at top speeds it has every advantage and the stiffness is there to deal with the incredible sprint numbers that professional riders throw at it.<\/p>\n

Now the Colnago Y1Rs is the complete opposite. Instead of being a sprinters bike, I like to call this bike the breakaway bike. The aero efficiency is much more about small gains over long periods of time. Except that aero efficiency works the same in both situations. The difference is the stiffness.<\/p>\n

Instead of aiming for an incredibly stiff platform to handle huge watts, the Colnago Y1Rs rides almost exactly like the V5Rs, but faster. There\u2019s flex in this frame. The bottom bracket feels plenty stiff to me but in the Colnago Y1Rs vs Cerv\u00e9lo S5 matchup it\u2019s a noodle.<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also a lot more flex built into the seat post\/seat tube design compared to the Cerv\u00e9lo. The Cerv\u00e9lo might show more seat post but it\u2019s huge in comp-arison and it\u2019s vertical vs the angle of the Colnago. Then, from there, the Colnago joins the rest of the bike in a separate junction while the Cerv\u00e9lo creates a single junction between the chainstay, top tube, and seat post.<\/p>\n

When it comes to the handlebars, engineered flex is on tap. Not only is there no bridge to tie the carbon together but the Y shape has a wider center portion that introduces more flex. Of course that wider center portion does introduce a few oddities to the usability equation. I personally found that my thighs hit and I actually removed my Garmin leash during a long ride because it was driving me crazy as it smashed between my leg and the bar. It\u2019s also more difficult to move the bike around (normally you\u2019d grab the stem but there\u2019s nothing like it) and the angle is less comfortable to hold during a climb. It does keep the bar feeling fairly standard, rather than overly stiff,\u00a0 though.<\/p>\n

\"Colnago<\/a>(photo Josh Ross\/Velo)
\nFinal thoughts<\/p>\n

Obviously there\u2019s no real WorldTour rider who can pick between these two bikes. Consumers can though, and in many ways the Cerv\u00e9lo S5 is the better buy. Aero performance should be quite similar but the Cerv\u00e9lo is lighter and it\u2019s also significantly cheaper for much better builds.<\/p>\n

In fact, I really want to highlight how well thought out the Cerv\u00e9lo feels as you look through the build options. There\u2019s even things like a better outfront mount and a GoPro mount in the saddle rails on the Cerv\u00e9lo. The Cerv\u00e9lo paint feels leagues better than the Colnago with a deep and glossy finish vs a matte finish with water transfer graphics from Colnago. Every detail on the S5 feels premium and considered while the Colnago is more expensive with less attention to detail.<\/p>\n

The only problem with the Cerv\u00e9lo is that not everyone is going to love the ride feel. Stiffness is king for the Cerv\u00e9lo S5 and that reigns in a bit of the snap that makes a bike feel fun. The Cerv\u00e9lo S5 is a business-first sprinters\u2019 bike while the Colnago Y1Rs is a breakaway bike that feels like any number of other high-end race bikes. Which one would you prefer to have at home?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"“], “filter”: { “nextExceptions”: “img, blockquote, div”, “nextContainsExceptions”: “img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”} }”> From the very beginning of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":281666,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4104],"tags":[78425,105866,4230,5114,79,20680,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-281665","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-cycling","8":"tag-cervelo","9":"tag-colnago","10":"tag-cycling","11":"tag-evergreen","12":"tag-sports","13":"tag-tour-de-france","14":"tag-uk","15":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114895199244080804","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281665\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/281666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}