New Cervelo Soloist Spotted...

[justkeepedaling]

Is it just me or does it look very similar to the Seka Exceed? BB, Seat Tube, Steerer Area, shape of the tubes overall etc.

Just about every single tube looks different to me. Only similarity that I can see is that they are aero flat top tube bikes with dropped seatstay

[Ritxis]

Chinese open mould frame???...............

[bananastand]

Is it just me or does it look very similar to the Seka Exceed? BB, Seat Tube, Steerer Area, shape of the tubes overall etc.

Yes the OG aero road frame brand decided to copy some random Chinese brand that noone has heard of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spdntrxi]

Is it just me or does it look very similar to the Seka Exceed? BB, Seat Tube, Steerer Area, shape of the tubes overall etc.

you are thinking of the Factor Ostro...

[mistergoober]

I believe they're all made the in same factory, the Factor, Cervelo, and the Seka. AFAIK, the Seka exceed isn't open mold. I believe Pardus is the manufacturer who is the OEM for some Cervelo, Factor, Argon 18, and the "unbranded" Shimano frames. I believe Seka is made by Pardus as well, but it's a $1500-2200 frame by the time you factor in shipping which isn't cheap for a "no name" brand.

Cervelo isn't the same company it was a decade ago. Unless you're Giant or one of the other 2 or 3 largest manufacturers, you're probably working with one of the large chinese/taiwanese OEMs. This is very different than open mold where the same geometry/design frame is made by different manufacturers with different standards for tolerances etc.

Not saying Cervelo decided to copy anyone, just that some of the Pardus frames appear related which isn't a stretch is they're built by the same OEM.

[TobinHatesYou]

The frame should be compatible with the FSA ACR System, right??

Any Info on availability ?

FSA ACR requires a larger diameter upper bearing than what's used on the Soloist.

[wannabefast]

Cherry picking some info

the Soloist has about 190g more drag than the current S5, which is one of the most aerodynamically efficient designs currently. That 190g aero penalty at the 30mph (48km/h) Cervelo tested the Soloist at, translates to a difference of roughly 22 watts, pretty substantial. At the more realistic speed of low to mid 30km/h that most of us average, that gap would narrow to somewhere between 10 – 15w. Compared to the R5 though, the Soloist is another 126g of drag faster, or about 14 watts less at 48km/h.

The weight too is between the R5 and S5. The claimed weight for the Soloist Frame comes in at 919g and fork is 374g, for a size 56 painted. That’s 261g heavier than the R5, but still 154g lighter than the S5. My 48cm test bike, in stock configuration without pedals or bottle cages, weighs 7.71kg.

i always wonder if the drag/watt loss is caused by the position of the rider (allowed by the frame geometry) or all those tube shaping resulting in this reduction.

According to Cervelo, those numbers are with rider aboard. They use a manniquin for their wind tunnel test, for repeatability.

[cajer]

I believe they're all made the in same factory, the Factor, Cervelo, and the Seka. AFAIK, the Seka exceed isn't open mold. I believe Pardus is the manufacturer who is the OEM for some Cervelo, Factor, Argon 18, and the "unbranded" Shimano frames. I believe Seka is made by Pardus as well, but it's a $1500-2200 frame by the time you factor in shipping which isn't cheap for a "no name" brand.

Cervelo isn't the same company it was a decade ago. Unless you're Giant or one of the other 2 or 3 largest manufacturers, you're probably working with one of the large chinese/taiwanese OEMs. This is very different than open mold where the same geometry/design frame is made by different manufacturers with different standards for tolerances etc.

Not saying Cervelo decided to copy anyone, just that some of the Pardus frames appear related which isn't a stretch is they're built by the same OEM.

Apple and google pixel phones are made in the same factory (source worked at apple in hardware) that in no way makes them similar other than the fact that they are both phones.

The large bike companies retain 100% control over the designs. The smaller less engineery brands will often give tube shapes and minimum well thickness and allow the factories to determine layups. But cervelo and factor definitely do not fall in that catagory

[justkeepedaling]

Ridiculous statement, given the Cervelo has different tube design and shaping than both the Seka and the Factor. Very different. The seattube cutout has more similarity to my P2C or to a SL7. The headtube blend to the downtube is curvier. Downtube drop is different than Factor. Seatstay totally different. Top tube top headtube different. This looks nothing like any openmould design and Cervelo designs all their frames.

[Sock3t]

Can this bike take campy mechanical?

[dexvd]

The obvious comparison is the SL7 but the pricing is nearly on par with the allez sprint 105 builds @ ( $3400 vs $3000)

It undercuts to 2022 Tarmac SL6 Sport (105 mechanical) for CAD pricing it was $4700 compared to the base soloist at $4,250. It's still undercut by the TCR advanced disc 2 pro compact but there won't be a Propel that will compete price wise with the Soloist and the Soloist is likely a faster bike overall than the TCR (less aero than the R5 and SL6).

All the tests seem to be of the Ultegra Di2 but I'm curious as to how the weights of the R8000 spec and R7150 compare, given they come with the same "training wheels".

Getting one of these lower specs and swapping out the saddle, wheels and bar would likely yield a pretty great race bike. As far as the harsh ride, I can't imagine it being worse than my 19 R2 and have no issues with how it rides.

[AZR3]

Asked cervelo about the bearing cap/cable guide stack height and there are two options, 30mm and 14mm so factor those into the geo chart when looking at stack/reach.

Itd be nice if they included the bearing cover/dustcap/cable guide height in the geo table so you could quickly tell what the fuctional stack height is

[bananastand]

Asked cervelo about the bearing cap/cable guide stack height and there are two options, 30mm and 14mm so factor those into the geo chart when looking at stack/reach.

Itd be nice if they included the bearing cover/dustcap/cable guide height in the geo table so you could quickly tell what the fuctional stack height is

ugh. Geometry charts need to be standardized. It's so confusing. Why should I have to add spacer info that I don't have to figure out equivalent numbers?

The R5 geo chart shows a 7mm higher stack height and 3mm less reach. However, the minimum spacer for the new R5 is 7mm, and the minimum spacer here is 14mm, which seems to roughly check out. I had thought that the Caledonia-5 geo chart included the minimum 5mm spacer in stack height. If it does, it would appear the caledonia's stack is only 1mm more across most sizes than the Soloist. If the geo charts are all equivalent and the caledonia doesn't include the minimum spacer in the stack calc, then it's still pretty close stack wise.

Could I use the R5 7mm spacer and an ST31 or similar stem to get a really nice, slammed, integrated front end on the Soloist? I hope so. That would be rad.

Now try to compare any of these bikes across brands and it's a shit show. The SL7 appears to be way lower, but requires 18mm minimum of spacers.

[bananastand]

oops double post

[AZR3]

Thats the exact issue i have, nothing is clear on those charts because they only list numbers for the frame and not the necessary bearing/dustcover/etc that you need to be able to use the bike, just nuts they dont list those somewhere on the geo chart

I had thought that the Caledonia-5 geo chart included the minimum 5mm spacer in stack height.

I asked Cervelo about that Caledonia 5 before and the 7mm spacer is included on that geo chart....not sure what their criteria is on when they include it and when they dont