Let me help you out…

https://factorbikes.com/models/hanzo/

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I’m looking forward to seeing the track version. /pink

Its hard to see this bike and not think 'well they finally decided to just copy the P5.' The previous Slick TT bike had the bizzarre split down tube which at least made it different to other options but they have clearly decided this time to just follow the heard albeit a few year late. I am not surprised that they reached the same conclusion as other companies on the fastest UCI complaint design for a disc TT bike but it just becomes another extremely expensive variant of a common design.

Every time I see a wind tunnel test I just can’t help but think all of these companies are doing a great job marketing the P5. I know they basically have to compare themselves to the P5 for credibility but each time it puts Cervelo top of mind.

Looks like a great TT bike. Can't imagine who would pick that for tri though unless they release a separate version. And their aero data is laughable. Not only is there zero data aside from one unlabeled chart, but it's not even faster than Cervelo's 10 year old offering across all yaws? I'm assuming p5 does mean p5 and not p5d, but they could clear that up by "showing their work" at least a tiny bit.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

It took them several iterations, but it looks like they finally have a strong TT offering for roadies (I'm sure the factor sponsored riders are breathing a sigh of relief, you could sense the frustration with previous versions). Given the increasing importance of integrated storage/hydration, in addition to positioning; it's hard to see this as a tri bike.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I don’t think integrated storage/hydration is any more important now than it was before. It’s just more prevalent.

It's more important in the sense that a bike w/o integrated storage will have to add external systems (typically with a hit to aerodynamics) that a dedicated tri bike w/integration will not, putting it at a disadvantage in the aero sweepstakes. A decade back when there was a lot less integration, basically all stock bikes would have to take the "load it up for an IM" hit.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Again, I’m gonna disagree here. I’m quite confident I could set up a bike with after market offerings that is as or more aero than an integrated option. Taping 10 gels to a top tube was never a good option.

there's a good reason for this, if this is the impression you get.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

what i would say it misses some bosses for bento box behind the stem ... and thats it. with that and behind the seat hydration you can go full IM on it

The only red flag for me is the stack system. It is the fork steerer aero cover all in one. So if you miscut or need to go higher if you resell then a new fork is needed...

Not as cheap a fix as scott. As much as I love monopost and the patents around them. Finding a middle ground is nice, but this attachment also seems to require cutting first. So how to dial this in while doing a bike fit?

oh god if thats the case that just DOA

Doesn't the monopost just slot into the space up front? Basically a seat-tube situation? Why is cutting required?

---

I wrote this, you should read it:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/...n_Swimming_6700.html

That's what happens when you get smart Canadians to design bikes :-)

factor bikes + linkedin provide the breadcrumbs. funny thing, if you're in the orient you see the fruit of "Giant U" all over the bike industry. it tells you something about a company like giant when you see all kinds of companies and designs that have sprung up from folks trained and mentored at giant. the same kind of thing has happened at cervelo. if you look at all the bikes and brands that have been affected by cervelo engineers and designers you see that what phil and gerard got going way back when was not simply a brand, but a think tank.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

what you see there, presumably, is the pads at their lowest position. they could go higher, but not lower. what if you want them lower? you cut some of the bottom off of the "seat post". this allows you to get the pads lower, but now you can't go as high as you could before you cut.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/...neering#.YaooJb3MI8E

That being said, I don't see the P5 when looking at the Hanzo. My eyes lie and I'm not trained in first principles :-)
The pictures do not do justice to this bike

I also don’t see a P5 disc when I see this bike.
I really like the side fork and seat stays

Did they release a weight?

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

there are obviously some pretty big differences. the factor really embraces the wideness thesis: the avoidance of interference drag, not only in the fork (that's a widely-deployed paradigm) but in the seat stays (you don't see this very often back there in TT bikes). it's the pursuit bar, head tube, slideable stem, aerobars and pads. that's the similarity.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Doesn’t q factor plus pedal spindle length play into the wide fork thing? As in “if” the legs align with them?

If you run your legs splayed out, will it help at all?

I did not see one
More on the bike here. Some nice comments some STers should consider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h03-ngFxtr0

the monopost us part of the fork. it first slide in the cover, it us the cover, so once your fit, you cut it.

couple things to unpack here. the concise term is stance width. the Q + the distance from the pedal shoulder to pedal center = stance width. now, for me, stance width is both a biomechanical and an ergonomic issue, as well as a clearance issue. (my heels hit the chain stay on the drive side, and the crankset). so, for example, let's say that i could show you that lowering your saddle provides a clear aero benefit? would you do so? i feel the same way about stance width. for me, because of my specific issues that are not negotiable, i can't really mess with stance width.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman