this is why, in my opinion, both the andean and the p5x are so, so, so much the future of bikes. both companies built bikes based on what people do, not what people ought to do. me, for example, no way can i subsist on liquid calories alone, because i get a terrible hunger knock and it slows me down greatly.

the three (plus one) relevant features of BOTH these bikes are:

1. they solve real world storage imperatives;
2. they are built for a variety of real behaviors, not optimized behaviors;
3. they are built for the apparent yaws real people ride;
4. they stop when you apply the brakes.

certainly other bikes stop when you apply the brakes. or they don't. the more exotic you make the aero bike; and the more exotic you make the aero wheel; the harder it is to get bike, brakes and wheel to work with each other. what we have right now, in another thread, and in the last 2 polls, is a discussion on optimal tire and wheel width and size. and, consquently, how many bikes cannot accommodate the optimal size.

i think i pretty clearly hear josh poertner saying that bike makers (and wheel makers) today ought to be accommodating a tire that measures 30mm in width. this ambivalence and uncertainty and impending shift in tech screams out for a disc brake solution.

your test was really well done. but as you acknowledge there were a lot of unanswered questions. i think that on balance, once all the data is parsed, the andean is going to look better and better than you apparently think it looks today. but i acknowledge that before the andean hits its peak it's going to need another stem solution. that bike wants a new stem - that has the bosses on it above which its storage solution affixed - and that can accept another bar, like a zipp or a PD.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman