This looks pretty great.
Let me help you out…
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.
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.
Given the increasing importance of integrated storage/hydration, in addition to positioning; it’s hard to see this as a tri bike.
I don’t think integrated storage/hydration is any more important now than it was before. It’s just more prevalent.
Given the increasing importance of integrated storage/hydration, in addition to positioning; it’s hard to see this as a tri bike.
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.
Given the increasing importance of integrated storage/hydration, in addition to positioning; it’s hard to see this as a tri bike.
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.
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.
Its hard to see this bike and not think ‘well they finally decided to just copy the P5.’
there’s a good reason for this, if this is the impression you get.
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?
Its hard to see this bike and not think ‘well they finally decided to just copy the P5.’
there’s a good reason for this, if this is the impression you get.
That’s what happens when you get smart Canadians to design bikes 
.
Its hard to see this bike and not think ‘well they finally decided to just copy the P5.’
there’s a good reason for this, if this is the impression you get.
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.
Doesn’t the monopost just slot into the space up front? Basically a seat-tube situation? Why is cutting required?
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.
Its hard to see this bike and not think ‘well they finally decided to just copy the P5.’
there’s a good reason for this, if this is the impression you get.
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.
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?