Yes, I’m a Canyon fanboy. I like boring straight lines and practicality.
Imagine the Speedmax CF SLX / CFR didn’t exist… You’d have a great Speedmax CF on offer:
And now - how is the new Factor (or any similar bike) a better bike or better deal?
Should have specified a bike that actually exists in the real world lol…
I literally spent a month at the beginning of the year reaching out to Scott dealers across the world seeing if anyone has an XL frame. Nothing. Even reached out to Magnus about selling an old frame but didn’t hear back.
That bike is the dream but even if I could afford it, Scott doesn’t seem all that interested in actually selling triathlon bikes.
Looks decent, but wondering if downtube storage creating wider drag is more/less benefit than behind the seatpost like Trek and QR do.
What’s your pad X (or, desired pad X)? We’ve gotten to spend some time with the new Slick and have built out a very detailed calculator for our fitting purposes. Built up with something like a Profile Wing 20, it looks like we could hit ~536 on the XL. We have a few on order, including at least one XL, and we’re planning to experiment with a few different front ends.
Current pad x is 585, and I’m often a few cm forward on my armcups. I could literally move my current cockpit (TriRig Alpha One) over to the Slick and get within 10mm of that, but when I’m already pushing the bounds of reach, I’m certainly not willing to sacrifice 10mm in the frame.
Totally hear you there. I’ll let you know if we come up with anything sensible and pass along the increased reach/61cm rec to Factor for future projects.
Is that needed reach for comfort or for power production or both ?
Have you aero tested it to be fastest ?
Haven’t tested yet other than my own anecdotal observations. Position definitely feels faster and more comfortable than previous years. Riding about as steep an angle as possible as well. Wouldn’t say my position is extreme by any means either.
Yep. How does 4.5k US$ translate to 12k AUD. Go figure.
By no means is it extreme. I just wonder if knowing what is “fastest” could open the door to other possibilities. Imagine a few cm shorter was fastest.
I spoke with some Factor reps a few weeks ago, and they spilled some of the beans on the new Slick.
They said it’s not faster than the Hanzo - the Hanzo should still be faster and lighter, but it’s also a pure TT bike - none of their testing involved strapping crap to the Hanzo. The Slick is designed to have all the normal tri stuff there, and be a lot easier to work on. But if you can run a Hanzo with a BTA and that meets your needs, it’s the faster option.
They did not specify by how much, of course.
I’m a pretty experienced mechanic, but building up my Hanzo was one of the most insanely complicated builds I’ve ever done (and I owned a first gen Giant Trinity). The Slick looks a lot more liveable.
Thanks for the response. My guess it is sort of like the P series vs P5. You just can’t make up for the extra frontal area of the conventional front end/fork.
Interesting that they say the Hanzo is lighter. Mine is a tank, but I guess that is what you get when you put absolutely no effort into thinking about weight.
I agree with you on the build. I used to have a nosecone Shiv which I thought that was a PITA to set up,…until I saw the Hanzo. I dropped it off with my mechanic and it took the better part of two days to build.
exactly what i was thing when i saw it.
look like ten years old tri bike. it is a pity 
More is the pity, it checks many other boxes
y
Its funny that originally Dan and all those that copied QR geometry in the Old Skool days, the minimum was 80 degrees. Then many went out to as far as 85+ degrees, until the new rule was adopted about 5cm in front of BB. that was the original and what I believe was the best Tri bike geometry.
Then bike mfgs started to cull their offers and began to build tweener bike geometry’s, all to reduce their number of bikes they had to make. that coupled with the smaller wheels was just too much for the industry, and we ended up with a bunch of 76 to 78 degree bikes that they thought could also be rode with setbacks to 74…
I agree that this bike would have been better served with at least a 79/80 degree angle, the one that everyone is finally coming back to now from the top pros on down…
Are there any members riding the new Factor Slick? I am in between p5 frameset and new factor. I would like to hear real world experience on the top tube hydration setup.
I had one in the fit studio this past week with a pro triathlete I was fitting,
The top tube hydration is 14oz. Judging from their comments they weren’t all that impressed with it.
We figured out a tririg elevated bottle system. I believe when she comes back at the end of the month for aero testing we are going to test it with and without the built in hydration.
From a fitting perspective I would have liked it to have a steeper seat tube angle. We’re slammed all the way forward on the seat post mounting system and the saddle rails. I would still like her to be forward another 1.5cm.
If you want more reach in your position, I would choose the steepest seat tube angle + longest reach or maybe I’d say longest reach/steepest angle out of the bikes you’re looking at.
From an aero perspective I would bet $25 the Cervelo’s are faster.
Hope that helps
Hoping USA Triathlon doesn’t adopt German Triathlon’s hydration placement rules
Thank you.
