View Full Version : Bike Report on keno's Frugal MeiVici - Look 565
I've ridden the Look 565 four times now and have some observations.
The ride is much more comfortable than I expected. I've heard stories about harsh rides on carbon and problems with distance rides, but you never know how much depends upon the wheelset. The Look is a very sweet ride. The frame is very lively with lots of road feel, and not dead, at all. It absorbs much like my Ottrott ST.
It is stable. It is not twitchy, and hands off is no problem whatsoever.
It definitely transfers power to the wheel much more efficiently than my Ottrott. It is right there and wants to go but is not balky if not pushed.
It is very responsive. Think turn and its turning, like real fine skis.
Climbing, particularly out of the saddle, is an entirely different experience. It's a pleasure for a non-climber type like me. Whatever I do have in that category is improved by the Look greatly.
I haven't done any fast, technical descents so I can't report on that.
I haven't put any electronics on it, like my PT, so I can't report on power and speed, but it feels like I've made gains in both of those areas.
Overall, for an experiment in carbon it has proved a complete success. I simply can't justify the price of a MeiVici when there is so much out there on ebay in quality frames. (The prices of used bikes are about as low as used condoms.) The only qualifier is that you have to know what geometries can be made to work for you. I've got two Serottas and been through their process several times on them and on refits. The Look is smaller than my other bikes and I am comfortable in my position on it.
Happy camper. May, in fact, sell the Ottrott ST.
keno
Smiley
07-17-2008, 06:32 AM
Thanks Keno, I have fitted one client on the same Look model with his feedback being a good one. BTW I think at this point Rubberband Man Keno you could fit on any freaking size bike. You can thank the twins for that one :)
Climb01742
07-17-2008, 06:43 AM
keno, just curious: did you think about the 585? what led you to the 565? i always look for 585s in my size on ebay, but never thought about a 565. cool that you're so happy. by all reports, look makes a fine bike.
my understanding is that in the Origin model the only difference between the two frames is that there is aluminum in the 565 BB, making the frame slightly heavier. I was looking at 585 and 595 and the 565 came along at a much better price. And this was an experiment. The real hard bodies, not a problem here, might want the Ultra in the 585 and 595, but that's a sprinters bike or for a strong man, at least. It would be wasted on me, the grams, too, and I would guess the ride may a bit less comfortable.
keno
I've been riding a 51cm 585 origin since May of '06. I just couldn't resist an '07 585 Ultra that was on closeout at Excel Sports. I rode it for the first time yesterday. The Ultra has unidirectional carbon with none of the traditonal carbon weave pattern seen on most frames. The BB area does feel stiffer when pedaling out of the saddle and the ride might be slightly more harsh, but it depends on the exact road conditions and speed. I always ride down a short, very steep hill with coarse pavement and a lot of tar-patched cracks. I could swear it was smoother on that section of road. I rode about 55 miles with 15 miles of mountain climbing and an equal amount of descending. Overall, I thought it performed great, but a larger, more powerful rider might appreciate it more.
Charles M
07-17-2008, 09:37 AM
The looks are one of my favorite bikes lines (the 585 in particular)... A company that hasn't forgotten ride quality for the sake of a stiffness / weight statistic as so many companies with weak marketing men in strong exec positions.
That said, I would wonder how the Ottrot got spec'd.
Having had a couple Serotta's and 6 Look's in 3 years, I can say that I don't think I could have beaten the ST as spec'd in combined comfort, stiffness and handling with the 565.
But then That's the cool thing about trying new stuff. Look can't make bikes that will match a range of different people (and don't suffer from a bad spec) but sometimes you can simply fall onto a bike that was dead on what you really wanted and happens to be stock. Man when that happens at a better price point :banana:
fierte_poser
07-17-2008, 10:25 AM
I haven't put any electronics on it, like my PT, so I can't report on power and speed, but it feels like I've made gains in both of those areas.
keno,
I'm glad you are grooving on the new Look, but your review lost some credibility when I read this sentence. A bike cannot change your power output, can it? Also, unless one bike is as flexible as a noodle, both are going to change the power you create into the same amount of foward motion (speed), right?
Didn't some famous bro say 'its not about the two wheeled thing between your legs' or something along those lines? ;)
Anyway, I'm glad you like the new bike. I ride a steel Fierte, but if I went carbon, a Look would be near the top of my shopping list.
Kent
It's not like his review is any different then any others.. has anyone even come up with a way to measure lost power due to a flexy BB or other such bike design items?
That and a 1cm fit difference can make a big difference in medium-long term power.. if the person can get comfy in different positions rather then making each bike fit exactly the same that's going to really effect impressions.
jeffg
07-17-2008, 02:08 PM
keno, just curious: did you think about the 585? what led you to the 565? i always look for 585s in my size on ebay, but never thought about a 565. cool that you're so happy. by all reports, look makes a fine bike.
I would like to try one at some point, but everything in my size has a quite steep 73.75? STA.
On a 73.5 STA I have a 27mm setback post with the saddle shoved quite far back, so I would need massive setback for the Looks, that then makes them too long for me. What happened to the days of the 73/73.5 STA in smaller sizes at Look?
A bike cannot change your power output, can it? Also, unless one bike is as flexible as a noodle, both are going to change the power you create into the same amount of foward motion (speed), right?
If you tested both bikes with the same wheels/tires your observations would be subjectively and objectively more interesting.
I went on a test ride on a used bike that was unreal. I noticed the difference in the first fifty yards. I stopped the bike and looked at the wheels/tires. Not surprisingly they were sewups. Tires, wheels and air pressure are the most likely initial difference when you ride a new frame.
I used to do test rides with my wheels and pedals in hand. With the advent of 10 & 11 speed cassettes that is no longer an option.
Cheers,
Kane
we will table this until I put the PT on. Analytically, putting aside my bikes and me, I would be shocked to learn that the power developed at the rear wheel would be the same for all frames for the same rider, or even for the same geometry with different materials. It may be that the rider is developing the same power, but due to the efficiency of the frame more of it is put to use at the hub which would result in a feeling of creating greater power.
As to me, there is no doubt that the Look is putting me in a better position to generate power, frame power transfer aspects aside. I feel that I am in a much better athletic position. I can definitely hear a very different sound from the wheels and spokes, which are the same as I use on the Ottrott, that results from greater power used.
No doubt I didn't get strong over night, but the two aspects I mentioned, frame efficiency and body position, likely enable me not only to generate more power but also have that power get to the rear wheel.
BTW, benb, PT measures power at the rear wheel hub, which should provide a decisive answer to your question about frame efficiency. It stays on the same rear wheel, bike to bike, which would be moved with the front wheel.
keno
fierte_poser
07-17-2008, 03:22 PM
we will table this until I put the PT on. Analytically, putting aside my bikes and me, I would be shocked to learn that the power developed at the rear wheel would be the same for all frames for the same rider, or even for the same geometry with different materials. It may be that the rider is developing the same power, but due to the efficiency of the frame more of it is put to use at the hub which would result in a feeling of creating greater power.
Unless one of these frames is a noodle, or, on the other hand, you develop serious watts a la Mark Cavendish, I would claim that the efficiency of the frame is for all practical purposes 100% for the Look and 100% for the Ottrott. But that is just my claim. It may 'feel' like greater power at the rear wheel, but it probably isn't. That's the kool-aid talking.
As to me, there is no doubt that the Look is putting me in a better position to generate power, frame power transfer aspects aside. I feel that I am in a much better athletic position. I can definitely hear a very different sound from the wheels and spokes, which are the same as I use on the Ottrott, that results from greater power used.
Your original posting did not mention fit or contact points at all. If you are in a better position to generate power, then that is another topic. However, it has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of one frame vs. another, which is what your original post suggested.
No doubt I didn't get strong over night, but the two aspects I mentioned, frame efficiency and body position, likely enable me not only to generate more power but also have that power get to the rear wheel.
I just don't buy the argument that 'my Ottrott is incapable of getting my power to the rear wheel efficiently.' People ride one bike vs. another and then make these claims, but they are just 'feelings', not true data.
BTW, benb, PT measures power at the rear wheel hub, which should provide a decisive answer to your question about frame efficiency. It stays on the same rear wheel, bike to bike, which would be moved with the front wheel.
The one variable you can't remove from this equation is you. You might read a higher powertap number on the look vs. the ottrott. Let's say you do. What does that mean? It simply means you were pedaling harder on the Look. Which is no big deal. You got a new bike. You like it. You put in a harder effort. Power is up. Speed is up. But the correlation does not imply causality, because the variable that matters is not frame efficiency, but rider input at the pedals. Unless you can guarantee that you are applying the same effort to both bikes, your higher powertap number on one vs. the other is meaningless.
Pete Serotta
07-17-2008, 03:31 PM
Keno, sounds like you are on a mission.....GOOD :D :D (I am envious and need to try the LOOK for I have heard nothing but good,)
As to me, there is no doubt that the Look is putting me in a better position to generate power, frame power transfer aspects aside. I feel that I am in a much better athletic position. I can definitely hear a very different sound from the wheels and spokes, which are the same as I use on the Ottrott, that results from greater power used.
No doubt this invalidates the whole thing.
If they don't put your contact points at the exact same place of course one bike will seem to transfer power better then the other...
Different sound is likely just different echo & sound transfer through an all carbon frame vs. a metal one.
Get them millimeter exact and then see if one feels faster then the other.. maybe the look will be objectively faster if you go do a giant hill climb and it's a little lighter.. other then that I doubt it.. aerodynamics will be a very small difference if the contact points are the same too.
Didn't you ever get that feeling when you were a kid & got some new sneakers that you could suddenly run faster & jump higher too? :banana:
I'm not on a mission at all. For sure, I'm having a ball. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just giving my personal impressions. The Ottrott ST has served me well for three years and maybe it was time to graduate and I got informed lucky.
Implicit in your post, Pete, saying position invalidates the whole thing, is the question of the validity of the Serotta fit system, no?
Also, if what you say about materials is so, why are all of these companies, including Serotta, fiddling and diddling at great expense with materials, stiffness, and the like?
I do disagree that the sounds come from the frame, as you say. Put your bike in a work stand and turn the crank faster and faster and tell me that it's the frame that causes the sound of the rear wheel to change.
Based on comments of others in this thread, would it be fair to say that the notion of "perceived exertion" is of questionable merit?
keno
Climb01742
07-17-2008, 04:04 PM
keno, if you said the sky was a gorgeous blue today, someone would argue it wasn't. personal experiences are invariably argued here. a frustrating fact. enjoy your bike enormously. for peace of mind, perhaps do so privately. :beer: :D ;)
fierte_poser
07-17-2008, 04:09 PM
keno, if you said the sky was a gorgeous blue today, someone would argue it wasn't. personal experiences are invariably argued here. a frustrating fact. enjoy your bike enormously. for peace of mind, perhaps do so privately. :beer: :D ;)
Right. And personal experiences are nothing to discount. If you 'feel' faster on a particular bike, you probably are faster. I'm serious.
But *why* one is faster is a different question entirely.
And I *had* to stick up for the lowly Ottrott, seeing as how this is a Serotta forum and all. :banana:
Yah I'm not doubting you may be faster on the Look either.
The Serotta system can certainly lead to mistakes.. better fit on the Look will make it feel much faster.
It's just hard to believe it's frame material/construction as opposed to fit.
mea culpa, I seem to have merged your brief comment with benb's. So benb, what I said to Pete in error.
climb, if your are concerned about my peace of mind, don't worry. Never had it and don't expect I ever will. BTW, pursuing issues like I seem to have raised may result in some actual knowledge being reported. Yeah, for the time being it's like the guy who went to see a fight and a hockey game broke out.
keno
jeffg
07-17-2008, 04:49 PM
keno, if you said the sky was a gorgeous blue today, someone would argue it wasn't. personal experiences are invariably argued here. a frustrating fact. enjoy your bike enormously. for peace of mind, perhaps do so privately. :beer: :D ;)
Except this is more than I love my bike and feel more efficient, comfortable, etc.
I do think that fit is the touchstone to explain major time differences.
I put out the same watts (within 1-2 watts over 25 minutes) and yet was 2 minutes faster on a climb on one bike. I shifted the position and voila, the gap narrowed to a margin of error.
An yet, now that they are within a margin of error in terms of efficiency both still fit somewhat differently (saddle/BB is the same, but one has a slightly longer TT/shorter stem) and I have my preferences on different types of rides ...
I would like to try one at some point, but everything in my size has a quite steep 73.75? STA.
On a 73.5 STA I have a 27mm setback post with the saddle shoved quite far back, so I would need massive setback for the Looks, that then makes them too long for me. What happened to the days of the 73/73.5 STA in smaller sizes at Look?
FSA makes a post with 32mm of setback and the seatmast frames have posts with at least than much setback. An additional .25 degree only requires another 3-4mm of setback. Compared to most other brands, the reach is rarely longer.
I've got a short torso, so I use Easton EC90 SLX3 bars with a short reach to avoid a 10mm shorter stem.
palincss
07-17-2008, 05:40 PM
It's not like his review is any different then any others.. has anyone even come up with a way to measure lost power due to a flexy BB or other such bike design items?
For that matter, has anyone ever actually proven that a flexible BB loses power? It's often asserted, fervently believed as an axiom, but actual proof?
jeffg
07-17-2008, 06:07 PM
FSA makes a post with 32mm of setback and the seatmast frames have posts with at least than much setback. An additional .25 degree only requires another 3-4mm of setback. Compared to most other brands, the reach is rarely longer.
I've got a short torso, so I use Easton EC90 SLX3 bars with a short reach to avoid a 10mm shorter stem.
Interesting.
73.5 is an exception for me. I normally do 73 STA. My current favorite is a 55x55.5 with 73 angles and a 12 cm stem ... I might just test a 585, but then I might really want one!
For that matter, has anyone ever actually proven that a flexible BB loses power? It's often asserted, fervently believed as an axiom, but actual proof?
Yah that's what I was getting at.. Has anyone ever put a number on it in any way? What we know is most of us don't like the bike if it gets too flexy.
Of course we also flock like sheep if the marketing tells us a certain characteristic is slow.
does not waste energy, according to this analysis. http://www.bikethink.com/Frameflex.htm
However, if you scroll down to the conclusion paragraph you will see one person's view as to why it is important, nevertheless. My own analogy would be why trying to sprint in too light a gear is difficult.
keno
happycampyer
07-17-2008, 10:19 PM
I have the 595 Origin as well as a "lowly" Ottrott ST ;) , so the comparison isn't exactly the same. Both have power meters on them, and the contact points aren't identical but very, very close. The amount of power I generate on one vs. the other isn't any more or less and, at the same power output and riding position, I go the same speed.
That said, the Look "feels" faster, which I attribute to fact that more road feel is transmitted through the bike (due to stiffness, materials, both? dunno). Even so, it rides remarkably smoothly and comfortably for a pure-bred racing bike, which I think is a tribute to Look's skill in CF. If I were a pro and pushed my bike to it's absolute limits, the 595 would be my choice. OTOH, my Ottrott soaks up more road vibration. While I could ride a century on the 595 no problem, for a long ride, or a ride with a lot of rough pavement, I prefer the Ottrott. They are both great bikes, but they are great at different things. Porsche Turbo vs. Bentley (except in my case both with the same VW engine...).
The 565/585 may be a more comfortable ride than the 595, so perhaps the differences wouldn't be as pronounced.
Interesting.
73.5 is an exception for me. I normally do 73 STA. My current favorite is a 55x55.5 with 73 angles and a 12 cm stem ... I might just test a 585, but then I might really want one!
The medium size would have a few millimeters less reach than a 55.5cm TT with 73 degree STA and the large would be about 10mm more. The choice would depend on the total head tube length with the headset. The medium has a 163mm length with the headset (no spacers added) and the large has a 171mm length. For some reason, the head tube on the large does not get the normal 18-20mm of additional length between sizes.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.