# Geometry question for LOOK owners



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm curious what you think of slack seat tube angles on LOOK frames. I've never had a problem with it and I've ridden many LOOKs. I do find my saddle is about a 1cm futher forward on the rails to give me the same KOP as "traditional" frames. Personally I think the slack angles add the the frames comfort. I'm interested in your experience.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

No problems Dave. I'm on my 3rd now and I doubt if I'll ever buy a different brand of bike. Each one is better than the previous one. I've helped convince a few people to buy them too. Got to lay off now as we are quickly losing our exclusivity, but when you have something this sweet, it's tough not to gloat!


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Kram59 said:


> No problems Dave. I'm on my 3rd now and I doubt if I'll ever buy a different brand of bike. Each one is better than the previous one. I've helped convince a few people to buy them too. Got to lay off now as we are quickly losing our exclusivity, but when you have something this sweet, it's tough not to gloat!


I have to agree with you. One of the reasons I'm loyal to LOOK is they fit me. Whenever I buy a new frame I don't have to worry if the geometry is going to fit me.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*The Koechli physiology?*

I think the angle allows my legs to breathe better. When I first rode my
KG361 I didn't get a proper fit, and it was only last month that I had a
serious fit done by a pro fitter. He put my saddle as far back as possible,
lowered the stem, and told me to remind myself to scoot my butt back
every once in a while and relax my back.

Now I feel that I can push on the pedals from a more efficient angle.
I have to adjust my pedaling style to really take advantage of this though,
because I find that I have to relax my hips else my lower back starts
complaining.

So it sounds like the Koechli/Lemond philosophy: more relaxed angles
so that your legs can push from a more horizontal angle.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

*Me too.*

I had my KG 271 fitted by a pro fitter. He moved my seat back and shortened the stem as well as raised it a bit. Not what I would have thought was necessary, but it really feels good now. Best thing about buying the same size/brand of bike with the same geometry is that I can just transfer those fittings to the new bike.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Kram59 said:


> I had my KG 271 fitted by a pro fitter. He moved my seat back and shortened the stem as well as raised it a bit. Not what I would have thought was necessary, but it really feels good now. Best thing about buying the same size/brand of bike with the same geometry is that I can just transfer those fittings to the new bike.


I find it very interesting that both you and OJ had professional fittings and they both said to move the saddle back. Because of the slack seat tube I would have thought the most fitters would have you move the saddle forward to give the same KOP as more "traditional" frames.. That's the beauty of bike fit....


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*Still working on getting used to new position...*



Dave Hickey said:


> I find it very interesting that both you and OJ had professional fittings and they both said to move the saddle back. Because of the slack seat tube I would have thought the most fitters would have you move the saddle forward to give the same KOP as more "traditional" frames.. That's the beauty of bike fit....


Frankly, I came with my bike thinking that he'd tell me that it's too big.
I had very few cm's of seatpost showing and my seat was all the way
forward. Turns out the problem was that I tend to curl over the bike,
making the bike seem bigger than it really is. Plus, I didn't know that I
tend to "ankle" when I pedal. Whenever I look at myself in the mirror
while spinning, I'd unconsciously level the bottom of my feet, thus
ending up with insufficient seat height.

It seems that the adjustments were logical consequences of these two
observations, i.e. my "effective inseam" and "effective reach" is longer
than what I had thought earlier.

Funny it's the same kind of adjustments: increased seatpost by 3 cm (!),
put saddle back by 2 cm (!), lowered stem by 1 cm, switched from a 120mm
to a 100cm. So now I'm further back on the bike, and it feels a lot more
stable and confident when cutting corners.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

orange_julius said:


> Funny it's the same kind of adjustments: increased seatpost by 3 cm (!),
> put saddle back by 2 cm (!), lowered stem by 1 cm, switched from a 120mm
> to a 100cm. So now I'm further back on the bike, and it feels a lot more
> stable and confident when cutting corners.


Wow, 3cm increase in seat height! Just curious, what size frame are you using?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*Definitely a surprise!*



Dave Hickey said:


> Wow, 3cm increase in seat height! Just curious, what size frame are you using?


I'm 5'9"3/4, and my frame is a 55cm. I don't have really long legs either: I barely clear the top tube when I stand over the bike barefooted. 

If you're interested in numbers, here goes:
72.5 cm seat height
6 cm seatback
53.75 reach

He even said that I should consider raising it a bit more, and/or getting a seatpost
with setback. I use a USE Alien now, so it's time to put the Campy post with
setback that I got off Ebay when I almost tossed the Alien into the garbage!


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

That's creepy. Mine made a similar adjustment, too.


----------

