# Look Keo Classic vs. Shimano 105 SPD-SL



## bicicletă (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm on the fench between these 2 pedals. Anyone have any experience with both? Price being equal, and not considering weight difference, does one have more advantages over the other?


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

out of these two I would choose SPD-SL. I think they are more reliable/trustworthy than Look Keo.

also consider Speedplay Zero but they are more expensive.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

Own both, & both have nice solid platform (no hot spots).
Looks are on my main roadie because they're slightly easier to clip in.

Never cared for Speedplay. Too complex & found no advantage over Looks or SPD-SL.

Might also consider Crank Bros Quatro. A bit heavier but very easy to clip in from most any pedal angle. If you ride lots of MTB & want to keep same cleat system for all your bikes, this may be your best bet.


----------



## cwg_at_opc (Oct 20, 2005)

shimano cleats are more walkable than the keo.
no skating about at starbucks. QED.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm making a similar decision, finally switching from SPD-cleat (MTB shoe) to a road shoe. I've always heard that Shimano puts all of their products through insane Q/A and all their products are well tested and, for the most part tend to be on the conservative safe side.

..Couple that with the fact that Look just issued a recall on their Keo pedals and i think the SPD-SLs win hands down. Even if the Keos are slightly lighter/more comfortable a pedal failing mid climb could be catastrophic.


----------



## drewmcg (Sep 19, 2005)

gatorling said:


> I'm making a similar decision, finally switching from SPD-cleat (MTB shoe) to a road shoe. I've always heard that Shimano puts all of their products through insane Q/A and all their products are well tested and, for the most part tend to be on the conservative safe side.
> 
> ..Couple that with the fact that Look just issued a recall on their Keo pedals and i think the SPD-SLs win hands down. Even if the Keos are slightly lighter/more comfortable a pedal failing mid climb could be catastrophic.


Well, the Keo recall is for pre-2005 models only, so considering that he's buying pedals in 2008, that should be a vote of confidence (if it has any bearing at all--excuse the pun) in the current Keo pedals. In other words, if there were problems with the newer stuff, they would have been in the recall . . . 

I've not used the Shimano road pedals, so cannot comment on them. I have used two sets of Keo Carbons (cromoly) for several years without incident, weigh well over 200 lbs, and like to get out of the saddle and push on the hills. The fact that the Keos have done this so well and are so much lighter than the Shimano's is very impressive to me. and since you're spinning those pedals around 90rpm, the weight makes more of a difference than it would on a frame or static component, in my view. Also, the cleats are $5-$10 cheper if you shop around.


----------



## cwg_at_opc (Oct 20, 2005)

drewmcg said:


> Well, the Keo recall is for pre-2005 models only, so considering that he's buying pedals in 2008, that should be a vote of confidence (if it has any bearing at all--excuse the pun) in the current Keo pedals. In other words, if there were problems with the newer stuff, they would have been in the recall . . .
> 
> I've not used the Shimano road pedals, so cannot comment on them. I have used two sets of Keo Carbons (cromoly) for several years without incident, weigh well over 200 lbs, and like to get out of the saddle and push on the hills. The fact that the Keos have done this so well and are so much lighter than the Shimano's is very impressive to me. and since you're spinning those pedals around 90rpm, the weight makes more of a difference than it would on a frame or static component, in my view. Also, the cleats are $5-$10 cheper if you shop around.


the 'standard' keo cleats are cheaper than spl-sl, but you should use the covers
for walking safely. the keo 'grip' cleats have some non-skid material on them
but they are a couple dollars more expensive than spl-sl. i have not used keo
pedals/cleats yet(either cleat) but the shimano design while less 'stylish', seems
more practical and my usage experience has been extremely favorable. YMMV.
my _Opinion_ is that a metal bodied pedal will last longer than a composite body
for the majority of riders, given the knocks, drops and scraping that naturally occurs
during equipment life. I'm willing to give up 50-60 grams for the durability.

another possibility is Time, but i haven't used Time pedals since the mid-90s.

for really light weight pedals, see: http://www.aerolitepedals.com/products.htm

either way, probikekit.com (probably)has the best prices on both brands
in question here:

Look
Keo carbon CrMo: $139.20(230gms)
Keo carbon Ti: $243.87(190gms)
Keo Ironman HM CrMo: $195.08(230gms)
Keo Ironman HM Ti: $348.37(190gms)
Keo Sprint: $85.15(250gms)
Keo Sprint Laneo: $90.57(250gms)

Keo std cleats: $13.92
Keo grip cleats: $20.89(68gms)

Shimano
Dura Ace: $132.37(278gms)
Ultegra SL: $76.63(317gms)
Ultegra: $73.84(317gms)
105: $51.58(325gms)

spl-sl cleats: $18.11(70gms)


----------



## drewmcg (Sep 19, 2005)

cwg_at_opc said:


> the 'standard' keo cleats are cheaper than spl-sl, but you should use the covers
> for walking safely. the keo 'grip' cleats have some non-skid material on them
> but they are a couple dollars more expensive than spl-sl. i have not used keo
> pedals/cleats yet(either cleat) but the shimano design while less 'stylish', seems
> ...


You left Sprint Classics off your list ($53 from PBK, 280g).

Point taken on the cleat covers. If you plan to walk on slippery floors (something other than concrete or asphalt), cleat covers are a good idea. Same if you plan to walk a long way on concrete or asphalt (to reduce wear, not for slippage issues).

I have the Keo Carbons, and the resin bodies are on these are indestructible, in my experience. Just not an issue at all. 

Remember: you gotta lift each pedals tens of thousands of times in a long ride (27,000 times each, for example, on a 5-hour ride at 90 rpm).

Man, over the months and years that adds up. The Carbons, at 230g, are almost 100g (almost quarter pound) lighter than the 105's. That's a lot of grams over hundreds of thousands of revolutions . . . .


----------



## cwg_at_opc (Oct 20, 2005)

drewmcg said:


> You left Sprint Classics off your list ($53 from PBK, 280g).
> 
> ...
> 
> Man, over the months and years that adds up. The Carbons, at 230g, are almost 100g (almost quarter pound) lighter than the 105's. That's a lot of grams over hundreds of thousands of revolutions . . . .


thanks for adding the classics, it was getting to be a bit too much typing while at work.

as for all that rotational weight, yes, it's true, but i can live with the little bit extra.
for longer rides, that might make a difference between finishing and the sag wagon;
that's why when i do my Chatsworth-to-SantaBarbara run(83miles) we have no sag
support. Cramps be damned! as an acquiantance recently said to me:

"Your whining is falling on deaf ears. HTFU. When you have cancer,
then you can complain about pain. Until then, harden up and get stronger!"

i have the 6610s on my kestrel and just put the new D/A pedals on my QR Caliente.
since i already had the ultegras, i wasn't about to have two different cleat types
to deal with.
like 'em both, but i'll replace the ultegras with D/A as soon as my bank account
lets me. the D/A pedals are super smooth. perhaps i'll try one of the Looks
with the Ti spindles when i get tri-specific shoes.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

drewmcg said:


> I have the Keo Carbons, and the resin bodies are on these are indestructible, in my experience. Just not an issue at all.
> 
> Remember: you gotta lift each pedals tens of thousands of times in a long ride (27,000 times each, for example, on a 5-hour ride at 90 rpm).
> 
> Man, over the months and years that adds up. The Carbons, at 230g, are almost 100g (almost quarter pound) lighter than the 105's. That's a lot of grams over hundreds of thousands of revolutions . . . .


Don't compare the Keo Carbons with 105..that just isn't fair. That's like comparing Campy record to Shimano 105s. 
Comparing Keo Carbons with Dura Ace SPD-SL yields a net difference of 40grams.
Also let's assume that the center of BB to pedal axle is about 180mm (that's a pretty fair assumption) - given this we can get a pretty good guesstimate of how much 40g matters over a 5 hour ride with around 27k revolutions.

We'll calculate the total amount of additional energy expended lifting Dura ace pedals from the bottom of the revolution to the top of the revolution (round up to 400mm to make calculations easier) 27k times relative to Look Keo pedals.

W=F*d
F=m*a => F=.04kg * 9.8m/s^2
d=.4m*27*10^3
W=4233.6Joules

That's a ridiculously small amount of energy. Want to know how much your average power output would have to change to accommodate for this extra weight? Around 0.24 Watts.

Wattage differences this low should yield priority to comfort and price. Even against the 105's the wattage difference is still less than a Watt.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I have Keo Classics and believe they are one of the best values going. At $53 they cannot be beat. I am sure the Shimano pedals are fine as well. 

More often than not the people I see have problems due to dirt or debris in their cleats are Speedplay riders. Speedplays look light until you factor in the weight of the cleat. Once the do that, they are no lighter than a Keo setup.


----------



## drewmcg (Sep 19, 2005)

gatorling said:


> Don't compare the Keo Carbons with 105..that just isn't fair. That's like comparing Campy record to Shimano 105s.
> Comparing Keo Carbons with Dura Ace SPD-SL yields a net difference of 40grams.
> Also let's assume that the center of BB to pedal axle is about 180mm (that's a pretty fair assumption) - given this we can get a pretty good guesstimate of how much 40g matters over a 5 hour ride with around 27k revolutions.
> 
> ...


Except that Campy Record pedals are $300 plus shipping (http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/PE307B02-Campagnolo+Record+Pro+Fit+Pedals.aspx?sc=FRGL), so cost more than twice as much, weigh a wee bit more than Keo classics, and have titanium spindles (so more vulnerable to breakage for us big guys--unacceptable).

You're outta my league on the physics calculation--I don't even know what most of those variables stand for! Are you saying that its only a quarter of one watt worth of energy to lift pedals that weigh a quarter of a pound more over 27,000 revolutions? Awfully hard to believe. Does that mean only one watt more of energy if the pedals weighed a pound more? Only 10 watts of energy if they weighted 10lbs more? 100 watts if they weighed 100 lbs more? Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## cwg_at_opc (Oct 20, 2005)

drewmcg said:


> Except that Campy Record pedals are $300 plus shipping (http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/PE307B02-Campagnolo+Record+Pro+Fit+Pedals.aspx?sc=FRGL), so cost more than twice as much, weigh a wee bit more than Keo classics, and have titanium spindles (so more vulnerable to breakage for us big guys--unacceptable).
> 
> You're outta my league on the physics calculation--I don't even know what most of those variables stand for! Are you saying that its only a quarter of one watt worth of energy to lift pedals that weigh a quarter of a pound more over 27,000 revolutions? Awfully hard to believe. Does that mean only one watt more of energy if the pedals weighed a pound more? Only 10 watts of energy if they weighted 10lbs more? 100 watts if they weighed 100 lbs more? Hmmmmmmm.


that's .24watts over 27 thousand(27,000) revolutions.


----------



## edorwart (Aug 9, 2007)

I just switched to Dura-Ace PD-7810's from a set of Ritchey WCS pedals. Got the 7810's from Probikekit when they had them in stock. What a nice pedal. So smooth and solid, I feel it made a big change in how the ride feels. I think the extra wide platform made a difference, pedaling out of a turn it just felt like my effort went straight to the crank, hard to explain. I really like them and if you can get them from Probike kit I fell the cost is well worth it.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

drewmcg said:


> Except that Campy Record pedals are $300 plus shipping (http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/PE307B02-Campagnolo+Record+Pro+Fit+Pedals.aspx?sc=FRGL), so cost more than twice as much, weigh a wee bit more than Keo classics, and have titanium spindles (so more vulnerable to breakage for us big guys--unacceptable).
> 
> You're outta my league on the physics calculation--I don't even know what most of those variables stand for! Are you saying that its only a quarter of one watt worth of energy to lift pedals that weigh a quarter of a pound more over 27,000 revolutions? Awfully hard to believe. Does that mean only one watt more of energy if the pedals weighed a pound more? Only 10 watts of energy if they weighted 10lbs more? 100 watts if they weighed 100 lbs more? Hmmmmmmm.


If I mentioned Campy records it's my mistake, I was talking about the Dura Ace SPD-SL pedals. Forget the model number but you can get them around $150-$180.
The weight difference between the two models is 40grams, not 100 grams.
Watts isn't a measure of energy, it's a measure of energy dissipated per unit time.
Joules is the measure of energy.
The physics equation I'm using is the equation for work (or potential energy if you want to look at it that way).

What I'm saying is that your average wattage would increase by 0.25 watts if:
1.) You used a pedal system that was 40 grams heavier
2.) You completed 27,000 pedal revolutions
3.) The ride duration was 5 hours
4.) The distance between the left and right pedal axle is around 400mm. This is guesstimated using a crank length of 180mm, adding 20mm to it then doubling it.

Even if you start fudging numbers it's pretty hard to get this value above 1 watt. To put this into perspective any self respecting cyclist should average at least 130 watts over even very long rides. That 0.25watt number represents less than a 0.25% increase in 'effort', this number is easily lost in the noise..

So once you crunch the numbers the reason you should pick Keos over Shimanos would be
1.) Ergonomics/Comfort
2.) Price

That's pretty much it, you could even drop down to the 105 pedals and be just fine.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

cwg_at_opc said:


> shimano cleats are more walkable than the keo.
> no skating about at starbucks. QED.


Keo makes "grip" style of cleat for walking.

And Keo recall was a Look-inititated voluntary recall for a small # of incidents with a some of the initial design run (2005). Current production is not affected. To me, that was a solid thing for Look to do- NOT a knock on the company. (And I not in the biking industry).


----------



## drewmcg (Sep 19, 2005)

gatorling said:


> If I mentioned Campy records it's my mistake, I was talking about the Dura Ace SPD-SL pedals. Forget the model number but you can get them around $150-$180.
> The weight difference between the two models is 40grams, not 100 grams.
> Watts isn't a measure of energy, it's a measure of energy dissipated per unit time.
> Joules is the measure of energy.
> ...


Thanks for the elaboration. It helps. So, at 130 watts average, would one consider 5% of that number a threshold for significance (6.5 watts)? If so, if I understand your approach(which I may well not), would the pedals have to weigh roughly 6.75 lbs more in order to reach that level of extra work over time (6.5 watts): 6.5/0.24=27; 27 x .25lbs= 6.75lbs. 

At a minimum, I suppose your formula fails to account for the added weight of the pedals to the overall weight of the bike, which has to be moved forward horizontally (and vertically up and down hills) for 100 miles or so over those 5 hours. Then again, I suppose one could argue that your math is conservative, in that the extra weight of the pedal being lifted is counter-acted in some measure by the heavier pedal on the other side of the crank falling back towards the ground. Complicated stuff . . . . Right or wrong, most riders do believe that lighter bikes (which are comprised of lighter components) go faster farther for the same output of energy.


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

drewmcg said:


> Thanks for the elaboration. It helps. So, at 130 watts average, would one consider 5% of that number a threshold for significance (6.5 watts)? If so, if I understand your approach(which I may well not), would the pedals have to weigh roughly 6.75 lbs more in order to reach that level of extra work over time (6.5 watts): 6.5/0.24=27; 27 x .25lbs= 6.75lbs.
> 
> At a minimum, I suppose your formula fails to account for the added weight of the pedals to the overall weight of the bike, which has to be moved forward horizontally (and vertically up and down hills) for 100 miles or so over those 5 hours. Then again, I suppose one could argue that your math is conservative, in that the extra weight of the pedal being lifted is counter-acted in some measure by the heavier pedal on the other side of the crank falling back towards the ground. Complicated stuff . . . . Right or wrong, most riders do believe that lighter bikes (which are comprised of lighter components) go faster farther for the same output of energy.


Yup this is pretty much on track, it's hard to faithfully capture the amount of energy lost due to increasing the mass of the entire system (you + your bike). But if it helps 40g is pretty insignificant even with massive amounts of climbing.
Increasing the mass of the system by small amounts has little effect on the amount of energy required to _keep the system moving_. For example a 90kg system and a 91kg system, both traveling at 30km/s, take around the same amount of power to maintain that velocity on flat ground. Net energy is loss when you introduce braking into the system. It takes more energy to accelerate a 91kg system to 30km/s than it takes to accelerate a 90kg system to 30km/s. Once you brake all that energy is converted into (and I guess this isn't too technical) vibrational energy (in the brakes), you'll eventually have to accelerate again and that's where that 1kg makes a huge difference.

Also mass will make a slight difference when you do a lot of climbing but 40g still isn't significant. 
Let's assume you do an insane climb, something like 10,000 feet over 5 hours. You'll dissipate less than1,500 extra joules with the 40g on you and you'll have to increase your wattage by .0833 watts. Add that to the 0.25 watts before and you still have less than 0.5 watts.

Also with 10,000 feet of climbing in 5 hours your average wattage should be much higher than 100 watts. I'd hope they'd be closer to 200 watts making your net wattage increase to be less than 0.25%. 

You'd be better off getting a haircut and taking a massive dump before you ride, you'd lose a whole lot more than 40 grams that way!


----------



## jr226 (Jul 21, 2009)

gatorling said:


> Don't compare the Keo Carbons with 105..that just isn't fair. That's like comparing Campy record to Shimano 105s.
> Comparing Keo Carbons with Dura Ace SPD-SL yields a net difference of 40grams.
> Also let's assume that the center of BB to pedal axle is about 180mm (that's a pretty fair assumption) - given this we can get a pretty good guesstimate of how much 40g matters over a 5 hour ride with around 27k revolutions.
> 
> ...


For anyone who stumbles across this thread, that equation is useless for this type of thing. That is true if the pedals were not roatating. Since they are rotating the equation is T = I * alpha, T = Torque (provided by your legs), I = moment of inertia, and alpha = rotational acceleration, or how fast you can accelerate your crank. 

The important thing to consider with pedals is their moment of inertia. When compared to F = m*a, this is equivalent to the mass term. The rough equation for finding your Moment of Inertia is r^2*m, with r being the radius, or length of your pedal arm, and m being the mass of the pedal. (Neglecting the mass of your crank, which we assume is not being changed) I don't feel like going through the calcs, but reduction of rotating mass is WAY more important for acceleration than its simple weight.

Picture the figure skater: When they are spinning, they start with their arms, or part of their mass, far out from their bodies. When they want to spin faster, they bring their arms closer, effectively reducing their moment of inertia, and they spin _really_ fast. Same thing with reducing the mass of your pedals. And those measurements in grams, are mass not weight. 

Hope this helps clear up confusion! Wiki may do a better job of explaining than I did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I had Ultegra SPD-SL pedals and switched to Keo pedals on a new bike. I found them enough nicer to clip in and out of that I switched over my existing bikes.

I'm not a fan of the float style of speedplays... not to mention the cost is sort of ridiculous.


----------

