# Look Product Idea - How about a 595 "Classic" with a standard seatpost.



## wuggabugga (Oct 3, 2005)

Hi folks,

I love the new 595 except for the integrated seat post. I'd live to see Look make a 595 "Classic" with a traditional seat post. What does everybody think of this?

Chas from Look; any thoughts on Look possibly doing this in the future ,,,,,,


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

This has already been suggested in a thread on which Tino C. made a prior post. http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22152&highlight=590

Extract:
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: Suggestion: Look "590" = Look 595 without ISP 
Suggestion for Look. Consider a Look 590 (or whatever you want to call it) which would be the same as the Look 595, but with conventional seat post. This would accommodate people who don't want the hassle of an ISP, for example in air travel.


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Isp*

If you think about it, a bike using a conventional seatpost must reach a certain point on the seat tube to accomodate it. By using the ISP, the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about accomodating the general round shape, but can do just about any shape, maximizing stiffness, comfort, etc.


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

This idea does have some merit.
Aside from the tube shapes, the 595 should also have a stiffer fork/frame transition, due to the larger HS bottom bearing size. This plays largely into the handling of the bike. Not sure if there is a large enough market for this many frames, but i don't run a bike frame company. 
Maybe they'll graduate the 585 to some of these changes.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Do any Looks use standard seatposts?


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

filtersweep said:


> Do any Looks use standard seatposts?


The 585, 565, 486, as well as the '05 and '06 555's all use standard 27.2 seatposts. The 2007 555's use a standard 31.6 post.

*[email protected]*


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

wuggabugga said:


> I'd live to see Look make a 595 "Classic" with a traditional seat post. What does everybody think of this?
> 
> Chas from Look; any thoughts on Look possibly doing this in the future ,,,,,,


The idea has been tossed around a little bit, however the design of the 595 is such that it would require entirely new molds to accomodate a round post and seat clamp. This is good if you have a 595 since the shape of the seat tube is an integral part of the E-Post's functionality, but this also means that in order to build a 595 that accepts a standard post we'd need to first design a new seat tube, lug and clamp, and then build the appropriate mold. 

Just out of curiousity, what are some of your concern's regarding the E-Post design? (Aside from the largest sizes being troublesome to travel with)

*[email protected]*


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Mine is from the 81 series, which uses a 25.something post. I think there is only one other company that makes them that size. I had no idea they found religion.



chas said:


> The 585, 565, 486, as well as the '05 and '06 555's all use standard 27.2 seatposts. The 2007 555's use a standard 31.6 post.
> 
> *[email protected]*


----------



## wuggabugga (Oct 3, 2005)

Chas,

Thanks for the information. I'm running a 565 right now, thanks to Look replacing my 555 that had the head tube/top tube paint crack, extremely minor issue in my opinion. Blew me away that Look replaced it.

Last week I finally saw a 595 at a LBS and now want the frame. I do travel extensiverly with my bike and from my opinion this can be a big issue. I travel on business and take my bike on most trips to ride on the weekend before and after dealing with clients. However, maybe you could clue us into to what types of travel cases CA uses to accomodate their 595's or possibly what case woud accomodate the 595.

Other than the travel issue, I change saddles depending on if I am racing or training/touring a Selle Italis SLX XP for racing and Flite Gelflow for ; i.e the difference in saddle height with fixed ISP. 

I can understand the difficulty in designing the frame. Shame that the 595 front triangle could not be mated with a 585 rear to obtain the removable seatpost.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

chas said:


> Just out of curiousity, what are some of your concern's regarding the E-Post design? (Aside from the largest sizes being troublesome to travel with)
> 
> *[email protected]*


To me, the most important concern is durability and availability. I have kept my last two bikes for 15 and 10 years, respectively, so I expect to use my next bike for a long time. For some reason, the elastomers in the E-post keep reminding me of the O-rings of the space shuttle that failed, I am afraid (rightly or worngly) that they might deteriorate with age and exposure (I ride in weather that ranges from 32F to 100F and in all weather conditions). If that is the case, then I am worried that I might not be able to get replacement parts, either because it will be too far in the future for Look to stock the parts, or because I am in an area where a Look dealer is not easily available (I talked to Look directly in Nevers and they said parts had to be ordered from dealers). A slightly less important concern is damage or loss (e.g., I find it more convenient to store my seatpost in a separate bag, when flying with my bicycle in its case) of the seatpost. In that eventuality, there would be no alternative but to buy another e-post. Once again, this would depend on that item still being in stock and in having an available dealer. I read somewhere that someone had a concern that the non cyclindrical seatpost of the Cervelo Soloist would not allow you to put a standard rear light. This would also hold for the EPost. I suppose you can fix that problem by putting the light on the back of your helmet (since people who use light at night are usually safety conscious enough to wear a helmet). However, now that I think of it, it might also make it harder to put on a clip-on rear fender. 

However, for me, these concerns are outweighed by the advantages of the E-post. In particular, I would no longer be worried about breaking the seatpost bolt, damaging the seatpost (especially a carbon seatpost), and would finally stop having to mark my seatposts with tape to mark my height, and would also stop worrying about my seatpost coming loose during a race (which is when stuff like that happens) and having to ride with the post lowering into the seat-tube, or to have to adjust the seat direction to be in line with the bike. Another thing I like about the E-post is that it has a lot of adjustability, right now, my seat is all the way back with a Campagnolo seatpost which is already setback, and I wouldn't be able to use the carbon fibre model of my current saddle (which I have and will be the replacement when my current saddle is kaput) because the part of the rails designed to be clamped isn't long enough on the carbon model. However, it should fit on the Epost with the saddle fairly centered on the rails. 

Finally, the E-post seems to be the best of the integrated seatposts that are now available. In particular, it was a good idea to give 4cm of adjusability, as opposed to 2cm for other brands. It seems to me that the E-post could be a real success, kind of like the Ahead headset was. 

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

ilan said:


> A slightly less important concern is damage or loss (e.g., I find it more convenient to store my seatpost in a separate bag, when flying with my bicycle in its case) of the seatpost. In that eventuality, there would be no alternative but to buy another e-post.


Actually, the real concern, when it comes to losing parts, is losing elastomers and spacers, e.g,. when traveling, you would have to carry spacers with you, in case you needed to change seatpost height (if you had to change saddles due to a minor crash). Even if you are not traveling, you would have to be very careful about how you stored these unique parts. Come to think of it, that is starting to worry me...

-ilan


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Ilan,

Once you get the bike and decide it's a keeper, then buy the spares then, and store them safely, so you'll have them when you need them. Inevitably, you will get some spares you never use, but then again most people don't feel ripped off if they buy fire insurance but their house doesn't burn down.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

HammerTime-TheOriginal said:


> Ilan,
> 
> Once you get the bike and decide it's a keeper, then buy the spares then, and store them safely, so you'll have them when you need them. Inevitably, you will get some spares you never use, but then again most people don't feel ripped off if they buy fire insurance but their house doesn't burn down.


I'm sure they would feel ripped off if the company didn't honor the contract because it was destroyed along with the house. The point is that these spacers are unique items which are very hard to replace and may eventually become irreplaceable. 

-ilan


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Ilan,

I was trying to say you should buy the spacers "now", even though you may never use them, and consider it like insurance. The cost of buying the spares you may never use should be factored into the overall cost of the product (on a life cycle basis anyway).


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

HammerTime-TheOriginal said:


> Ilan,
> 
> I was trying to say you should buy the spacers "now", even though you may never use them, and consider it like insurance. The cost of buying the spares you may never use should be factored into the overall cost of the product (on a life cycle basis anyway).


Yes, I understand that I can buy them now. But if, in the next 10 years, they get lost or damaged, then I could be left without any possibility of replacement. It is nothing like insurance which is an agreement that is maintained independent of the survival of a physical object. The equivalent to insurance would be that Look would provide a service whereby, at any time in the next 10 years, they agree to send replacements directly, without the intermediary of a dealer (and at cost of replacement) within a reasonably short delay. Now that I think of it, that would be the only condition that would relieve my concerns.

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

ilan said:


> Yes, I understand that I can buy them now. But if, in the next 10 years, they get lost or damaged, then I could be left without any possibility of replacement. It is nothing like insurance which is an agreement that is maintained independent of the survival of a physical object. The equivalent to insurance would be that Look would provide a service whereby, at any time in the next 10 years, they agree to send replacements directly, without the intermediary of a dealer (and at cost of replacement) within a reasonably short delay. Now that I think of it, that would be the only condition that would relieve my concerns.
> 
> -ilan


It appears that you can make numerous spacers of different sizes by using the part of the seatpost that you cut out when you first get the bike. I guess you should store it
in your safe deposit box.

-ilan


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

Sorry if this is a stupid question.....
But isn't a 585 essentially a 595 sans ISP? Take away the ISP, and are they that much different?? If you don't like the ISP, then the 585 is perfect, no?


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

gibson00 said:


> Sorry if this is a stupid question.....
> But isn't a 585 essentially a 595 sans ISP? Take away the ISP, and are they that much different?? If you don't like the ISP, then the 585 is perfect, no?


The 595 is technologically more advanced, with its nanotubes (though some say that this is just a gimmick), and has non cylindrical tubing which should result in more stiffness with more comfort. Also, the fork is bigger and heavier, and the bottom part of the headtube is 1 1/4 instead of 1 1/8. This should translate in a stiffer and more solid 595 frame as opposed to the 585. On the other hand, one can wonder how the stiffer 585 Ultra compares with the 595 Origin. 

I still haven't made up my mind between the two. I still have time, so I will try to get in on Look's test ride program, since I happen to live in France. Amazingly, Look goes to cyclosportives and will let you test ride their bike for the whole thing (100km+) which should be sufficient to answer most issues. On the other hand, you have to wonder whether it will be easy to test ride a 595, given the seatpost adjustability questions.

By the way, I did call the Look home office a month ago, and they were amazingly helpful and knowledgeable. That is quite exceptional for French companies.

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

chas said:


> Just out of curiousity, what are some of your concern's regarding the E-Post design? (Aside from the largest sizes being troublesome to travel with)
> 
> *[email protected]*


Another issue with the E-post has to do with the non-cylindrical seatpost which fixes the saddle in line with the top tube. While this is normally a good feature, as stated on the Look website, there are cases of riders who need to have their saddle rotated to one side because their natural position makes them sit asymmetrically on the bicycle. So this positive feature may rule out the bike for a small minority of riders.

-ilan


----------



## vclune (Oct 26, 2006)

gibson00 said:


> Sorry if this is a stupid question.....
> But isn't a 585 essentially a 595 sans ISP? Take away the ISP, and are they that much different?? If you don't like the ISP, then the 585 is perfect, no?



My sentiment exactly, if you can't justify the integrated seatpost then what's the difference, get a 585. They look essentially the same. Of course being the proud owner of a 595, I wouldn't trade it for a standard seatpost frame. The seat tube is an integral part of the ride and a big improvement from the standard seatpost design.

The 585 is a great frame also.:idea: :idea:


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Chas- 

Any response to wuggabugga? I face the same thing with traveling concerns. I also will take my bike across the pond every summer and get in a race or two in Belgium. (Only done for the "purest" in me- no big sponsors here!) 

As much as I want the 595, the practical side of my mind cannot even consider the frame unless it can fit into a case that airlines would readily accept. 

Any help?


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

Hi Kestreljr,

For a fairly in depth discussion on travelling with a 595, please check out this thread: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=82144
(scroll down about 2/3 of the page)

To summarize, if you are riding a size L or smaller (~6' or shorter) most cases will accomodate the 595 no problem. For XL and XXL 595's (~6'+) it will depend on your case, but there are some calculations in that thread that will help make the determination. (Thanks to ilan for providing the thorough calculations)

If there are any specific measurements you need to help with the calculations, please let me know.

Regards,
*[email protected]*


----------

