# Frames with same geometery as 451



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

While in the process of building up a new 585, I got to thinking it would be neet to find another Look frame (used perhaps) with slacker geometry. I could transfer most of the components from my current bike (a Raleigh) onto a frame that has some style, all without spending a ton of cash. Then I get to have two Look bikes!

The geometry of the current 451 is what I would be looking for. In a 53 cm frame the 451 has a 71 head angle and a 72.5 seat angle. So my question is what other older Look models should I be looking for that have the same geometry as the 451?


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Look for the older 241 ,251, 261 or 361 models. If you want to go real old, the KG76., 86, and 96 also have very similar geometry to the 451.

FYI, the 451 is my favorite geometry in a LOOK frame


----------



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

Thanks for the info Dave,

The 361 seems to come up fairly frequently on the used market. Do you know if it has the exact same geometery as the 451 (on a 53cm frame)?

Pardon me if I misunderstood your reply. Perhaps you were telling me all the frames you mentioned have the exact same geometery as the 451. Unfortunatly I don't know much about Look history. 

It's to bad there is not a catalog online somewhere that lists all the frames Look has produced and their geometery. That would be very interesting.



Dave Hickey said:


> Look for the older 241 ,251, 261 or 361 models. If you want to go real old, the KG76., 86, and 96 also have very similar geometry to the 451.
> 
> FYI, the 451 is my favorite geometry in a LOOK frame


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

tsteahr said:


> Thanks for the info Dave,
> 
> The 361 seems to come up fairly frequently on the used market. Do you know if it has the exact same geometery as the 451 (on a 53cm frame)?
> 
> ...


In checking my catalogs the 361 has exactly the same geometry 
The top tube 53.8cm and head tube and seat tube are 71 and 72.5.

The 261 is slightly different with at 54.8tt and 72 and 72.5.

If you can find the older 241 or 251 frames, they also have the exact same geometry as the 451.

Check Ebay for a 361. they come up pretty often and are usually pretty cheap


----------



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

Thanks for all the info Dave! That was exactly what I was looking for.




Dave Hickey said:


> In checking my catalogs the 361 has exactly the same geometry
> The top tube 53.8cm and head tube and seat tube are 71 and 72.5.
> 
> The 261 is slightly different with at 54.8tt and 72 and 72.5.
> ...


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*I don't get it...*

What does the geometry of a 451 have to do with being able to transfer parts from an old Raleigh?

The only components of concern would be the seatpost and and stem. The post is not likely to fit, since most traditional LOOK frames need a 25.0mm post. The stem length required would depend on the frame's reach. Reach is the TT length minus the setback. If you compare the "geometry" of some of LOOK's traditional frames to the new 585, the STA and TT length may be different, but the reach may be the same or nearly the same.

For example, my tradtional KG381 with a 72.5 STA and 54cm TT fits the same (within 2mm) of my "new geometry" KG461, which has a 74.5 STA and 52.5cm TT.


----------



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

I agree the geometry doesn't have anything to do with transferring parts. I did not mean to say that it did. You are also correct about the 25mm seatpost BTW vs what I have. I was only asking about geometry of older Looks so I could know what to look for on the used market. I will be interested in finding a Look frame with the 451 geometry to have as a second bike to my 585. (As a aside, I intend to use as many of the parts from the old Raleigh as possible to same some money when/if I build up my 2nd Look frame). You are correct that the parts from the old Raleigh are not relevant to a discussion about geometry. Perhaps I should not have confused the post with irrelevant information.

Sorry for any confusion,

Tom

PS I think it would be interesting to have two Look frames, one with the new geometry like the 585 and one with the old geometry like the 451. It seems like it would be nice to have the choice of which one to ride depending on my mood. Sort of like a cadillac ride or a sports car ride... That is my real motivation behind finding a Look frame with "old" geometry. Perhaps I am way off base here and there is no difference between how a old and new geometry frame would handle and ride. I honestly don't know.



C-40 said:


> What does the geometry of a 451 have to do with being able to transfer parts from an old Raleigh?
> 
> The only components of concern would be the seatpost and and stem. The post is not likely to fit, since most traditional LOOK frames need a 25.0mm post. The stem length required would depend on the frame's reach. Reach is the TT length minus the setback. If you compare the "geometry" of some of LOOK's traditional frames to the new 585, the STA and TT length may be different, but the reach may be the same or nearly the same.
> 
> For example, my tradtional KG381 with a 72.5 STA and 54cm TT fits the same (within 2mm) of my "new geometry" KG461, which has a 74.5 STA and 52.5cm TT.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*geometry does not determine the ride...*

With frames made of so many different materials, tube sizes and shapes, you can't conclude anything about the ride from the geometry. For example, my KG381 with traditional geometry and smaller diameter tubes, doesn't ride any better than the KG461 which has a steeper STA and larger diameter tubes.

FWIW, if you now have a size M or 53cm c-c 585, a traditional LOOK (381,481) in a 53cm has an 8mm shorter reach, so one size longer stem would be required. A 451 has an even shorter reach, that's 18mm shorter than the 585.


----------



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

You point about material, tube diameter and shape being a/the major determining factor in what we can call frame "compliance" is very true.

The feature I associate with a slacker STA is more setback. I envision a slacker seat tube angle requiring the saddle to be positioned further forward in the seat post clamp to obtain a given amount to setback relative to the bb (assuming the same seatpost is used). This has the net effect of positioning the seatpost clamp further under the saddle and out (rearward) from between my legs. I do understand this may seem like a really weird issue to consider. I bring it up because I tend to wear out my cycling shorts by wearing a hole in the fabric where my leg rubs up against the clamp of my Alien seat post. I have noticed many road riders seem to have their saddle jamed as far back on the rails as possible. Either their position is incorrect or they have frames with too steep STAs. G. LeMond makes mention of this issue in his book, although he refers to STA's greater than 74.

The feature I associate with a slacker HTA is slower steering response, with the benefit of, for lack of a better phrase, "hands off the bars without thinking about it" stability. I would also agree fork geometry plays a equally important role in steering response. 

Just as you infer, the result of a slacker HTA is reduced reach, which would have to be compensated for using a longer stem.

So I wonder in my mind if slacker angles results in a more relaxed ride. (fear of using a very subjective word).

I do appreciate your observation of your 381 vs 461.

Having said all that, I must say my total experience base on road bikes is based on only two bikes. A steel Columbus SL frame from 20 years ago and a 5 year old Raleigh 7005 AL frame. Not much of a experience base to talk from.

Thanks for reading...



C-40 said:


> With frames made of so many different materials, tube sizes and shapes, you can't conclude anything about the ride from the geometry. For example, my KG381 with traditional geometry and smaller diameter tubes, doesn't ride any better than the KG461 which has a steeper STA and larger diameter tubes.
> 
> FWIW, if you now have a size M or 53cm c-c 585, a traditional LOOK (381,481) in a 53cm has an 8mm shorter reach, so one size longer stem would be required. A 451 has an even shorter reach, that's 18mm shorter than the 585.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*seatpost and steering...*

Your seatpost problem is just that, a poor selection of seatpost. There are a number of post designs that have far less setback than traditional seatposts, like those sold by Campy and Shimano. The USE Alien and Thomson are two of those. There are also models with extreme amounts of setback that are often too extreme and can result in the saddle being shoved all the way forward. Sometimes it's tough to find just the right combination.

LOOK has a partial solution. Their carbon post has a clamp that can be moved to any of three positions. The downside is it's expensive and it's a single bolt clamp that doesn't have the fine angle adjustment that I prefer.

The post I still like the best is the ITM Millenium / Selcof 67N (or 92X). The ITM has a small clamp with a 2-bolt system for fine adjustment and plenty of setback.

http://www.redroseimports.com/rri_selcof.html

I did notice that the KG451 departs from LOOK's standard steering geometry and uses a more relaxed head tube angle, but also more fork rake, with the net result a bit more steering trail, for a slower steering bike.

The head tube angle has very little effect on the reach, although there is some effect (1-2mm). It's the slack STA that creates more setback and a shorter reach, since reach equals the TT length minus setback.


----------

