Similar application of a similar technology. However, the Zertz do not actually provide "travel" in the vertical direction. They were more about vibration damping. I guess you could say it was similar, but the ePost goes significantly further by integrating the post with the frame.

---

---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This poster is a sales rep in the bicycle industry

I can't afford a ring... I gotta get a bike!!! ;-)

Hey Tom, hows about a quick review of that San Marco Zoncolan saddle you have on the Look. There was a scathing review of it on insidetri, and ive seen it on a few of your bikes in the photos.

Do you rate it?

Would u recommend/prefer the cutout version?

---

Trek Speed Concept 9.9

Agree.

Cheers on that one. Horrible graphics. Well, the simple black and white Rs is good. But that silver and red Soloist team for 08??? All I see is Wal-mart Magna, etc. when I see that.

---

USA Cycling Cat. 2 Coach!! Yahoo
... ... ... ... ...
http://www.raysracingadventures.blogspot.com

I work for Look Canada,

1. Yes the bike comes with the KEO Zed pedals

2. we had a great PK on the reasons for why there is spacing behind the rear stay and wheel. Essentially when Look took the bike to
Nevers the famous F1 Magny Cours Wind Tunnel (yes, the same wind tunnel many F1 and Lemans cars are tested at), and according to Look the only wind tunnel able to run tests with spinning wheels. Look took to this tunnel to develop the 596, and during their time there, developed several iterations of what would eventually become the 596. One of the major designs they worked on was the gap between the rear wheel and the seat tube. What most bike manufacturers have adopted, is a fairly tight gap, but Look found that design caused a lot of turbulence in the area behind the seat tube and ran counter to the ultimate goal of cheating the wind. So engineers actually added more space to give the spinning air somewhere to go. A radically different direction, but not completely unfounded, as many Lemans race cars have louvered fenders to reduce pressure in their wheel wells.

A radically different direction, but not completely unfounded, as many Lemans race cars have louvered fenders to reduce pressure in their wheel wells.

I'm surprised you haven't been flamed about this statement yet since most STers seem to aerodynamics experts and would point out that a bike doesn't travel at nearly the speeds that a Lemans race car is travelling and would therefore not be subject to the same aerodynamic concerns that a bike would be. I'm not an aero expert, however, I do think that Look makes a mistake in trying to justify the wheel gap by making this comparison. I know that they are trying to market this bike by saying that they found that the wheel gap was more aero with the wheels spinning but until STers see the wind tunnel data then this will likely be viewed skeptically by this community since so many other bike makers have found contrary evidence.

Personally I think Look probably tested both options and concluded that both designs were probably so close that it wasn't going to make much of a real world difference. I think they made a conscious decision to have a bike that was very different aesthetically and would have people take notice of their product (i.e. the bent top tube). This doesn't mean that I think the bike is any more or less aero than any other bike out there in real world conditions. Let's face it. Look is a French company and style matters to them a lot (as well it should). And that doesn't have to mean that this bike is style over substance. It might very well mean style AND substance. But unless Look, for that matter the entire bike industry, agrees to an aero testing standard and then releases that data to the public then consumers will always have the right to question and/or ignore all aerodynamics claims.

"Tom D, wich bike are you going to ride next year?"

Fair question. The honest answer is that I do not know yet. I have very (very)limited riding on both right now- enough to write some commentary on the ride quality but not enough to know which I will fit on best.

It would seem the P4 is the natural for me since the geometry is the same as my excellent P3C which I used last year and really enjoyed very much. I am already excited about using the Look though since I also have a Look road bike that I really like.

I'll know more about what I'm going to ride as the season draws near and I get a few races under my belt on each bike. Ultimately for me it boils down to the one that seems to fit the best.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I know that they are trying to market this bike by saying that they found that the wheel gap was more aero with the wheels spinning but until STers see the wind tunnel data then this will likely be viewed skeptically by this community since so many other bike makers have found contrary evidence.
I have not heard of MANY bike makers found contrary evidence - only seen many bike makers copying Cervelo.

What I acually have read about this issue by companies that have tested different rear wheel gaps in wind tunnel is:

Cervelo: Minimum rear wheel gap is the faster.
Look: Larger gap is faster
Trek: No difference from minor gap up to 1-2 cm.
Wilier(J.Cobb): A gap up to a few cm makes no difference

Exactly. This goes back to the ST windtunnel shootout idea I proposed.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

If LOOK is truly claiming that, then they've put a pretty big dent in their credibility right there...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

They are claiming that, which I've found confusing. I've been meaning to follow up on that. My guess is that there some subtle modifier like "...in France" that got dropped by the marketing department.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

It worked for Henry Ford. I guess Cervelo feels empowered.

---

------------------------------
Team Clarks/EU Cycle Imports presented by RIDECLEAN

I've received much info on the "gap" from many sources. If I "see the forest through the trees", then this is a very fast frame. People need to see the overall picture presented by any manufacturer and not pick apart each statement made by the advertising department. If I took every single statement made as such then I'd never buy a product from anyone. Most manufacturers make some strange statements. I for one don't then disregard the product based on this one claim. So the marketing dept may have dropped something from this statement.... I don't care.

There are some other elements of the design that some have disregarded because they don't like the claim that it was tested in the only wind tunnel with spinning wheels. I don't disregard the presentation of this product based on that.

For instance - the seat tube is designed differently from a seat tube with near zero gap. The different design of the seat tube negates the need for a near zero gap. The design allows the air flow to by-pass the larger gap without being disturbed.

---

.
.
Paul

Well said Paul.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom....keep this top secret between just you and I. I am going to let you in on a business idea that could make the two of us the richest men in the triathlon world.....dimpled airfoil race numbers, imagine the timesavings on the bike with out that pesky race number flapping in the wind offsetting the aero gains of the rear wheel gap (or lack there of)....

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

That's all fine...but until the they actually reveal some actual testing data and protocol comparing it to the stuff they tried and/or other bikes, all we have to go one to evaluate their claims is what they've said...and if they are inaccurate on a simple subject like the "wheels spinning", how can we trust anything else that's said? What else is being "left out"? Like I said above, it puts a big dent in their credibility...it doesn't mean it's totally blown, just that I'm going to treat any other claims they make with an extra amount of scrutiny, especially things that go "against the grain" of the designs of other top end TT bike manufacturers (i.e. Cervelo, Felt, Trek, Specialized, etc. who ALL have considerable time in windtunnels - with spinning wheels - and have found that being able to adjust the gap to a minimum is important enough that they include horizontal dropouts.)

Personally, I really like some aspects of that LOOK design. I think the front end of the bike is well thought out and the whole crankset idea is pretty cool. BUT...there seems to be a bit of "handwaving" going on with respect to the "kink" in the top tube and the whole cutout issue. Heck, as Gerard has implied, with a poorly thought out seatstay/seattube junction, perhaps a significant gap is better than no gap...but that doesn't mean that with a well designed SS/ST junction that no gap couldn't be better. LOOK needs to show that they've done the "homework" on the SS/ST junction before implying that they found that a larger gap is better than a small gap. Perhaps what was "left out" in that case was the statement "...for this particular bike"??

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Consumers will have a hard time verifying aero claims, but they can easily verify claims like the above. A quick call to MIT, or San Diego, or Texas, or most tunnels I know, will reveal that they all test with spinning wheels. In fact, I don't think I have ever been in a tunnel that couldn't. I have no idea why Look would say stuff that obviously isn't true, and from your note, it seems they continue to do so even after it has been pointed out that it's simply not true, because they show themselves not to be very knowledgeable when it comes to the possibilities in aero testing.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

Just to clarify: LOOK does not claim that this is the only windtunnel in the world that allows testing in this manner. Regarding our use of the Magny Cours wind tunnel, the text in our catalog reads:

"...not all wind tunnels are created alike...One important factor that sets this tunnel apart is the rolling track that allows both wheels to spin..."

Also, as far as the gap/no gap testing goes, we're not saying that a larger gap is always faster, and no gap is always slower. The 596 front end was tested with several different rear triangle designs and the version that made it to production was the fastest we tested. Obviously a front end with different tube profiles and shapes may have produced different results, but the 596 rear end was the fastest we tested for this particular frame.

I hope that helps clear things up a little bit.

chas@LookUSA

Chas,


I think that in true Slowtwitch fashion, you and Gerard are going to have to name call, pick an ST posse and then meet somewhere for a throwdown...I suggest that you and Gerard belly up to a bar and figure out what frame is really faster by validating what one of the two of you can consume more single malt whiskey before hitting the floor or vomiting.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Thanks Chas,
...but that quote above still begs the question "How does that 'factor' set 'this tunnel apart' when pretty much every other wind tunnel used for bikes does the same thing?"

I hear what you're saying on the "gap vs. no gap" and how it was tested on the LOOK bike. However, it would probably be more accurate (and clear) if you merely said that it was the "fastest rear end of the particular design iterations they tested for this model."

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Let me first say that I very much respect your bike designs and position in the industry. But I will say that I'm not sure that Look continues to make that statement about the use of the only wind tunnel that tests with spinning wheels. I've only seen this once, in the same statement and/or ads for the bike and repeated and re-posted. I've not heard them repeat this statement in other forms since then. OK>>>>>>>>edit>>>>>>>>.I just read Chas's response.....thank you!!!!

I will not argue the fact that Cervelos or other bike frames with little to no gap are very fast and tested as such. But I don't think I can discount a different design that utilizes a different seat tube design that may optimize a larger gap. Besides, the aero saving are going to be very small anyway.

The aerodynamic difference between Cervelo frames and Look frames will never make any difference in my racing or training. In fact I'd say this is true for the majority of people I race with. So really my decision comes down to which bike I like best. For me this decision comes down to my preference to being different and the epost with the elastomer : ) Cervelo is by far the most common bikes in transition now-a-days. That makes up my mind right there. Its one of the reasons I've been riding Zipp 2001's for many years. Its easy to find mine in transition. Its the only one !!

For my own selfish reasons I hope Look doesn't sell many 596's : )

---

.
.
Paul

That P4 looks hideous dude. Guess I am lucky the Cervello geometry is no good for me!

---

Lar Dog

To answer the ride question - i rode the demo P4 in Kona ( I sell Cervelos and others in the UK), which was way bigger than my 51cm P3c, i could be on the 54 though, and found, all things considered, it's very similar in ride to my p3c, which is a good thing.

---

'to give anything less than the best is to sacrifice the gift'...Pre