8/9/14 4:00 PM

Ugly like a citroen.
http://www.roadbikeaction.com/Features/content/313/8396/First-Look-2015-Look-795-AeroLight.html

I hope it rides and rolls better than it looks. Maybe with different paint. One thing is for sure, Look never has good paint patterns on their top bikes.

If the thing is light and aero then ugly won't matter in the long run.

I guess y'all can tell I have more free time than I used too.

8/9/14 4:13 PM

If you mean a 2CV and not DS21 or ID19 I agree. ;)

8/9/14 7:05 PM

How is this, less aero, and maybe even less ugly. ;)

8/9/14 8:37 PM

Compared to a Softride, not so bad!

I sold a Giant TCR today that similarly had a hinge-adjustable stem, and from a salesperson point of view, it's pure gold being able to change up the front end fit without having to remove any parts.

I used the same stem in their longer version for my race bike, it's a 150 with a plus-infinity, minus 20 degree angle adjustment, which I modified to go one more detent down to minus 30 degrees.

First pic is the race bike, the second one is of my Moon custom. Note though how the lack of steerer extension cleans up the look (no pun intended). Ok, that's subjective, but LOOK has nothing in the way of sheer "headset alternativeness" on this one:






Last edited by dddd on 8/9/14 9:03 PM; edited 1 time in total

8/9/14 9:01 PM

What is going from the water bottle holder to the seat tube(s) on the Pederson (sp?)?

8/10/14 2:18 AM

Penderson. They just don't make sense. Rube Goldberg must have designed the bike. Unlike the Look, the function is not assisted by the form as far as I can tell.

That bike Sparky posted looks like you should lube the chain with FrontLine.

The Richard Moon is really kinda nice. I don't care about the stem.

8/11/14 12:29 AM

The Pedersen was patented in 1893, with the "hammock saddle" design being the special feature that allowed suspension action (seat is sprung via tension springs and has bottomless travel) while being among the lightest production bikes in the world.

The truss fork addressed reliability concerns with cantilevered forks of the era, using triangulation to again, enable a super-lightweight structure.

While the almost semi-recumbent rider position gave the rider a distinctive vertical profile, well in keeping with the expected look of horsemen of the era, it obviously doesn't fit with the profile of a racer, making the use of it for such activities more of an unlikely choice and more of a challenge.
I have been surprised at how well it has worked for racing, in spite of it's 29-lb weight, which is about 10lb heavier than some of the originals from the turn of the century.

The bike has proven quite versatile at the amateur racing level, and has worked especially well in cyclocross.

The bike has been described as looking "like an under-fed horse", and is said to follow the "Colin Chapman school of design", wherein the triangulated structure avoids cantilevered sections such as the head tube and fork of diamond-frame bikes (note that the "main triangle" of a regular diamond frame isn't much triangulated at all from a structural standpoint).

The Rube Goldberg description would much better describe the hundreds of other distinctive designs (designs that often attempted to effect a suspension that could be ridden on turn-of-century horse trails), all of which tended to be much heavier than the Pedersens sold back in the day.

The Pedersen has been featured in at least a dozen publications since I began racing it in 1997, and it pains me to see that all except mine have been pictured with essentially non-functioning, un-tensioned, sagging saddles that threaten to lock the rider in place and crunch their junk. I've concluded that it is a bike that is little-understood, even by those who sell them (the tension springs under the saddle won't be sufficiently tensioned to activate the considerable suspension movement unless the saddle is tensioned level enough to effect a minimal sine function).

As for the new LOOK, "lube the chain with FrontLine"???

Last edited by dddd on 8/11/14 2:08 PM; edited 1 time in total

8/11/14 2:19 AM

The FrontLine is for Sparky's bike, not the look.

FrontLine is topical medicine you put on your dog's back to rid them of fleas. It is clear and thin like some chain lubes.

Furry bikes need FrontLine

8/11/14 8:31 AM

quote:

---

How is this, less aero, and maybe even less ugly. ;)

---

8/11/14 4:56 PM

that is his wife.

8/11/14 5:51 PM

Agree, the Moon is a nice bike to be sure. I won't comment on the stem as I still have a Litespeed Ti Stem on my 72 Paramount. ;) One day when I find something more appropriate I will swap it out. But the Ti Stem is on the money fit wise, thus no hurry. ;)

I will just stop posting pics as I know it offends certain folk here... ;)

8/11/14 6:47 PM

Threw me there with the comments, so I had another look at the LOOK.

This is a significant aesthetic departure with the neck level with the top tube.

It has an animal look to it, like a panther charging after it's prey.

So assuming the rider fits the bike and is sufficiently fit so as not to have to upturn the stem angle, I think it strikes a most aggressive pose, one that might even catch on if the thing works ok in the wind tunnel.
Integrated design such as this LOOK can be a good thing, especially if it extends to keeping the brake and derailer cabling/wiring hidden from the eye and from the wind.

8/12/14 5:49 AM

The only thing I don't like is the amount of drop in the top tube. That's not good for aerodynamics either, which is why you don't see that in contemporary TT bikes.

8/12/14 2:04 PM

"What is going from the water bottle holder to the seat tube(s) on the Pederson (sp?)?"

That's just a carrying strap, made from leather shoelace, makes portaging this beast possible.

Previously, the easiest way to "fly" over barriers was to lift the front end, then thrust the bars forward to rotate the bike forward, making the rear wheel come up over the barrier (that got the bike nicknamed "the flying machine").

There's less bodily abdominal stress when lifting using the strap, so my running can be smoother, if less spectacular(?).

Before, and after:




Last edited by dddd on 8/12/14 2:13 PM; edited 1 time in total

8/12/14 2:11 PM

"The only thing I don't like is the amount of drop in the top tube. That's not good for aerodynamics either, which is why you don't see that in contemporary TT bikes."

I thought the same thing, then, thinking about it, wouldn't having the stem/steerer faired by the (albeit trailing) top tube perhaps offset (aerodynamically) the steeper drop angle of the top tube?
And, at the aft end, if the seat tube weren't so short, you'd have the seatstays coming up higher, around the rear wheel!
I think that these would be some of the aero considerations that fed into their design, and I hear that bike makers are keeping their appointments with the wind tunnels these days. Even a modest-size outfit like Felt, here in my own small city, spends time at a big wind tunnel in San Diego, then shares some interesting stories at parties hosted by a local bike shop.

As for contemporary TT bikes, the difference with these is that since the rider is tilted more-forward, the head tube becomes very short.
So the top tube isn't going to be so steep, even on some existing frames where the stem is already faired by the top tube portion of the frame.

Edit: I earlier said "drop angle of the seat tube", corrected to say "...top tube"