Wanting feedback on Look KG361 with Centaur drivetrain, Vento wheels



M

Marc Riehm

Guest
I'm looking for any comments that folks out there might have on a road
bike that I am considering purchasing.

It is a new Look KG361 with Centaur drivetrain and brakes. Likely it
will have Campy Vento wheels, although I may possibly upgrade to
Scirocco. Seatpost, handlebars, seat etc. should be "decent", according
to the vendor.

The price is ~2500 CAD (approx 2140 USD at current conversion rate).

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --Marc Riehm, [email protected]
 
Without question Look is the finest riding carbon bike I have ever road. I
am 45 and have tried most of them and owned quite a few. These bikes have a
perfect ride and finish. Might not be the lightest bike but what is a few
ounces to the average rider at 19 - 20 mph average. If you climb the Alp's
then a few ounce's might matter. Great bike go for it.
 
Larry wrote:
> Without question Look is the finest riding carbon bike I have ever road.

I have heard many good things about Look but wonder at your blanket
statement. What makes it the finest riding carbon bike? Is it stiffer
or softer than others? How does it track on a fast downhill and how
does it turn at slow speeds?

My experience is that different riders will rate ride characteristic
differently based on personal preference. So, for example I love being
on an extra stiff frame. One of my best friends and a rider well
matched to me prefers a softer ride. Is one "better" than the other?
Only in terms of our preferences,

So, I think, the best advice is for the OP to ride that frame and
decide if he likes it for himself. No question Look makes good frames,
the issue is will the individual rider prefer it (or not) to others.
 
This belongs in rec.bicycles.tech, not rbracing or rbmisc.

Thanks

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
And you belong minding your own business. The guy has a simple question and
may not even know of any other groups. So instead of being a jerk why not
just try and help.

http://www.bikyle.com/Look2005.asp


"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This belongs in rec.bicycles.tech, not rbracing or rbmisc.
>
> Thanks
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> This belongs in rec.bicycles.tech, not rbracing or rbmisc.

Disagree.

Me William Myselfson
 
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:10:53 -0400, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>The guy has a simple question and
>may not even know of any other groups.
> So instead of being a jerk why not
>just try and help.

I don't understand why you are insulting me. I told him about two
groups which are appropriate for his questions. That's actually
helping him.


>And you belong minding your own business.
Why is it that you can object to my providing good facts to someone?

Please step back, take a deep breath and think about it.

Thanks,

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:19:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> This belongs in rec.bicycles.tech, not rbracing or rbmisc.
>
>Disagree.
>

You're mistaken.

Please read the rec.bikes.* FAQ.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Who gives a ****? He is looking to buy a bike, but he's asking technical
questions. Life's too short to correct people's sentences, too.
 
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:25:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>I don't understand why you are insulting me. I told him about two
>groups which are appropriate for his questions. That's actually
>helping him.
What two groups? You mentioned two groups that you didn't want him
posting in, but only one [ rec.bicycle.tech] that you thought
appropriate.

Jeff
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:19:30 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> This belongs in rec.bicycles.tech, not rbracing or rbmisc.
>>
>> Disagree.
>>
>
> You're mistaken.
>
> Please read the rec.bikes.* FAQ.

Don't need no steenkin' FAQ to tell me what's "appropriate" for wreck
miss -- especially when regulars post biased political blog droppings on a
semi-regular basis. (One of these netizens then turns around and flames
people for posting RIDE REPORTS fer gawdsake. Gimme a break.)

What's "technical" about a bike's ride characteristics, anyway? (I don't
read the racing group, so don't know what's "acceptable" there.)

In short, I see nothing wrong with asking for feedback about a certain bike
model on rec.bicycles.misc. So there.

BS (really)
 
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:26:44 GMT, Jeff Starr <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:25:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I don't understand why you are insulting me. I told him about two
>>groups which are appropriate for his questions. That's actually
>>helping him.
>What two groups? You mentioned two groups that you didn't want him
>posting in, but only one [ rec.bicycle.tech] that you thought
>appropriate.
>

Right, sorry, I thought marketplace was good (in terms of assessing
value) and included that in follow-up -- meant to mention that.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:39:24 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Don't need no steenkin' FAQ to tell me what's "appropriate" for wreck
>miss --
> especially when regulars post biased political blog droppings on a
>semi-regular basis.

If you've got a problem with that, try to stop them rather than using
it as an excuse.

Read the FAQ. It's clear.

JT

PS you're a jackass.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Wow.

Next time I'll take my questions someplace else, where the kids play
nice together, and don't waste too much time getting sidetracked with
squabbles.

--M.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:39:24 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't need no steenkin' FAQ to tell me what's "appropriate" for wreck
>>miss --
>>especially when regulars post biased political blog droppings on a
>>semi-regular basis.
>
>
> If you've got a problem with that, try to stop them rather than using
> it as an excuse.
>
> Read the FAQ. It's clear.
>
> JT
>
> PS you're a jackass.
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:10:53 -0400, "Larry" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The guy has a simple question and
>> may not even know of any other groups.
>> So instead of being a jerk why not
>> just try and help.
>
> I don't understand why you are insulting me. I told him about two
> groups which are appropriate for his questions. That's actually
> helping him.

JT -

You know as well as I do that there are NO good answers on tech.
Let's imagine he asked : "I want to race, and I heard a KG 361 is a good
race bike - what do you think?"

He won't get stuck with useless information from people who figure that bars
should stand above saddles ...
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.
 
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:09 +0200, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let's imagine he asked : "I want to race, and I heard a KG 361 is a good
>race bike - what do you think?"

That's for rec.bicycles.tech.

>He won't get stuck with useless information from people who figure that bars
>should stand above saddles ...

The point is not what is best for one guy. It's what is best for the
groups as a whole. That's fundamental.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:18:47 -0400, Marc Riehm <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Next time I'll take my questions someplace else, where the kids play
>nice together, and don't waste too much time getting sidetracked with
>squabbles.

Then don't friggin come to usenet, a webforum, or for that matter the
internet.

Jasper
 
Marc Riehm <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Wow.
>
>Next time I'll take my questions someplace else, where the kids play
>nice together, and don't waste too much time getting sidetracked with
>squabbles.

You didn't get treated very well, Mark. That's a shame.

I wish I knew more about the particular Look bike that you're
considering. My approach would have been to be helpful.

It just doesn't seem like such a hardship to me.

YMMV.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
 
Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:18:47 -0400, Marc Riehm <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Next time I'll take my questions someplace else, where the kids play
>>nice together, and don't waste too much time getting sidetracked with
>>squabbles.
>
>Then don't friggin come to usenet, a webforum, or for that matter the
>internet.

Ol' Thomas Hoobs once described man as "poor, nasty, brutish, and
short."

That tacit acceptance of the worst in our characters is why useful
contributors are ceasing to contribute.

It's not that tough to be helpful. It's not that tough to refrain
from character assassination. It's not that tough to get past the
letter of the "rules" and abide by the spirit. It's not that tough to
overlook issues of style and address issues ot substance in peoples'
posts.

I'd rather try--and have others try--than to "wear as a badge of honor
the 'jungle' that Usenet is."

YMMV.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:39:24 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Don't need no steenkin' FAQ to tell me what's "appropriate" for wreck
>> miss --
>> especially when regulars post biased political blog droppings on a
>> semi-regular basis.
>
> If you've got a problem with that, try to stop them rather than using
> it as an excuse.

"Try to stop them"??? OK, JB, cut it out! (LOL)

> Read the FAQ. It's clear.

If the FAQ says someone can't post a question about a particular bike model
in a cycling newsgroup, then the FAQ is wrong and needs correcting.

> PS you're a jackass.

Because I disagree with a pompous, judgmental bore?

Wah.

Invectively Yours,

BS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back