never thought i'd agree with ya shants! but i do! it's all subjective anyway, but whoa!! "all composite things are subject to decay" as the buddha pointed out (his last words actually). he added "work out your salvation with diligence"!! :)

Ya, pretty much.

Most of the lines on these carbon bikes look like they belong in a sci-fi movie. No class, all futuristic 'bew bew' and curves. I'm probably just effete. It's all different tastes, and thus this conversation is like discussing pizza toppings, but I'm just not a lover of technopop in any mode of design or aesthetics.

I dig the Look bikes immensely. I also like spacecraft, robot, and the like, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Wa are living in the 21st century, you know, and perhaps our track technology isn't subverted too much by advancement in materials and design.

To paraphrase Don Walker: " It not about how it looks, it's how it performs".

To paraphrase Ceya : "Look at the seat clamp!"

:)

That explains this:
http://www.freebike.net/pub/attach/48/487341_99.jpg

Or maybe it doesn't, 'cos it is that big-ass joint beam thing that broke...

To paraphrase Don Walker: " It not about how it looks, it's how it performs".

i just flatout disagree with that! if that's what he said i sure ain't gettin' no custom from him! it's all about the look! believe me. in your heart you know i'm right. :) :beer:

The funny thing is that for most of the people who hate the look of carbon, 5-10 years ago it would have been all about fat-tubed aluminum or swoopy carbon. Who didn't love the Kestrel KM4000?

Lugged steel for a long while was considered ugly, awful, unfashionable, whatever... everything runs in circles.

I've always shrugged at that suggestion, "are you going to look at it, or ride it?" My answer is both.

Who says there can't be room for both aesthetics and great ride-feel? It's not like they have to be mutually exclusive.

i remember reading about that wreck saying the dude "broke his collar bone ... and his frame"

after wrecking like that are hairline cracks or anything like that a concern? like if you drop a carabiner (or however you spell it) you're not supposed to climb with it because of that. that would suck to get your 10k wheels back in order, then have it buckle on you. i don't know how carbon fibre behaves though.

what kind of cranks are on that bike?

This thing is like the Darth Vader of track bikes

Riding it compared to my steel conversion would be like going to the dark side.

Or maybe its because I just watched Star Wars again last night.

Yeah... steel never rusts...

steel is a composite...

I like it. Design involves taking a lot of chances - sometimes it works, and sometimes...

whoa there pardner! i was just statin' my opinion. i have no interest in racin' but all dap to those what do! and, again in my opinion, it ain't really the bike--it's the engine drivin' the bike. lance could beat anyone on a beach cruiser. just sayin'! :) :beer: :beer:

if'n i had the scratch to get me a custom, i like ol' jonny. again, just my opinion!! :)

...and I'll watch him and wonder why he is in such a hurry and who he is racing against on his Don Walker while I pedal comfortably along with 60 pounds of equipment on my super comfortable, strong, and pretty tourer, taking in the sun and the trees and the lonely country road.

Thank god speed isn't the only performance characteristic to consider when buying a bike.

:)

Booya.

If anyone wants to give me a Look frame I am not going to complain like some people.

dude! believe me--they ain't gonna GIVE ya one! we's jus' commentin' on the looks. if the GIVE me one, i'll call it the purtyest bike in da world! ya'll bettah know dat! fo' sho'! jus' sayin'! :) :) :D :D

If they gave me one, I'd put 24" wheels on it, give it fenders and butterfly bars, a brooks saddle, streamers, a ***** horn, a dynamo hub and lights, and have the most absurd bike in the world.

On second thought, I'd sell it.

this is the most retarted thing ever. it's 10 thousand dollars! the frame weighs 550g/3.4. so it's not even light. an iro mark v for 250 weighs 4.3 pounds. so your paying 9750 more for a frame that weighs about a pounds less! the only thing it has going for it is that it's "aerodynamic", but it's a track bike and you draft like crazy on the track, plus most of the drag ('bout 90%) is caused by the rider.

the fork weighs 700g/1.54 lbs, most steel forks weigh about 2 pounds and ive seen some for about a pound and a half. this is a pretty heavy carbon fiber fork. i think most higher end cheaper carbon forks weigh as little as 300 grams which is a less than a pound. this fork is expensive as hell and it only weighs half a pound less than a steel fork.

can anyone explain to me why someone would pay 9999.99 (msrp) for a frame and fork if it's this ugly and not that light! i'm more outraged by this than anything else. SOME OF US ARE POOR!

1. weight means nothing at the track
2. ugly means nothing at the track
3. stiffness is almost everything
4. aero is the rest.

it's extremely costly to make a carbon frame stiff. for that money you can get a nice custom frame (DW for example) that will be stiffer

Uh, what? The -point- of carbon is that it can be made extremely stiff while still absorbing vibration -- comfort of steel, stiffness of fat aluminum. It's not like carbon frames are floppy in general...

Steel is stiffer than aluminum. Maybe DW can weigh in on this, but I think the reason why it appears to be the other way around is becuase you can get much bigger/thicker aluminum tubing without having your bike weigh too much.

I don't exactly understand why you would want CF in a track frame. I mean, stiffness is key, so wouldn't a stiffer material, say aluminum or steel, be better off than CF? Is it just the craze for unobtanium everything seeping into track design?

DW: Any input on this? Weight is meaningless on the track (except rotational weight, which effects acceleration), so why opt for a lighter material? Why not just use the stiffest stuff out there?

Also, is there such a thing as too stiff? If not, why not use lots of bracings near the BB area and in the rear triangle?

it's funny that you say that. cause then the question is, how stiff do you want your track frame compared to your road frame? a lot stiffness can be gain else where too. like wheels (deep aero, high flange, straight spokes) steel bars/stem, etc. read this:

http://sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/...ne-1991-14.htm

check out the picture. if a frame was really stiff, it could crack.

Read Sheldon. Tubing of the same size and diameter from both aluminum and steel... yes, the steel is stiffer. HOWEVER, aluminum is manufactured with both wider diameter tubing and thicker walls while still remaining light. It's not a 1-to-1 materials comparison.

Carbon in particular can be 'tuned' directionally through the fibre layout for torsional stiffness and vertical compliance, providing an extremely comfortable while stiff ride.

People usually don't pay for these frames. These are sponsor bikes. I think production is like ~20 frames per year, most probably much less. And of that, maybe one or two are actually purchases.

Look doesn't make money on this frame. They won't even make back their R&D, tooling costs. Its a showpiece frame.

Look is a big company that makes money off their other products. The track bike is a write off.