Cyclefit UK and my LOOK 595 - ARGH!

encomium

Hi all

I really wanted to post a recent experience I had with Cyclefit UK which has left me in a real bad situation (my opinion according to them).

I used them a few years ago to do the usual fitting and I was quite impressed with them at the time. So when I got my new LOOK 595, I called them up and asked if they could do the cutting of the ISP. Considering their measurement for my centre of BB to top of saddle is 77.9cm (to a 10th of a centimeter accuracy) I though they would be the best people to take the necessary measurements and cut it for me. I was very nervous about this whole cutting of ISP thing, so I kept telling the mechanic to cut off as little as possible, as one would assume (as there's no reversing the process).

Anyway, I collected my frame several days later, and left the shop. I was in a bit of a hurry and never thought to check. I have since left the UK on a 3 month work assignment and took my bike with me, with the plan to build it up when I got here, which I did.

It is only then I noticed that the mechanic had cut the post "to my height" using 1.5cm of the epost spacers! I couldn't (and still can't) fathom why you would require to drop the seatpost by that much, and considering their measurements are to a 10th of a centimeter, c'mon, what was he thinking. To top it off, now that I've tilted my saddle slightly (Fizik Aliante) it's about 0.5cm shy of 77.9cm, which means I have to add another 0.5cm spacer!!

Ok, I know that this is within LOOK's adjustment range, but I am not happy about it at all as I feel like I have to add 2cm of spacers for something that shouldn't even have been there is the first place!

I've emailed Cyclefit and explained the situation, but they basically are saying that that's the way they do it and if I had wanted it different I should have specified!

Sorry about the long post, but this is really driving me nuts and every time I look at the bike I feel really sad that it isn't "perfect"

I'm at a loss of what to do...any lawyers out there?

Monty Dog

Do you have any written evidence of your instruction prior to the event? Otherwise, it's your word against theirs.
I've heard enough stories about Cyclefit and seen some pretty shoddy work to know they're not what they're cracked-up to be. FWIW did the first service on a custom Serotta for a clubmate and build-quality was so-so. Seen some weird bike-fits too - OK if you've a dodgby back but less suited to 'performance' riders.

mamba80

I just asked my cousin, a retired barristor, and as with Monty - you need written instructions, also apart from the extra spacer - there isnt anything wrong with the frame and even with that 2cm it is still within LOOKs spec and perfectly rideable - so even with written evidence, you d still be unlikely to get a new frame or at cost refund but a % based on any perceived loss.

havin said that i do feel for you, i d be furious BUT being positive! a change of saddle could have left you with having to add a spacer (as i ve had too on my 595) so my advice to you is to just get out an ride what is still an amazing frame, otherwise just get used to a shed load of stress!

nferrar

Does sound and odd way of doing it, I'd certainly have asked why their standard procedure is to cut an ISP in a way that leaves little room for adding height adjustment in the future. But as others have said, you can still use your frame (in a way that fits fine) so I wouldn't be losing much sleep over it. Change to Speeplays and a shoe with a Speedplay specific sole and you can lose a spacer or two anyway

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

havin said that i do feel for you, i d be furious BUT being positive! a change of saddle could have left you with having to add a spacer (as i ve had too on my 595) so my advice to you is to just get out an ride what is still an amazing frame, otherwise just get used to a shed load of stress!

So, on that basis, it might be possible to find a saddle that allows the OP to take out a spacer.

Just try to imagine your bike as a supermodel with a slight flaw - you still would, wouldn't you?

CyclefitWorkshop

In the same way that Darren has flogged this topic around from forum to forum, I apologise for standardising also our riposte:

We followed the procedure that is: safest, most rational and most importantly what is recommended by the Look themselves for your particular model (please see link and referenced italicized text as well) -

http://www.lookcycle.com/media/catalog/ ... le_2_4.pdf


"1/ Cutting the seatpost
to its height
1 – On the seatpost: Check that the 3
preinstalled spacers are in place"

Furthermore you have rightly been left equivalent adjustment to both raise and lower your saddle to make your situation the most future-proof. This is important not only if you change your saddle (whose overall heights vary) but also if you change your shoes and/or pedals. Shoe and pedal stack heights can also vary greatly and these need to be reflected in your saddle position to maintain optimum biomechanics.

encomium

CyclefitWorkshop wrote:

In the same way that Darren has flogged this topic around from forum to forum, I apologise for standardising also our riposte:

We followed the procedure that is: safest, most rational and most importantly what is recommended by the Look themselves for your particular model (please see link and referenced italicized text as well) -

http://www.lookcycle.com/media/catalog/ ... le_2_4.pdf


"1/ Cutting the seatpost
to its height
1 – On the seatpost: Check that the 3
preinstalled spacers are in place"

Furthermore you have rightly been left equivalent adjustment to both raise and lower your saddle to make your situation the most future-proof. This is important not only if you change your saddle (whose overall heights vary) but also if you change your shoes and/or pedals. Shoe and pedal stack heights can also vary greatly and these need to be reflected in your saddle position to maintain optimum biomechanics.

Just to comment on Cyclefit's post

My e-post assembly now has 5 parts, not 3

1. E-post
2. Washer (between elastomer and e-post)
3. Elastomer
4. 1cm spacer
5. 0.5cm spacer



and I will continue to "flog this topic around" as I still have not received a reasonable explanation why one would need 1.5cm of allowance to lower the seatpost. plus I've also emailed you that my seatpost height is not even the height which you guys recommended in the first place.

for everyone's benefit, here's are the links to the only other forums I'm "flogging" this topic
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=103313&start=15
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/general-cycling-discussion/cyclefit-uk-my-look-595-a-281218.html

encomium

i've decided to delete this extra post....just wasn't worth it

Tom Butcher

To be fair I can see both sides. Yes personally I'd want as little as possible cut off - on the other hand the point about different pedal systems and saddles is a good one - use a few spacers and you can adjust for that by taking them out. Ultimately if cyclefit are right that they did it the way Look recommend it's hard to criticise them - even if the way Look recommend isn't what most people would like done with their bike.

encomium

I've been thinking how to draw an analogy to this situation and I think I've got one.

Imagine you've gone and gotten fit for your dream custom Serotta. Happily ready to part with thousands of your hard earned money. You tell Cyclefit that you want the headtube height built so that you won't have to use any spacers on the steerer tube because you want that "slammed/pro" look. They smile and say "yes, we got you"

Several months later your frame shows up, they build it and you go to collect and there's 1.5cm of spacers under the stem so that the bike is in your ideal position (which they measured you up for). You say "what's this? why are there spacers?" They say "we wanted to give you the allowance so that if you wanted to lower the stem position, you could".

Now the frame would have still performed as it should, and also 1.5cm of spacers under a stem is well within any manufacturer's tolerances. What do you think? Would you accept your dream bike as is? Not what you asked for but in no easily detectable way affecting the performance, or even aesthetics to a certain degree, of the frame.

Rodrego Hernandez

Some interesting comments here - http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 3&start=15

I'd agree that Cyclefit messed up - they cut too much off and added spacers to make up for their mistake.

Bike shops need to realise that customers are more clued up than in the past and don't take their 'expert' word for it when things don't turn out as they should.

Cyclefit owe this guy an apology and need to make this right. But they won't.

Coach H

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Some interesting comments here - http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 3&start=15

I'd agree that Cyclefit messed up - they cut too much off and added spacers to make up for their mistake.

Bike shops need to realise that customers are more clued up than in the past and don't take their 'expert' word for it when things don't turn out as they should.

Cyclefit owe this guy an apology and need to make this right. But they won't.

Having reviewed the more technical posts from the weightweenies link, I thing there is no doubt that Cyclefit have messed this one up.

As a suggestion how about everyone who is in sgreement that this is the case e-mail Cyclefit (info@cyclefit.co.uk) with reference to these posts informing them that in your opinion as a potential consumer they have made a mistake and should make the situation good with encomium.

500 or so of these e-mails will start to focus their minds if they have anything about them.

CyclefitWorkshop

The Importer for Look Frames in the UK is Fisher. We approached them to independently judge the work that we did for Darren. We do not sell Look frames at Cyclefit so we appreciate their time and help with this.
Their unedited response is quoted at the bottom.

To confirm then:
1. We faithfully followed Look's own manual which is downloadable from their website
2. We allowed maximum adjustability, which correlates 100% with Look, Fisher's and Cyclefit's 'best-practice'
3. The bike is set-up perfectly and is safe and ready to ride. As well-as being future-proof, as far is it can be for any equipment or positional changes Darren would like to make.

It is a matter of genuine concern to Barna the mechanic and all of us at Cyclefit that Darren remains so obviously unsatisfied. We are a very small company. But we do also believe that we have acted correctly in this instance.

Furthermore it is worrying that all the majority of the negative comments on this thread are made by people who prefer to remain anonymous? If you want to make a negative or critical comment about something or someone you should find the courage to put your name to it.

Cyclefit


Hi
I can confirm that after looking at the image of the post you have sent me you have done nothing wrong. You have allowed for both upwards and downwards adjustment without the seatmast coming out beyond the minimum insertion point this is 100%correct.

Thanks

Nick
Nick Manning
Warranty Technician
Fisher Outdoor Leisure

Tom Butcher

End of the day I think the early posts were probably the best advice - learn to love it as it is. I think the post from the importers suggests there is nothing actually "wrong" with it how it is - even if it isn't quite to the owner's preference or how they asked for it. Learn to love it as it is and the "problem" goes away - functionally it's probably actually better as is as you've got adjustment both ways.

proto

A small point perhaps, but trimming a few millemetres from a seat mast is not so simple. 10mm or even 5 would be easy, but less than that, considering the width of saw blade and the way the cutting guide works, would be more difficult.

So, if it was me, I'd have had it cut a few MMs lower than my perceived finished length, and then adjusted upwards with the supplied spacers.

I've added and removed spacers on my LOOK 586 more than once, different saddles, different pedals, and experimenting with further back seat position and lower saddle height. My mate borrows the bike occasionally and sticks a 10 mm spacer in.

TBH this doesn't sound too much of a drama to me.

Coach H

It may be of interest that the Moderator on weightweenies has felt they needed to edit the same Cyclefit post on their forum,

Post subject: Re: Cyclefit UK and my LOOK 595 - ARGH!Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 2:28 pm
Moderator
Cyclefit, can I request please that if you're going to call out people for not putting their name to their posts (which they are in no way obliged to do) then please lead by example and put one to yours.

Otherwise forum members are entitled to their opinions, as you are to yours. A lack of a 'real world' name does also not make the points they make any less valid.

I have also edited your post, as at no point has the OP indicated that he would like his first name revealed over the internet. Please respect the privacy of your customers.

For what its worth, my (real) name is real name now removed, although what good this is to Cyclefit I don't know, maybe put me on a banned list? I think on balance that Cyclefit have got this particular matter wrong, both technically and as a point of good business practice. Points that, independently to the OP, I raised via e-mail directly to Cyclefit just over an hour before their response today.

Whilst I have every sympathy with retailers having to deal with spurious complaints and demands for restitution, in this case there is at least enough grey area for a reasonablr retailer to make good with the complainant.

Monty Dog

Frankly, Cyclefit have done themselves no favours and tried to deflect their responsibilities onto Fisher (who also have a vested responsibility for 'their' customer, not the user). The argument on weightweenies has been well-articulated too and the weight of opinion remains that Cyclefit $crewed-up, don't have the balls to admit it, say sorry or even manage to offer any gesture of restitution.

flasher

Monty Dog wrote:

Frankly, Cyclefit have done themselves no favours and tried to deflect their responsibilities onto Fisher (who also have a vested responsibility for 'their' customer, not the user).

CyclefitWorkshop wrote:

The Importer for Look Frames in the UK is Fisher. We approached them to independently judge the work that we did for Darren. We do not sell Look frames at Cyclefit so we appreciate their time and help with this.

I have sympathy for both sides, but ultimately Cyclefit followed the procedure as pointed out by Look.

Lookyhere

They have not at all.
You need to Google images "Look 595" and/or read their own 2010 595 manual ( Cyclefit used a 2008 manual on a 2010 frame, which uses a different proceedure)- which states clearly that you do not remove anymore post than absolutely necessary and by removing 20mm more than the op asked for - he did give them his bb to top of saddle measurement (LOOK have a spacer max of 30mm)
the op could change pedals, shoes, crank length and saddle, have a new fit etc etc and be left with a frame that he cant use any longer use, there is no future proofing of isp frames.

that is why any bikefitter with a knowledge of isp frames would be certain that the client is totally happy with his fit and component choice BEFORE making irreversible changes to the frame.

maddog 2

Just read this and my initial response was - "oh just ride the thing you tart"

but the real issue is the difference between the comment the OP made at the start "so I kept telling the mechanic to cut off as little as possible" and Cyclefits comments "We faithfully followed Look's own manual which...which correlates 100% with Look, Fisher's and Cyclefit's 'best-practice"

These two things aren't the same, so someone - i.e. the mechanic - shouldhave spotted this and pointed it out.

No good Cyclefit repeatedly saying "That's just how we do it" if the punter has requested, or expected, something different, even if the punter wasn't particularly clear at the time. The mechanic should have verbalised what the procedure would be.

Sounds like a miscommunication. Shop should apologise, offer punter some new shoes or something. Jobs a good'un.

buder

Ive got to say this is extremely poor customer service from Cyclefit UK, they need to take a step back and take stock of the situation which they seem to be completely ignorant towards.

They seem certain that their email from Fisher proves no wrong doing. It may be safe, which is all they were confirming affectively, but its not to the customers liking or satisfaction not to mention defies a certain amount of logic.

The overwhelming consensus is that Cyclefit UK could have done a better job, why not restore some faith by doing your best to speak to Darren and come to an amicable outcome.

Rudi P

mrushton

I appreciate that the OP requested X (so he says) but Cfit as the guys who did the cutting have to follow the specs they are provided with by the manufacturer otherwise they leave themselves open to litigation. If a Look dealer would have done the same then the OP has no call for redress imo

Lookyhere

mrushton wrote:

I appreciate that the OP requested X (so he says) but Cfit as the guys who did the cutting have to follow the specs they are provided with by the manufacturer otherwise they leave themselves open to litigation. If a Look dealer would have done the same then the OP has no call for redress imo

If your going to come on here and voice an opinion...please try to make sure you have at least read the LOOK manual and have some understanding of LOOK ISP's - otherwise you are just talking xxxx
FisherUK will back the trade and regardless, none of us know what CF asked Fisher do we?

the spacers in any Isp are there to alter the seat height if its either cut wrong OR the user changes saddle/pedals etc - its not there to cover up botch jobs by mechanics who cant use a tape measure.

gezebo

On balance I'd say the fault here lies with cyclefit.

Interesting how they are happy to name the op, and the fisher chap but hide behind the brand cyclefit.

In my opinion cyclefit have come off worse as they have probably lost the custom of Darren, certainly myself and any number of other people as they have come across (to me) as a rude and arrogant company who like to pass the buck.

flasher

I'd like to see a picture of how bad it looks?

gezebo

There are quite a few available via the weightweenies(?) site showing how it can be done with no spacers. I'm not sure it's a purely cosmetic issue but the fact that the mast is an integral part of the frame and once cut too short it cannot be repaired and spacers must be used to increase the saddle height which affects the weight of the frame and also resale value- A point which although to most is very minor, to the OP and anyone else spending large amounts of money on a frame quickly becomes a problem, compounded by the frames no longer being made!

dudos

NCyclefit's reposte as they say is to state the OP is "flogging" this problem around "forum to forum".

I am sure that as a cycling community, we are very greatful to hear about this kind 'workmanship' and post sales customer service when considering who we will trust with our prized posession.

And it is also very good of Cyclefit to publically demonstrate their complete lack of sympathy let alone admit fault or offer any kind of re-imbursment (although we know really the actual problem is now impossible to rectify) when almost everyones response on every forum about this issue clearly points to the fact that this frame was hacked very badly indeed.

I for one thank the OP for illustrating this issue, as I'm sure is anyone who is potentially in the same situation in the future.

encomium

Just for everyone's info, cyclefit have been responding to this thread trying to justify their actions, but I have not received any personal communication from them about the matter since this thread went live.

Also, I was contemplating changing my saddle from the Fizik Aliante to the new Kurve Cameleon/Antares. Went to a shop to check how much difference there is in the saddle heights (rail to top of saddle) and it works out the I'll probably need anothe 0.5cm spacer if I wanted to get this saddle. Decided to pass...can't deal with any more spacers than there are already.

giant_man

What comes across here to me is the complete lack of customer service to the OP. The customer has spent a lot of money on a product he isn't happy with, and that has to be the biggest crime of this whole affair.

flasher

encomium wrote:

Just for everyone's info, cyclefit have been responding to this thread trying to justify their actions, but I have not received any personal communication from them about the matter since this thread went live.

Also, I was contemplating changing my saddle from the Fizik Aliante to the new Kurve Cameleon/Antares. Went to a shop to check how much difference there is in the saddle heights (rail to top of saddle) and it works out the I'll probably need anothe 0.5cm spacer if I wanted to get this saddle. Decided to pass...can't deal with any more spacers than there are already.

I'd like to see a picture of your frame with all the spacers to see what it looks like?

proto

gezebo wrote:

.................................. to the OP and anyone else spending large amounts of money on a frame quickly becomes a problem, compounded by the frames no longer being made!

Still a current model according to the Look Velo website

http://www.lookcycle.com/en/uk/route/ca ... frame.html