Cyclefit UK and my LOOK 595 - ARGH!

gezebo

[/quote]

Still a current model according to the Look Velo website

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

I was under the impression that the 595 was sold out, if not then great. Cyclo-unfit can sort the chap out with a replacement!

flasher

proto wrote:

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

That's a link to the 586SL not the 595.

encomium

here's a closeup of the post


here's the bike

proto

Flasher wrote:

proto wrote:

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

That's a link to the 586SL not the 595.

You are right and I am wrong. 595 no longer listed. Sorry for the confusion.

encomium

I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do or not, but I'm doing it anyway...

Latest update - i waited for cyclefit to reply or send me an email, but they didn't. So i sent them an email

My email to cyclefit in its entirety:
As you already know, the topics I have posted on the forums have been gaining a lot of response and also some quite strong opinions that support my view on the matter. Even some volunteers to be willing to make statements from a "cyclist's point of view" if it becomes a legal matter.

I would like to add that it was not my intention to berate your company but more of a validation of my opinion when I first posted on the forums.

I have also raised my case to the small claims court and am now seeking mediation advice. I do not want it to come down to that, but if it must, then I have no choice.

So I guess it is simple, do you want to resolve this matter with me directly or do you want this to continue in the legal and public domain? This is NOT a threat or a bullying tactic (as you have previously implied), it is simply me being dissatisfied and wanting a resolution. Either way, we will reach some kind of resolution on this.

Please let me know sooner rather than later.

Cyclefit's reply in its entirety:
Under the circumstances I think the courts in all probability the appropriate place for you to pursue this.
We look forward to the opportunity of presenting our side of the argument.

---

I guess this means that they don't give a toss and that's that.

gezebo

Interesting reply. As someone who has the pleasure of going to court I would say hold your nerve and be prepared to let it run to court. Small claims run slightly differently to other (higher) courts as they don't expect barristers and such like to be present, therefore relaying on a more 'commonsense' attitude.

As these guys have basically told you to get lost I would be of the mind that you've shown a great deal of commonsense in this matter...

Good luck!

Coach H

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.

Although I have had a personal e-mail from CycleFit (Phillip Cavell - Director) to respond to my postings and direct e-mail. As you will probably guess they still do not feel they are at fault here at all despite the 2010 Look 595 manual.

Obviously they do not value my potential custom either.
Thats Merlin/Litespeed (not http://www.merlincycles.com/ who are excellent) and now CycleFit off my personal list of manufacturers/retailers then.

Mccaria

I have been following the thread on here and an Weight Weenies and was getting a bit confused about the actual cutting instructions. So with a bit of time on my hands today I tried to go back to original source material.

If you go onto the Look website and look up the manual for the 595 you get document reference C0264615

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

If my understanding is correct, this shows the old style seatpost that gives the direction to choose between the combination of spacers among the 6 parts, but requires the use of a minimum of 3 parts. The picture accompanying this instruction has 3 spacers cleared marked as 1,2+3, so the 3 parts it refers to are clearly all spaers. From what I have read on this thread and the WW thread, this is the document used by Cyclefit.

However if on the Look website, instead of clicking on the 595 manual you click on the E-post manual this brings up document reference C0269588

http://www.lookcycle.com/media/catalog/ ... e-post.pdf

This document has an installing procedure for what I understand is the newer E post which stipulates as a minimum requirement, the use of the "thrust washer" and does not stipulate the need for 3 parts. The picture shows an E-post with a Support washer (which I have to assume is the thrust washer) and Elastomer

In effect depending on whether you click on the 595 manual or the E post manual, you would get differing instructions on how to install the post. Whilst you may question whether the mechanic should have picked up on the difference in the size of the spacers/elastomer provided, it is easy to see how confusion could arise.

Now to make matters even more confusing (at least for me)! On the Weight Weenies site Mr Tim has posted a page from the 2009 595 manual (I haven't been able to source the 2009 manual in full on the web)

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... &mode=view

This has the written instructions identical to the 595 manual which stipulates the use of a minimum requirement for 3 parts, but then has a picture of the more up to date E-post which does not have 3 spacers fitted. To account for this difference on WW the 3 parts requirement has been interpreted to mean the E post, the Support washer and the Elastomer. I think a more logical explanation is that they did not update the English language version from the old manual - it is exactly the same wording and why would you say the E-post was a requirement, what else would fix your frame to the saddle!

I really feel sorry for the OP and whilst I know he has an ongoing dispute with Cyclefit, I actually do not feel he has been helped by the instructions given out by Look.

By the way the thing which I think works against the OP if he is looking to take this to court is that in all the manuals I have read, each one stipulates that other spacers may be added depending upon "your required adjustment height" or "your height and desired adjustment". If my reading is correct then Look do not stipulate that additional spacers should not be installed at the outset and Cyclefit can argue it was reasonable to build in flexibility. Unless the OP gave clear instruction to cut the absolute minimum, then it would seem that he gave them discretion to cut an amount that was within the tolerances recommended by Look (aesthetics aside)

beancounter

Mccaria wrote:

Unless the OP gave clear instruction to cut the absolute minimum, then it would seem that he gave them discretion to cut an amount that was within the tolerances recommended by Look (aesthetics aside)

That's exactly what he did do - at least, he told the mechanic to cut off "as little as possible".

But even this could be open to interpretation, I guess.

bc

mister p

IMO it looks just fine. If the spacers were silver or something then I could see a huge issue, but they are not. Although I do find the black bar tape and white saddle combo mildly offensive. Don't you know "the rules"?

rolf_f

mister p wrote:

Don't you know "the rules"?

Written by not very clever students for people who have no individuality or style of their own.

Interesting to see the bike. I think it does come under the heading of something that no one else would ever think to notice but I do have sympathy as I'm always falling victim to that.

Of course, if the cut was done correctly, you would have to wonder why Look provide spacers that are so thin you need to use more than one. Surely one would be the default.
Does look neater with one but I could still love it all the same.

maddog 2

so they've called your bluff - are you going to court then?

It's all very well going on about it on a forum but if you go to court you better make sure you've got a winnable case. Given that you haven't got anything in writing - correct me if I'm wrong on this - then it's going to be tough one to 'win', if they've followed the manufacturers instructions.

gezebo

Options available to the court include aportioning costs in a way they seem fair. The chap could claim 3k compensation and the court award 1k.

Cyclofit have not had the grace to offer anything towards what the majority feel is unaceptable and from looking at the pictures there is a clear difference in how the spacers appear.

It comes down to what is reasonable too, I think most people would agree that a reasonable course of action would have been to cut the absolute minimum of material. Given that they haven't and basically blaimed everyone else for what is clearly (to a layman) their fault, I feel he would have a very realistic chance of being at least partly successful in court. For the ease of taking action and in light of all else then it is the only thing that Darren can do. Good luck to him.

mamba80

Clearly some people posting on this havn t a clue about how a LOOK 595 frame/epost is put together. nor have they bothered to read the correct manual or even read the thread....so maybe they work for Cylefit?
the std proceedure is to have no spacers (the thin red/black or grey "spacer" is infact an elastomer damper) this allows for a far cleaner look (the spacers look like shxttx) and more importantly allows for greater adjustability in case of new saddle or pedals and gives a wider range of clients should the op wish to sell. also, with a greater depth of epost in the frame there is less likelyhood of seat mast damage ie cracking of the frame - this was a common occurance in earlier 595 frames and the epost and seat mast were redesigned, with a min insert length.
My legal cousin tells me he has an excellent chance of damages and small claims do not award costs to the losing side.

giant_man

yes mate, we can see that from the pictures above, it isn't rocket science ..

proto

Not taking sides here but I think that if you present the two photos above as evidence of why you are so upset, the legal boffins will be a bit bemused.

'So, your bike is performing perfectly, but your black and white bike frame has a bit more black on it than you'd like. Can you point out to this layman the bit of black to which you are referring?"

"Ah, thank you. And you think that merits a frame replacement at a cost of £2500+?"

Not sure they'll understand.

PS As already noted, lose the black bar tape!

rolf_f

proto wrote:

Not taking sides here but I think that if you present the two photos above as evidence of why you are so upset, the legal boffins will be a bit bemused.

'So, your bike is performing perfectly, but your black and white bike frame has a bit more black on it than you'd like. Can you point out to this layman the bit of black to which you are referring?"

"Ah, thank you. And you think that merits a frame replacement at a cost of £2500+?"

Not sure they'll understand.

PS As already noted, lose the black bar tape!

But then what's the point of going to the inconvenience of buying a bike with an integrated seat post in the first place then? In real terms, for the casual cyclist, the only purpose is appearance. The 'legal boffins' will be quite capable of understanding the issues. And I'd assume that they'd be smart enough to know that the issue is not £2500 for the cost of a frame replacement but whatever the difference in value between the OPs frame as it now is and a replacement frame with an uncut seatpost.

And no, the black tape is fine. As is the white saddle.

Lookyhere

giant man wrote:

yes mate, we can see that from the pictures above, it isn't rocket science ..

Obviously from some of the posts on here it is....... :shock:

encomium

didn't you know that black bartape is all the rage now? white is so 2000 and late...
kind of why i wanted a black saddle too....

but seriously....the small claims thing will be raised this week. let's see what happens.

rolf_f

Incidentally, possibly worth doing a google image search on the Look 595 to see if you can find a single one that looks like yours. A quick check of the thumbnails of the white one shows at most one spacer but usually none. Couldn't see any that looked like yours and that included the one on the Look stand at a cycle show!

If yours has been done in the standard, correct way, you should be able to find some to match.

Jeff Jones

Locking this thread for the time being as according to this post on Weightweenies a claim has now been made in court.

encomium

I have had a chance to discuss the ins-and-outs of integrated seat posts with Cyclefit over the telephone and can now see the reasoning for cutting my Integrated Seat Post the way they did (they tell me that allowance has to be made for both lowering and raising the saddle – lowering can be necessary to allow for injury or changes in pedals / shoes, etc).

In retrospect I could have been clearer with my instructions but still wish that my ISP had been cut to my preferred height. Anyway, Cyclefit, whilst maintaining that they acted in accordance with my instructions and Look’s advice, have said that they are sorry for my troubles and have offered me some compensation by way of a credit towards their products and services. I appreciate this and have accepted.

Thank you Phil & Julian and I am glad this has been sorted out in the most amicable way possible.