njkayaker

It would seem they are basing that odd line of explanation based on getting hits for the 464 model. There isn't anything else reasonable to base the idea that it might have been a track bike.

It didn't make sense for them to do down the unsupported "track bike" path. It doesn't make much sense to provide any encouragement to continue down that path.

Note that, while I replied to you, I am hoping other people read what I wrote.

What I'm saying is people should reconsider talking about "track bikes" at all (since there's nothing that indicates "track bikes" are relevant).

njkayaker

Why does it seem to refer to a track bike? Nothing shows up for a 454 Look model.

Show your work!

Eric F 

I'm not seeing where anyone actually claimed/suggested that it was a converted track bike. The reference to a track bike was a related to a similarity in model number to a track bike, and further confirmation that no one can verify that this bike is actually a Look-built bike.

Eric F 

Aluminum is not generally repairable in the same way that steel is, due to the need for heat-treating. What it looks like to me is that the welds on the head tube and seat tube joints were filled and filed to look pretty, but the welds at the bottom bracket - which are less visible behind the crankset - were left rough to save on labor. I recall seeing other frames like this in the early-2000 era.

Eric F 

I have 2 bikes in my stable that were my race bikes 20-ish years ago. One has 9-speed Dura Ace (7700), the other has 10-speed Dura Ace (7900 - first gen of hidden cables). The 9-speed one shifts smoother and crisper than the 10-speed, and both are a bit better than the Campy 11-speed on my newest road bike.

As long as the frame of the bike in the OP is structurally sound, and otherwise undamaged, it probably rides just fine. For a cheap price, it's a good deal (IMO).