Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
211 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Any opinions on the quality of this frameset. How does this frame compare with Looks 565 or 585 models or more expensive frames like a Colnago C50? Is this a frameset a person could expect to last a long time assuming no crashes or is there a big dropoff in build quality from the 565 and 585 models to this model?

How would this frameset stack up against something like the BMC Team frameset?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,160 Posts
weight not quality,,,

I take it you're a relative newbie when it comes to comparing frames. It might help to thoroughly read the manufaturer's information. Competitive Cylist also has pretty decent write-ups on most models.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1834

When you're comparing the top brands, you won't often find "poor quality" that could lead to an early failure. More expensive frames are lighter, not lesser in quality. The 555 for instance, uses carbon material that costs less and has an aluminum BB area that's less expensive than the all carbon piece in the 585.. Actually the 555 may well be more durable than the more expensive models. This can often be the case when you buy the most expensive frame. It will be the lightest, but not the most durable.

http://www.lookcycle.com/v3/fiche.php?product_id=24&cat=cadres-fourches&lang=en
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
211 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
C-40 said:
I take it you're a relative newbie when it comes to comparing frames. It might help to thoroughly read the manufaturer's information. Competitive Cylist also has pretty decent write-ups on most models.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1834

When you're comparing the top brands, you won't often find "poor quality" that could lead to an early failure. More expensive frames are lighter, not lesser in quality. The 555 for instance, uses carbon material that costs less and has an aluminum BB area that's less expensive than the all carbon piece in the 585.. Actually the 555 may well be more durable than the more expensive models. This can often be the case when you buy the most expensive frame. It will be the lightest, but not the most durable.

http://www.lookcycle.com/v3/fiche.php?product_id=24&cat=cadres-fourches&lang=en
No, not a newbie when it comes to comparing frames. Just wanted some opinions on what the "real" differences are between these rides. Your post said exactly what I suspected, other than some minor weight savings and perhaps different geometries these frames are not that different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Working with Look, riding all of the models and being prepped and PK'd by Look France. The 555/565/585 DO NOT ride the same.

These bikes have very different characteristics, for instance below is the Relative rigidity chart for a few models. Note the 555 has a stiffer BB (this is due to the extreme stiffness of the HPC aluminum used) than the 585 and 486, however the 555's rear end is not as stiff as the 585. Remeber that stiffness is good but as you get really stiff you lose vertical compliance and comfort. Thats where the 585 excels, it is as stiff as most humans will ever need (Thor can attest to that riding a stock 585 in the TDF) yet still is about as comfortable as a bike can get, especially at 990gr.

LOOK FRAME RELATIVE RIGIDITY

Higher number denotes greater stiffness

Model / Rear Triangle / BB /Steering

555 60 192 118

KG486 70 182 100

585 65 165 95

Here is a breakdown of tube types for each of the bikes and EACH one has different tubing as you will see.

585

Light weight without compromise. LOOK have put all of their best technology into a frame resulting in better efficiency than the classic 481 SL while weighing nearly a pound less! Made of VHM tubing with high pressure formed lugs and a VPHC bottom bracket shell. The tubes top and down tube are thinner on the top and bottom and thicker on the sides to optimize lateral rigidity and vertical compliance, giving efficiency and comfort. The seatstays are double curved to provide optimum ride quality. The goal was to get under the magic 1 kg barrier, but without sacrificing performance, durability or comfort., and a test ride confirms they have succeeded. The 585 is a great all-rounder, not just a super light weight climbing machine. Thor Hushovd used a stock 585 to capture the Green Jersey in the 2005 Tour de France. Similar geometry to the 486 results in a seemingly impossible combination of incredible stability at speed combined with fantastic maneuverability. A joy to ride. Includes carbon headset and HSC5SL fork

565

A less expensive version of the 585. Uses the same head and seat lugs along with the same tube shapes as the 585. The tubing itself is made of HM carbon while the bottom bracket shell is aluminum. Different chainstays are used to fit in the alu BB shell, but are still double curved for compliance. These changes result in a less expensive frame that is only 200 grams heavier than the 585. Includes carbon headset and HSC5SL fork

555

Light and efficient. Compact geometry, oversized HM tubing (no internal butting) combined with HPC lugs. The wishbone rear gives (straight seat stays) great lateral rigidity for efficiency without increasing vertical rigidity and so maintains comfort. Available in 6 sizes, the 4 smallest of which are sloping. Includes carbon headset and HSC4 fork.


Hope this help clear things up
Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
sirbikealot said:
Working with Look, riding all of the models and being prepped and PK'd by Look France. The 555/565/585 DO NOT ride the same.

After reading about the Look frames here and elsewhere, I have a pretty good idea about the differences about the 555. 565 and 585. However, I have been unable to grasp where the 486 fits into the line, is it more of a competition frame, as it looks like it may lend itself well for sprinting. Your impressions?
 

·
LOOK lover
Joined
·
616 Posts
GW1 said:
After reading about the Look frames here and elsewhere, I have a pretty good idea about the differences about the 555. 565 and 585. However, I have been unable to grasp where the 486 fits into the line, is it more of a competition frame, as it looks like it may lend itself well for sprinting. Your impressions?
I have both the 486 and the 585, so I hope you'll find my thoughts of value. IMO, the 486 is every bit as versatile a frame as the 585. Yes, it's great for sprinters - the beefy tubes and massive bottom bracket area provide all the stiffness you could need. The aero shaping of the tubes also lend it to use as a time trial build (as I have done with mine). The one problem it has as a road bike - and I say this strictly from a marketing perspective, not a performance perspective - it its weight. At ~1350g, the bike-buying public perceives it as a tank and won't consider it next to the now several high end carbon frames that dip below the 1kg mark. I think this prejudice is misguided - I logged many hilly miles on mine as a road bike before I converted it to TT. It climbed great and descended like a rocket. It has the same geometry as the 585, so handling is similar, but the beefier build gives it a decidedly different feel on the road - more like gliding as opposed to the feathery feel of the 585. LOOK now has the quite superior 496 as a triathlon/TT frame, and with the public's preoccupation with weight, I fear the 486's days might be numbered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
BugMan said:
I have both the 486 and the 585, so I hope you'll find my thoughts of value. IMO, the 486 is every bit as versatile a frame as the 585. Yes, it's great for sprinters - the beefy tubes and massive bottom bracket area provide all the stiffness you could need. The aero shaping of the tubes also lend it to use as a time trial build (as I have done with mine). The one problem it has as a road bike - and I say this strictly from a marketing perspective, not a performance perspective - it its weight. At ~1350g, the bike-buying public perceives it as a tank and won't consider it next to the now several high end carbon frames that dip below the 1kg mark. I think this prejudice is misguided - I logged many hilly miles on mine as a road bike before I converted it to TT. It climbed great and descended like a rocket. It has the same geometry as the 585, so handling is similar, but the beefier build gives it a decidedly different feel on the road - more like gliding as opposed to the feathery feel of the 585. LOOK now has the quite superior 496 as a triathlon/TT frame, and with the public's preoccupation with weight, I fear the 486's days might be numbered.
i agree completely, the 486 can certainly hold its own in all aspects of road riding, while hill climbing is not its forte, it certainly isn't a pig, where i really saw it shine was riding at 40+km/hr on the flats, it just flies and keeps it speed up very effortlessly, plus even though it is stiff and enjoys sprints and seated climbs, its double curved stayed and properly shaped down and top tubes give him lots of vertical compliance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Just ordered a 555.

I bought a 2004 KG461 as a back up bike. I never had a Look before and soon I was riding it more and more. The bike seems to track better and is more comfortable on long rides than any bike I've had. Including my "A" bike which I just put up for sale. I liked the stable handling and road feel in particular. I ordered a 2006 555 with the HSC4 fork which is the same fork as the 461. I didn't want to take any chances with the handling and I've read that the HSC5 isn't quite as stout. I never considered the 585 or 565. They seem to be geared towards stage racing (remember these things were designed in France) while I'm a recreational rider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Thanks, some interesting impressions here. I got to test a 585 and cannot get it out of my mind when considering a new bike. If the 555 can provide the same high quality in a frame with the added advantages (to me) of a little more comfort and economy, then it has my full attention. While the weight of the 486 may be considered heavy relative to some bikes, I saw a 486 on a scale at 17.3 lbs. I do not think that as very heavy considering the best climbing bike I personaly owned was 19 lbs, and yes, I have ridden much lighter bikes. So I am positively sold on performance, stability and comfort with light weight being a nice byproduct.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top