# 555 or 565 or 585 - ride quality



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

hello

this is related to previous post but I would like to restrict the choice to 2005/2006 models of Look 555, 565 and 585.

Out of these three - which would would offer best ride quality for distance fitness riding and training (not racing)? And would the differences be pronounced?

I am trying to figure out if the extra cost of buying 565 or 585 is justified over 555 given I have no racing amibitions at all.

thanks


----------



## frenchmb (Dec 22, 2004)

acid_rider said:


> hello
> 
> this is related to previous post but I would like to restrict the choice to 2005/2006 models of Look 555, 565 and 585.
> 
> ...


2005 555 would be my pick (I do have one) as it has the hsc 5 sl fork and about 100 grams heavier than 2006 565. I use mine for recreational riding and its great for both long ride and climbing.


----------



## ChristianB (Jul 27, 2004)

I'd grab the 555 and spend the 1000$ saved on going to France and ride the Alps.... If you're not planning on racing, you properly don't the need the extra stiffness and weight savings. One thing that is con the 555 though, is that apperantly it only comes in 6 sizes, the 565 and 585 comes in 7. This is actually quite disappointing, even with the 7 sizes, and is one reason I might abandon the Look-ship... What happened to the "good old days" where I could choose from 13 different sizes for my 481SL... I know it's to lower production costs, but a good fit is worth the extra costs involved.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*thanks. What size 5X5 to choose?*

thank you all. I was leaning towards 2005/2006 555 but I wanted to know if extra cost of 565 or 585 was justifiable on comfort or performance grounds. 

Personally speaking I could not see it and I did not think anyone below elite level racer would be able to notice the difference between 555 and the 565/585. Your replies confirm my suspicions.

Next question: I currently ride a 54cm (54.6cm tt) Trek Madone with 100mm (-8 degree stem) and Deda Netwon 80mm reach (cente to centre) shallow 135mm drop bars and 40mm spacer (very poor back flexibility). I have a ~83cm inseam, 173-174cm tall (5 foot 8.5 inches), 66kg (~145lbs), male, 40+yo.

What size Look 555/565/585 is likely to fit me best? 53cm? I want to use a 100-120mm stem, nothing shorter or longer than that. I realise than my lack of flexibility implies 30+mm of spacer, most likely.


----------



## frenchmb (Dec 22, 2004)

53 cm in my opinion is the right size, I think the look web size may have a size guide.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*yes, I was the chart*



frenchmb said:


> 53 cm in my opinion is the right size, I think the look web size may have a size guide.


thanks, I found this:

http://www.lookcycle.com/v2/anglais/catalogue/2006/geom.php

if I read 555 geometry correctly, Column B is the top tube length of core importance?

53cm = 54.0 cm TT and 55 cm = 55.5cm. The Madone 54cm = 54.6cm so it is kind of in the middle. The 74 degree STA on Madone is almost same as Look 555 = 73.5 degree (allow 5mm TT?). I guess a 53cm means regular 110mm stem, amd 555 means a stumpy 90mm stem in my case, right? Will the 53cm head tube be too short for me i.e. force to adopt big saddle to bar drop? On Madone I have about 45-47mm drop (just under 2 inches) which is good. I want the same drop on Look, no bigger.

thanks again and happy holidays to all


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

acid_rider said:


> thank you all. I was leaning towards 2005/2006 555 but I wanted to know if extra cost of 565 or 585 was justifiable on comfort or performance grounds.
> 
> Personally speaking I could not see it and I did not think anyone below elite level racer would be able to notice the difference between 555 and the 565/585. Your replies confirm my suspicions.
> 
> ...


In all honesty I would seriously doubt that even most elite cyclists could tell the difference in ride between the 555, 565 and 585 models. According to Look, who builds the frames these frames have been designed to ride identically, not almost identically but identically. If you painted all the frames the same color and didn't allow the testrider to peak at the different shape of the seatstays I would propose that virtually no rider alive could ride these frames and accurately pick the difference between one and another. Lots of guys will blow the extra cash on the more expensive models and then start babbling about how the bike climbs better is stiffer, transfers their recreational power better blah, blah, blah, and all that hot air is placebo effect and someone blowing smoke. In a pure blind test your typical recreational rider would have no abilty whatsoever to tell you which frame is which. 

Get the 555 and save the cash for a huge wheel upgrade or drivetrain upgrade.

Remember that the more spacers you use the more you bring the bars back towards yourself so if you plan on using 30 mm's of spacers and you typically only use 10 or 20 on your current frames this will also cause you to use a slightly longer stem to get desired reach. It sounds like you should probably go to a quality shop which sells Look and see what they think about which size and setup works best for you.


----------



## Robert Bell (Dec 23, 2005)

*565 and 585 are indistinguishable*

I've been considering buying a 585 or a 565. I spoke to the guy who reviewed the 585 for pezcyclingnews.com and raved about it. He said he rode the 585 and the 565 one after the other with the same wheels and he couldn't tell any difference between them. His recommendation was to save $500 and go for the 565. 
I'm not so sure there isn't a difference between how the 565 and 585 ride and how the 555 rides, though. The 565/585 have curved chainstays and seatstays that are designed to absorb shock, while the rear end of the 555 is straighter, i.e., more conventional. In addition, the geometry is a little different, with the 565/585 having a longer top tube, at least in my size. The 565 fits me better than the 555, so its an easy choice for me.


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

Robert Bell said:


> I've been considering buying a 585 or a 565. I spoke to the guy who reviewed the 585 for pezcyclingnews.com and raved about it. He said he rode the 585 and the 565 one after the other with the same wheels and he couldn't tell any difference between them. His recommendation was to save $500 and go for the 565.
> I'm not so sure there isn't a difference between how the 565 and 585 ride and how the 555 rides, though. The 565/585 have curved chainstays and seatstays that are designed to absorb shock, while the rear end of the 555 is straighter, i.e., more conventional. In addition, the geometry is a little different, with the 565/585 having a longer top tube, at least in my size. The 565 fits me better than the 555, so its an easy choice for me.


If the 565 geometry works better for you I can buy that. However, no one at Look has said that the curved stays of the 565 or 585 provide any more rear compliance or shock absorbtion than the straight stays of the 555. In fact, they say the 3 frames all ride exactly the same. Curved stays do not mean a bikes rear necessarily absorbs more shock or is more compliant. In fact there are a number of frames on the market today with curved rear stays that many would consider pretty stiff, harsh riding frames at the rear. I would suspect the curved stays are an aesthetic thing more than anything else to differentiate the 565 and 585 more from the 555 that's about it. It also would not make a whole lot of sense to intentionally build your most expensive and "supposedly" highest performance frames with softer rears than your "supposedly" slightly lower performance road frame would it?


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

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


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*I alos have an 83cm inseam...*

but I'm 2 inches shorter. I ride a 51cm. 

Your "54cm" Trek is really only a about a 51.5cm frame, measured c-c.

To compare the fit, look at the head tube length, with the headset and the frame "reach" (TT length minus setback).

Is your head tube length, with the headset about 130mm on the Trek?

The 51cm LOOK will have a HT length of 135mm with the headset and a reach that's about 1cm shorter than the Trek.

What's your handlebar height, measured from the floor to the top of the bars? 

You shouldn't be using 4cm of spacer. Better to use a 96 degree stem that's one size longer to reduce spacers by at least 2cm. If you're using a stubby 80mm stem now, then you might be able to use a 96 degree by 100mm with the 51cm LOOK. You might also consider short reach bars, like the Salsa Poco to reduce reach.

The larger sizes just make your stem situation worse.

I recommend working on flexibility and abdominal/back strength.


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


Been reading too many marketing brochures. I doubt any rider could ride these frames in a pure double blind test and discern with any statistical relevance which frame is which. Stiffness numbers do not mean a thing if the lower stiffness number for example is an amount which would already be deemed very stiff by the typical rider, whether it is a 70 or a 110 would make no difference for example. You are seriously trying to tell me there is any rider in in here who could detect the difference between a 192 and 165 bottom bracket stiffness????????? Yeah right?

And a rider is going to detect a difference in rear triangle stiffness of 65 versus 60???? Yeah ok????????????????????

The geometries of these frames and their overall wheelbases and trails are nearly identical, so are the tubes from which they are built. An aluminum bottom bracket is gonna make a frame ride detectably different??????????????????????? Maybe one with fairy dust sprinkled on it.

Here's some advice - when you pedal down on your crank with your right foot and you see your bottom bracket move to the left, it is not the bottom bracket which is flexing it is the tubes attached to the bottom bracket which are giving way and permitting the bottom bracket lug/enclosure to move to the left. Whether the BB lug itself is made from aluminum, carbon, kevlar, uncle joes special mix or pixie dust has virtually nothing to do with the bottom bracket moving leftward in response to the riders right foot peddal stroke. When the bottom bracket moves left the BB structure itself is not deforming, what is happening is the tubes connected to it are flexing left and moving left and the bottom bracket structure goes along for the ride. Funniest thing I heard yet, a bottom bracket is stiff because it's made of aluminum. LOL

If I flex mr arm upward my hand will move upward with it, but that doesn't mean I'm flexing my hand. My hand is simply going along for the ride because it is attached to the arm which is moving/flexing. Same exact thing with what is commonly called bottom bracket flex. It isn't the bottom bracket or lug itself which is flexing or bending, what is flexing are the tubes attached to the BB structure and the Bb structure follows the movement/flex of the tubes. Now it is true a longer lug can to a degree help prevent a tube from from flexing, but the material composition of a BB lub is not going to make a BB "stiffer" so the structure does not flex when the tubes attached to it flex. The BB lug/structure is already a much stiffer structure laterally than the tubes attached to it. Being made from aluminum or whatever would make no difference at all with the common BB flex phenom.


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> ...


----------



## Macho Man Savage (Oct 24, 2002)

yawn...

**almost post**


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*thanks for reply C-40, more info supplied. more questions too!*



C-40 said:


> but I'm 2 inches shorter. I ride a 51cm.
> 
> Your "54cm" Trek is really only a about a 51.5cm frame, measured c-c.
> 
> ...


thanks C-40, here is more info. What length stem are you using on your Look 51cm? 120mm?

Yes, it looks like 130mm is indeed the head tube length including the "overheads".

My floor to top of handle bars height is 90.5cm and floor to top of saddle is ~95cm, give or take 5mm i.e. ~45mm saddle to bar drop. I have lousy flexibility for sure. 
I use 100mm stem right now (in -8 degrees position) and Deda Newton (80mm reach) shallow (135mm) drop handlebars, size 42 c-c. I use 40mm of spacer due to my lousy back flexibility (and lower back discomfort over last 10 years, predates bike) and I have started doing some stretching etc. I feel the 54cm Trek frame size is about right size(56cm Trek felt too big, I owned one). As you know by design Madone has a relatively short head tube so most riders I see on the road end up with 10-20mm more spacers than in other frames of similar size. Even pro and elite riders on Trek Madone often tend to have extra 10mm of spacers. But if did not worry Lance so it does not worry me either, as long as its comfortable 8^)

I have some questions, please.

I did not quite understand how I can reduce the number of spacers by changing the stem? If I have -8 degree BBB stem of 100mm right now and 40mm of spacer then what do I need to do to be able to say remove 10mm of spacer without affecting the handle-bar height, bar reach, etc? What size and angle stem do I need? I do not want to go to a shorter stem than my current 100mm, to me it looks rather odd with sub-100mm stem. I am happy with 110mm or 120mm stem if this is what you meant.

And btw why exactly do I need to remove 10-20mm of spacer? What are the advantages? Is it just looks or something else?

And finally, in Look 555 frame is 53cm the right size for me? Or more likely 55cm? Ideally I want to end up with 100-120mm stem and 20mm of spacer give or take 10mm to maintain balanced look. To repeat, my inseam is ~83cm and overall height is ~173-174cm.

Much obliged in advance


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*most likely a 53....*

With my short height, I would use a 110mm stem with 80mm reach bars on my 51cm LOOK. 

If you analyze the difference between a 51cm and 53cm 555, you'll notice that the STA on the 53 is not as steep as the 51cm. This makes the reach shorter, for a given saddle position, so the real difference in the reach between these two sizes is only about 5mm. Compared to your Trek, the 53cm LOOK will have reach that's about 1cm shorter and the 51cm would be about 1.5cm shorter.

You handlebars are 3cm higher than mine, even though we have about the same saddle height. If you must have the bars that high, then it makes a stiffer setup to use more stem rise and fewer spacers. 

With the 53cm LOOK frame, the head tube, with the headset is 158mm, so you will need about 2.5mm of spacer to get the bar height that you need with an 82 degree stem. With an 84 degree stem, you may only need 2cm. A 96 degree stem would not require any spacers.

The 51cm frame would only be suitable if you can tolerate lower handlebars. Mine are 87cm from the floor, using an 84 degree stem and 1cm of spacer.

To anwer your question about the spacers on your Trek, flipping an 82 degree stem to 98 degrees will raise the bars about 3cm, allowing 3cm of spacer to be removed. Flipping the stem shortens it's length about 1cm, but moving it down 3cm on the steering tube also moves it forward about 1cm, so the two changes should cancel out. To be sure, take an accurate diagonal measurement from the saddle nose to the center of the bars before and after the change. 

With carbon steering tubes, like those on the LOOK frames, the limit of spacers is 3cm. IMO, it looks goofy to have that much. The higher rise stem isn't pretty either, but it's a sturdier setup.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*thank you very much*



C-40 said:


> With my short height, I would use a 110mm stem with 80mm reach bars on my 51cm LOOK.
> 
> If you analyze the difference between a 51cm and 53cm 555, you'll notice that the STA on the 53 is not as steep as the 51cm. This makes the reach shorter, for a given saddle position, so the real difference in the reach between these two sizes is only about 5mm. Compared to your Trek, the 53cm LOOK will have reach that's about 1cm shorter and the 51cm would be about 1.5cm shorter.
> 
> ...


C-40, many thanks for your wisdom, it gives me some more options.


----------

