# 585 or 595



## Frankie13 (Feb 11, 2007)

Hello everybody

I can say that I'm kinda new to the sport since I bought my first rode bike a Trek Madone 5.2 last year in October and started riding in January this year and did about 5500km so far.I like my madone very much but also love the nice thinks in live and since I'm totaly sold in this sport I realy would love to build me my dream bike. I was concidering the colnago C50, the new pinarello prince or the look 585 or 595 and at this moment almost be sure to go with the look.Here is my question,I'm duing lots of climing here in the San Antonio Hill Country and also like going at a good fast pace on flat roads when riding by myself or our weekends group rides with strong riders.I'm sure I can't go wrong with any of the looks but still would like to read some opinions of Look owners before making my final choice.I'm 5.8 and weigh about 146.
What frame should I go with? 585, 585ultra or 595, 595 ultra.By the way,I don't need the most comfortable ride.
I already will thank everybody for there input.
Sorry for my english,but I'm a german who moved to the US.


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

In the look range i would get the 585 if i were you. The ultra model will be overkill for all but big guys, the 595 is a great bike however you state you are new to cycling and as such your position may change, this is hard to do with the 595. What ever you get ride each one of the bike you covert many many times get your sizing right, like the feel of the bike get comfortable with each of them, then choose the color your fave groupo which you have also been on more than once and like the feel of the hoods, get a good shop to build the bike and ride the wheels of her, then if its a look post pics
\Dave


----------



## Frankie13 (Feb 11, 2007)

Dave,what do you mean with your position may change,this is hard to do with the 595?


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

Frankie13 said:


> Dave,what do you mean with your position may change,this is hard to do with the 595?


The 595 has an integrated seat post which means it has very limited adjustability. This may not be an issue if you keep the bike forever, but it may be a resale issue if you decide to unload it.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the ISP Look uses on the 595 gives you about 3cm of height adjustment. I don't know if you'll ever raise or lower the saddle more than that (kinda doubt it) but everyone's different.

I have a 2006 585 and love it. I'm a bit lighter than you and it's way stiff enough for me. I can't imagine you needing the extra stiffness of the ultra line. The only thing wrong with mine is that it prevents me from buying something else.


----------



## awiner (Aug 28, 2007)

I beleive the adjustment is 4cm.. 40mm.. That is a lot of adjustment for most if you get the initial cut right.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

True. If someone's seat is 4cm higher than your, then chances are they probably need another size anyway. 



awiner said:


> I beleive the adjustment is 4cm.. 40mm.. That is a lot of adjustment for most if you get the initial cut right.


----------



## mikey_mike (Feb 13, 2006)

I also agree, flexibility means a lot here and maybe in a year or two when you become fitter and more flexible then you may have to raise the saddle a bit.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*get the 585..*

I'm a little smaller at 5'-6" and 135. I've logged over 5000 miles on my 51cm 585 and really like it. I ride in the Colorado mountains. It's a great climber and descender. The 585 can be quite a bit cheaper, from below $2000 to $2500. With the conventional seatpost, you have more choices in setback and clamp style. I always use a post with a 2-bolt clamp for fine angle adjustment, like the FSA K-force.


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

Sorry frankie what i meant was that is you are going to adjust your post height on the 595 you either need to recut or use spacers if your have cut too short, also resale however, i own the 595 ultra and love it but im about 50lbs more than you, i have also owned a number of bikes and have my position dialed for what works for me., My next bike may not have the intergrated seatpost, mainly because i am struggling to get a bike box that i can fit it in.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Frankie13 said:


> Hello everybody
> 
> I can say that I'm kinda new to the sport since I bought my first rode bike a Trek Madone 5.2 last year in October and started riding in January this year and did about 5500km so far.I like my madone very much but also love the nice thinks in live and since I'm totaly sold in this sport I realy would love to build me my dream bike. I was concidering the colnago C50, the new pinarello prince or the look 585 or 595 and at this moment almost be sure to go with the look.Here is my question,I'm duing lots of climing here in the San Antonio Hill Country and also like going at a good fast pace on flat roads when riding by myself or our weekends group rides with strong riders.I'm sure I can't go wrong with any of the looks but still would like to read some opinions of Look owners before making my final choice.I'm 5.8 and weigh about 146.
> What frame should I go with? 585, 585ultra or 595, 595 ultra.By the way,I don't need the most comfortable ride.
> ...


My local bike shop has a 2007 Look 595 team white Medium for $4800, US. It come with full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksyrium Es, even Look Keo Carbon pedals....Great deal. I don't know if medium is too big for you, but I don't think you can beat that deal anywhere. Then again, if you're loaded, what difference does it make?


----------



## jm3 (Mar 22, 2003)

Well, I'll throw another bike in the mix. Why not consider the new 586? You'll get the lateral stiffness of the 595, vertical compliance like, or perhaps better than, the 585, and it's lighter than either to assist with the hills. Just a thought. Plus, it's just looks great!

As for the ISP making it difficult for re-sale - I would agree that if you're more than a few centimeters off, you likely need a different size anyway. The whole re-sale thing has been overblown. There's always exceptions, but that's what they are...exceptions.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jm3 said:


> Well, I'll throw another bike in the mix. Why not consider the new 586? You'll get the lateral stiffness of the 595, vertical compliance like, or perhaps better than, the 585, and it's lighter than either to assist with the hills. Just a thought. Plus, it's just looks great!
> 
> As for the ISP making it difficult for re-sale - I would agree that if you're more than a few centimeters off, you likely need a different size anyway. The whole re-sale thing has been overblown. There's always exceptions, but that's what they are...exceptions.


Jim, 

I'm currently riding a kg381 and the op is riding a Madone 5.2. Are the performance differences of these high end bikes anything more than marginal? What I was getting at is, would going from a Madone to a 586 make much of a performace improvement, comfort, etc, or is it just bling. From a 585 to 595. I understand that these bikes may feel different, but as for an actual performance difference, what would be your take on it be.

Btw, I think it's interesting that Discovery was on the mid range black carbon Treks and not the highest end red carbon during the tour.

thanks, 

your input probably won't change my spending habits, I'd love a 586 or 595, or 585 for that matter.


----------



## awiner (Aug 28, 2007)

lookrider said:


> My local bike shop has a 2007 Look 595 team white Medium for $4800, US. It come with full Dura Ace and Mavic Ksyrium Es, even Look Keo Carbon pedals....Great deal. I don't know if medium is too big for you, but I don't think you can beat that deal anywhere. Then again, if you're loaded, what difference does it make?


Wow... PM me the info for the shopif you don't mind...


----------



## jm3 (Mar 22, 2003)

I'm not one to exaggerate performance gains from frame to frame. I honestly believe that it's very difficult to purchase a poorly made bike these days. So, there's my disclaimer right off the bat. 

Now, I tend to judge bikes on handling and ride quality, not whether it the lightest or stiffest, and I also believe fit is extremely important and should be the biggest factor when making a decision. I tell all my customers that the bike has to first fit them & there budgets...once that's accomplished, then they should let their heart take over. Also note that I'm a big guy, so what I judge to be a better frameset over another is governed a great deal by how well it handles my weight - especially since I'm really out of shape!

So, having said all that, I believe the following: I think you'd see a fairly significant (ie, noticeable) handling difference between the kg381 & Madone, vs. a 585, 586, or 595. I believe this because of the stiffness of the head tube/top tube junction, a part of the bike I believe is grossly overlooked by many manufacturers as they try to lighten their bikes, and the one spot on frames where I believe there are still large variances from brand to brand and model to model. When that junction is good and stiff, you get far less front end deflection during hard cornering which, in turn, takes away the need (at least some), to conciously or subconciously correct for the flex (many people never realize how much they do this). All the newest Look frames have a stiff junction, with the 586 being a nice surprise in that category. I expected the front end stiffness to be compromised because of the reduced weight, but Look "get's it" and does not allow ride quality to suffer in order to reduce weight. If you really want to feel what I'm talking about, go ride a Cannondale SystemSix, as it's the stiffest front end I've ever experienced. Some would say too stiff. But, drive that bike hard into a corner and you'll certainly feel it "carve." My 595, though not as stiff, was a better overall ride than the SystemSix, and handled my size and weight very well. I recently sold it, and miss it. I can't wait to get another as a matter of fact.

On the flip side, I think BMC's and my current ride, a DeRosa Idol, are two of the weakest top tubes I've experienced, though the ride of the DeRosa is really growing on me in other ways. Still, if I were going to choose the best overall ride for myself (@ 200+lbs), it would be really tough to beat the 595. Colnago's Extreme Power is another good example, but that wasn't in the mix. Hope that helps.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jm3 said:


> Hope that helps.


Thanks


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

JM3 I am also a big guy 200ish - would really appretiate a comparison on the 585 v 586 v 595.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

jm3 said:


> So, having said all that, I believe the following: I think you'd see a fairly significant (ie, noticeable) handling difference between the kg381 & Madone, vs. a 585, 586, or 595. I believe this because of the stiffness of the head tube/top tube junction, a part of the bike I believe is grossly overlooked by many manufacturers as they try to lighten their bikes, and the one spot on frames where I believe there are still large variances from brand to brand and model to model. When that junction is good and stiff, you get far less front end deflection during hard cornering which, in turn, takes away the need (at least some), to conciously or subconciously correct for the flex (many people never realize how much they do this). All the newest Look frames have a stiff junction, with the 586 being a nice surprise in that category. I expected the front end stiffness to be compromised because of the reduced weight, but Look "get's it" and does not allow ride quality to suffer in order to reduce weight. If you really want to feel what I'm talking about, go ride a Cannondale SystemSix, as it's the stiffest front end I've ever experienced. Some would say too stiff. But, drive that bike hard into a corner and you'll certainly feel it "carve." My 595, though not as stiff, was a better overall ride than the SystemSix, and handled my size and weight very well. I recently sold it, and miss it. I can't wait to get another as a matter of fact.


Thanks for the nice answer to my somewhat confusing question. You correctly interpreted what I was trying to ask about the differences between older generation bikes and newer ones, (585,595 and 586).

I have noticed that the front end of my bike is not that rigid. I guess one thing I have to my advantage is that I really try to meld the demands I place on any equipment, to the equipment's mechanical limitations. That being said, it's easy for me to make that contention because I'm not competitive and don't race. However, I strongly believe that smoothness,an even application of force, enhances speed, and preserves equipment. It almost seems to me that people are "testing" the limits of equipment, rather than trying to conserve it. 

It's been proven in moto gp, auto racing, and I think in pro cycling that having a knowledge of where the limits are, and backing off somewhat, is the most efficient strategy in any kind of endurance contest of men and machine.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Here are 2 more bikes you want to test ride (if you can) before you decide on the Look frame.
Time VXR Proteam and Cervelo Sololist SL.
They are both super fast and comfortable.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

cpark said:


> Here are 2 more bikes you want to test ride (if you can) before you decide on the Look frame.
> Time VXR Proteam and Cervelo Sololist SL.
> They are both super fast and comfortable.


What makes them super fast? Are they somehow able to circumvent laws of physics? Do they move on their own?

Kuotas aren't super fast? What about BMCs, Treks, Colnagos, Merckx, Specialized frames, Cyfacs, Parlees, Crumptons, Ruegamers, Storcks, Principias, Scotts, Moots, DiSalvos, Argons, Hollands, Pinarellos, Carreras, Billatos, LaPierres, and etc? I'd like to know so that I can make sure I don't end up on a super slow frame.

A fast frame is the one that is under a rider that is comfortable on said frame, is fitted well, and is happy with the frame. With out those things, "super fast" is just BS.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

NOT BS AT ALL!
Here is how I came up with super fast statement (since you'd like to know).
My main bike is a custom Serotta Legend Ti (bit heavy with F1 Carbon Fork with Cromoly steer tube) w/DA 7800 with 7800 wheelset (about 6 years old and about 20 pounds).
My other bike (fairly new) is a Medium Time VXR Proteam (much lighter with full carbon fork and about 17 pounds)w/DA 7800 with Fulcrum Zero.
They both fit me quite well. I'd say the wheels are fairly similar in weight and aero dynamic.
They have the exact same tires, tubes, saddle, handlebar, tape, same cassette ratio, chainring ratio of 53/42... Only thing I can't confirm is if they have the exact same # of chain links, amount of lubrication and inflation within 1+/- psi (maybe you can help me here since you sound like a mad scientist).

Now, I haven't raced in a while so I'm little out of shape but I use my heart rate monitor/cyclometer for the record keeping.

Every time I go for a ride, It's an exact same course (32 mile). The weather is pretty typical here between sunny to cloudy with always NW wind of about 5 to 10 miles an hour.

One day last month (after putting about 1000 miles on VXR), I happened to look at my heart rate monitor but found an astonishing data.

The average speed for every one of my rides with the VXR were between 17.5 to 17.8.
The average speed for my rides with Serotta (about previous 1000miles) were between 16.3 to 16.6.

All I can tell you is that it aint the legs or my cardio system (just like the Michael Jordan and Mars Blackman TV commercial for the Nike Air Jordan). Then it must be the bike unless you can come up with some explanation.

Much lighter Time (and stiffer looking the bottom backet's lateral movement when they are on my trainer) increase my average speed by 1mph +.

Maybe that's not super faster by your standard but it sure is in my book.

One more thing about Cervelo Sololist SL. It looks pretty aero to me.
I have access to some wind tunnel test data from my dad who worked 35 years for NASA and was in charge of a wind tunnel. You can make your bike more aero dynamic just like the rider can become more aero by using the aerobar, aero helmet and skinsuit.

Are they faster than the bike you mentioned? Probably not.
Atr they faster than the bikes from 5 to 7 years ago? Most definately.

I was trying to make a point to Frankie 13 that there are plenty of nice high performance carbon bikes out there but I could only talk about the Look, Time and Cervelo since they are the only ones I had experience with.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

Well, since Physics won't get you the gain in speed you found as a result of a change in bikes, something else was at work. Whatever it was not a super fast bike. Argue and test all you want, but the laws of the physical world say that you did not gain the speed you gained because you found a super fast bike. In fact, if you had been on the world's slickest time trial bike, you wouldn't have gained that much speed.

But don't let facts get in the way of fantasy.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I don't know - you will usually go faster on a new bike - excitement of the new bike will have something to do with it if not the actual bike. I usually do (did) 5/6 loops round the local park averaging 10 min per loop for my daily training ride on a Master Olympic with full DA (newish) on open pros laced to DA. After my 1st built look, a KG 241 with record and fulcrum 3s I averaged 9 min per lap - thats a 10% gain for a very similar weight frame - only real diff is the wheels thats more aero and medium profile so less flex than the Open pros - god knows how much faster I could do it on a new 585 or 595 on Bora Ultras!

As for cervelo soloist - I am sure it is faster than a 585 or 595 on a str8 road that the aerodynamic gains could be taken advantage off - I read somewhere that 90% of your effort in a str8 line is to overcome wind resistance ok it may be excessive but go on a roller without wind resistance and see yourself spin out the old 53/11. But then the soloist is a bit of a TT cross and not same as a 585 or 595 - perhaps it has more in common with a 586. I think its a great bike if you can only afford 1 bike for racing and you do take part in TT or tri type events.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

toonraid said:


> I don't know - you will usually go faster on a new bike - excitement of the new bike will have something to do with it if not the actual bike. I usually do (did) 5/6 loops round the local park averaging 10 min per loop for my daily training ride on a Master Olympic with full DA (newish) on open pros laced to DA. After my 1st built look, a KG 241 with record and fulcrum 3s I averaged 9 min per lap - thats a 10% gain for a very similar weight frame - only real diff is the wheels thats more aero and medium profile so less flex than the Open pros - god knows how much faster I could do it on a new 585 or 595 on Bora Ultras!
> 
> As for cervelo soloist - I am sure it is faster than a 585 or 595 on a str8 road that the aerodynamic gains could be taken advantage off - I read somewhere that 90% of your effort in a str8 line is to overcome wind resistance ok it may be excessive but go on a roller without wind resistance and see yourself spin out the old 53/11. But then the soloist is a bit of a TT cross and not same as a 585 or 595 - perhaps it has more in common with a 586. I think its a great bike if you can only afford 1 bike for racing and you do take part in TT or tri type events.


100% agree. I do like Sololist SL a lot but it was about $1500 more than VXR (got it from England from $2800). I did have an opportunity to take the Sololist and my Serotta into my dad's wind tunnel (actually, US Government's Windtunnel) and the difference in aerodynamic was substantial. In fact, do you remember that Fabian Cancellera won the stage 3 of TDF by less than a second by jumping clear with 700 meters to go? It took his legs to win it but I wonder if he would've won if he was riding on my serotta or less aerodynamic bike. And yes neither you or I are Fabian, but it feels good to know that you are on a super fast bike, Whoops, I mean a nice bike, Sorry about that Forrest Root I won't use words like super fast again..
Just be careful with the adjective/adverb usage.
You may get a thread from Forrest Gump (whoops, I mean Forrest Root) if you use words like awesome, super, fantastic, stiff........


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Well when you are in the look forum recommending other brands you need to choose your words a little more carefully thats all. If I understood correctly you have a VXR, Time do make some great bikes - what is that like and what are you comparing it to?


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

cpark said:


> 100% agree. I do like Sololist SL a lot but it was about $1500 more than VXR (got it from England from $2800). I did have an opportunity to take the Sololist and my Serotta into my dad's wind tunnel (actually, US Government's Windtunnel) and the difference in aerodynamic was substantial. In fact, do you remember that Fabian Cancellera won the stage 3 of TDF by less than a second by jumping clear with 700 meters to go? It took his legs to win it but I wonder if he would've won if he was riding on my serotta or less aerodynamic bike. And yes neither you or I are Fabian, but it feels good to know that you are on a super fast bike, Whoops, I mean a nice bike, Sorry about that Forrest Root I won't use words like super fast again..
> Just be careful with the adjective/adverb usage.
> You may get a thread from Forrest Gump (whoops, I mean Forrest Root) if you use words like awesome, super, fantastic, stiff........


Just because Daddy has access to a wind tunnel doesn't mean you have an understanding of anything to do with aerodynamics, physics, and etc. If you'd like to learn, why don't you google some equations, eh? If you did expend the paltry amount of effort to do that, you'll see that drag force varies with the square of the velocity, while power varies with the cube of the velocity. The drag coefficient has only a linear effect in both cases. See, it's what we, in science, call a "constant." Given that, for example, the best aero wheels only net a gain in speed of 0.3-0.4 mph at 25mph, the amount of aero benefit you'll see between 16 and 17mph is even smaller. Now, swallow this: the wheels account for a much larger portion of aero losses than the bike frame. So you're alleged "super fast" frame would yield a speed benefit of much less than 0.3 mph at 17mph. Hmmm. 

Doesn't seem like we're getting very close to that magically huge jump in speed that you alleged. Wait! Maybe the speed came from all that stiffness the ads scream about! Uhm, no. A simple geometric analysis shows that stiffness will only have its greatest benefit when the rider is out of the saddle, climbing or sprinting, throwing the bike back and forth, thus creating a larger angle between the bike frame's plane and the massive force vector applied by you, to the pedal, on your super fast rides. From simple geometry, the force will vary with the cosine of that angle (I won't get into dot products, right now. I don't want you to feel overwhelmed with the factual, math and science of it all.) That cosine will be fairly small, causing a small decrease in force. Note that this first order analysis is generous in favor of what the marketing heads claim about stiffness. A higher order analysis would show that the losses from "lack of stiffness" would be smaller.

So then, from whence comes this stellar increase in speed that you obviously noticed? Well, it comes from your head. It comes from you being psyched about riding the newish bike. There is a reason that we have this thingee called "Scientific Method:" it's intended to remove observer bias from the experimental process, and humans are easily biased beings. Ask Daddy about Scientific Method. Maybe he understands what it is.

As for Cancellara's win in that stage, there is no way to know what the specific differences were in all of the variables that led to his win. There were too many variables; the question poorly constrains those variables; and there is that human factor to consider. I'd guess that Cancellara's motivation, conditioning, strategy, and timing had a lot more to do with that win than anything else. And yes, if he had been on your Serotta, he just might have won.

The problem with advice or comment, as it has come from you and Toonraid, is that it completely ignores the science behind it all. And it's the science that tells us why things happen. What you guys have offered is just uninformed conjecture and opinion, which is of no value.


----------



## jm3 (Mar 22, 2003)

toonraid said:


> I read somewhere that 90% of your effort in a str8 line is to overcome wind resistance ok it may be excessive but go on a roller without wind resistance and see yourself spin out the old 53/11. But then the soloist is a bit of a TT cross and not same as a 585 or 595 - perhaps it has more in common with a 586. I think its a great bike if you can only afford 1 bike for racing and you do take part in TT or tri type events.


We should note that the overwhelming majority of that resistance is the rider, not the bike. Depending on who you believe, the wind resistance of the bike, combined with the rolling resistance of the tires, make up around 15% of the overall forces a rider has to overcome to propel a bike forward. The rest is the rider. So, your position on the bike is far more important than the bike itself. I think the latest testing certainly argues the fact that the tires you choose for your road bike are more important than the aero efficiency of the frame's tubeset.

The aerodynamics of frames is very complicated. Different wheelsets, rider shapes, components, etc. make "huge" differences to the aerodynamic efficiency of any bike/frame. Then you insert yaw angles at different speeds and things really get confusing (at least to small minds like mine). If you want the most aero road-specific frame out there, it's the Kestrel Talon - that's a slippery bike. Not sexy, but fast in the wind tunnel - faster than most TT bikes as a matter of fact.

As for the best bike for a big guy out of the list, I need to defer for a few weeks. I would intially think the 595, but the 586 is certainly beginning to look like a real winner. It's not a bike I initially understood in the lineup, but now I see it's merit, and it may very well become my favorite. I need some miles on one, though. It's really tough to beat the overall handling of the 595. I just love that frame.

Outside the list, I'd throw a few more bikes into the mix for those of us in the 200lb category: SystemSix, Colnago Extreme Power, Felt F1 Sprint or Z1 (about to become very popular with Slipstream this year + they're under-appreciated) - all bikes we sell, however, so keep that in mind! ,till, my fav right this second is the 595. There's a lot to be said for the "Gucci Factor." and that bike is high on the Gucci Factor Scale.


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

Now Forrest Root, I'd be curious to see you at any sort of bicycle-related function. Every time you hear "fast" and "bike" in the same sentence, do you feel compelled to detail the ways in which the speaker is incorrect, just as you did above? You obviously have a divine mandate to enlighten us. 

Listen, what I'm saying is _you_, in fact, are ignoring the power of the human mind. I am much like you also; I like hard data, not just heresay to believe claims like "1 sec per kilometer faster (ceramic bearings)." All of the great scientists, though, realize that science is not always perfect, and certainly not 100% correct - that is impossible. In this case, feelings, emotions, desires, disappointments can all translate into somatic reactions. Can mental stress translate into poor riding performance? Absolutely. If, in the middle of a race, you decide to yourself you can't keep up, are you more likely to fail? Yes. One's mind can do more than just interpret formulas and crunch numbers. I think if we were to always act completely disconnected from subjective interpretation, we'd be in trouble.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

ethanweiss90 said:


> Now Forrest Root, I'd be curious to see you at any sort of bicycle-related function. Every time you hear "fast" and "bike" in the same sentence, do you feel compelled to detail the ways in which the speaker is incorrect, just as you did above? You obviously have a divine mandate to enlighten us.


Really? Why? Have you had some devine revelation? Have you read every single one of my posts? Wow. I guess you think you know a lot about me from what you've read on your CRT or LCD. 



> Listen, what I'm saying is _you_, in fact, are ignoring the power of the human mind.


No, actually, I'm not. What's happening is that you weren't reading what I wrote. I said the likely source of his newfound performance is a result of his bias on his performance. There is no new science here, so the only thing left to explain his performance was some psychological factor.

Read more carefully before responding.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Forrest Root said:


> Just because Daddy has access to a wind tunnel doesn't mean you have an understanding of anything to do with aerodynamics, physics, and etc. If you'd like to learn, why don't you google some equations, eh? If you did expend the paltry amount of effort to do that, you'll see that drag force varies with the square of the velocity, while power varies with the cube of the velocity. The drag coefficient has only a linear effect in both cases. See, it's what we, in science, call a "constant." Given that, for example, the best aero wheels only net a gain in speed of 0.3-0.4 mph at 25mph, the amount of aero benefit you'll see between 16 and 17mph is even smaller. Now, swallow this: the wheels account for a much larger portion of aero losses than the bike frame. So you're alleged "super fast" frame would yield a speed benefit of much less than 0.3 mph at 17mph. Hmmm.
> 
> Doesn't seem like we're getting very close to that magically huge jump in speed that you alleged. Wait! Maybe the speed came from all that stiffness the ads scream about! Uhm, no. A simple geometric analysis shows that stiffness will only have its greatest benefit when the rider is out of the saddle, climbing or sprinting, throwing the bike back and forth, thus creating a larger angle between the bike frame's plane and the massive force vector applied by you, to the pedal, on your super fast rides. From simple geometry, the force will vary with the cosine of that angle (I won't get into dot products, right now. I don't want you to feel overwhelmed with the factual, math and science of it all.) That cosine will be fairly small, causing a small decrease in force. Note that this first order analysis is generous in favor of what the marketing heads claim about stiffness. A higher order analysis would show that the losses from "lack of stiffness" would be smaller.
> 
> ...


One thing you forgot to mention is the terrain I ride on is hilly.
There is no flat section, it's either up or down. 
That means the gain in speed is nill when I'm clibming but the difference when I going down the hill is much higher.
But WAIT, you already knew that......


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

cpark said:


> One thing you forgot to mention is the terrain I ride on is hilly.
> There is no flat section, it's either up or down.
> That means the gain in speed is nill when I'm clibming but the difference when I going down the hill is much higher.
> But WAIT, you already knew that......


Well, then show, please, how your speed was able to increase as a result of your wonderful new bike, which acounts for about 15% of the drag. You can't even get the numbers to work out. Maybe you should ask Daddy for help.

Do you do out and back trips, Beaver? If so, guess what: there is no net elevation gain. For every foot you descend you have to go up one foot. Gee, that don't work too well with your theory. Hmmmmmm. Much higher, eh? Like how much, Beav? Don't forget the actual physical laws.

I think it's likely you're talking out your arse.

I will give Look and Chas much credit. Their marketing guys don't push the faster, stiffer, lighter BS like many of the other manufacturers, and Chas' statements in this forum are factual and realistic, with no marketing BS or "-ests" tacked on.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Frankie,

We got side tracked here.
All I'm suggesting is that it's the time of the year the retailers are eager to unload 07 bike/frame to make some room for 08 product. You should be able to get some goodbuys.
One more thing about the bike with the Intergrated Seat Tube.
One of my buddys have the VXRS and he can't no longer travel with the bike because the frame doesn't fit into a travel case....
Glad to find you love the sports.

Good Luck.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Mr. Gump.

Looking at where this threads is heading you are the one who is talking out of arse...


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

cpark said:


> Mr. Gump.
> 
> Looking at where this threads is heading you are the one who is talking out of arse...


Oh, you wit-meister. You are a card. Now, you directed this thread away from a helpful direction by making baseless claims about "super fast" bikes. Such stupid statements don't help anyone make intelligent decisions about bike buying. Such statements only point out what you don't know about bikes.


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

OK, I hate to have involved myself in this, but I have, and I'd like clarification. According to you Forrest Root, two different bikes, with their different geometries, set up to the same or essentially the same measurements, should feel the exact same? Is that what you mean? Or, do you mean that the differences that one perceives should be ignored as unintelligent, unresearched dimwit-isms? Two different bikes are bound to feel different, right?

I agree that if one person were to recommend to another, say, a Time VXRS over a Look 595 on the simple basis that the Time is "super fast," that would be downright silly. But what if he said, "Well the Look feels livlier out of the saddle, but the Time seems to feel stiffer at top-end sprinting." Is that inappropriate? Sure, humans really are incapable of quantifying small differences between frames - that's why we have precise tools that give us numbers we don't understand. Should we recommend or discourage people from buying frames because one frame has a drag coefficient 3.8g less than another at a 33 degree yaw angle? No. The only way we can truly relate how we experience our bikes is through subjective responses.

Which brings me back to the idea of, "Well the Look feels livlier out of the saddle, but the Time seems to feel stiffer at top-end sprinting." I don't think that's a hell of a lot different than saying, "Well, the Time/Look feels faster than the Look/Time." 

So: let people describe bikes how they wish. There aren't many alternatives that don't sound ridiculous.


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> Do you do out and back trips, Beaver? If so, guess what: there is no net elevation gain. For every foot you descend you have to go up one foot. Gee, that don't work too well with your theory. Hmmmmmm. Much higher, eh? Like how much, Beav? Don't forget the actual physical laws.


I am not saying the numbers "work out", but keep in mind that the effect of areodynamics on speed is nonlinear in speed, therefore, there can be an effect from no net elevation gain. Perhaps you were operating in a non-applicable linear mathematics.




cpark said:


> One of my buddys have the VXRS and he can't no longer travel with the bike because the frame doesn't fit into a travel case....


Your buddy could cut off the translink and use a regular 27.2 mm seatpost - that would solve the travel case problem.


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

Oh yeah, go for the 585. Ultra if you want stiffer feel (purposeful appeal to FR's chagrin )


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

HammerTime-TheOriginal said:


> I am not saying the numbers "work out", but keep in mind that the effect of areodynamics on speed is nonlinear in speed, therefore, there can be an effect from no net elevation gain. Perhaps you were operating in a non-applicable linear mathematics.


You mean like I mentioned before when I said drag varies with the square of the speed?
His numbers still don't work. Not at all. And my point with the no net elevation gain reference was that for that time spent ripping downhill on his superfast bike, he had to also spend a fair amount of time slogging uphill. 

FYI, you can have linear systems with quadratic terms. In fact, that's one of the classic ways of making independent terms: do a quadratic expansion. x is linearly independent of x^2 and x^3, but y=x+x^2+x^3 is a linear system. In fact, it's because of this linearity and linear independence of coefficients that iBike is able to make the calculations it does. Who'd a thunk it?


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

HammerTime-TheOriginal said:


> I am not saying the numbers "work out", but keep in mind that the effect of areodynamics on speed is nonlinear in speed, therefore, there can be an effect from no net elevation gain. Perhaps you were operating in a non-applicable linear mathematics.


Alright. Let's put it in terms of real numbers. For a traditional set of wheels (24f/28r, CX-Rays, 22-25mm rim height), I have a measured CdA of 0.518269. Changing to Reynolds Stratus DV tubulars and leaving everything else, including position on the bike the same, I have a CdA of 0.481616, meaning the aero wheels improve my CdA by 7.07%, meaning the power required to go the same speed goes down by 7.07%. Wheel drag is more dominant in the equation of motion for a bike/rider combo than the frame by a factor of around 1.5. Now given that the wheels only gained me 7.07% more "free" power, an aero frame will gain me much less. Given that at 25mph wheels only gain at most--if they're the most aero wheels on the planet and you compare them to box section rims with a bunch o' spokes--0.4mph or so, how does anyone actually believe that a frame--wait, a super fast frame--will gain 1.2 mph when you're only talking about speeds of 16-17 mph? Tell me that, and there'll likely be a Nobel Prize awaiting you for your improvements to Newtonian Mechanics.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

ethanweiss90 said:


> OK, I hate to have involved myself in this, but I have, and I'd like clarification. According to you Forrest Root, two different bikes, with their different geometries, set up to the same or essentially the same measurements, should feel the exact same? Is that what you mean? Or, do you mean that the differences that one perceives should be ignored as unintelligent, unresearched dimwit-isms? Two different bikes are bound to feel different, right?


I meant neither of those things. In fact, I didn't even imply that.



ethanweiss90 said:


> I agree that if one person were to recommend to another, say, a Time VXRS over a Look 595 on the simple basis that the Time is "super fast," that would be downright silly. But what if he said, "Well the Look feels livlier out of the saddle, but the Time seems to feel stiffer at top-end sprinting." Is that inappropriate? Sure, humans really are incapable of quantifying small differences between frames - that's why we have precise tools that give us numbers we don't understand. Should we recommend or discourage people from buying frames because one frame has a drag coefficient 3.8g less than another at a 33 degree yaw angle? No. The only way we can truly relate how we experience our bikes is through subjective responses.


No, subjectivity is great, but subjectivity is not what was presented. What was presented was a "super fast" bike that allowed an increase in average speed from 16ish to 17ish mph. This sort of stuff isn't helpful at all to buyers, people new to bicycles, and etc. All it does is perpetuate myths and raise expectations beyond where they should be.



ethanweiss90 said:


> Which brings me back to the idea of, "Well the Look feels livlier out of the saddle, but the Time seems to feel stiffer at top-end sprinting." I don't think that's a hell of a lot different than saying, "Well, the Time/Look feels faster than the Look/Time."


Again, that's not what was claimed.



ethanweiss90 said:


> So: let people describe bikes how they wish. There aren't many alternatives that don't sound ridiculous.


Whatever. There are all sorts of adjectives and adverbs available. Look some up. You'd be surprised. The problem, however, is people giving opinions that sound like they came straight off of a magazine advertisement.

When someone comes seeking advice, it'd be nice if the people giving advice weighed a bit more carefully what they said, since apparently some folks value the opinions expressed here a fair amount. It doesn't take much effort to expend a little energy and thought to come up with opinions that might actually be useful.


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> FYI, you can have linear systems with quadratic terms. In fact, that's one of the classic ways of making independent terms: do a quadratic expansion. x is linearly independent of x^2 and x^3, but y=x+x^2+x^3 is a linear system.


It's not linear in x, even though it could be linear in coefficients for each term, were you to have those coefficients. Averaging (integration) doesn't commute with a nonlinear function. My point is, an invalid (implicit) moving of a nonlinear function across an integral does not prove the point; therefore, you need to go to the next level of sophistication/quantification to prove the point.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

HammerTime-TheOriginal said:


> It's not linear in x, even though it could be linear in coefficients for each term, were you to have those coefficients. Averaging (integration) doesn't commute with a nonlinear function. My point is, an invalid (implicit) moving of a nonlinear function across an integral does not prove the point; therefore, you need to go to the next level of sophistication/quantification to prove the point.


Well, I didn't integrate nor violate any rules of linear systems theory, so everything's fine, thanks. I did indicate that I didn't think, even with his horrible hills, that his super fast frame would net him such a hugemongous performance improvement. There's no data anywhere that would suggest that at all.


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

cpark said:


> One more thing about the bike with the Intergrated Seat Tube.
> One of my buddys have the VXRS and he can't no longer travel with the bike because the frame doesn't fit into a travel case....


At 5'8" Frankie will probably be looking at either a small or a medium frameset. Both of these should fit into a standard bike case with no problems as long as you remove the E-Post/saddle. Doing this will take off 12-14cm from the bike's height depending on what saddle you're using, and that's enough to fit in most bike cases. This is really quick to do and only requires a 4mm allen wrench.

*[email protected]*


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> The problem with advice or comment, as it has come from you and Toonraid, is that it completely ignores the science behind it all. And it's the science that tells us why things happen. What you guys have offered is just uninformed conjecture and opinion, which is of no value.


This is actually a really good discussion - only if it were toned down a bit so that it wasn't made personal it would be great - but since it is being made personal I'd like to think that I do know a thing or two about aerodynamics as I am an aircraft engineer - Not only do I understand how a passanger aircraft can tilt its wings to 26 degrees and not stall but am able to draw comparisons between the leading edge of a modern aircraft's wing and oval concept's bi-polar fork design. Of course this is something you can't google coz no body in the bicycle industry would admit that their designs are copies of what's available out there coz research is just too damn expensive to be cost effective in an industry with limited batch run and relatively cheap product sale value vs the aircraft industries R&D budgets. Of course a _scientist_ can always google lots of formulae's and provide them as factual evidence but the danger in that is that one can miss out on some major facts and hence the BIG PICTURE.

Anyway back to topic, yes pretty much most of what you say is true - but while you were googling the constants you missed out on the variables and therefore I can't agree with your conclusions.

1 - At racing speeds (30 mph), over level ground, more than 90 percent of your effort is spent pushing the air out of the way. And, about 70 percent of that drag comes from your body so positioning is very important - frames such as the soloist or the 586 tilt you forward allowing a more aero positioning as well as enabling more power generation due to the steeper seat angle generated by their special seat post design. So more power and more aero = faster

2 - The largest mechanical drag effect on the bike is created by the front wheel, aerodynamically speaking, a road racing wheel is a mess. The exposed spokes and low-medium profile rims are terrible enough by themselves, but when you set the whole works in motion it becomes a giant turbulence generator. The drag is greatest at the top of the wheel, where the spokes' forward motion means they rip through the air at twice the bike's speed in still air. A good aerodynamic fork helps manage airflow in this area by directing the airstream in an outward direction, which helps to direct the drag-producing layer of air away from the spokes as they approach the fork blade and provide a further drag reduction. Even the multi purpose 586 has a standard road fork (HSC6) and therefore at an aerodynamic disadvantage compared to something like the soloist that has an aero fork. Of course one is a TT bike that has been modified for road use and the other a road bike that has been modified to TT use - so each has a different design concept and will appeal to a different audience.

Due to the above facts a road racing bike is no match for a TT specific carbon bike in a flat str8 race where out and out top speed is important - I leave it up to the _scientists _to square it and cube it to find the actual gains.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

*Chas*



chas said:


> At 5'8" Frankie will probably be looking at either a small or a medium frameset. Both of these should fit into a standard bike case with no problems as long as you remove the E-Post/saddle. Doing this will take off 12-14cm from the bike's height depending on what saddle you're using, and that's enough to fit in most bike cases. This is really quick to do and only requires a 4mm allen wrench.
> *[email protected]*


Chas - I am interested in a 586 but at 6'4" I fear trasportation too - would the big ones fit in a case, any case? Also seen a few paint cracking problems on the 595 integrated seat tubes and heard that you said it was an early batch problem - is it sorted now, of course being a big guy (210) have to keep an eye on suitability of equipment for my size.


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

Well what we should do is hook cpark up to a heart rate monitor (and a power meter, as well, if anything was possible) for a few of these rides on different bikes, to truly see what's at work.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I beg to differ - being 6'4" and 210, I should be the test rider as there is much more of me to test - chas can provide the bikes, Cpark the wind tunnel, C-40 the official technohead and of course Forrest will apply all the formulae's and do the math while the rest of you can be observers.


----------



## sweetnsourbkr (Jan 10, 2005)

Not sure if it was mentioned (kinda got lost in the fight up there ...) but there is a finish difference between the Origin model and the Ultra: the top carbon layer is a weave pattern in the origin, while it's the other kind (I forget the right name ... directional?) on the Ultra. I personally prefer the weave, when comparing the two.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Sharp eyes sweetsour I hadn't noticed that, colour is also diff - 585 origin comes in pro-team only, ultra in black with red/white decals. Not too keen on the pro-team colours although it does look better in black/red of 595.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I was checking the geometry table for 585 & 585 optimum and they both seem wrong (haven't checked others) - A should always be larger than A1 but for Large and below its smaller, I think the problem is A2 (i.e. actual ctc seattube) there is a huge drop of 65 mm between xl and L. And why are Dynastar ski's on lookusa.com (wanted to check if there is a correct geometry table there) - ah I forgot they bought the look ski bindings business (or was it salomon) anyway signing off now. Would really appretiate a correct geo table CHAS.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

toonraid said:


> This is actually a really good discussion - only if it were toned down a bit so that it wasn't made personal it would be great - but since it is being made personal I'd like to think that I do know a thing or two about aerodynamics as I am an aircraft engineer - Not only do I understand how a passanger aircraft can tilt its wings to 26 degrees and not stall but am able to draw comparisons between the leading edge of a modern aircraft's wing and oval concept's bi-polar fork design. Of course this is something you can't google coz no body in the bicycle industry would admit that their designs are copies of what's available out there coz research is just too damn expensive to be cost effective in an industry with limited batch run and relatively cheap product sale value vs the aircraft industries R&D budgets. Of course a _scientist_ can always google lots of formulae's and provide them as factual evidence but the danger in that is that one can miss out on some major facts and hence the BIG PICTURE.


Rock on, dude! As a lowly scientist, I did aero analysis for an aircraft manufacturer. That's cool stuff you write about scientists. Golly, what fun. I remember sitting through engineering classes wondering why they had to dumb down the science so much. I guess it was so that the engineers would understand. 



toonraid said:


> Anyway back to topic, yes pretty much most of what you say is true - but while you were googling the constants you missed out on the variables and therefore I can't agree with your conclusions.


Gee whiz. Have you been logging my keystrokes, again? Dang.




toonraid said:


> 1 - At racing speeds (30 mph), over level ground, more than 90 percent of your effort is spent pushing the air out of the way. And, about 70 percent of that drag comes from your body so positioning is very important - frames such as the soloist or the 586 tilt you forward allowing a more aero positioning as well as enabling more power generation due to the steeper seat angle generated by their special seat post design. So more power and more aero = faster


Actually this is quite untrue. Body positioning on these bikes will be a function of fit. Full stop. Neither the Soloist nor the 586 have special geometry. In fact, neither are really close to tri/TT geometry at all.



toonraid said:


> 2 - The largest mechanical drag effect on the bike is created by the front wheel, aerodynamically speaking, a road racing wheel is a mess. The exposed spokes and low-medium profile rims are terrible enough by themselves, but when you set the whole works in motion it becomes a giant turbulence generator. The drag is greatest at the top of the wheel, where the spokes' forward motion means they rip through the air at twice the bike's speed in still air. A good aerodynamic fork helps manage airflow in this area by directing the airstream in an outward direction, which helps to direct the drag-producing layer of air away from the spokes as they approach the fork blade and provide a further drag reduction. Even the multi purpose 586 has a standard road fork (HSC6) and therefore at an aerodynamic disadvantage compared to something like the soloist that has an aero fork. Of course one is a TT bike that has been modified for road use and the other a road bike that has been modified to TT use - so each has a different design concept and will appeal to a different audience.


Whether or not the fork on the Soloist is aero or not, or more aero than the 586 fork, well, there are wind tunnels and CFD packages to decide that. I doubt you're able to make that distinction from your computer.

So, it seems as if the blessing of real, honest-to-goodness aero aircraft engineer didn't really clear anything up, did it? Maybe he forgot his safety factor.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Thank you for a highly analytical, detailed, factual rsponse. I think I go and water the plants now.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*geometry charts...*



toonraid said:


> I was checking the geometry table for 585 & 585 optimum and they both seem wrong (haven't checked others) - A should always be larger than A1 but for Large and below its smaller, I think the problem is A2 (i.e. actual ctc seattube) there is a huge drop of 65 mm between xl and L. And why are Dynastar ski's on lookusa.com (wanted to check if there is a correct geometry table there) - ah I forgot they bought the look ski bindings business (or was it salomon) anyway signing off now. Would really appretiate a correct geo table CHAS.


This chart seems correct. The A dimension would rarely be larger than A1 on a sloping TT frame.

http://www.lookcycle.com/products/data/geometrie/geometrie585.pdf

As for discussion on "fast" frames, it's become a bit ridiculous. All I'll say is that there's no way a frame will ever make enough speed difference to accurately document it with any on-the-road riding experiment, particularly at low average speeds in the 16-17 mph range.


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

A is bigger than A1, but that is on a non-sloping frame. A is BB to to top of actual seat tube, whereas A1 is BB to center of virtual (as if non-sloping) top tube. You allowed yourself to be "misled" by the picture. If the amount of sloping exceeds the distance along the seat tube between the center of the actual top tube and the top of the actual top tube (equal to 26 mm), then A1 will be bigger than A; that is the case on sizes XS through L.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Great - I was looking at the table trying to figure out the right size for my other half - I guess now that we have the geometry table sorted I better order her optimum.


----------



## jschaff (Nov 17, 2005)

Wow what a thread. Forrest is SURE that there is no such thing as a faster bike. Well he fails to take into account that there IS internal losses of energy in every system, being the engineer that he is. And as in ALL machinery, the best design is the one that minimizes these losses due to friction and flexibility. 

And I am betting that cpark, even he may not know it on the level that Forrest thinks he does, has experienced the end effects of better design. That being a FASTER " bike" but actually a design which effectively has better energy transfer and thus a faster ride.

And after all, this is what we are all looking for anyway.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

jschaff said:


> Wow what a thread. Forrest is SURE that there is no such thing as a faster bike. Well he fails to take into account that there IS internal losses of energy in every system, being the engineer that he is. And as in ALL machinery, the best design is the one that minimizes these losses due to friction and flexibility.
> 
> And I am betting that cpark, even he may not know it on the level that Forrest thinks he does, has experienced the end effects of better design. That being a FASTER " bike" but actually a design which effectively has better energy transfer and thus a faster ride.
> 
> And after all, this is what we are all looking for anyway.



Hmmm. Who said I was an engineer? And who said anything about there being no "internal" losses, eh? I have plenty of faith in S=kLn(w)...uhm....that's the second law of thermodynamics, in case you didn't get that far in science. It is the law that excludes work without energy loss.

What you are failing miserably to see is that the losses in a bicycle are so small. You are also failing to see that there is zero--I repeat zero--data that correlates stiffness with performance. None. Zip.

You should back away from the stiffness koolaid. I think you've had a cup too many.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> there is zero--I repeat zero--data that correlates stiffness with performance. None. Zip.


And that's why Pfizer failed to sell any blue pills!


----------

