# Question about the 555 vs. 585 geometry difference??



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

For those in the know, is there a difference in the geometry of these two frames? I've been helping my brother search for a used 555 in size SMALL but he is a newb and I wanted to make sure that the frame wasn't too quick-handling like the 585s. From everyone that I've read, the 585 is a very quick handler (not something I would mind but I would rather point my bro onto something more stable like the Colnago geometry) I have 2 Colnagos and think they are sweet handlers but I also have a Fondriest that is a pretty quick handler but also sweet. Point being for me, I can handle both types but for a newb, I would think the slower handling of a Nag would be better. That being said, the 555s can be had for much less than any carbon Colnago and so that is the reason for the search for 555s. It seems the 555s and 565s can be had for anywhere between $700 to $900 for the frameset. Can't find any carbon Nag for less than $1500. Thanks!


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

Here are their geometry charts. I don't know how to interpret the numbers that affect handling, but hopefully these charts will be helpful to you.

555 geometry.pdf

585 geometry.pdf


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

I've owned both. I loved my 555, but the 585 is noticeably more responsive. However, I am on a 585 Optimum as I needed the shorter top tube length. I know stems can make a "handling" difference and I had a 80mm on the 555 and now 90mm on the 585.
The 585 is quicker, and snappier to me, not to mention stiffer.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

T-shirt said:


> Here are their geometry charts. I don't know how to interpret the numbers that affect handling, but hopefully these charts will be helpful to you.
> 
> 555 geometry.pdf
> 
> 585 geometry.pdf


Thanks for the PDFs. It is interesting that the 555s and 585s' geometries are almost identical, at least for size Small. The only noticeable difference is the headtube length. The 555 with a 130 and the 585 with a 125. I wonder if the spec'ed fork is different???


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

maximum7 said:


> I've owned both. I loved my 555, but the 585 is noticeably more responsive. However, I am on a 585 Optimum as I needed the shorter top tube length. I know stems can make a "handling" difference and I had a 80mm on the 555 and now 90mm on the 585.
> The 585 is quicker, and snappier to me, not to mention stiffer.


Hey Max7, was hoping you would give an input. As I mentioned above, the numbers are very similar with the 555 and 585 which surprises me. Most everyone who has ridden the 585 say how quick a handling bike it is but I didn't read that with 555 reviewers. As you mentioned you used an 80mm stem on the 555 and now on a 90mm on the 585. I don't know how much a difference in the stem length affects quickness. Do you know if the trail/rake of the forks are different on the 2 bikes? I would think that makes more of a difference but not sure.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

Well keep in mind I am comparing the Optimum to the 555. The Opti, has a taller head tube which might affect things. The measurements do look similar, except for "K" the head tube. 
I think stem length will affect the steering to some degree. 80mm was really short and that is what made me realize I need a true 53 TT. The 555 was a little twitchy, in the steering, but I got used to it fairly quick. The 585 probably isn't as twitchy with the little longer stem. 
The 555 was a great bike. Very comfortable. After riding the 585 though, I can tell that more of my energy is going to the rear wheel. It climbs better, and accelerates quicker. I am using the exact same components and wheels/tires I had on the 555. The weight difference is less than a pound.
A buddy of mine has the 566. He's 60yrs. old, not nearly as strong, and he can tell the difference. Now the 566 on the other hand feels like a mix of the two. Not as snappy as the 585, but definitely quicker than the 555. I think it's a fantastic bike. 
All this leads me to believe that the 555 is lacking some stiffness in the BB area or somehow power is getting absorbed a little more. I would have never had known this however, had I not ridden the 566, or 585. 

That said, it's nice to know that there ARE differences between these bikes.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info...*



Ride-Fly said:


> Hey Max7, was hoping you would give an input. As I mentioned above, the numbers are very similar with the 555 and 585 which surprises me. Most everyone who has ridden the 585 say how quick a handling bike it is but I didn't read that with 555 reviewers. As you mentioned you used an 80mm stem on the 555 and now on a 90mm on the 585. I don't know how much a difference in the stem length affects quickness. Do you know if the trail/rake of the forks are different on the 2 bikes? I would think that makes more of a difference but not sure.


The HTA and fork rake are both listed, so the trail is easily calculated. FWIW, having owned two C-40's and four LOOK 51cn frames, the LOOKS will not handle overly quick. I much prefer it to the slower steering of a Colnago.

Both bike has the same 72 degree STA and 43mm fork offset, so the trail is 64mm.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

C-40 said:


> The HTA and fork rake are both listed, so the trail is easily calculated. FWIW, having owned two C-40's and four LOOK 51cn frames, the LOOKS will not handle overly quick. I much prefer it to the slower steering of a Colnago.
> 
> Both bike has the same 72 degree STA and 43mm fork offset, so the trail is 64mm.


Correct.

To the OP, LOOK usually lists their trail number in the geometry charts. It is the "D" number on the chart that was linked in the above post. You can see the dimension on the bottom of the picture under the front fork area.

The old KG bikes I owned we on the slow side of neutral handling. They were around 62mm, so I would say the newer ones wouldn't be twitchy by any means.


----------



## unagidon (Jun 16, 2007)

Ride-Fly said:


> For those in the know, is there a difference in the geometry of these two frames? I've been helping my brother search for a used 555 in size SMALL but he is a newb and I wanted to make sure that the frame wasn't too quick-handling like the 585s. From everyone that I've read, the 585 is a very quick handler (not something I would mind but I would rather point my bro onto something more stable like the Colnago geometry) I have 2 Colnagos and think they are sweet handlers but I also have a Fondriest that is a pretty quick handler but also sweet. Point being for me, I can handle both types but for a newb, I would think the slower handling of a Nag would be better. That being said, the 555s can be had for much less than any carbon Colnago and so that is the reason for the search for 555s. It seems the 555s and 565s can be had for anywhere between $700 to $900 for the frameset. Can't find any carbon Nag for less than $1500. Thanks!


I have a 555 for sale, in size small  Take a browse. Item# 150379759158 on ebay. 

The 585 has a more aggressive geometry. Also lighter, and higher modulus carbon. That said, most "mortals" should do fine on a 555. I'm selling it because it doesn't fit me properly - I have short arms and need a bike with shorter reach. Apart from that, I really loved the bike.


----------

