# the battle of the French greats? Look or Time?



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

has anyone had a chance to compare Look and Time? any comments?

There is no Time forum so I figured best ask here.....

for example Look 555 versus Time Edge/First? (assuming they are about the same price).
Or 565 versus VXS or 585 versus VXRS etc?

which one is likely to be more comfortable for distance riding? what about other quality issues? geometry? fit? warranty and support?

is Time still made in France or off-shore outsourced elsewhere? (a minor point IMHO).

thanks


----------



## Stjtoday (Feb 2, 2006)

I just ordered a Look 585, and the place I deal with recommended the Time frame. But I have to say the color scheme along with the billboard "Time" logo plastered all over the frame made it hard to consider.

I was told the Time is an excellent frame.


----------



## onrhodes (Feb 19, 2004)

acid_rider said:


> has anyone had a chance to compare Look and Time? any comments?
> 
> There is no Time forum so I figured best ask here.....
> 
> ...


I'm curious too. For $2,000 you can get the 555 or for $1,750 you can get the Time Edge First. I'm curious if anyone has seen either of these close up and what your opinions of both are. $250 is not a lot of money when you're talking that much money. But I was wondering about the characteristics of both.


----------



## ico (Feb 6, 2005)

*egg or chicken !?*

campa vs shimano ?! , clincher vs tubular!? steel vs carbon!? 
who cares if it's rides awsome and "look"s like hell !


----------



## GW1 (Dec 27, 2005)

*On the Look side...*

I have ridden the 585 and it is a wonerfull bike. I have not ridden the 555, but it looks to be excellent in workmanship and I am told it is more comfortatble on longer rides. I feel that the Look has no downside. I have not ridden the Time, but have been told they are quality built and good riding also. Personally, I am looking forward to purchasing a Look 555 for longer rides based on my impressions of my test ride.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

*I'm in the same situation as you*

I'm currently in the same position as you. I'm torn between a Look 555 and a Time Edge. (I just can't bring myself to pay Three Grand Plus for a frame.)

I've given both the Time VXRS and the Time VXR significant test rides. I've enjoyed a short test ride on a Look 585 and a longer but still not-very-long test ride on a Look 461. I've also held several Time Edge frames and Look 500 Series frames in my hands, giving them a thorough look-see.

Here is my strictly subjective, seat-of-the-pants assessment. BTW,all these rides were done with tires pumped up to the point where they were hard as rocks. I was also blessed to be able to ride bicycles in exactly my size.

The two Look frames were so soft and comfortable to ride, they put my lugged steel experiences to total shame. At the same time, they never felt disconnected from the road. They did not feel dead. Handling was stable, if not as stable as the Colnago I ride now. Cornering was instinctive and quick. Front-back balance over the bikes was good, though of course, you can't truly dial this parameter in on a demo bike. Acceleration on the 585 was strong. It was less strong in the 461.

The Times, meantime, have a harder, more unforgiving ride than the Looks, but they're still far from buckboards. I'd put their ride quality as somewhere in the middle of the Steel Spectrum. Balance-wise, the Times put me further back on the bike than the Look, though certainly not far enough to put things out of whack.

Where the Times showed their stuff was in their willingness and desire to perform. Acceleration was the best I've ever experienced on any bike. Handling goes the Looks one better. The Times were more stable in the straights, yet more slinky through the turns. You could almost dance with it, it was so responsive. When I took out the VXR, I told the bike shop I'd be gone for 15 minutes. I took 45. I pointed it up every hill in the area. I did not want to stop. True, chances are I'd be less thrashed after a hundred miles on a Look, but the Time gave me the more visceral, Damn I'm Good experience.

As for the aesthetics, yes, the Times are kind of clumsy looking while the Looks are sleek and handsome. Lately, however, I've come to appreciate the bluff honesty of the Time aesthetic. It might be mentioned, too, that the three Time Edge models weigh less than the Look 555. (I won't get into the Made in France, Made in Tunisia controversy, but the Times do ultimately seem to be slightly more fanatically fussed over.) 

Bottom line, both companies are putting out superb bicycles. Choose your poison: the Cognac that is the Look, or the Armagnac that is the Time. Tell me which way you go. Maybe I'll go the other way...


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*great reply. more questions*

thanks !

I have some questions:

why change your Colnago for a Time/Look?

riding Time VXR(S) and Look 585 does not answer the 555 or Edge question, IMO. Great to try though! It most likely will be that Edge/First and 555 will feel very different to the top of the range models you have tested. Even the geometry appears to be a bit different between 585 and 555 (and Time too?).

I am currently also torn between 2006 Time Edge First (not even the more expensive Edge) and 2006 Look 555. Same deal here, I believe that anything above that is a waste of money for 98% of the riders and I am one of them. I like the fact that 2006 Edge First uses a more standard seat-post size as does Look 555. And I can use any stem/bar I like too, not just Time own.

If you get a chance to test Edge/Edge First and 555 please post.

How does the warranty compare of Look and Time frame/fork?


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

1. I've had my Colnago Dream for six years. It's been splendid but I'm itching for something different. I'm also one of those rare folks who believes that, when it comes to bicycles, the State of the Art indeed advances as the years go by. Year to year changes may be marginal, but over a span of a half-dozen years, the improvements add up. To me, the bicycles of 2006 are uniformly better than the bicycles of 2000, which was the last time I did any serious shopping. The Times and Looks that I tried; and also the Cannondale Six/13 and the Orbea Orca I tried; are all more enjoyable to ride than my Dream. I recently rode a 'Nag C50, and I have to say that it's phenomenally wonderful, but I can't justify spending the money.

2. I believe that the various models that any manufacturer builds (and I'm not just talking about bicycle manufacturers) all have much in common with each other. A cheap Martin guitar will have much more in common with an expensive Martin guitar than it will have with a cheap Gibson. That 2006 Colnago C50 I tested felt an awful lot like my Dream. Yes, the C50 was far softer riding, and it was a good deal quicker because of its weight advantage. But the family resemblance was unmistakable. 

Naturally, it'd be great if I could test ride the specific models I'm interested in, but it doesn't look like it is going to happen.

3. Warranty-wise, I believe Look offers three years. I believe Time warrants its frames for as long as you own it. Don't hold me to this stuff, though.

Finally, I'll turn things around on you. If you get a chance to test an Edge or a 555, please post. I'd love to hear your opinion.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*thank you*



Mapei Roida said:


> 1.
> Finally, I'll turn things around on you. If you get a chance to test an Edge or a 555, please post. I'd love to hear your opinion.


where I live (down under) this is extremely unlikely. Local bicycle dealers do not tend to make those available for test riding (need to build them first and volumes are low). So best I can do is to ask someone who owns one for their opinion. So far I have asked two guys with 2005 Look 555 and they were happy. But then again - happy compared to what? Their old bicycle? 

I have not seen anyone locally riding a Time (any model) so zero opinions.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

acid_rider said:


> has anyone had a chance to compare Look and Time? any comments?
> 
> There is no Time forum so I figured best ask here.....
> 
> ...


Its like comparing porsche and ferrari are you going to complain either way?


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*yes, i would 8^)*



zaxxon said:


> Its like comparing porsche and ferrari are you going to complain either way?


hmmm, poor analogy in my case.... in my personal case, and if I had to pay for said porsche or ferrari (or RR, MB, BMW, etc) then yes, I would complain! Next to gambling, buying these pretentious "look at me" super-expensive cars is second biggest waste of money, in my opinion. For free, fine, but I would sell that pile of automotive polluting people killing junk the following day to the highest bidder with more money than brains. And then I would buy a Look and a Time also and not complain ! 8^)

is my anti-car bias showing? sorry about that, chief. i happen to think that a car is a cigarette of this century and needs to be dealt with, sooner the better.

Sorry, I am off the topic!


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

Mapei, what size frame are you riding/testing?

I'm a LOOK 585 owner. Can't possibly be happier with the frame. I think it handles so frickin well. It eggs me to descend faster, and that is dangerous for my health. I looked at the VXRS as well when i shopped last Nov. The VXRS in my case was more than $1000 on top of a 585. The 585 is oh so comfortable, yet accelerates like a motha. I came off a bianchi ev2.

The Time looks like a fine frame. I would love to test ride one. At this point, i can't imagine trading my 585 for anything. Need to find a c50 to try as well. Though, the weigh of both those frames would still sway me to the 585.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I ride a 53 c-t Colnago. It has a 53 cm top tube.

I test-rode 51 cm Looks and Times, which have 53 cm top tubes.

BTW, I just bought a Time Edge Translink from the Time Outlet in Santa Barbara. If all goes well, I'm picking it up Friday. To save $$, I'm having the shop trade as many components as possible over from my Colnago to the Time. I told the shop to copy the fit of my Colnago onto the Time as closely as possible, as that Colnago fits me like a glove. I hope and pray the mechanics there are good surgeons.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

acid_rider said:


> hmmm, poor analogy in my case.... in my personal case, and if I had to pay for said porsche or ferrari (or RR, MB, BMW, etc) then yes, I would complain! Next to gambling, buying these pretentious "look at me" super-expensive cars is second biggest waste of money, in my opinion. For free, fine, but I would sell that pile of automotive polluting people killing junk the following day to the highest bidder with more money than brains. And then I would buy a Look and a Time also and not complain ! 8^)
> 
> is my anti-car bias showing? sorry about that, chief. i happen to think that a car is a cigarette of this century and needs to be dealt with, sooner the better.
> 
> Sorry, I am off the topic!


Its not that I was supporting buying a car, it can be couch, it can be a pair of shoes, it can be a house a set of tires, doesn't matter. The point is that your looking at two awsome bikes. Neither one being faulty. If you were comparing a trek and look or trek and time, then yes there is quite a bit of complaining to be had. I think you can pretty much walk away with either bike and be more than stoked. I think the ultimate decision is first fit and then if you can deal with all the time decals.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*ok, I'll bite, what is wrong with Trek Madone OCLV carbon?*



zaxxon said:


> Its not that I was supporting buying a car, it can be couch, it can be a pair of shoes, it can be a house a set of tires, doesn't matter. The point is that your looking at two awsome bikes. Neither one being faulty. If you were comparing a trek and look or trek and time, then yes there is quite a bit of complaining to be had. I think you can pretty much walk away with either bike and be more than stoked. I think the ultimate decision is first fit and then if you can deal with all the time decals.


Interesting that you say that! I currently ride a 2005 Trek Madone (size 54cm) and it seems like a great bike. But I am a beginner.

Since you seem to think Trek Madone is inferior to Look and Time (even if we forget the Tour De France, Giro or Vuelta successes as ridden on Madones by Heras, Armstrong and Savoldelli) can you please enlighten me why in your opinion Madone OCLV carbon can not be favourably compared to even low end Look 555 and Time Edge? (Trek warranty seems to be longer than Look and matches Time life-time warranty also).

Thanks


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

acid_rider said:


> Interesting that you say that! I currently ride a 2005 Trek Madone (size 54cm) and it seems like a great bike. But I am a beginner.
> 
> Since you seem to think Trek Madone is inferior to Look and Time (even if we forget the Tour De France, Giro or Vuelta successes as ridden on Madones by Heras, Armstrong and Savoldelli) can you please enlighten me why in your opinion Madone OCLV carbon can not be favourably compared to even low end Look 555 and Time Edge? (Trek warranty seems to be longer than Look and matches Time life-time warranty also).
> 
> Thanks


Ever checked to see if your frame is straight? By the way, Pro's ride what there given not what they want to ride. Its that whole sponsorship thing, paid to ride what there given. Trek makes mass quantity bikes, there's a point where quality control has to only pass for the average cyclist looking to be the next Lance. If you set the frames side by side, you'll see the difference. I'm not saying Trek doesn't make a decent bike, I just don't think the craftsmanship is as nice as Time and Look. Which I believe have equal standards that are set higher than Treks. Lets do another car comparison, Trek is like Chevy, no matter how much horsepower you put under the engine, your not going to get the performance of a ferrari. You can buy it in just about every car dealership in the country you can have one just like everyone else and you can even drive the same car as Dale Ernhardt ( although I'm not certain that he drove chevy and he's dead) Doesn't mean its of equal quality. I support the fact that your out riding and personally I would rather you ride what ever makes you ride a bike. That's the most important part. Going back to the beginning of this thread, it was about look and time, and trek isn't in the same game.


----------



## rossb (Oct 11, 2005)

I have a Look 585 and a 2004 Trek 5500. I have set them side by side. Both are great bikes. The workmanship on both is outstanding. They both ride beautifully. There are some differences in ride quality, but they are not as great as you might think. The performance difference between the two is negligible to zero - the Look does not make me go faster to any perceptible degree. While Trek's reputation has suffered in recent years due (only) to its overwhelming commercial success, this has not prevented them from making an outstanding bike. The fact that they make a lot of bikes does not seem to have affected their quality control - if it did, given the number of Treks out there, we would have heard about it by now. Trek is definitely "in the same game"; only the snobbery of many cyclists and the resentment of dealers outside the Trek network suggests otherwise.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*sanity returns*



rossb said:


> I have a Look 585 and a 2004 Trek 5500. I have set them side by side. Both are great bikes. The workmanship on both is outstanding. They both ride beautifully. There are some differences in ride quality, but they are not as great as you might think. The performance difference between the two is negligible to zero - the Look does not make me go faster to any perceptible degree. While Trek's reputation has suffered in recent years due (only) to its overwhelming commercial success, this has not prevented them from making an outstanding bike. The fact that they make a lot of bikes does not seem to have affected their quality control - if it did, given the number of Treks out there, we would have heard about it by now. Trek is definitely "in the same game"; only the snobbery of many cyclists and the resentment of dealers outside the Trek network suggests otherwise.


thank you for a sane comment. For a new road rider (2 years riding, but many years observing riders) I find it astounding how much bicycle brand bigotry exists in road cycling, as much as in IT industry. I think all mainstream road frames are pretty close together now in terms of quality, Colnago, Look, Trek, Giant, etc. And yet every bike-brand forum here has its "bigots". Often it is the dealers and often it is people who want to justify their purchase. Go and read what some folks in Trek forum say about Look, for example. I am sure what they said is also biased. I think there are quality issues but they are more or less evently spread over in main brands.

Sure, pro's ride what they are given but this does not make their rides are inferior, just different. What I personally find annoying is that many bike brands still charge a big premium just for their "brand" logo. Look, Colnago, Pinarello, Time all come to mind. Trek is not quite at that level IMHO but getting there. Each to their own. Good riding all.


----------



## dawgcatching (Apr 26, 2004)

Trek perhaps got their bad reputation based on the old OCLV stuff, which frankly wasn't very good. I test rode a 5200 (at the time I had a KG281) and the 5200 rode like a block of wood. Even the sales guy, when I told him I was considering the Look, said "yeah, I wouldn't buy the Trek either". 

Trek certainly has gotten better, but I personally think the Madone is not as clean as a 585 with regards to Look (I have the CA white paint job). The handling on the 585 is as good as anything I have ever tested (that includes a Six13, Dogma, Fondriest Carbon Lex) and it is lighter (almost a pound!) and climbes better than the heavier bikes, and is smoother too! Basically, the 585 is as good as it currently gets: the top-end Time, C50, and Fondriest TF1 are in that league too. I don't know any serious riders who own a Madone and has ridden any of the above bikes and would say they they are equivalent, even if they have a Madone, they still would have purchased the above, had the price been lower. 

We sell a Trek subsidary (Lemond) and many Lemonds' use OCLV: they seem to be well built and go together well. But, as far as Lemond goes, they really don't brink much to the table as a higher-end race bike. Not really smooth or stiff (talking about the steel version here), pretty slow handling. The CAAD8 is just as smooth, more powerful, and a crisper bike. The Lemonds just feel ho-hum in comparison (I bought one 2 seasons ago and sold it after a month). Trek is totally different, but they use much of the same materials, as far as carbon and forks go. 

It depends on what you are looking for. It is a nice bike, and will probably get you from point A to point B just as fast as the next bike. Does it fit? Are you looking for a frame that everybody rides, or something unique? Are you spending 65 hours/month on your bike and really want something special that just makes each ride a joy, or just a solid bike to get the job done? I find myself saying WOW after most every ride on the 585, just amazed at how fresh I feel on our crap roads. But, it is not like I wouldn't ride a Madone (assuming it fits). I have been (what feel like plodding around) on an older Cannondale the past 2 weeks (with a triple!) on some pretty suspect rural roads, and even then, riding is still riding. Maybe with this bike the pleasure is only 99.3% of what it would be on my 585, but I am still looking forward to my rides each day.


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

zaxxon said:


> Ever checked to see if your frame is straight? By the way, Pro's ride what there given not what they want to ride. Its that whole sponsorship thing, paid to ride what there given. Trek makes mass quantity bikes, there's a point where quality control has to only pass for the average cyclist looking to be the next Lance. If you set the frames side by side, you'll see the difference. I'm not saying Trek doesn't make a decent bike, I just don't think the craftsmanship is as nice as Time and Look. Which I believe have equal standards that are set higher than Treks. Lets do another car comparison, Trek is like Chevy, no matter how much horsepower you put under the engine, your not going to get the performance of a ferrari. You can buy it in just about every car dealership in the country you can have one just like everyone else and you can even drive the same car as Dale Ernhardt ( although I'm not certain that he drove chevy and he's dead) Doesn't mean its of equal quality. I support the fact that your out riding and personally I would rather you ride what ever makes you ride a bike. That's the most important part. Going back to the beginning of this thread, it was about look and time, and trek isn't in the same game.


Phoooey!

99.99999999999% of how a bike "performs" is determined by the rider, not the frame itself. I can't even tell you how many sub CAT II level riders I know who claim they can feel all these vast differences in frames. Nonsense. Trek builds a bike that is just as good as a Time or a Look and they are certainly a frameset worthy of any Joe Amateur rider regularly posting in here. Most riders talk about frameset ride quality based upon what they have read in a magazine and used to form a preconceived notion about a frame, not what they can actually feel or perceive out on the road.


----------



## hairscrambled (Nov 18, 2004)

Troy16 said:


> Phoooey!
> 
> 99.99999999999% of how a bike "performs" is determined by the rider, not the frame itself. I can't even tell you how many sub CAT II level riders I know who claim they can feel all these vast differences in frames. Nonsense. Trek builds a bike that is just as good as a Time or a Look and they are certainly a frameset worthy of any Joe Amateur rider regularly posting in here. Most riders talk about frameset ride quality based upon what they have read in a magazine and used to form a preconceived notion about a frame, not what they can actually feel or perceive out on the road.


I'll take the Look vs Trek blindfold test!

yours truly,

Joseph P. Amateur


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*I would not recommend it!*



hairscrambled said:


> I'll take the Look vs Trek blindfold test!
> 
> yours truly,
> 
> Joseph P. Amateur


Please do not attempt to ride a bicycle whilist wearing a blindfold! Look before you Trek! 8^)

sorry, could not resist, I Trek a Mad One, after all! 8^)


----------



## GW1 (Dec 27, 2005)

Troy16 said:


> Phoooey!
> 
> 99.99999999999% of how a bike "performs" is determined by the rider, not the frame itself. I can't even tell you how many sub CAT II level riders I know who claim they can feel all these vast differences in frames. Nonsense. Trek builds a bike that is just as good as a Time or a Look and they are certainly a frameset worthy of any Joe Amateur rider regularly posting in here. Most riders talk about frameset ride quality based upon what they have read in a magazine and used to form a preconceived notion about a frame, not what they can actually feel or perceive out on the road.



You can Phoooey all you want, but there are differences. I would not say they are vast differences (all though a few frames come to mind that that are), but not all bikes are created equal. they are not intended to be. Do you want stability, comfort, stiffness, light weight, cheap or what? No one frame will deliver top marks in all of these qualities. It is a compromise.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I have found that then it comes to most things - be it food, booze or musical instruments - it's rare to hear someone question the fact that qualitative differences between brand names, products and materials may exist. 

It's a true rare case when, for example, somebody on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum will say there is no sonic difference between a guitar built with Rosewood or a guitar built with Mahogany. Nobody blinks as the relative merits of Adirondack Spruce, Sitka Spruce or Italian Spruce are chewed over as the preferred material for guitar tops. Even though everybody's opinion differs, nobody ever says they all sound the same. It's extremely rare, too, when a poster tells a person that the guitar they lust after is too good for them. It's extremely rare to find a post that says, "Buy the cheap Yamaha. You won't be able to hear the difference, and only top pros need the expensive stuff." Nobody is ever considered a fool for wanting to buy the most expensive instrument they can (or cannot) afford.

So far in my experience, the only places where there is a large enthusiast population that either cannot or refuses to acknowledge qualitative differences in products and materials is Bicycling and Audio equipment. I find it strange. If you have enough of an interest in a subject to have contributed sometimes hundreds of posts on an internet forum, wouldn't you have developed a sensitivity to (not to mention an appreciation for) the subject's subtleties? Its nuances?


----------



## rossb (Oct 11, 2005)

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that there are differences in ride characteristics between bikes, or between frames from different manufacturers, or different wheels, or different frame materials. This issue arose from the claim the Trek made a bad bicycle, and that this was obvious when compared against something like a Look. Somehow, there seems to be some inference from the responses that people are suggesting that a Trek and a Look (and anything else) ride identically and that any differences are imperceptible - which I think is not what anyone intended to say.

I suspect we would all agree that there are clear and noticeable differences between bikes and frames. However, I do agree with the poster that a lot of the perceived differences are based on preconceptions from what people have read or been told - hence the number of people who ride an OCLV frame for 5 minutes and then complain it feels "dead". This says more about the preconceptions than anything you could have picked up from a test ride of an unfamiliar bicycle. (FWIW, my 585 is now a few months old and it is only _now_ that I am coming to grips with what it truly feels like. It takes a long time with a new piece of equipment to really get a handle on it.)

Your comment that cycling and audio equipment generate the same sorts of controversies is something I have also noticed. Sometimes when I read the scorn people unleash on anyone who dares to suggest that a carbon fibre component feels different from an aluminium one, I am reminded of the same degree of scepticism people express about claims of high end audio cables (and especially that silver cables sound different and better.) Without wanting to open a second front in the audio debate, in my experience audio cables definitely sound different from one another, and silver cables definitely sound different (though not necessarily better) than copper cables - yet these differences, while profound in terms of long term enjoyment, are paradoxically very difficult to discern over the short term (which is another argument why double blind testing is useless for these sorts of situations). In other words, I think that the differences between, say, carbon fibre and aluminium, or between two different frames, may be subtle - almost indistinguishable - if you do a simple, A/B comparison over a short period of time, and yet will be profound over a much longer period and will determine how much you enjoy riding your bike and how long you do it for.

In other words, a Trek is noticeably different from a Look. However, the difference, while noticeable, is not huge in absolute terms. But it may make a signicant difference over the long term. And this is not to say that difference does not always equal improvement. I can certaily imagine someone preferring the more comfortable ride of a Trek OCLV to a Look 585, and the Trek is undoubtedly a fine bike (whose reputation has paradoxically declined in proportion to its commercial success). One thing I have learned is that when it comes to human perception it is difficult to rule out the idea that even seemingly insignificant things can have a profound effect.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Mapei Roida said:


> I have found that then it comes to most things - be it food, booze or musical instruments - it's rare to hear someone question the fact that qualitative differences between brand names, products and materials may exist.
> 
> It's a true rare case when, for example, somebody on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum will say there is no sonic difference between a guitar built with Rosewood or a guitar built with Mahogany. Nobody blinks as the relative merits of Adirondack Spruce, Sitka Spruce or Italian Spruce are chewed over as the preferred material for guitar tops. Even though everybody's opinion differs, nobody ever says they all sound the same. It's extremely rare, too, when a poster tells a person that the guitar they lust after is too good for them. It's extremely rare to find a post that says, "Buy the cheap Yamaha. You won't be able to hear the difference, and only top pros need the expensive stuff." Nobody is ever considered a fool for wanting to buy the most expensive instrument they can (or cannot) afford.
> 
> So far in my experience, the only places where there is a large enthusiast population that either cannot or refuses to acknowledge qualitative differences in products and materials is Bicycling and Audio equipment. I find it strange. If you have enough of an interest in a subject to have contributed sometimes hundreds of posts on an internet forum, wouldn't you have developed a sensitivity to (not to mention an appreciation for) the subject's subtleties? Its nuances?



Very well stated.


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

Mapei Roida said:


> I have found that then it comes to most things - be it food, booze or musical instruments - it's rare to hear someone question the fact that qualitative differences between brand names, products and materials may exist...


Mapei Roida understands!


----------



## leesub (Feb 17, 2005)

Sorry I am late to this post but I just spoke to them today about doing exactly the same thing. How did it go?

Lee


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*I do not understand your question*



leesub said:


> Sorry I am late to this post but I just spoke to them today about doing exactly the same thing. How did it go?
> 
> Lee


you spoke to whom? doing what same thing? How did what go? Please clarify your question.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

When I went from a Look kg361with an LDS Pro 3 fork to a kg381 with an HSC 4 fork I felt a significantly different ride. The components and wheels were taken off the 361 and installed on the 381 so the difference was definitely the frame. The difference I felt was that the 381 seems to offer a smoother, more compliant, forgiving ride which made the 361 seem a little harsh on even minor bumps and cracks. Both frames are 55cm's and the 381 has a slightly longer top tube, maybe a little less than 1cm.

I prefer the 381 and am intrigued by the descriptions of the dampened ride of a Trek. I believe I would enjoy that type of ride. If it leaves you less fatigued they've accomplished something.
My two cents.


----------



## Geist (Jun 4, 2004)

But it's a LOOK.


----------



## ynotride (Jul 9, 2007)

*Look 585 vs Trek 5500*



rossb said:


> I have a Look 585 and a 2004 Trek 5500. I have set them side by side. Both are great bikes. The workmanship on both is outstanding. They both ride beautifully. There are some differences in ride quality, but they are not as great as you might think. The performance difference between the two is negligible to zero - the Look does not make me go faster to any perceptible degree. While Trek's reputation has suffered in recent years due (only) to its overwhelming commercial success, this has not prevented them from making an outstanding bike. The fact that they make a lot of bikes does not seem to have affected their quality control - if it did, given the number of Treks out there, we would have heard about it by now. Trek is definitely "in the same game"; only the snobbery of many cyclists and the resentment of dealers outside the Trek network suggests otherwise.


I've been reading the posts about the Look 585 and the Treks. I have a 2001 5500 and it rides just fine in general although sometimes it feels as though its not super responsive accelerating. So I'm considering the 585 based on what I've read about its ride characteristics 1st (and its looks 3rd). Other bikes I demo'd before going with the 5500 were more responsive but had a "harsher" ride. So, I'm wondering if riders with experience on both these bikes can explain their perspections of what the ride, handling and fit differences are between these two bikes(ie, frame/fork). thanks for any insight!!!


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

I've had all the bikes in this thread in the past three years. Not the exact models mentioned for Look and Time..I had a 585 and a VRX time. A 5200, 5900 and a Madone Trek...

Quite different bikes, each brand from the other. The Treks are sedate handlers. The Madone is not so slow as the 5xxx series but still pretty slow handling..Not necessarily a bad thing. The Treks are kinda sloppy built. Crooked decals, paint blemishes, mine had problems with the front dropouts being kinda cheesy, and who knows what is inside...When you see surface defects..
The VXR was *stiff* tight quick and a bit harsh. That could have been from the wheels I had at that time..(Krysirums) as compared to the carbon wheels I rode on the Look 585. The 585 falls between the Time and the Trek in handling. I don't mean I would rate it 2 out of 3..I mean it has all the qualities of both of the other brands I mentioned, but it combines them perfectly. A truly great frame to ride..I will be having another one soon. Look's customer service is outstanding..too.
Don Hanson


----------



## ynotride (Jul 9, 2007)

*Look service*

thanks for the post on the Trek-Look difference. you mentioned that Look's service dept. was great. have you had a problem with the 585 that required contacting Look? is so, what was the issue?


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

I tossed a chain and then rolled backwards, breaking the derailuer hanger. Designed that way and replacable. But...at the time of the incident, I was a 1000 miles away from my LBS where I got the bike and a hundred miles from the nearest Look dealer...Road trip riding in the desert east of San Diego. I went on line, found the nearest dealer, called him and asked for a replacment derailure hanger. He took one from a 585 he had on the floor and Chas of Look USA bent over backwards making all that happen without any fuss..
Saved my trip, since a friend was going to Palm Desert the very next day. He came back with my new hanger and I didn't even miss a day's riding.

Chas, the Look USA guy is on this board frequently and has helped many others just as handily..
Don Hanson


----------

