# Which is right for me? 595 or 586



## Sinn (Mar 11, 2009)

I am 5'6 145-150 lbs. I am looking for a bike that will excel at climbing but that will also be a good all-around racing bike. So it needs to be something that I can sprint on and get the most from my TT efforts. I have a sprinter's muscle structure, and, when I get my skills honed, I expect to be a good all-around rider, but more of a sprinter than a climber. Since I live in SoCal, I will be racing a lot of crits. I do not really care about comfort.

Which is right for me? The 595 origin or 586? 

Thanks.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I'd go for 595 as its a stiffer frame.


----------



## audiojan (Jul 24, 2006)

I love my 595.... I weigh a bit more (about 158lbs) and pack NO punch what so ever in the sprint... but I do like stiffer frames (as I like the way they climb). 595 Origin combines the perfect balance between comfort (you're really floating forward effortless!) and stiffness (super responsive).

My buddy is a 195lbs. ex powerlifter that has an excellent sprint and he chose the Origin as well... just didn't flex enough for him either and the comfort over the Ultra was worth it the minute difference (and with your weight, I doubt you would EVER notice the difference).


----------



## Johnnysmooth (Jun 10, 2004)

If you are more sprinter, definitely go with 595. Also, at your weight, the Origin is plenty stiff enough.


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

What they said ^^^.  

The 595 is definitely more of the sprinter/crit bike. The lighter weight and increased comfort of the 586 make it more geared for long rides and climbing, while the additional stiffness of the 595 makes it a great race bike. 

*[email protected]*


----------



## Sinn (Mar 11, 2009)

chas said:


> What they said ^^^.
> 
> The 595 is definitely more of the sprinter/crit bike. The lighter weight and increased comfort of the 586 make it more geared for long rides and climbing, while the additional stiffness of the 595 makes it a great race bike.
> 
> *[email protected]*



But, I suppose you want to say as well, the added weight and stiffness of the 595 by no means exclude it from the category of an excellent climbing bike as well. Is this correct?

I am not a climber, but I love to climb and it is important that this bike can do for every RACING situation (i.e., not long 'comfortable' centuries) -- sprint, TT, surge with the pack, be reliable day in and day out for a few years, and climb. If you think that the 586 is the better option in this regard, I would like to hear why. But, from what I can tell so far, it is unanimous that the 595 is the better option in this regard.


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

Sinn said:


> But, I suppose you want to say as well, the added weight and stiffness of the 595 by no means exclude it from the category of an excellent climbing bike as well. Is this correct?
> 
> I am not a climber, but I love to climb and it is important that this bike can do for every RACING situation (i.e., not long 'comfortable' centuries) -- sprint, TT, surge with the pack, be reliable day in and day out for a few years, and climb. If you think that the 586 is the better option in this regard, I would like to hear why. But, from what I can tell so far, it is unanimous that the 595 is the better option in this regard.


Sorry if that was unclear, but I am in agreement with the other posters that the 595 is probably the bike for you. With a normal build kit you will have no problem getting it in the 15lb range, and I've seen them built in the high 13's low 14's without any uber-weightweenie gear.

I've spent a lot of time on both bikes and prefer the 595 for the type of riding you're describing.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

LOOKs have been in the pro peleton for a long time and have gone through quite an evolution. Their bikes are suited very well for all racing conditions. There was a lot of good racing on their old KG series bikes, so any of their new models would be more than suitable for the task.

As far as climbing goes, what goes up must come down...and come down with complete confidence. The 595 _is_ their pro tour bike ( for a reason??) and it has served some of the best racers in the world quite nicely.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

chas -

what do you think about a regular 595 Ultra vs. the Origin for a guy the size of the OP?

still loving mine by the way.


----------



## Sinn (Mar 11, 2009)

terry b said:


> chas -
> 
> what do you think about a regular 595 vs. the Origin for a guy the size of the OP?
> 
> still loving mine by the way.


Do you mean the 595 origin vs the Ultra?

IMO, I think that the Ultra is just unnecessarily stiff for someone in our weight/power range. It would only add discomfort.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

The Green Hour said:


> LOOKs have been in the pro peleton for a long time and have gone through quite an evolution. Their bikes are suited very well for all racing conditions. There was a lot of good racing on their old KG series bikes, so any of their new models would be more than suitable for the task.
> 
> As far as climbing goes, what goes up must come down...and come down with complete confidence. The 595 _is_ their pro tour bike ( for a reason??) and it has served some of the best racers in the world quite nicely.


I am no climber but my personal opinion as well as feedback from a couple of guys (one of them on this forum) suggest a couple of weaknesses compared to 595 - climbing off the saddle and cornering ability during fast descents.


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

terry b said:


> chas -
> 
> what do you think about a regular 595 vs. the Origin for a guy the size of the OP?
> 
> still loving mine by the way.


Well first of all, I'm very impressed that you have hung onto your 595 this long Terry. It's been about 2 years now, right?

I'm a little over 5'10" and right at 150lbs, and I rode an Ultra when they first came out simply because I really like how they looked. What can I say, I'm shallow like that. Anyway, I rode it for about a year and really liked it a lot - never felt like it was beating me up. That being said, I've had a chance to ride a 595 Origin on some of our lunch rides and have decided to make that my next bike. 

I never needed an Ultra in the first place and while I never thought it was uncomfortable, I just really prefer the feel of the Origin. I'm also planning to do some longer distance events this year, so I think I'll appreciate the added smoothness as the saddle time increases.

Another way to look at it is: Thor Hushovd rode an Origin. 'nuff said.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

How about 585 or are you only looking for a bike with ISP?
I test rode a 585 last year and I like it a lot....


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

Thor also rode a 585 last year in the Paris Roubaix.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Funny thread!

Softer feel is better. 

I'm sure the 586 is plenty stiff enough for someone your weight.

Any pro, your weight or less, would ride the 586 and perform exactly the same as they would have otherwise, on any other bike.

If that's not the case, and that's a gigantic if, then Look is producing an inferior bike to the kg's, which were winning races all over the world previously. I highly doubt that is the case.

My question(of the rhetorical variety) is this; what would happen to a 586, if it was ridden hard by a 150lb sprinter over a period of 3 or 4 years?

Get the 586.

edit....

looks 586 ads say "heavy duty.....race ready workhorse"

I think someone posted the bottom bracket stiffness numbers on one of these threads recently and I'm pretty sure the 586 happened to be stiffer at the bb than the 595. 

It also utilizes newer technology, is lighter, overall feels smoother yet in fact is stiffer. I thought that was the whole point with advances in bike materials, manufacturing processes and all of this other stuff.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

chas said:


> Well first of all, I'm very impressed that you have hung onto your 595 this long Terry. It's been about 2 years now, right?


Yea, two years right on the nose.

Here's a little testament for your next 4 color brochure - you probably don't know this, but I have been working in China for the last 6 months or so, on a 1-2 year assignment. Program got delayed so I came back in mid-February for a couple of months. Nice opportunity to catch up on my riding which I was not able to do over there. 

I've had two bikes out in the last 6 weeks - my 595 and my 953 custom (Strong). I think that says something relative to my other choices.

I'm a Look Lover for Life, you just need to figure out a way to get me to buy a new one, liking mine as much as I do.


----------



## Sinn (Mar 11, 2009)

I got the 595 origin. Two reasons predominately guided my decision:

1. I am not a climber and Socal has a lot of crits. The 595 fits me and the kinds of races I normally do best. But I still think that it will provide a good platform for climbing and longer road races.

2. The lugged design is less prone to failure than a monocoque. It provides for a tougher, more durable frame. This appeals to me as I will be racing on this frame for at least two years.

Thanks for all your input. I'll post pics when I get it built.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

How do you like the 953 in comparison to super carbon bikes such as the 595.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

toonraid said:


> How do you like the 953 in comparison to super carbon bikes such as the 595.


I have four bikes that I like above all the others I own - 953, 595, Crumpton, Parlee Z2.

Don't know why, but I just do. Looking at that short list you might draw the conclusion that the 953 rides like carbon, and it does in some ways. I suits my style and it imparts a pretty smooth ride. I don't really know what to add to your question other than built properly, that steel can give you a pretty satisfactory bike.


----------

