# Fit on a 05 481sl



## pd4 (Mar 22, 2005)

All,

I am going to take the plunge on a 481sl. My height is 5'9, inseam 85cm. I did the competetive cyclist fit and they say i should should be on a 55cm steed. That seems a bit big. My girlfriend took the measurements and we were pretty accurate. Just wanted some input from C40 and the rest of you. Thanks in advance.

Cheers
Patrick


----------



## WBC (Nov 11, 2004)

*I'm the same size*

86 cm inseam and I ride a 54" 481SL. I think that the 55 may be a little big if your sensitvie to the longer top tube like me. This was discussed somewhat in this thread.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=33294

Good Luck!

WBC


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*too big...*

Although there's a 2cm range that's tolerable, a 55cm would certainly be on the large side and the TT ight be too long. I suspect a 53 or 54 would be more appropriate, but the "best" size depends on your saddle height and desired handlebar height.

You really need some dimensions from an existing bike to compare. The slack STA on the 481 makes the TT shorter than some other brands. Another critical dimension is the head tube length.

I have an 83cm inseam, a 72cm saddle height and I ride a 51cm, with the handlebars 87cm from the ground to the top of the bars.

If it was me, I'd l consider a 555 or a 461. Unless you have a source for a special deal on the 481, either of these new models is cheaper and they ride quite well. A 53cm would probably fit nicely.


----------



## pd4 (Mar 22, 2005)

C40,

Thanks for your input. I am choosing the 481 because i like the looks of it and i can get one for a little over 2000.00. From peoples posts it seems to be a smooth riding machine. I suspect the 555 and 461 are as well. I would prefer to have less saddle height. I hate to see tons of seatpost sticking out of a frame. I have back problems so I suspect that i would want a shorter top tube. There does not seem to be a huge difference btwn the 53 or 54 in this regard. I suppose I could just mess with the stem length in any event.

Patrick 


C-40 said:


> Although there's a 2cm range that's tolerable, a 55cm would certainly be on the large side and the TT ight be too long. I suspect a 53 or 54 would be more appropriate, but the "best" size depends on your saddle height and desired handlebar height.
> 
> You really need some dimensions from an existing bike to compare. The slack STA on the 481 makes the TT shorter than some other brands. Another critical dimension is the head tube length.
> 
> ...


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

pd4 said:


> C40,
> 
> Thanks for your input. I am choosing the 481 because i like the looks of it and i can get one for a little over 2000.00. From peoples posts it seems to be a smooth riding machine. I suspect the 555 and 461 are as well. I would prefer to have less saddle height. I hate to see tons of seatpost sticking out of a frame. I have back problems so I suspect that i would want a shorter top tube. There does not seem to be a huge difference btwn the 53 or 54 in this regard. I suppose I could just mess with the stem length in any event.
> 
> Patrick


Good choice, this is an awesome frame. I ride a KG461 and love it.
Have you picked you colors yet, or do you have a favorite?
The reason I ask is that my brother has a Blue and white KG481sl in a size 53 he is selling? If interested I can get you some pictures or put you two in contact.

Thx
Carlos


----------



## ciocc (Feb 8, 2005)

speedygonzalez2005 said:


> Good choice, this is an awesome frame. I ride a KG461 and love it.
> Carlos


Have you also ridden on a 481SL? I'd like to know the difference between a 461/555 and a 481 in terms of comfort. Which model gives a better vertical compliance? Is the difference easily noticed?


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

ciocc said:


> Have you also ridden on a 481SL? I'd like to know the difference between a 461/555 and a 481 in terms of comfort. Which model gives a better vertical compliance? Is the difference easily noticed?



I have not.
Even though my brothers frame is the same size as mine (53cm) he has never built it up.
I wish he had it looks like an awesome ride.
Do you have one also , or are you deciding which to buy?

Carlos


----------



## Geist (Jun 4, 2004)

I ride a 481 and love it. It's super smooth and great for descending. I belive this is the frame that Credit Agricole road in Paris Roubaix.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not much difference...*

I have a 461 and a 381, which is nearly identical to the 481, in the 51cm size. Both ride fine, I can't tell much difference. Some people think the 381/481 is a cushy ride, but I've not found that to be the case.


----------



## ciocc (Feb 8, 2005)

*481/555*



speedygonzalez2005 said:


> I have not.
> Even though my brothers frame is the same size as mine (53cm) he has never built it up.
> I wish he had it looks like an awesome ride.
> Do you have one also , or are you deciding which to buy?
> ...


I am deciding which one to buy. The deciding factor for me is comfort.

I know I can be fitted on a size 50 481, or a small 555. I weigh about 155lb.

I ride about 100~150 miles a week, mostly on weekends. I do a few full/metric centuries a year, mostly hilly (~5000 ft elevation). 

Hope someone can give me a comparsion between the 481 and 555.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*different fit..*

Be aware that the "small" (49cm) 555 has a 1.6cm shorter reach than the 50cm 481. It also has a significantly shorter front center and a 1cm shorter head tube. These two sizes really aren't the same. The 49cm 555 has the same vertical dimensions as a 49cm 481, but the reach difference is still 1.6cm.

A 51cm 481 and a 51cm 555 are nearly identical.


----------



## ciocc (Feb 8, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Be aware that the "small" (49cm) 555 has a 1.6cm shorter reach than the 50cm 481. It also has a significantly shorter front center and a 1cm shorter head tube. These two sizes really aren't the same. The 49cm 555 has the same vertical dimensions as a 49cm 481, but the reach difference is still 1.6cm.
> 
> A 51cm 481 and a 51cm 555 are nearly identical.



Thanks C-40. 

But I was looking at the small 555, which is a 51cm. The reach is not the same as the 50cm 481, but is close enough to work for me. I have measured my Litespeed classic and it is setup as followed:
(1) Handlerbar height from ground = 85.5cm
(2) Seat height from ground= 93cm
(3) Seat height from center of BB = 69cm
(4) Stem length = 11cm (ITM Millennium)
(5) Stem stack height = 2cm

Now, I am undecided on 555 or 481. Your other post has stated that there was not much difference in terms of comfort. So, I am leaning towards the 555.

BTW, almost everyone that I have spoken to referred the relax 72.5 STA on the 481 to be good for climbing and at the same time providing a more comfortable all day ride. Why is it so?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*About STA...*

The only thing that the 72.5 degree STA does is require a different seat post setback than than a 74.5 degree. The idea that a slack STA improved the ride comes from many years ago when all bikea were made of nearly identical steel tubing. Even then, the difference was very small. Now days, the ride is determined by the tube size, shape and thickness, not small differences in the angles. If the saddle is placed in the same position, relative to the BB, then it has no effect on climbing. With the 72.5 degree STA, you need a straight-up seatpost like a Thomson or the LOOK post with the clamp all the way forward to position the saddle the same as it would be on a bike with a steeper STA.

LOOK doesn't use small, medium, large, etc. for frame size. The 51cm 555 would have about a 0.3cm longer reach than a 50cm 481 and a 1cm taller head tube. The head tube, with the headset, on the 555 will be 135mm tall. Based on your saddle and handlebar heights, I'd say the 51cm 555 is a bit large (vertically). You can get the handlebars down to an 85.5cm height, but it will require an 80 degree stem with no more than 5mm of spacer. An 84 degree stem with no spacers would put the bars right at 86cm.

FWIW, I ride the 51cm, but with about 3cm more saddle height and 2cm more handlebar height. I use an 84 degree stem with 1.5cm of spacer to produce an 87.5cm handlebar height.


----------



## ciocc (Feb 8, 2005)

*Paging C-40*

Thanks for your information C-40.

I have doubled check the measurements of my bike, and the handlerbar is actually 86cm instead of 85.5 as stated before (from ground to top of the bar). The other measurements stay the same.

So, do you think the 50cm 481 would fit me better?

BTW, of the 461 and 381 you own, which one do you like better, and why?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*toss-up...*



ciocc said:


> Thanks for your information C-40.
> 
> I have doubled check the measurements of my bike, and the handlerbar is actually 86cm instead of 85.5 as stated before (from ground to top of the bar). The other measurements stay the same.
> 
> ...


It's really hard to pick a favorite, since they are so similar. The fit really wouldn't be much different. The 555 could be setup with no spacers and an 84 degree stem to get the handlebar height you want, or an 80 degree could be used with no more than 1cm of spacer (assuming same 4cm steering tube clmp length on both stems). The head tube on the 50cm 481 is about 1cm shorter, so it would require an 84 degree stem and 1cm of spacer. 

One small drawback to the 481 is the limited selection of seat post in the 25.0 size. To produce a "neutral" KOP, I needed a no-setback Thomson seatpost.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*sorry, hijacking with much the same question.....*



C-40 said:


> Although there's a 2cm range that's tolerable, a 55cm would certainly be on the large side and the TT ight be too long. I suspect a 53 or 54 would be more appropriate, but the "best" size depends on your saddle height and desired handlebar height.
> 
> You really need some dimensions from an existing bike to compare. The slack STA on the 481 makes the TT shorter than some other brands. Another critical dimension is the head tube length.
> 
> ...


sorry to hijack this topic.....

A 45 year old male looking for guidance here....

I am also looking at traditional geometry Look frame such as 481, 381 (any others?). I am looking for distance comfort over crit performance. Weight of the bike is also less critical. Comfort is paramount. Price is important. What Look frame type and size should I consider?

I have 83cm inseam and 173cm height (a bit under 5 foot 9 inches?). My weight is 67kg (<150#?). My build is square-average according to a cycle-fit guy that once measured me i.e. equal length arms, legs, of average proportions....

Given the Look 481/381 relaxed 72.5 STA what frame sizes should I be looking at in traditional frames? 53cm? 54cm? 55cm? Also stem lengths? 100mm? 110mm? 120mm?
I lack back flexibility so I tend to ride with stem facing upwards a few degrees.

I have owned a 56cm Trek which felt too big even with 100mm stem. A 54.8cm Roubaix with 100mm stem felt ok but this has 73.5 STA....

thanks folks


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> sorry to hijack this topic.....
> 
> A 45 year old male looking for guidance here....
> 
> ...


I wont presume to tell you that I can give you the exact fit that you are looking for .Especially given all the variables and your lack of back fexability .
But if you decide that a KG 481sl in a size 53 is to your liking, I can put you in touch with my brother who is selling a frame set in excellent condition.
Pictures upon request.
Good luck, happy riding.

Carlos G.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*why so?*



speedygonzalez2005 said:


> I wont presume to tell you that I can give you the exact fit that you are looking for .Especially given all the variables and your lack of back fexability .
> But if you decide that a KG 481sl in a size 53 is to your liking, I can put you in touch with my brother who is selling a frame set in excellent condition.
> Pictures upon request.
> Good luck, happy riding.
> ...


thanks, I live in Australia and in any case I want to buy a new one (so call me old fashioned!).

I am curious - why is your brother selling it?


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> thanks, I live in Australia and in any case I want to buy a new one (so call me old fashioned!).
> 
> I am curious - why is your brother selling it?



Same old story.
A man in love with his bike and then out of no where BOOOM!
A new prettier face makes its way onto the sceen.
This one goes by three simple numbers, 5.8.5.( Look 585 that is).

So out the window goes a nearly 4 month relationship.
Sad.

Good luck with your search. The right girl is out there for you too.But beware the pretty face!

Carlos G.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*lucky you*



speedygonzalez2005 said:


> Same old story.
> A man in love with his bike and then out of no where BOOOM!
> A new prettier face makes its way onto the sceen.
> This one goes by three simple numbers, 5.8.5.( Look 585 that is).
> ...


bikes are so much more expensive "down under", basically you can almost double the US$ or Euro$ price to arrive at AUS$ price. Even the cheapest Look frame is AUD$3500 or so.... Then you add the other mandatory goodies and all of a sudden a motor-cycle can be cheaper than a push-bicycle to buy 8^)


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*to narrow it down - Look 461....*



acid_rider said:


> sorry to hijack this topic.....
> 
> A 45 year old male looking for guidance here....
> 
> ...


based on price I think Look 461 (2005) is what I am looking at. In sizes 51,53,55 is appears to have a sloping or semi-sloping top tube and a 73.5 STA. Is this correct?

Any comments re this frame as compared to say Specialized Roubaix or Tarmac carbon offerings (since price would be similar)? Given above mentioned measures - what size would I need to choose in 461?


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> bikes are so much more expensive "down under", basically you can almost double the US$ or Euro$ price to arrive at AUS$ price. Even the cheapest Look frame is AUD$3500 or so.... Then you add the other mandatory goodies and all of a sudden a motor-cycle can be cheaper than a push-bicycle to buy 8^)



I know what you mean.
I get RIDE Magazine and the prices in there can be staggering.

Best of luck to you.

Carlos G.


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> based on price I think Look 461 (2005) is what I am looking at. In sizes 51,53,55 is appears to have a sloping or semi-sloping top tube and a 73.5 STA. Is this correct?
> 
> Any comments re this frame as compared to say Specialized Roubaix or Tarmac carbon offerings (since price would be similar)? Given above mentioned measures - what size would I need to choose in 461?


I would say that you would probable need the 53cm.
I say this because I am about your size also ( @5'8' ) and I happen to ride a 53cm, Look KG461.
It fit great with a 110 stem & 7.5 mm of spacers.
This bike rides plush. All day comfort in a super package.

Carlos G
I tried to load a picture but file is too large.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*thanks!*



speedygonzalez2005 said:


> I would say that you would probable need the 53cm.
> I say this because I am about your size also ( @5'8' ) and I happen to ride a 53cm, Look KG461.
> It fit great with a 110 stem & 7.5 mm of spacers.
> This bike rides plush. All day comfort in a super package.
> ...


my LBS has package deal on built up 2005 Look 461 with Ultegra-10 etc and they said they have 53cm in stock or can get them soon. But there are also specials on Specialized Tarmac Pro 2005 for about the same price but with better wheels (Mavic Elite versus Mavic Equipe on Look). 

Which one would ride better? How much heavier is Look 461 versus Tarmac Pro? 400 grams (1 pound)? More?


----------



## speedygonzalez2005 (May 22, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> my LBS has package deal on built up 2005 Look 461 with Ultegra-10 etc and they said they have 53cm in stock or can get them soon. But there are also specials on Specialized Tarmac Pro 2005 for about the same price but with better wheels (Mavic Elite versus Mavic Equipe on Look).
> 
> Which one would ride better? How much heavier is Look 461 versus Tarmac Pro? 400 grams (1 pound)? More?


I would say the Look, but I am a little biast.
I dont know the exact weight difference in the frames.

Carlos


----------

