# Where are Look Frames actually Built?



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

It is true that the only Look frames built in France are the 585 and 486, and that the 565 and 555 are built in Africa?


----------



## RocketDog (Apr 9, 2005)

Troy16 said:


> It is true that the only Look frames built in France are the 585 and 486, and that the 565 and 555 are built in Africa?


I don't know which models are from where, but yes, Look has a factory in Northern Africa somewhere.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

RocketDog said:


> I don't know which models are from where, but yes, Look has a factory in Northern Africa somewhere.


Tunisia...I might be mistaken but I thought LOOK moved all production to Tunisia..It really doesn't make a difference. It is not subcontracted. It is a LOOK owned factory


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Thanks. Since the work is all done by Look can I assume that their 555 and 565 models are built with the same quality as the 585. Other than a small weight penalty, would a 555 likely be as durable and ride as well as the 565 and 585 models?


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

*Get the 555*



Troy16 said:


> Thanks. Since the work is all done by Look can I assume that their 555 and 565 models are built with the same quality as the 585. Other than a small weight penalty, would a 555 likely be as durable and ride as well as the 565 and 585 models?


According to Look themselves the 555 will ride exactly the same as the 585 and 565 models. The difference is that the other two models are a bit lighter and I do mean just a bit, but you are paying a very large premium to save those few ounces and I seriously doubt that anyone who posts in here regularly is at such a performance level that saving a couple ounces will suddenly change the results of their group rides or racers, in fact I can gurantee you it will not, despite any hype claims out there. If a group can drop you on a 555 they will also drop you if you are on a 585 and anyone who argues differently is a fool blowing lots of smoke and hype trying to convince themselves they somehow got a lot extra for the extra $1,000 they just blew on a 585. Yes the bottom brackets are different, carbon versus aluminum, and the tubes and forks are different but Look says they ride the same and I would trust them on this. As far as durability there is no reason the 555 should not be as durable if not more durable than the slightly lighter models. Look has done carbon very well for a long time and they certainkly know how to shield an aluminum bottom bracket from the carbon so that should have zero issue regarding the frames durability.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

The only thing I'd add to Altitude's post is *IF* you can find an 05' 555 you will get the HSC5 SL Fork vs. the 06' with the HSC4. Other than that, I completely agree with Altitude's post.....
- Use the money saved on a nice group, wheels, etc.


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

ALL the Look frames are made in Tunisia.


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

kevlar1973 said:


> ALL the Look frames are made in Tunisia.


The Track bike is not built in Tunisia, it is still built in France.

But yes all other Look frames (including the 496 Tri/TT) are built in the recently finished 30million dollar factory Look built in the french colony of Tunisia in North Africa.
All Forks, HM pedals and Custom paint are done in the France factory.
I work with Look, I've seen the pictures and met with many Look employees who have given me this information, it is 100% verified.


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

altidude said:


> According to Look themselves the 555 will ride exactly the same as the 585 and 565 models. The difference is that the other two models are a bit lighter and I do mean just a bit, but you are paying a very large premium to save those few ounces and I seriously doubt that anyone who posts in here regularly is at such a performance level that saving a couple ounces will suddenly change the results of their group rides or racers, in fact I can gurantee you it will not, despite any hype claims out there. If a group can drop you on a 555 they will also drop you if you are on a 585 and anyone who argues differently is a fool blowing lots of smoke and hype trying to convince themselves they somehow got a lot extra for the extra $1,000 they just blew on a 585. Yes the bottom brackets are different, carbon versus aluminum, and the tubes and forks are different but Look says they ride the same and I would trust them on this. As far as durability there is no reason the 555 should not be as durable if not more durable than the slightly lighter models. Look has done carbon very well for a long time and they certainkly know how to shield an aluminum bottom bracket from the carbon so that should have zero issue regarding the frames durability.


Working with Look, riding all of the models and being prepped and PK'd by Look France. The 555/565/585 DO NOT ride the same.

These bikes have very different characteristics, for instance below is the Relative rigidity chart for a few models. Note the 555 has a stiffer BB (this is due to the extreme stiffness of the HPC aluminum used) than the 585 and 486, however the 555's rear end is not as stiff as the 585. Remeber that stiffness is good but as you get really stiff you lose vertical compliance and comfort. Thats where the 585 excels, it is as stiff as most humans will ever need (Thor can attest to that riding a stock 585 in the TDF) yet still is about as comfortable as a bike can get, especially at 990gr.

LOOK FRAME RELATIVE RIGIDITY

Higher number denotes greater stiffness 

Model /Rear Triangle /BB /Steering	

555 60 192 118

KG486 70 182 100

585 65 165 95

Here is a breakdown of tube types for each of the bikes and EACH one has different tubing as you will see.

585

Light weight without compromise. LOOK have put all of their best technology into a frame resulting in better efficiency than the classic 481 SL while weighing nearly a pound less! Made of VHM tubing with high pressure formed lugs and a VPHC bottom bracket shell. The tubes top and down tube are thinner on the top and bottom and thicker on the sides to optimize lateral rigidity and vertical compliance, giving efficiency and comfort. The seatstays are double curved to provide optimum ride quality. The goal was to get under the magic 1 kg barrier, but without sacrificing performance, durability or comfort., and a test ride confirms they have succeeded. The 585 is a great all-rounder, not just a super light weight climbing machine. Thor Hushovd used a stock 585 to capture the Green Jersey in the 2005 Tour de France. Similar geometry to the 486 results in a seemingly impossible combination of incredible stability at speed combined with fantastic maneuverability. A joy to ride. Includes carbon headset and HSC5SL fork

565

A less expensive version of the 585. Uses the same head and seat lugs along with the same tube shapes as the 585. The tubing itself is made of HM carbon while the bottom bracket shell is aluminum. Different chainstays are used to fit in the alu BB shell, but are still double curved for compliance. These changes result in a less expensive frame that is only 200 grams heavier than the 585. Includes carbon headset and HSC5SL fork 

555

Light and efficient. Compact geometry, oversized HM tubing (no internal butting) combined with HPC lugs. The wishbone rear gives (straight seat stays) great lateral rigidity for efficiency without increasing vertical rigidity and so maintains comfort. Available in 6 sizes, the 4 smallest of which are sloping. Includes carbon headset and HSC4 fork.


Hope this help clear things up
Cheers


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

sirbikealot said:


> Working with Look, riding all of the models and being prepped and PK'd by Look France. The 555/565/585 DO NOT ride the same.
> 
> These bikes have very different characteristics, for instance below is the Relative rigidity chart for a few models. Note the 555 has a stiffer BB (this is due to the extreme stiffness of the HPC aluminum used) than the 585 and 486, however the 555's rear end is not as stiff as the 585. Remeber that stiffness is good but as you get really stiff you lose vertical compliance and comfort. Thats where the 585 excels, it is as stiff as most humans will ever need (Thor can attest to that riding a stock 585 in the TDF) yet still is about as comfortable as a bike can get, especially at 990gr.
> 
> ...


I think you can post all the fancy schmancy deflection and stiffness numbers you want, but the truth is I'll bet you can not find a single rider who in a true blind test could tell any of these frames apart. Look says the 565 rides exactly the same as the 585 with the only difference being a slight weight penalty of the aluminum BB and the use of HM versus VHM tubes in the stays. They don't say it rides almost the same, they say it rides exactly the same. If you can find a decent sample of riders who can ride these 3 frames in a true blind test who can consistently pick the differences among these frames with a high degree of statistical accuracy you'll make me a believer that they ride lots differently. I would bet there is not a single regular on this board who could pick ride quality differences among these frames if it were a true blind test, and I'm not talking about the placebo effected guys who just bought a 585 and now claim it goes up the mountain so much faster than the 555 or is more comfortable in the rear. These frames are basically all the same except for very minor weight savings from model to model.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

altidude said:


> These frames are basically all the same except for very minor weight savings from model to model.


 The 555 has a slacker head tube angle than the 585/565 by a 1/2 degree a 72.5, and I believe a more relaxed STA and perhaps a longer wheelbase.
The 585/565 are race bikes in geometry, and because of that will be less forgiving both in ride quality and handling, not that you couldn't race a 555 sucessfully.


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

AlexCad5 said:


> The 555 has a slacker head tube angle than the 585/565 by a 1/2 degree a 72.5, and I believe a more relaxed STA and perhaps a longer wheelbase.
> The 585/565 are race bikes in geometry, and because of that will be less forgiving both in ride quality and handling, not that you couldn't race a 555 sucessfully.


Not true, better go check the 2006 Look Geometry charts. In every size but one the 565 has an identical HT angle to the 555 , not steeper. In the smallest sloping size it has a slacker HT angle than the 555 by I believe a 1/2 degree, not steeper. The seatube angles are essentially identical throughout the entire size range comparing the 555 versus the 565 with most of the sizes having either the exact same ST angle or a 1/4 degree difference. In no way, shape or form does the overall geometry of the 565 or 585 indicate a more racing oriented geometry versus thge 555, in fact for a given size (considering the ST angles and virtual toptube lengths) the 555's tend to have shorter headtubes which would certainly not be an indication of a less race oriented frame.

The chainstay length on every size 555, 565 and 585 is identical, 40.5cm.s. The front to center measurement for the 555's is slightly shorter, not longer than the comparable sized 565 and 585's so I have no idea how you determined that the wheelbases of the 555 are longer than the 565 and 585 models?

Go to competitivecyclist.com and check out the 2006 geometry charts for yourself.


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

altidude said:


> I think you can post all the fancy schmancy deflection and stiffness numbers you want, but the truth is I'll bet you can not find a single rider who in a true blind test could tell any of these frames apart. Look says the 565 rides exactly the same as the 585 with the only difference being a slight weight penalty of the aluminum BB and the use of HM versus VHM tubes in the stays. They don't say it rides almost the same, they say it rides exactly the same. If you can find a decent sample of riders who can ride these 3 frames in a true blind test who can consistently pick the differences among these frames with a high degree of statistical accuracy you'll make me a believer that they ride lots differently. I would bet there is not a single regular on this board who could pick ride quality differences among these frames if it were a true blind test, and I'm not talking about the placebo effected guys who just bought a 585 and now claim it goes up the mountain so much faster than the 555 or is more comfortable in the rear. These frames are basically all the same except for very minor weight savings from model to model.


its called empirical data, not fancy schmancy, so relax, i'm giving the cold hard facts and I would surmount that most anyone could tell a difference between a 555 and 585, which is what is the original question/misinformation was, the fact that you believe all these frames are the same except for minor weight changes is humourous at best, read the facts, Look doesn't make 3 different bikes just to save weight, there is a reason each has a different modulus of Carbon fibre, straight gauge tube versus vs internally butted, curve stays vs straight, ITS CALLED ENGINEERING A BETTER RIDE, not to save weight


----------



## altidude (Nov 14, 2002)

sirbikealot said:


> its called empirical data, not fancy schmancy, so relax, i'm giving the cold hard facts and I would surmount that most anyone could tell a difference between a 555 and 585, which is what is the original question/misinformation was, the fact that you believe all these frames are the same except for minor weight changes is humourous at best, read the facts, Look doesn't make 3 different bikes just to save weight, there is a reason each has a different modulus of Carbon fibre, straight gauge tube versus vs internally butted, curve stays vs straight, ITS CALLED ENGINEERING A BETTER RIDE, not to save weight


Bull Shat! 100% BS!

What empirical data?????? You have not listed a single legitimate piece or shred of empirical data on this entire thread that supports your nonsensical ride quality difference claims between those Look models. In fact most of the ridiculous stiffness numbers (probably what you think is empirical data) posted above CONTRADICT, DO NOT SUPPORT your BS claims! 

You have essentially done little more than post a bunch of marketing claims and mumbo jumbo nonsense. Name any statistically meaningful field test data that has been conducted to demonstrate how different these frames ride - THAT WOULD BE EMPIRICAL DATA! The higher modulus carbon fiber is to save weight, PERIOD! It has nothing to do with ride quality so stop your marketing BS. 

You have not provided an ounce of FACT that the 585's or 565's curved stays are more compliant than the 555's straight stays, in fact your own rear Bull Shat stiffness numbers TOTALLY CONTRADICT this nonsense marketing drivel claim of yours. The numbers indicate the curved stays rear is STIFFER NOT MORE COMPLIANT! Shall I repost those numbers from above again????

If you can't even understand the implications of your own posted stiffness numbers, how in the world would you know what "BETTER ENGINEERING" WENT INTO ANY IF ANY OF THESE FRAMESETS?????????

Not only should you research the phrase "empirical data", but you should also look up the definition of the word FACT, because apparently you do not know what either one is. Perhaps more important, next time you choose to post silly stiffness numbers or whatever supposed "empirical data" you think you have referenced, perhaps try in advance to figure out if these silly numbers actually support from a logic standpoint rather than contradict the comparative claims you will be attempting to make. Logic 101!

Nothing worse than marketing types utterly BSing to consumers about products. I'll give you $10,000 if you can set up a pure blind test between a disguised 565 and 585, ride each and tell me which is which accurately on 10 random different test rides. I'd prefer a test between a 585 and 555, but since their stays are different shapes I already know you'd cheat, peek and see what you are on and then BS about how the curved stays are so more comfy.

I could post the contradicting numbers in this post again if you would like, but if you could not figure it out the 1st time, I doubt a cutting and pasting of them would help a 2nd time, would it??????? The only things humurous are your referenced numbers and your silly claims.

Better engineering???????? That's a hoot coming from you. LMAO


----------



## Italianrider76 (May 13, 2005)

So if they're all made in Tunisia, why are they still so expensive??


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

Oh, I don't know. Why are Colnago's so expensive??


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*re*



Kram59 said:


> -- Oh, I don't know. Why are Colnago's so expensive??
> -- So if they're all made in Tunisia, why are they still so expensive??


I think you have answered your own questions! 8^) Why is a BMW/Mercedes-Benz more expensive than Lexus or Honda given Lexus/Honda is cheaper and is of a higher quality? Answer: 90% badge/snob value, 10% history/tradition. It makes a lot of people a lot of money (and costs a lot of people a lot of money). Let the buyer beware. In the mean time Look is making a higher profit on those Tunisian made frames still charging more than a comparable Made-in-Taiwan frame, mainly for the name.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

I would agree, but have you ever ridden a Look?? No cheap taiwanese frame can match them. Iytalian or 'Merican for that matter, either.


----------



## tsteahr (Dec 29, 2002)

*Your analogy makes a good point...*



acid_rider said:


> Why is a BMW/Mercedes-Benz more expensive than Lexus or Honda given Lexus/Honda is cheaper and is of a higher quality?


BMW's are far more rewarding cars to drive (from a driving enthusiasts perspective) than any of the Hondas or Acuras I have owned. Does that justify the premium in price? Depends on how much you value what the product provides. Where your analogy falls short is the Made-in-Taiwan frames (Lexus/Honda in your analogy) are Not of higher quality than the "premium" frame. I suspect many people feel the "premium" frames are of higher build quality than the Made-in-Taiwan frames. Ride quality not withstanding.

Are the profit margins greater on the "premium" frames? Probably, but I don't have those facts. Assuming the margins are greater, should the "premium" frame manufactures be rewarded for producing a product many people find more desirable than the Made-in-Taiwan frames? The consumer makes (and has been making) this decision. Look seems to sell quite well.

Speaking just of Look, they are competitively priced in comparison to other "premium" brands.


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> I think you have answered your own questions! 8^) Why is a BMW/Mercedes-Benz more expensive than Lexus or Honda given Lexus/Honda is cheaper and is of a higher quality? Answer: 90% badge/snob value, 10% history/tradition. It makes a lot of people a lot of money (and costs a lot of people a lot of money). Let the buyer beware. In the mean time Look is making a higher profit on those Tunisian made frames still charging more than a comparable Made-in-Taiwan frame, mainly for the name.



first off they won't go to taiwan because all of their research will be ripped off, thats why they spent $35 million building their own Look plant, unlike Taiwan where you pay another company to build your bikes
second, their bikes take a minimum of 16 hours to build by hand and up to 55 hours for a 496Tri, this means the bikes still cost a lot to build, the average Giant carbon is closer to 2 or 3 hours, 
Third, their reason for tunisia is that they could build their own factory in a country that is a french colony and allows for easy trade and commerce, it is also less than 1 hr by plane from their headquarters in france

so its not a snob factor, the bikes take more time and resources to build and therefore ride better and the end result is they cost more than a basic giant


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

sirbikealot said:


> Third, their reason for tunisia is that they could build their own factory in a country that is a french colony ...


The Tunisians will be quite disappointed to learn they have once again become colonists after 50 years of independence


----------



## 555Rider (Jan 13, 2006)

Personally it doesn't matter if it's made in France or Tunisia...I've ridden a 585 (a friend of mines) and at the end of the day bought a 555. Why not go with the 585, which has a better ride imo? Its kinda sad...but I didn't get a 585 because I couldn't find a 53cm in carbon and red ('05 colors) and didn't like the '06 color schemes. So I went with the '05 carbond and white. For me, the ride of my 555 is almost as good as the 585...and actually perhaps a bit more comfortable on the long rides, but honestly can't say since I haven't ridden his 585 for longer than 30 miles  
For me, it was all about the quality of the ride factoring in the look of the frame...why ride a bike you don't like the color of just because its a bit nicer ride. Cause if you look good, you feel good.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*takes longer to build does not equal better*



sirbikealot said:


> first off they won't go to taiwan because all of their research will be ripped off, thats why they spent $35 million building their own Look plant, unlike Taiwan where you pay another company to build your bikes
> second, their bikes take a minimum of 16 hours to build by hand and up to 55 hours for a 496Tri, this means the bikes still cost a lot to build, the average Giant carbon is closer to 2 or 3 hours,
> Third, their reason for tunisia is that they could build their own factory in a country that is a french colony and allows for easy trade and commerce, it is also less than 1 hr by plane from their headquarters in france
> 
> so its not a snob factor, the bikes take more time and resources to build and therefore ride better and the end result is they cost more than a basic giant


ok, I'll bite 8^)

so you think Tunisia is safer from industrial theft than Taiwan? Interesting but I really doubt it. Look built in Tunisia because it is ex-French colony so relatively easy to set-up there and they probably got a huge tax write-off too (politics of support of 3-rd world) but mainly, because it saves them bucketload of money, going forward, compared to French built frame. This is about maximising their own profits, not about higher quality to customer. 

if Look takes longer to build a road frame than a Giant or anyone else does then it is 100% Look's own problem. Currently they can afford to get away with it due to relative Euro-frame snob factor but just as with Japanese versus Euro cars this will not last long... The customer does not give a rat's behind how long it takes Look to build a bike. And it does not automatically equate to a better bike either. I have worked with many (in IT) that took a long time to do a given task. This was mainly due to their level of skills and lack of talent and almost always meant lower quality. We are not talking rocket science here, folks, we are talking bicycles even if carbon is involved.

And for the record - I really like Look bikes! But I accept that I have to pay a premium to get one. I don't try to justify it.


----------



## sirbikealot (Apr 8, 2005)

touche, i meant former colony
regardless they still have trade and tax breaks


----------

