# Look 595 sizing M or L at 5'11"?



## mikeyp123

I'm just about to pull the trigger on a white 595, but am torn between the M and L sizes. 

I currently ride a Cannondale in a size 54 with a 120 stem, I'm 5'11" and have long legs and arms, I probably would've fit the next size up.. which is pretty close to the large 595.

The twist in all this is that an LBS employee told me the 595 runs a little big, he is 6' and rides a medium. 

For you 595 owners, how tall are you and what size do you ride?

thanks!
michael


----------



## vclune

I have a Large 595 and I am 5'10" . I do not have long arms and I do not have long legs. The large size is basically a 56cm frame and is perfect size for me. My wife rides a Look 54cm and I would not be happy with that size frame and I have ridden it some when tuning it up.

Rather then tell a complete stranger what he should or should not be riding I thought I would just share what I have found works for me.

Now order the Large frame and get on with it already. You will love the bike.


----------



## awiner

I'm 5'10" and ride a Medium 595.... The stand over height on the Medium fit me better than the Large. For what it is worth, my legs are probably on the shorter size of normal for a 5'10" male.


----------



## Adjudic8r

Before you drop all that money on such a nice frame, have you thought about investing in a professional fitting? I mean one that takes at least 90 minutes. It was well worth the price or me. I was eying a number of different frames. I'm 5' 11" and found that the 586 Large geometry fit me perfectly. I believe that the 595 has the same geometry. But fit isn't always about height, and your body type (arms, legs, torso) might be different.


----------



## lookrider

I'm 5' 9 1/2" with an 85 cm inseam and I'm riding a kg 381 55cm. I feel it's slightly too big for me, but I also wear an 11 1/2 to 12 shoe and have some toe overlap on the 55 cm bike which is almost the same as a large. I think I would be a size medium with a little more toe overlap than on my current bike. I also have a 73.5 bb to saddle top distance. You might have too short of a head tube on the medium also, depending on your flexibility. If you're not flexible that would mean more spacers..

If I were you I'd lean towards the large but I also would try to get a test ride. As I was writing this I realize you have a lot to consider before dropping 4 or 5 grand on a bike or 3 on a frame...


----------



## mikeyp123

I've got an inseam of 84cm, so maybe my legs aren't so long for my height. My flexibility is pretty good, I have 2cm of spacers on my 54cm Cannondale.. going with a large 595 should mostly eliminate the spacers.

Thanks for the replies, I'm definitely leaning towards the large.


----------



## nrspeed

Adjudic8r said:


> Before you drop all that money on such a nice frame, have you thought about investing in a professional fitting? I mean one that takes at least 90 minutes. It was well worth the price or me. .


Adjudic8r speaks the truth. 

If you already know your setback, drop and reach, its easy to go to bikecad online and plug in different frame dimensions, stems, spacers to compare frames. 
http://www.bikeforest.com/CAD/bcad.php


----------



## C-40

*thoughts...*

You don't size a bike based only on your height. It's simple to compare the geometry of your bike to the LOOK. To make an accurate comparison, you need to post the model and year of the C'dale, or it's specific dimensions, particularly the head tube length, including the headset and spacers. Also relevant would be an acutal saddle height.

If the 54cm C'dale is a good fit, then the obvious answer is the size M 595. The frame reach is nearly identical. The head tube may be a little shorter. The HTL on the medium 595 is 148mm, plus 15mm for the headset top section, for a total of 163mm. Up to 3cm of spacer can be added to that.


----------



## mikeyp123

Right.. I did compare the frame dimensions. The reason I'm leaning towards the large is because I run a 120mm stem on the Cannondale, have lots of seatpost showing and use 2cm of spacers. If I go with the large LOOK I'll probably go to a 110 or 100mm stem, lose some seatpost (you know what I mean), and lose about 15mm of spacers.

The difference between the reach on the M and L 595 is 15mm.. I can compensate either way with the stem, I seem to fall right between the the two sizes. Standover isn't an issue with the 595. The only variable I haven't been able to account for is the saddle fore-aft position relative to the BB and how it would impact the reach.


----------



## BPFlood

*Look 595 Sizing*

For what it's worth, I'm 5' 10.5" and will pick up my Medium 595 (white team edition) this Friday. I just traded up from a Look 585 Medium and the fit was perfect. I find that the large frame is too much of a stretch for my torso, while the Medium gives me a real sense of control and athleticism on the bike. Downhill descents on the 585 were like riding on rails and I expect more of the same on the 595. It's a sick build with Reynolds Attack wheels (thanks, honey), Reynolds carbon bar, Giant Carbon stem and Dura-Ace 10 with Pulsion Cranks and Keo Ti pedals. Unfortunately, I've bought my way out of excuses. Still deciding between Selle Italia Gel Flow and SLR saddles.


----------



## unagidon

BPFlood said:


> For what it's worth, I'm 5' 10.5" and will pick up my Medium 595 (white team edition) this Friday. I just traded up from a Look 585 Medium and the fit was perfect. I find that the large frame is too much of a stretch for my torso, while the Medium gives me a real sense of control and athleticism on the bike. Downhill descents on the 585 were like riding on rails and I expect more of the same on the 595. It's a sick build with Reynolds Attack wheels (thanks, honey), Reynolds carbon bar, Giant Carbon stem and Dura-Ace 10 with Pulsion Cranks and Keo Ti pedals. Unfortunately, I've bought my way out of excuses. Still deciding between Selle Italia Gel Flow and SLR saddles.


Just curious, how different is the 585 vs. the 595?


----------



## toonraid

For fitting purposes here are 3 dimensions that really count on a frame - the virtual TT length, the HT height and the seat angle. The TT is determined by how stretched you want to be on the bike given your torso. The HT by how low you scoop and the seat angle by where you like your knee to be in relation to pedals.

Might be a good idea to confirm the virtual TT length on currnt ride as well as HT height and saddle to bar drop so that we get the full picture.


----------



## elcuevo

Get fitted properly by a certified professional. It`s money well spent, and usually included w the price of the bike or frame purchase.
A proper fitting is quite involved and several body measurements required, even more important than just height. ( Torso, inseam, arm length, shoulder width, saddle setback and width, reach, leg and cleat position, among others) You`ll also have to answer a few questions and let the fitter see you on the bike and in position. All those things are in direct relation to the bikes geometry for you to get the full benefit of your new machine, and help you pick the right parts.:idea: 
Power, speed and comfort among others will let you enjoy your bike alot more. There`s nothing like a personal fit done properly. You may be OK
with how your setup is now or just use to it, but how do you really know
how much better it and you could be. Get fitted. You won`t regret it.
You`re dropping a pretty penny there. Drop them wisely and pimp your ride. Enjoy, hope I helped.:thumbsup:


----------



## C-40

*thoughts..*

You haven't mentioned the stem angle, but I'd rather have a 120mm stem and 2cm of steering tube spacers than a stubby 100mm stem. These bikes should be setup as racing bikes, not touring/recreational models.

If your C'dale has a 73.5 degree STA, then the steeper 73.75 STA on the LOOK adds another 2-3mm to the reach. The 100mm stem would be likely with the large, unless you can tolerate more reach or change to a shorter reach handlebar.


----------



## Originalyappa

C-40 said:


> You haven't mentioned the stem angle, but I'd rather have a 120mm stem and 2cm of steering tube spacers than a stubby 100mm stem. These bikes should be setup as racing bikes, not touring/recreational models.
> 
> If your C'dale has a 73.5 degree STA, then the steeper 73.75 STA on the LOOK adds another 2-3mm to the reach. The 100mm stem would be likely with the large, unless you can tolerate more reach or change to a shorter reach handlebar.



Could someone explain to me the basics of STA? How is it measured and how does it affect the fit of bicycle to the rider?


----------



## C-40

*info..*



Originalyappa said:


> Could someone explain to me the basics of STA? How is it measured and how does it affect the fit of bicycle to the rider?


Nearly all frame brands have an illustration showing how the STA is measured. It's measured from a horizontal reference line.

By itself, the STA only dictates the amount of seatpost offest required for a rider to achieve a given saddle position. For me, an STA in the 74-74.5 degree range works with a seatpost setback of 20-25mm. I have owned older LOOK frames with a 72.5 degree STA and used a nonsetback post to produce the same saddle position.

If you're comparing two frames with different STAs, add 8-10mm per degree to the TT length of the frame with the steeper (numerically larger) STA to get a comparable frame reach.


----------



## BPFlood

*585 vs. 595*

Both bikes are incredible and you can't go wrong. The 595 is a tad stiffer but just as comfortable. The 595 is also pricier, but has a high cool factor. And look at all that money you'll save on a seat post. : ) Way more bike than I need or deserve, but I'm sure I'll savor every pedal stroke.

In terms of fit, the two previous posts offer excellent advice. I had a thorough fitting at ATA Cyclel in Concord, MA and they did an excellent job. The virtual top-tune is 54.5, which is perfect for me with a 110 stem. I like to feel comfortable, with a relaxed elbow bend, not too stretched out. Definitely worth investing in a fit session.


----------



## toonraid

STA – In absolute terms seat tube angle determines your saddle position in relation to BB, the more laid back the angle (the lower the number i.e. 72) the further you’d be from the BB and the steeper the angle (the higher the number i.e. 74) the closer you’ll be sitting to the BB. The differences are of course small – let’s say you normally set your saddle 800 mm above centre of BB, a STA of 72 would mean your saddle will be sitting 247.2 mm from BB (horizontal measurement), and if the STA was 74 your saddle would be 220.5 mm away from the BB (horizontal measurement). So the difference would be something like 26.7 mm which is a tad over an inch.

Now if you suffer from knee pain or are a KOPS (Knee over pedals) believer then that extra inch might come in handy if you have an inproportionate femur coz your cranks will only give you +/- 2.5 mm of play. Others talk about effects of STA on TT but that is dependant on other factors such as HTA (head tube angle) and besides the modern way of thinking in term of frame size is choosing a frame based on TT length. So once you decide the size of TT length - say 55, you look at frames with the correct STA for your femur or indeed cycling style, some like their knee to be 20 mm behind pedal axis while others go the opposite way.

In real life you don’t get that much of a difference coz for a given frame size 95% of manufacturers have their STA’s set to within +/- 0.5 degrees of each other translating to +/- 6.7 mm! But your saddle rails give you atleast +/- 30 mm fore/aft adjustment so clearly that 6.7 mm should not matter for most unless you are in either end of the average pool.

I am going to stick my neck out and say fitting sessions are not always good – there are so many different opinions out there on “proper fit” that more than likely you will end up with different suggestions depending on who you go to, besides a fitting frame is static and can not compare to a riding miles and miles over varied terrain with power. But it’s a good starting point if you are clueless about frame geometry and its relevance to your own body and proportions.


----------



## C-40

*a little jumbled...*

Some of your points are accurate, but not all. What you've explained is how a change in the STA moves the seatrail clamp location, but not how it affects the fit.

If you just pick a TT length and ignore the STA, you won't get the fit that you want. You should always consider the effect of the STA on the frame's reach. 

For example, lets say you want a 55cm TT, so you find two frames offering the length but one has a 73 degree STA and the other has a 74. With the saddle in the same position, relative to the BB, the first frame will require about a 10mm longer stem than the second one to produce the same reach to the handlebars.

Your choice of seapost offest can make up for a fairly large range in the STA. That's one reason LOOK has posts with variable setback, covering a 3cm range. If the STA is steeper than you want, just move the clamp back.


----------



## Gino'61

I am 5' 8'' and ride a size M with a 110 mm stem.

Guys your height in our group are mostly on larger size frames, especially the ones with long arms and legs.

For me, the 110 stem has always worked great and I like it better than the longer ones.


----------



## toonraid

*C-40 ............ Exactly!*

And thats what a stem is for - to adjust your reach! and you do get quite a range to choose from, 90 - 130 that's a +/- 20mm adjustment which will more than make up for any reach effects by STA and that together with saddle clamp position which provides +/- 30 mm as well as type of seatpost which can provide from 0 to - 30mm adjustment gives you plenty of adjustment room in horizontal plain. Let's not forget type of saddle which can make a big difference too - a fizik arione has its widest part approx. 20 mm further forward than a Selle Italia Flite meaning that you will be sitting 20 mm further forward than the alternative saddle and no one even looks at that during a fitting session! Besides I never said ignore the STA I just don't think it matters that much if you are of average proportions and given the fact that most manufacturers make their frames to within +/- 0.5 deg of each other. To me it matters a lot coz I am not - at 6'4 I have an inseam/height ratio of 45% compared to average of 47% resulting in shorter femur and that on top of busted knees mean that I have to have my saddle way up front and use 170 cranks to keep my knees happy on fast, long or steep rides. Don't forget the effects of STA are amplified with size so given my inseam of 88 cm my saddle would be sitting around 22 mm further back than someone with an inseam of 80 mm with a STA of 73.5

However one point that is always ommited is the effect all this adjustment and positioning have on the overall balance of the bike. You can pretty much fit any average able cyclist on any bike with a size up or down frame by using what's available in terms of stem length/angle, spacers, type of seatpost & saddle, saddle fore/aft position etc but what's important is the change in centre of gravity & relative knee to pedal position which will ultimately effect the handling of the bike as well as max power generation - for example you can position yourself on a given frame with a laidback seatpost and a 100mm stem or you can use a standard seatpost and a 130 mm stem, both offering the same reach but there would be a different center of gravity for each position and I bet there will be a difference in max power generated too ... that's 2 very important ommisions from a fitting session and one that can only be achieved through understanding & applying the principals over cycling time.



C-40 said:


> Some of your points are accurate, but not all. What you've explained is how a change in the STA moves the seatrail clamp location, but not how it affects the fit.
> 
> If you just pick a TT length and ignore the STA, you won't get the fit that you want. You should always consider the effect of the STA on the frame's reach.
> 
> For example, lets say you want a 55cm TT, so you find two frames offering the length but one has a 73 degree STA and the other has a 74. With the saddle in the same position, relative to the BB, the first frame will require about a 10mm longer stem than the second one to produce the same reach to the handlebars.
> 
> Your choice of seapost offest can make up for a fairly large range in the STA. That's one reason LOOK has posts with variable setback, covering a 3cm range. If the STA is steeper than you want, just move the clamp back.


----------



## C-40

*don't agree..*

A fitting session has to be done with same saddle that the rider intends to use or it's worthless. If a rider decides to change the brand or model of saddle, he must take a knee over pedal measurement before and after the change to determine the change to his fore/aft position.

Most fitter's also believe that there is a proper position for the knee relative to the pedal and at least start with the knee over the pedal spindle. Experienced riders may know that they want the knee in some other position that's slightly more forward or back. In my case, I want the my knee back about 1cm.

A good fitter would also check the bike's weight balance.

My main point is that there are combinations of STA and TT length that are easily shown to produce the same fit. These combinations are affected by frame size, but NOT saddle height. Saddle height affects the seat rail clamp location and choice of seatpost offset, but does not change the relationship between the STA and TT length.

The reach of a frame is defined as the TT length minus the frame setback and setback is the c-c frame size times the cosine of the STA. There is NO saddle height in this equation. Frame reach is what determines the required stem length. In the small 51cm frame size that I ride, the change to the reach from 1 degree of STA is about 8.5mm per degree. For a large 61cm frame it would be 10mm per degree. That's not much difference, so most people just use the round figure of 1cm per degree.

If I want a frame that fits the same as my current one with a 74.5 degree STA and 52.5cm TT, I look for some combination of TT and STA that produces about the same reach, so I can use my preferred 110mm or a longer stem. I would NEVER buy a frame that required me to use a 90-100mm stem to make it fit, although there are plenty of them made. If a frame had a slack 72.5 STA (like older LOOKs) it would need to have about a 54.2cm TT to fit the same. It's not coincidental that a old LOOK KG381 with a 72.5 STA also has a 54cm TT. It produces a nearly identical fit to the new models.


----------



## toonraid

Don't agree with what?


----------



## toonraid

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with so here is the summary of what I said, just let me know which one is incorrect and why?

1 - 90% of frames are made with a STA of +/- 0.5 degrees.
2 - Fitting frames are static and do not measure dynamic balance or power.
3 - You have 100 mm of horizontal aft adjustment through seatpost, saddle, saddle rails, stem.
4 - You have 70 mm of horizontal forward adjustment through same components as above.
5 - Majority of LBS fitters really dig all this trigonometry and know how each mm and degree of angle effect the bike handling and fit and do not use a $300 licensend computer software to tap in your dimensions for the magic result.


----------



## C-40

*response...*



toonraid said:


> I don't understand what you are disagreeing with so here is the summary of what I said, just let me know which one is incorrect and why?
> 
> 1 - 90% of frames are made with a STA of +/- 0.5 degrees.
> 2 - Fitting frames are static and do not measure dynamic balance or power.
> 3 - You have 100 mm of horizontal aft adjustment through seatpost, saddle, saddle rails, stem.
> 4 - You have 70 mm of horizontal forward adjustment through same components as above.
> 5 - Majority of LBS fitters really dig all this trigonometry and know how each mm and degree of angle effect the bike handling and fit and do not use a $300 licensend computer software to tap in your dimensions for the magic result.


Your comments would suggest that just about any frame I can stand over can be made to fit me and you're right, except that a lot of them would look stupid and handle poorly. I don't want a frame with a 130mm long, +17 degree stem or one with a -17 stem that's 80mm long.

1) That's fairly accurate, but I've had 51cm frames with STAs ranging from 72.5 to 74.5. 

2) Fittings are not always done on a fit bike. In fact, I would prefer NOT to be fit on a fit bike. If a customer is interested in a particular frame it's best to get on a built-up bike for a fitting. The front/rear weight balance can then be measured. If a rider is interested in experimenting with the effect of position changes to power output, that can be done on any real bike, using a power tap wheel.

3) & 4) Most riders have a narrow range of saddle fore/aft position that they know works and want to duplicate it. There is a much narrower range available to avoid oddball seatpost setups and overly long or short stems. There's also a big gap between the standard 20-25mm setback posts and straight-up posts that some riders fall into, so proper STA selection then becomes more critical to avoid a saddle shoved all the way forward on a setback post or all the way back on a straight-up post. I want a frame that fits me with either a 110 or 120mm stem with an 80-84 degree angle, not a 90mm or a 140mm, so there's not that much room in stem selection. 

5) I don't need a computer to tell you the difference in the fit of any two frames. The rule of thumb 1cm per degree will predict any difference in stem length required and 1.2cm per degree will give a close enough approximation of the difference in seatpost setback. This isn't rocket science. There's one simple formula for the change in reach or seatpost setback: (cosA-cosB), where A and B are the two STA's. Multipley this times the c-c frame size to get the change in reach or times the saddle height to get the seatpost setback.


----------



## Originalyappa

*Geometry comparison*



C-40 said:


> 5) I don't need a computer to tell you the difference in the fit of any two frames. The rule of thumb 1cm per degree will predict any difference in stem length required and 1.2cm per degree will give a close enough approximation of the difference in seatpost setback. This isn't rocket science.


You say that a 1 deg increase in STA equates approximately to an effective increase of 1cm of TT length.
SO when looking at 595 Geometry the Med has a TT length of 545mm and a STA of 73.75. And the Sm has a TT of 530mm and a STA of 74.5. 
Since the Sm has an increased STA of 0.75more compared to the Med, does this mean the TT length is 'practically' 5-7mm longer, taking it to 535 to 537mm long.


----------



## toonraid

The actual difference is around 12 mm less when calculated by formulae below which shows difference in horizontal plain between two different STAs based on their respective distances from BB at virtual TT plain but of course the real difference is 15 mm in this particular case as the HTA is different on the two sizes you mentioned, Small is 72 deg and Medium is 73 degrees. 


Cos J (where J is STA) x A1 (Virtual seat tube length - ctc)


----------



## toonraid

C-40 said:


> Your comments would suggest that just about any frame I can stand over can be made to fit me and you're right, except that a lot of them would look stupid and handle poorly. I don't want a frame with a 130mm long, +17 degree stem or one with a -17 stem that's 80mm long.
> 
> Yes my point exactly and thats why one shouldn't look at fit two dimentionally.
> 
> 1) That's fairly accurate, but I've had 51cm frames with STAs ranging from 72.5 to 74.5.
> 
> There are always exeptions such as Merckx and that's why I said 90%
> 
> 2) Fittings are not always done on a fit bike. In fact, I would prefer NOT to be fit on a fit bike. If a customer is interested in a particular frame it's best to get on a built-up bike for a fitting. The front/rear weight balance can then be measured. If a rider is interested in experimenting with the effect of position changes to power output, that can be done on any real bike, using a power tap wheel.
> 
> Of course I am talking about MOST lbs's and what they do - not you, I am sure you are more than capable of fitting yourself perfectly and perhaps even better than 95% of fitters out there.
> 
> 3) & 4) Most riders have a narrow range of saddle fore/aft position that they know works and want to duplicate it. There is a much narrower range available to avoid oddball seatpost setups and overly long or short stems. There's also a big gap between the standard 20-25mm setback posts and straight-up posts that some riders fall into, so proper STA selection then becomes more critical to avoid a saddle shoved all the way forward on a setback post or all the way back on a straight-up post. I want a frame that fits me with either a 110 or 120mm stem with an 80-84 degree angle, not a 90mm or a 140mm, so there's not that much room in stem selection.
> 
> Of course if you reduce the stem range from +/- 20 mm to +/- 5mm and the saddle fore/aft from +/- 30 mm to +/- 10 mm then you are taking 55% of the adjustment out of the equation but it still gives you 45% - i.e. 45 mm play room versus a +/- 0.5 deg STA variation which is still enough to offset the horizontal variation due to STA.
> 
> 5) I don't need a computer to tell you the difference in the fit of any two frames. The rule of thumb 1cm per degree will predict any difference in stem length required and 1.2cm per degree will give a close enough approximation of the difference in seatpost setback. This isn't rocket science. There's one simple formula for the change in reach or seatpost setback: (cosA-cosB), where A and B are the two STA's. Multipley this times the c-c frame size to get the change in reach or times the saddle height to get the seatpost setback.


Again you are not the party in question - neither are those expert fitters out there - I am talking about majority of lbs's who have gone and bought a bikefitting or similar system and pay their annual software license fees and have their head stuck in the manual! But you might want to take HTA into consideration when looking at STA variations.

I don't think we differ in our opinion that much - all I am saying is that TT should be the starting point, STA is not a big deal unless your body proportions are not standard - i.e. too tall, too short or inproportionate femur/leg to body length - also please don't get me wrong, I am not talking about your frame geometry knowledge but questioning the average LBS's and the fact that it is important for a cyclist to understand the basics of fit and be aware of their specific requirements and that at the end of the day the best fitting session is out on the road. A fitting session is like going to a doctor - you can get different results depending on who you go to.


----------



## C-40

*yes...*



Originalyappa said:


> You say that a 1 deg increase in STA equates approximately to an effective increase of 1cm of TT length.
> SO when looking at 595 Geometry the Med has a TT length of 545mm and a STA of 73.75. And the Sm has a TT of 530mm and a STA of 74.5.
> Since the Sm has an increased STA of 0.75more compared to the Med, does this mean the TT length is 'practically' 5-7mm longer, taking it to 535 to 537mm long.


What that tells you is that the small would require one size longer stem than the medium. In this case the head tube angle is a full degree different and that would make the reach difference more like 11-12mm. It still comes out to just one stem size longer. The bigger difference is in the head tube length.


----------

