# Look 585 Again!



## Scotland Boy (Nov 11, 2004)

Hello, hello
I have a Look 481SL at the moment, size 56c/c. I am very pleased with it indeed. A very comfortable frame. Unfortunately I have fallen foul to the differing geometry TT length etc. even with a very short stem. So, I was planning to sell my frame and buy a new 481SL at the correct size. Expensive experiment I know but I did get my frame very cheap in the first place. While on the web site looking for the correct frame size, I saw the new Look 585 and I instantly fell in love and I now fancy getting that instead. Someone said the new 585 is the same as the 481SL but lighter and stiffer. I do a lot of road racing and was wondering whether the 585 would be too stiff for spending hours on the bike hitting pot holes, foxes, badgers and the like. I know some of you guys on here have got or are getting one. Thank you Francois for your recent review. Any more information, reviews or pics? I don't want to waste any more dosh!


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*side question...*

SB, don't want to hijack your thread but exactly what was your problem with the 'differing geometry TT length'? I'm thinking of getting a 481SL myself and don't want to make a similar mistake.
thanks!


----------



## Scotland Boy (Nov 11, 2004)

peterpen said:


> SB, don't want to hijack your thread but exactly what was your problem with the 'differing geometry TT length'? I'm thinking of getting a 481SL myself and don't want to make a similar mistake.
> thanks!


Well, the measurement you need to base your frame size on is the top tube (TT) length. I don't know why manufacturers still measure the seat tube.
To answer your question, some manufacturers size their frames on the measurement from centre of bottom bracket (BB) to the TOP of the top tube - like Trek and Colnago. Look measure there frames from centre of BB to CENTRE of TT. This was my first mistake. The frame I have is 2cm too high due to this. Also, the 481SL has a relaxed seat tube angle which makes the TT longer than 'standard' geometry. This was where I made my second mistake. All I can say is look on the web site at the geometry table and try to measure your existing bike (if you have one) to get the right one. Your size isn't 56 c/c is it?!!!!!!!


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*sorry*

but I'm looking for a 53c-c.  
Got you on all the differing sizing methods - I currently ride what Colnago calls a 56, but with a 55cm TT the Look 53 comes closest. Luckily for me, there's a distributor demo day close to me this weekend, so I can double check the fit before I order. Have to sort out how the slacker ST affects handling, KOPS, etc etc.
Also, need to make sure I like the ride, but so far I've heard mostly good things. One guy said it was 'noodly' in a sprint, and at 180 lbs. I'll have to make sure it isn't too flexy.

Check with your local Look dealer - seems like the distributor is making the rounds for demos right now.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

peterpen said:


> but I'm looking for a 53c-c.
> Got you on all the differing sizing methods - I currently ride what Colnago calls a 56, but with a 55cm TT the Look 53 comes closest. Luckily for me, there's a distributor demo day close to me this weekend, so I can double check the fit before I order. Have to sort out how the slacker ST affects handling, KOPS, etc etc.
> Also, need to make sure I like the ride, but so far I've heard mostly good things. One guy said it was 'noodly' in a sprint, and at 180 lbs. I'll have to make sure it isn't too flexy.
> 
> Check with your local Look dealer - seems like the distributor is making the rounds for demos right now.


My experience with the slack geometry is you set up your saddle(more forward) with the same KNOP as a "standard" frame and it gives you a shorter effective top tube...

I currently own 3 LOOK's and have owned numerous others and the slack geometry doesn't effect fit at all if the bike is set up properly.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*hmmm...*



Dave Hickey said:


> My experience with the slack geometry is you set up your saddle(more forward) with the same KNOP as a "standard" frame and it gives you a shorter effective top tube...


Therein lies the rub - do I stick with the conventional wisdom of KOP or head in the direction advocated by some other, inlcuding Keith Bontrager? (check http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html for an old article he wrote on the subject.) Before I order the frame, I'm having another professional fit done on my current ride and want to experiment a bit with some slight changes, b/c I feel like I need to scoot off the back of my saddle to get full power. It may end up that I need to go with a 54c-c Look (again, provided I like the ride) although my current ride has a 130mm stem so I probably could make up some difference there.

Dave, sounds like you've had plenty of experience with your Looks - what length stem do you typically use?

And Scotland Boy, sorry for steering this away from the OP. Now that I notice where you are located, who knows what distributors are doing re: demos over there. If I have time, I'll try and throw my leg over a 585 at the demo this weekend and give you a shout. Don't think anybody has had one long enough for anything more than that.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm 5'7" and ride a 51cm LOOK. My 381i has a 10cm stem with a 54cm(53.8??) TT...


----------



## Scotland Boy (Nov 11, 2004)

*Look 585*

Thanks Peterpen. Will tune in next week to see if you got your leg over! Wahay!


----------



## flyingscot (Jul 17, 2004)

SB
As a fellow scotsman, I thought I would pipe in
Do you know C+ did a review of the 585 this month?

I also had a quick 15 min ride of one. It felt very light and comfortable
Certainly it had a quicker initial pop than my Dogma, but did not feel as stiff
It certainly felt lighter!

However it was exceptionally comfortable as I stated, and felt the sort of bike you could ride for hours
It also looks beautiful and very well put together

GO AND BUY IT !


----------



## Scotland Boy (Nov 11, 2004)

flyingscot said:


> SB
> As a fellow scotsman, I thought I would pipe in
> Do you know C+ did a review of the 585 this month?
> 
> ...


Cheers mate. Mon the Scots!
I did read that test in C+ which is how I know it is stiffer than my 481SL. Maybe thats a good thing in a sprint. I think I will buy it. I just need to sell my 481SL first. Hopefully this will be the best Christmas ever!


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*Brief 585 test ride impression*

ok, got to ride a 585 for 20 minutes today after 40 minutes on an 04 KG481SL (f**kers didn't have 05 481's, just 555 and 585.) so...

the 585 is VERY, VERY nice! Light, smooth, and rigid - I could not get it to flex noticeably, even jumping from 5mph in 53x14. Though the seat stays join in a wishbone, the plug in the seat lug is oval and almost as wide as the seat tube. Took it up some 10%+ steeps and it climbed like a dream, with no wasted movement. Quick and smooth on the downhills, with very little noise coming through hands or bum (carbon post, stem, and bars.) Hard to imagine what they could improve, and racers or others who place a premium on weight and stiffness will love it to death.

For my needs, I think I will be going with an 05 481, even though the 585 is tempting. The 585 is markedly stiffer in the rear triangle not only laterally, but also vertically. It is by no means harsh, but square edge bumps and potholes come through the frame loud and clear when compared to the 481. As I've had two lower back surgeries, I think the vertical compliance of the 481 is worth the loss in efficiency. My average rides are well over 3 hours and 50 miles, all on poor roads and while I'd love the 585 going up some of the hills, I suspect I'd be a bit more sore afterwards.

Scotland Boy - if you don't have back issues, go and get yourself a 585. It's only $300 more for the frameset and when you get the post you can get a USE Alien, saving 70 gm. off the Ergopost (which looks kinda funky anyway.) Have fun - I think you'll dig it.

Incidentally, the 585 had a Look crank on it. Looked dope and seemed stiffer than my FSA compact carbon, but I'm sure the differing BB's played a role as well.


----------



## Scotland Boy (Nov 11, 2004)

peterpen said:


> ok, got to ride a 585 for 20 minutes today after 40 minutes on an 04 KG481SL (f**kers didn't have 05 481's, just 555 and 585.) so...


Thanks for the great review Peterpen.  . That settles it.

I hope you had enough time on the 481SL. I must say I am more than happy with mine, except the size. This is what started all this off. I don't think there are any differences between the '04 and '05 481SL's other than the '05 version has the new lighter HSC 5 SL fork. Oh, and there are new paint jobs.

Happy riding on the 481SL when you buy.


----------



## c-record (Mar 18, 2004)

*Same wheels?*

Hi,

Thanks for the good info on the 585 and 481sl. Where the wheels/parts identical on the two bikes? I'd like to know frame differences instead of wheel differences. I've ridden a 381i and liked how it felt but the 585 just looks awesome.

Thanks.




peterpen said:


> ok, got to ride a 585 for 20 minutes today after 40 minutes on an 04 KG481SL (f**kers didn't have 05 481's, just 555 and 585.) so...
> 
> the 585 is VERY, VERY nice! Light, smooth, and rigid - I could not get it to flex noticeably, even jumping from 5mph in 53x14. Though the seat stays join in a wishbone, the plug in the seat lug is oval and almost as wide as the seat tube. Took it up some 10%+ steeps and it climbed like a dream, with no wasted movement. Quick and smooth on the downhills, with very little noise coming through hands or bum (carbon post, stem, and bars.) Hard to imagine what they could improve, and racers or others who place a premium on weight and stiffness will love it to death.
> 
> ...


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*re: setup*

Nope, they had different set-ups: the 481 had Open Pro/3x/ Dura Ace while the 585 had Velomax Ascent II's. Though they're different, I wouldn't be that surprised if their stiffness was comparable, b/c the Ascent II's are supposed to be lightweight climbing wheels. It's not like it was 3x Open Pro vs. Ksyrium's - I made that switch a while back and was astounded at how stiff the Ksyriums felt at first.

They both had the same Ergopost 2, but different seats - think it was a SLR gel Flow w/coutout on the 481 and a Fizik Arione on the 585. The Fizik had a nice bit of flex to it.
Another factor to differing stiffnes would be the size and relative fit: the 55 cm 481 was too big for me while the 53cm 585 fit almost perfectly. The smaller frame (paired with the switch from traditional geometry to compact) would result in a stiffer frame.

To be honest, I now find myself wavering between the two, even though I think the 481 is best suited for my needs and even like it's colourways better: the 585 is pretty sweet, and it's always nice to have the top of the line.


----------

