# Scott CR1 and Look 585



## Lt.

I eliminated the Colnago C50 from my list and left with two choices. 

Has anyone compared the Scott CR1 and Look 585? I'm going to look for local dealers but would first like your opinion. 

I'm looking for a bike stiff enough for speed and climbing but nimble enough for quick turns and long rides. I don't plan on racing. I'm looking for an all-around bike for club rides, organized charity events, and just plain' ole get on the saddle and ride type of bike. 

I was leaning toward the 585 but have seen positive comments about the CR1 on this board lately. I'm also not sure which CR1.  

TIA


----------



## Juanmoretime

*Look 585*



Lt. said:


> I eliminated the Colnago C50 from my list and left with two choices.
> 
> Has anyone compared the Scott CR1 and Look 585? I'm going to look for local dealers but would first like your opinion.
> 
> I'm looking for a bike stiff enough for speed and climbing but nimble enough for quick turns and long rides. I don't plan on racing. I'm looking for an all-around bike for club rides, organized charity events, and just plain' ole get on the saddle and ride type of bike.
> 
> I was leaning toward the 585 but have seen positive comments about the CR1 on this board lately. I'm also not sure which CR1.
> 
> TIA


I would go for the Look although that's only because it would fit me better. Both are awesome frames. Go for the one that fits you best.


----------



## Lt.

Thanks. Actually, I need to stop hanging out here. I'm adding the Orbea Opal to my list. I have a 2003 Orbea Starship now.


----------



## C-40

*neither one...*

Seems silly to spend $3,000 on an all around bike, not used for racing. The now-discontiued LOOK 461 or the 555 would be better choices. The 585 has been noted to pretty stiff, since it's the top of line racing frame. 

Personally, I'd spend less on the frame and get at least Chorus level parts.


----------



## elviento

I wouldn't use words like "silly", "ridiculous", etc. in responding to a perfectly legit question. There is nothing wrong with having a light and solid bike with great performance even just for fitness training. $3000 to some people may not mean the same as to others. 




C-40 said:


> Seems silly to spend $3,000 on an all around bike, not used for racing. The now-discontiued LOOK 461 or the 555 would be better choices. The 585 has been noted to pretty stiff, since it's the top of line racing frame.
> 
> Personally, I'd spend less on the frame and get at least Chorus level parts.


----------



## C-40

*this is a free forum...*

I will use those words if I chose. Perhaps now that I'm older and I've owned several top of the line bikes I've realized how little performance benefit you get by moving up from an $1800 frame to $3000 or more. In fact, the top of the line racing frames are often less comfortable, sacrificing ride for a few ounces less weight. 

Then consider that folks paying twice as much for a 1pound lighter bike often carry 10-20 lbs of excess body weight and it becomes more humerous. I truly do think it's funny to see someone with a belly riding a top of the line racing bike.


----------



## divve

Isn't a $3000 frame considered mid-range nowadays?


----------



## elviento

I suppose free forum equals the right to be an ass without regard to common courtesy? 

By owning several top of the line bikes yourself, aren't you quite stupid yourself? 
The guy with the gut may have spent only 2 days' earnings on his bike, while you may have spent months' savings on your bike. Doesn't that make you a bigger idiot?


----------



## elviento

The Look gets my vote. It's less common as the Scott and will likely handle the roads of Brooklyn a bit better... ;-)



Lt. said:


> Thanks. Actually, I need to stop hanging out here. I'm adding the Orbea Opal to my list. I have a 2003 Orbea Starship now.


----------



## C-40

*easily offended???*

If using the word silly is so offensive, you have delicate sensibilities. I've used pretty tame language and now you've fallen below my level. I've NEVER used the words ass or idiot when responding to a question. I'm content knowing that I'm neither. I bought both of my C-40's when they were a lot cheaper than than the C-50 is today and far below retail price. I used each for two years and resold each one for about $1000 less than I paid. Neither was all that expensive to own. Now I have two LOOK frames that cost the same as one new LOOK 585. I might get a 585 someday, but only if I can get a big discount. 

I don't think that considering a mid-level frame is an unreasonable suggestion for the intended use. I'd also be curious why the poster dismissed the C-50. Most would consider it to be more prestigous than either of the others.


----------



## elviento

Me being delicate or you being arrogant, I think it's pretty obvious. Like I said, value judgments are inherently subjective. A working class single parent with 3 kids will have different bike budget than a successful entrepreneur. The lose-one-pound-from-your-gut argument gets very old. If all of us needs to be built up like Rasmuessen before owning a high performance bike, I suspect most RBRers will have to quit the sport.


----------



## divve

$2335 from Europe isn't that bad. That puts it right in the low to mid-range allowing for a 2" gut with a 60mm rake.


----------



## Lt.

Thanks for the replies and I'm sorry if I opened-up an ongoing contentious debate at RBR. 

Elviento... I actually live in Manhattan (near Grand Central) and work in Brooklyn (but born and raised). Hence the choice of my Avatar and the L-line moniker.  

C-40, I didn't really dismiss the C50. I chose to look at other frames from what I've heard from others (here as well as riding friends). 

The choice was between the C50 and the Look 585. But after some of the comments here about the Scott CR1 and also after seeing the Mavic guys at the (cancelled) Tour of Hope ride on Saturday in D.C. I decided to look into the CR1 more. 

I've been riding an Orbea (Starship) and thought I should look into a different brand. But the Opal has really piqued my interest. 

BTW... I believe if you have a passion for something, in this instance, road cycling, and have the means to support your passion, then $ really doesn't matter. However, I also believe spending $ frivously is a waste. I'm looking for value as well as some chi-chi factor. 

I'm 5'11", 185lbs... no gut. Well maybe a "love-handle" (my metabolism at 36 yrs old isn't quite as fast as it was when I was 18).  

Thanks again.


----------



## rensho

Speaking as a new 585 owner, I love the frame. It is loads stiffer than my Bianchi EV2 XL, in all the best ways. The frame is extremely comfortable to ride, and does not have the road vibes of the EV2. The BB is much stiffer. When you press the pedals, you can feel the bike react and power the rear wheel. If you would have told me that prior to me owning it, I would have chalked it up as crazy marketing babble.
I honestly didn't think swtiching frames would be much of a change. Wow I was wrong.

I'm 150lbs so it is not like i'm overpowering the frame. In no way is the frame too stiff for me. I can't believe how comfy it is to ride.

The handling is first rate. I'm definitely above average as a descender, and the bike holds a line very well. My Bianchi was less stable due to flex changing the line. The TCR comp1 that i spent some time on, was smooth, but perhaps too fast in steering. The 585 is fast steering and holds a beautiful line.

Frame 53cm: 1026g
Fork uncut: 292g
HS: 58g
Total package: One light mother. 1376g

My other choice was a Scott CR1. Frankly, those frames are not the best looking things in the world. Light frame, heavy fork. I had not ridden one. Supposedly among the least forgiving full carbon frames? Fast steering.

Good luck with your choice.


----------



## bandoulu

*cR1 ...*

I go with the cr1.
Great frame.


----------



## Max-Q

I have both the C-50 and the CR-1. If you are looking for a comfortable long distance bike and you aren't going to be racing then you should go with the C-50. I can cruise on that bike all day long and it is never uncomfortable. It really handles well and it is very stiff but it is not as quick and responsive as the Scott. 

Either way they are both great bikes and I'm sure you will enjoy any one you choose.


----------



## sirbikealot

they are both nice bikes, most of the reviews i've read state that the 585 is just as stiff yet more compliant than the cr1

i currently ride a 555 but i've been on a 585 and it is a very refined ride


----------



## kevlar1973

Argon18 Gallium it is stiff yet comfortable,very light with a light fork and available with a variety of different build kits.http://veloargon18.com/eng/index.php?section=2&sous_section=2_1a

Cadence in Philly sells them.


----------



## AlexCad5

C40 is right on target in my book. While the weight of the 585 is appealing and was a totally new bike from the ground up, the 555 better suited for the type of riding you are discribing, fast club and charity rides. That frame will get up and go. It is a lighter version of the 381/481 which has been the top of the line racing frame Look has provided to the tour riders. While it is light, it is also more compliant than the 585 key to your description. Plus, you can save some cash too. That was C40's point; he was not saying you were silly. 

The two bikes you are looking at are amoung the stiffest out there on the market. They aren't bikes that I think I would seriously concider, despite thier cool factor. I have a Look 231 which I've breathed new life into with the ultra-stiff DA 10 crankset, but if I were to upgrade the frame, I would definately be looking at the 555.

Test ride whatever you ultimately buy. Don't just buy based on weight and how cool a frame looks hanging on a wall of the bike shop. Have fun bike shopping


----------



## rensho

It would seem that the shaped seat stays on the 585, compared to the straight stays on the 555, would lead to a more compliant ride. While the 585 may be more laterally stiff, it may be more compliant and comfy than the 555. I have not ridden a 555, so no comment there. I have briefly ridden a c40, and the 585 is more comfortable.


----------



## bahueh

*raamuessen isn't built up..*



elviento said:


> Me being delicate or you being arrogant, I think it's pretty obvious. Like I said, value judgments are inherently subjective. A working class single parent with 3 kids will have different bike budget than a successful entrepreneur. The lose-one-pound-from-your-gut argument gets very old. If all of us needs to be built up like Rasmuessen before owning a high performance bike, I suspect most RBRers will have to quit the sport.



he's more built down...he weighs like a 1.38$. 
what's with the 'tude'?


----------



## Cejay

Lt. said:


> I eliminated the Colnago C50 from my list and left with two choices.
> 
> Has anyone compared the Scott CR1 and Look 585? I'm going to look for local dealers but would first like your opinion.
> 
> I'm looking for a bike stiff enough for speed and climbing but nimble enough for quick turns and long rides. I don't plan on racing. I'm looking for an all-around bike for club rides, organized charity events, and just plain' ole get on the saddle and ride type of bike.
> 
> I was leaning toward the 585 but have seen positive comments about the CR1 on this board lately. I'm also not sure which CR1.
> 
> TIA



I have test riden both frames as well as the opal. The best ride was the Scott. Lively and responsive yet foregiving. The downside is the two year warrenty and the non replaceable derailer hanger. The look was the most comfortable ride and while it was stiff and accellerated nicely it lost some of the road feel the scott had. the opal was stiff and gave you the road feel but it was too jarring a ride.


----------



## bedazzle410

Cejay said:


> I have test riden both frames as well as the opal. The best ride was the Scott. Lively and responsive yet foregiving. The downside is the two year warrenty and the non replaceable derailer hanger. The look was the most comfortable ride and while it was stiff and accellerated nicely it lost some of the road feel the scott had. the opal was stiff and gave you the road feel but it was too jarring a ride.


How do you feel the Orca shapes up to the opal.


----------



## Cejay

bedazzle410 said:


> How do you feel the Orca shapes up to the opal.


I have not ridden the orca. A teammate of mine has both and after a month and a half of riding the opal he feels it is stiff to the point of being slightly uncomfortable on rides over 50 miles. He will probably relegate it to climbing and crits.


----------



## Lt.

Thanks for all the input. Bang for the buck, sounds like the 555 is what I should look at for my intended use. I'll try to test ride the 555 and compare it with the CR1 Equipe. Now there is heavy consideration toward the Orbea Opal. At least I've limited my search to three.  

Thanks again.


----------



## Cevan

*Huhh?*



divve said:


> Isn't a $3000 frame considered mid-range nowadays?


Did you mean to say $3000 comoplete bike? I would say a $3000 frame is at the far end of frame prices.


----------



## rocco

Lt. said:


> I eliminated the Colnago C50 from my list and left with two choices.
> 
> Has anyone compared the Scott CR1 and Look 585? I'm going to look for local dealers but would first like your opinion.
> 
> I'm looking for a bike stiff enough for speed and climbing but nimble enough for quick turns and long rides. I don't plan on racing. I'm looking for an all-around bike for club rides, organized charity events, and just plain' ole get on the saddle and ride type of bike.
> 
> I was leaning toward the 585 but have seen positive comments about the CR1 on this board lately. I'm also not sure which CR1.
> 
> TIA


Williamsburg?


----------



## rocco

C-40 said:


> Seems silly to spend $3,000 on an all around bike, not used for racing. The now-discontiued LOOK 461 or the 555 would be better choices. The 585 has been noted to pretty stiff, since it's the top of line racing frame.
> 
> Personally, I'd spend less on the frame and get at least Chorus level parts.


I'd also say your comment about spending $$$$ on an all around bike, not used for racing is awfully judgemental to the point of being silly. IMHO

However, I agree that if I had a limited budget (say $3,000 if we can call that "limited") I would get the Chorus group which is an excellent value and spend $1,300 on the best frame I can buy for that amount. Perhaps a Fondriest Carb Level U107. IMHO


----------



## soulrider

*parlee*

How about a Parlee. It is the bike that is on the top of my wish list. I have yet to read a negative review of there products and nothing is more chi chi than custom carbon. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## colker1

Lt. said:


> I eliminated the Colnago C50 from my list and left with two choices.
> 
> Has anyone compared the Scott CR1 and Look 585? I'm going to look for local dealers but would first like your opinion.
> 
> I'm looking for a bike stiff enough for speed and climbing but nimble enough for quick turns and long rides. I don't plan on racing. I'm looking for an all-around bike for club rides, organized charity events, and just plain' ole get on the saddle and ride type of bike.
> 
> I was leaning toward the 585 but have seen positive comments about the CR1 on this board lately. I'm also not sure which CR1.
> 
> TIA


both too stiff for your intended use.. unless big stares from the crowd is 1/2 the plan. 
those are high speed racing frames. get something else..


----------



## peterpen

Gotta disagree with you - the 585 is not all that stiff. Search some posts by Divve and you'll find some test numbers he's put up. I find mine plenty stiff but it's also more comfortable than my steel Colnago.

OP - Check the geometries - I think the Scott has a big-ish HT. Scott also has a non-replaceable der. hanger. Another factor - Look is distributed by Veltec, who have awesome warranty service. Just to confuse you more, there's also the new Look 565, which has a large carbon weave a la Scott. buy what makes you want to ride...


----------



## rocco

*Stiffness into context*

For your information:



> Aymeric Le Brun: To explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized. While these are indeed important factors, they aren’t the only qualities to look at with respect to a frame. Cyfac considers what we call the “reactivity” of the frame relative to the power of the rider using it.
> 
> Stiff for one person may not be stiff for another. Or, for certain events/distances/types of riding, an overly stiff frame can have a significant performance disadvantage for the rider. This is why we look at 1) the rider-machine as a symbiotic pairing and 2) the performance of the frame relative to the morphological and physical characteristics of the individual using it.
> 
> Sean Kelly rode on the Vitus frames and Laurent Fignon, as well as the entire Gitane Team, rode on Cyfac-built Reynolds series bikes. They were ultra-light for the time and considerably flexible. But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike. In these examples the frames were of the proper stiffness/reactivity for Kelly and Fignon to have such successful performances. However, for a larger/stronger rider these frames may not have been optimal and, conversely, a super light-weight rider may have even found them too stiff!
> 
> We like to look at the example of the pole-vaulter Sergei Bubka who was the only athlete capable of bending the ultra-stiff pole that he used. That was the right piece of equipment for him because he could realize its potential. Other competitors couldn’t even begin to use his equipment; they had to find the right combinations of stiffness/reactivity that were suited to them. The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket).
> 
> Pez: When building up an entire bike, how important is it to match the stiffness of the frame/fork with that of other components (handlebars, stem, seatpost, wheels)? How is that done?
> 
> Aymeric Le Brun: A frame equipped with the wrong wheels or components can see its road manner and power transfer affected negatively. A bike’s manner is the result of the association of the entire ensemble of parts (especially the frame and the wheels).
> A stiff frame (like the Cyfac TIGRE or NERV CARBON) can be further enhanced by the use of rigid wheels (like the Campagnolo EURUS or BORA, or the Mavic COSMIC CARBON) and by the use of full-carbon handlebars (like the ITM KSWORD).
> 
> Alternately, these frames could have a more versatile set-ups with the use of accessories that are less rigid (Mavic KSYRIUM SL2 or CAMPAGNOLO Proton wheels) or non-oversized bars/stems (like the ITM MILLENIUM with a strada-bend bar). Of course, the overall ensemble of frame and parts should be set up to fit the profile of the individual rider, the type of riding, and the desired feel.


----------



## divve

Your forgot the asterisk next to the source Pez*



> A stiff frame (like the Cyfac TIGRE or NERV CARBON) can be further enhanced by the use of rigid wheels (like the Campagnolo EURUS or BORA, or the Mavic COSMIC CARBON)


Stiffness: Eurus
Front: 56 N/mm
Rear: 47 N/mm

Stiffness: Bora
Front: 52.5 N/mm
Rear: 44.1 N/mm

Stiffness: Cosmic Carbone
Front: 58.7 N/mm
Rear: 52.8 N/mm



> Alternately, these frames could have a more versatile set-ups with the use of accessories that are less rigid (Mavic KSYRIUM SL2 or CAMPAGNOLO Proton wheels)


Stiffness: Ksyrium SL2
Front: 65 N/mm
Rear: 44 N/mm

Stiffness: Proton
Front: 52 N/mm
Rear: 41 N/mm


----------



## rocco

divve said:


> Your forgot the asterisk next to the source Pez*
> 
> 
> 
> Stiffness: Eurus
> Front: 56 N/mm
> Rear: 47 N/mm
> 
> Stiffness: Bora
> Front: 52.5 N/mm
> Rear: 44.1 N/mm
> 
> Stiffness: Cosmic Carbone
> Front: 58.7 N/mm
> Rear: 52.8 N/mm
> 
> 
> 
> Stiffness: Ksyrium SL2
> Front: 65 N/mm
> Rear: 44 N/mm
> 
> Stiffness: Proton
> Front: 52 N/mm
> Rear: 41 N/mm



I find it hard to believe Eurus wheels are really stiffer than Bora wheels. That's suspect.

At least people can figure out the source of the information I quoted.


----------



## FTF

rocco said:


> I find it hard to believe Eurus wheels are really stiffer than Bora wheels. That's suspect.
> 
> At least people can figure out the source of the information I quoted.


 It's the tour mag. 


I don't find it suspect at all actually, a lightweight carbon rim, vs. a not so light weight AL rim, both laced the same way, makes sence to me.


----------



## divve

Rocco, I think you should be happy that your Bora wheels have that score. It's incredibly good for such a light wheelset. The below is far more upsetting 

Stiffness: Lightweight Obermayer 20/20 spokes
Front: 73.3 N/mm
Rear: 37.1 N/mm 

Stiffness: Lightweight standard 16/20 spokes
Front: 71.4 N/mm
Rear: 58.1 N/mm 

.....yet...both sets are still stiff enough for most people. I agree stiffness isn't everything. It's a important factor to take into consideration however.


----------



## rocco

FTF said:


> It's the tour mag.
> 
> 
> I don't find it suspect at all actually, a lightweight carbon rim, vs. a not so light weight AL rim, both laced the same way, makes sence to me.


I find it surprising that the Bora wheel are less stiff when they have deep section carbon rims, comparatively shorter spoke lengths, the same hubs and lacing than the Eurus.

I wonder if those are '06 Eurus wheels.




divve said:


> Rocco, I think you should be happy that your Bora wheels have that score. It's incredibly good for such a light wheelset. The below is far more upsetting
> 
> Stiffness: Lightweight Obermayer 20/20 spokes
> Front: 73.3 N/mm
> Rear: 37.1 N/mm
> 
> Stiffness: Lightweight standard 16/20 spokes
> Front: 71.4 N/mm
> Rear: 58.1 N/mm
> 
> .....yet...both sets are still stiff enough for most people. I agree stiffness isn't everything. It's a important factor to take into consideration however.



I agree.

It just seems all too often people simplistically look at frames in terms of weight and stiffness only. I think Aymeric Le Brun was right on target when he said, "To explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized."


----------



## FTF

rocco said:


> I find it surprising that the Bora wheel are less stiff when they have deep section carbon rims, comparatively shorter spoke lengths, the same hubs and lacing than the Eurus.
> 
> I wonder if those are '06 Eurus wheels.


 It seems to me that the lateral stiffness of a tall narrow uberlight rim would be less than a shorter heavier al rim. I believe that they are measuring lateral stiffeness, the side to side deflection. The taller rim might feel stiffer becuase it's less vertically complaint though. My reynolds feel very very stiff, but laterally, they aren't very stiff, and I'm pretty sure it's because of this reason.


----------



## rocco

FTF said:


> It seems to me that the lateral stiffness of a tall narrow uberlight rim would be less than a shorter heavier al rim. I believe that they are measuring lateral stiffeness, the side to side deflection. The taller rim might feel stiffer becuase it's less vertically complaint though. My reynolds feel very very stiff, but laterally, they aren't very stiff, and I'm pretty sure it's because of this reason.



I wonder how Hyperon wheels fit into the picture? I'm under the impression that Bora wheels a stiffer but according to the way you see it wouldn't the Hyperon wheels be stiffer?


----------



## SilasCL

divve said:


> Rocco, I think you should be happy that your Bora wheels have that score. It's incredibly good for such a light wheelset. The below is far more upsetting
> 
> Stiffness: Lightweight Obermayer 20/20 spokes
> Front: 73.3 N/mm
> Rear: 37.1 N/mm
> 
> Stiffness: Lightweight standard 16/20 spokes
> Front: 71.4 N/mm
> Rear: 58.1 N/mm
> 
> .....yet...both sets are still stiff enough for most people. I agree stiffness isn't everything. It's a important factor to take into consideration however.


Divve,

Could you explain what these stiffness measurements are. I'm guessing it's newtons/mm of deflection, but is that laterally or what? Thanks,

Silas


----------



## FTF

rocco said:


> I wonder how Hyperon wheels fit into the picture? I'm under the impression that Bora wheels a stiffer but according to the way you see it wouldn't the Hyperon wheels be stiffer?


 No, they wouldn't... they are both super light, and a box rim, the bora is a superlight deep rim. Re-read what I said. 


The eurus rim isn't by anymeans light, and it's not exactly a box rim, it's like 30mm tall I think. 

The Bora rim is light, very light, and is a tall rim.

I think the fat rim of the eurus is stiffer than the bora rim, simply because of it's weight. Where I think you missunderstand me is where I said that the bora's would FEEL stiffer, becuase of the lack of vertical compliance. 

The hyperon's wouldn't be stiffer, not possible, I don't think you could even use G3 spoking on them, atleast I wouldn't want to try.


I think the eurus rim is around 450-490 grams, not a light rim.


----------



## rocco

FTF said:


> No, they wouldn't... they are both super light, and a box rim, the bora is a superlight deep rim. Re-read what I said.
> 
> 
> The eurus rim isn't by anymeans light, and it's not exactly a box rim, it's like 30mm tall I think.
> 
> The Bora rim is light, very light, and is a tall rim.
> 
> I think the fat rim of the eurus is stiffer than the bora rim, simply because of it's weight. Where I think you missunderstand me is where I said that the bora's would FEEL stiffer, becuase of the lack of vertical compliance.
> 
> The hyperon's wouldn't be stiffer, not possible, I don't think you could even use G3 spoking on them, atleast I wouldn't want to try.
> 
> 
> I think the eurus rim is around 450-490 grams, not a light rim.


I understand you regarding the feel and vertical compliance 100%.

I understand the difference in rim sections. 
Bora: 50mm deep 
Eurus: 24mm front and 28mm back 
Hyperon: low-profile box

The weight of a rim doesn't directly correlate with how stiff it is laterally or vertically.

It depends on the section of the rim and as it relates the materials to make that section. 
A deep section carbon rim or any carbon rim for that matter could be made stiffer if more carbon were used to make it or in other words if the wall thicknesses were greater. Of course yes it would then weigh more.

If the comparatively short spoke lengths on the Bora don't make it a laterally stiffer wheel than a Eurus wheel then yes the Eurus wheel must have a much stiffer rim.

Yep.. the more I think about it the clearer it is why the Bora is less laterally stiff.


----------



## divve

SilasCL said:


> Divve,
> 
> Could you explain what these stiffness measurements are. I'm guessing it's newtons/mm of deflection, but is that laterally or what? Thanks,
> 
> Silas


That's correct. The lateral deflection is measured on a rim section between two spokes.

Rocco,

Stiffness: Hyperon
Front: 57.9 N/mm
Rear: 47.4 N/mm 

The rim and hub geometry of course have an effect on wheel stiffness. However, the spoke type and amount has a considerably greater effect. For instance a regular OP 32-h build with DT Comp spokes is as stiff as the standard Lightweight wheels.


----------



## moose8500

Are rear wheels so notably less stiff (especially the lightweights) because of dish issues??? The lightweight rear is actually not stiff at all, I would imagine that isn't so great as that's where the bulk of the weight goes...


----------



## rocco

moose8500 said:


> Are rear wheels so notably less stiff (especially the lightweights) because of dish issues??? The lightweight rear is actually not stiff at all, I would imagine that isn't so great as that's where the bulk of the weight goes...


They worked well for Mario Cipollini, Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong so perhaps it's not as big a problem as one might think.


----------



## moose8500

Right, I'm not saying that those are bad numbers, just that they are notably below the other ones that people are arguing about and comparing, yet they are among the top wheels out there and I've always heard about their stiffness, maybe they are actually very vertically stiff, because of the deep rim... Divve, do you have numbers for a reynolds dv ul, my all-time lust wheelset....


----------



## rocco

moose8500 said:


> Right, I'm not saying that those are bad numbers, just that they are notably below the other ones that people are arguing about and comparing, yet they are among the top wheels out there and I've always heard about their stiffness, maybe they are actually very vertically stiff, because of the deep rim... Divve, do you have numbers for a reynolds dv ul, my all-time lust wheelset....


Exactly... Some like to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Oh... by the way, Lightweight makes low profile wheels for those now too.


----------



## divve

I don't have any numbers for the Reynolds wheels as they aren't distributed in Germany. The Lightweight wheels are stiff enough for sprinting, but the rear Obermayer not optimally suited for that purpose. Note that the latter is only a 1065g wheelset and has a rider weight limit of 176lbs.


----------



## FTF

rocco said:


> I understand you regarding the feel and vertical compliance 100%.
> 
> I understand the difference in rim sections.
> Bora: 50mm deep
> Eurus: 24mm front and 28mm back
> Hyperon: low-profile box
> 
> The weight of a rim doesn't directly correlate with how stiff it is laterally or vertically.
> 
> It depends on the section of the rim and as it relates the materials to make that section.
> A deep section carbon rim or any carbon rim for that matter could be made stiffer if more carbon were used to make it or in other words if the wall thicknesses were greater. Of course yes it would then weigh more.
> 
> If the comparatively short spoke lengths on the Bora don't make it a laterally stiffer wheel than a Eurus wheel then yes the Eurus wheel must have a much stiffer rim.
> 
> Yep.. the more I think about it the clearer it is why the Bora is less laterally stiff.


 Well obviously the eurus must have a much more laterally stiff rim, how else would you explain it? 

Also you say that weight dosen't directly correlate to stiffness, well it's a whole hell of alot easier to make a stiff heavy rim that a light stiff one, and considering that the same campy engineers probably designed both, and the same amount of expertise went in to both, it's also probably safe to assume that given the latitude to use more material, that they could design a much stiffer rim. 

It's easy to make a 4lb frame stiff, but hard to make a 2lb frame stiff. Do those weights directly correlate to stiffness, no, but is it much easier to make something stiff as a board when you have allot more options, yeah, yeah it is.


----------



## divve

The Eurus tested were the standard black '05 version.


----------



## moose8500

Does anybody have ANY stiffness numbers for reynolds wheels: DV's, Cirro's, whatever? Its not a number I want to influence if I buy them or not, rather that I just want to know how these babies stack up against others?


----------

