# Look 585 vs 595



## sweet frames

Has anyone got experience riding both these bikes, to give us a feel for the difference.
I spoke to somone at factory in France, and they said comfort would be similar, but of course 595 is higher performance coming from greater lateral stiffness etc.

Their conclusion was the 585 is easier to ride, and it does not ask as much in the way of power from the rider. 595 will demand more from the rider, to really make the bike perform

Anyhow, would love to have some actual experiences from our little community here.
585 sure has great reviews, hi performance and comfort, and I'm thinking that if 595 is more a higher performance race bike, I am probably better off with 585.


----------



## jimbonnet

I have had both....

The 585 is nice as is the 595. The 595 to me seems like a smoother ride. I dont know why.. The 595 seems to accelerate faster. With the same parts my 595 is lighter than the 585 was. It is way stiffer in the bottom bracket.

You cant go wrong with either frame. I like the look of the ISP on the 595. I like the stifness and i like how it climbs.

jim


----------



## sweet frames

Jim
If you don't mind my asking, how old are you, and how much do you weigh ?
Do you do a lot of riding ?
It's funny, because I tried looking at specs, and they don't seem to show the 595 as any lighter, once you add the seat stem onto the 585 to get apples to apples.
Also, have you got same wheels on each bike. Of course that can make a huge difference regarding feel of the frame.


----------



## jimbonnet

Im 37, 158 lbs. size large frame. riding about 9000 miles per year. same wheels. the bike is lighter than my 585 by a tad bit.. probably because I had a slightly heavy post.


----------



## sweet frames

*585 vs 595*

9000 miles !! That's unbelievable... you must sleep on your bike.

So, if I get you, they are both great bikes, and the difference is small, although you prefer the newer design.
Have you ridden any other frames that impressed you as much ? Colnago C50?
I am 45, 175lb, and ride a fair bit. I want a really nice performing machine, but ride comfort and somewhat relaxed frame geometry are important to me.

I did find the 585 quite a bit smoother riding and more manoeuverable than my Madone 5.2SL


----------



## haz a tcr

sweet frames said:


> 9000 miles !! That's unbelievable... you must sleep on your bike.


You call under 200 miles a week 'unbelievable'?!?


----------



## jimbonnet

haz a tcr said:


> You call under 200 miles a week 'unbelievable'?!?



yeah Id like to ride more but a wife and 2 kids make it difficult.


----------



## jimbonnet

sweet frames said:


> 9000 miles !! That's unbelievable... you must sleep on your bike.
> 
> So, if I get you, they are both great bikes, and the difference is small, although you prefer the newer design.
> Have you ridden any other frames that impressed you as much ? Colnago C50?
> I am 45, 175lb, and ride a fair bit. I want a really nice performing machine, but ride comfort and somewhat relaxed frame geometry are important to me.
> 
> I did find the 585 quite a bit smoother riding and more manoeuverable than my Madone 5.2SL


I've not ridden any other model carbon frames since I got my first look back a few years ago. 481sl.. So I can't help with the c50..

Jim


----------



## DoubleT

*Amen!*



jimbonnet said:


> yeah Id like to ride more but a wife and 2 kids make it difficult.


Same here, two kids and a demanding wife. I'm lucky to ride twice a week. Three times is a bonus.


----------



## ico

jimbonnet said:


> Im 37, 158 lbs. size large frame. riding about 9000 miles per year. same wheels. the bike is lighter than my 585 by a tad bit.. probably because I had a slightly heavy post.


can you post some pictures? I'm expecting my 595 L size frame soon, and I'm also riding 585.


----------



## sweet frames

Re my comment on 200 miles/week. 
Actually, I am comparing to my ride season, which in Montreal is a little over half year.
if your ride season is 52 weeks, then 200/week would be nicely consistent, not "unbelievable".


----------



## rensho

Check with Norcalbiker, he has a c50 and a 585. It is a tough life, and he does the best he can with what he is given... ;-)


----------



## jimbonnet

sweet frames said:


> Re my comment on 200 miles/week.
> Actually, I am comparing to my ride season, which in Montreal is a little over half year.
> if your ride season is 52 weeks, then 200/week would be nicely consistent, not "unbelievable".


yeah, living in central california valley the amount of bad days where I just dont feel like riding is about 2...


cheers-
jim


----------



## MattCubeiro

Three little letters

L

S

D


----------



## sweet frames

LSD ....? 
And that means ????


----------



## GonaSovereign

sweet frames said:


> LSD ....?
> And that means ????


Long Slow Distance.
Getting the base kms takes lots of time in the saddle.


----------



## Aviously

*585-595*

Quite possibly the best bikes on the market, I own the 585 and have found it to be an absolutely exeptional bike. Very smooth (not numb) very compliant in all the right places. But an absolute rocket under torque force the bike has incredible exceleration. Your main differences between the 2 bikes are going to show up with the New E-post which is as you know the integrated seat post. This increases the lateral rigidity quite a bit. Concerns about comfort are raised whenever you talk about designing a bike with an integrated system. obviously much stiffer so of course it has the potential to really cause the rear end to feel harsh and rigid which would sort of defeat the idea of carbon. Look was very smart about the way they designed this sytsem it works on an expansion system rather than a clamping system, that will obviously elude the possibility of ever crushing the seat tube or damaging it by tightening your seat clamp. Because the post runs on an elostomer expander to tighten the seatpost the elastomer also acts like a shock absorber. You may know that most of our early mountain bike suspension relied on this spongey material for some of our early shocks. Look has used this same elostomer technology for both an expander system and vibration damping system. In summation: you gain the lateral rigidity desirable for power transmission but you are not sacrificing comfort because of the inclusion of the elostomer core. The frame weight has stayed the same between the 585 and the 595 even though the 595 now has a seatpost included in the frame weight. A few other cool things about the 595: they have flared the head tube form 1'1/8 to 1'1/25 from head to crown to stiffen the front end for handling and sprinting. They also run all the cabling internally so the bike looks really clean when assembled. let me know if there are any other questions I can help answer.


----------



## Gnarly 928

I've never had a ride on a 595..a bit difficult to test one with that Seat Mast system. They are +said+ to be stiffer than the 585, but how do you really decide something a bit subjective like that?
I have owned and ridden a large sample of high end frames in the past couple of years. Having at least two bikes and messing around with different brands is one of my pleasures. I'm semi-retired, a masters racer, weigh about 165 at 6'1" and do 12-13k miles a year..lots and lots of riding..Recently I've ridden and owned (partial list) Two DeRosas (King and Dual) an Orbea Orca, Time VXR, couple of Trek 5900s, a Colnago, Merlin Xtralite, Cannondale Caad 7 and my favorite of all, the 585. 
Compared to all the above, the 585 is more solid than all but the Time, which was quite stiff and kinda chunky feeling. The Caad 7 Cannondale was stiffer, slightly, but just a creaking, groaning uncomfortable nightmare to ride. The Treks, nice bikes, comfortable but nothing special. The two DeRosas, I sold the king to get the 585. The King was a bit (and we are talking barely noticable nuances here) more relaxed than the 585 and somewhat heavier. The Dual is still in my "quiver" and I like it almost as much as the 585..
So, is the 585 'softer' than the 595? Maybe. But it is not softer than most other high end bikes, and in fact, it's one of the most stable and best climbing bikes I have ever been on. So, the 595 would have to be 'superbike' to surpass the 585..I don't see how any bike could be a better all around ride than the 585..Make one stiffer, it'll feel stiff. The 585 melts out of your consciousness after a few minutes and lets you get on with covering the distance, quickly and confidently, no fuss no muss.
Don Hanson


----------



## ElanS3

*Look vs Orbea*

How do you rate 585 vs Orbea Orca. I´m trying to make up my mind which to buy, Opal, Orca or Look 585. Your input could help. Thanks.


----------



## ico

ElanS3 said:


> How do you rate 585 vs Orbea Orca. I´m trying to make up my mind which to buy, Opal, Orca or Look 585. Your input could help. Thanks.


I tried Orca on a few ocassions, it's nice frame, but way to rigid for me, in my opinion 585 is much better frame, more responsive, comfort and looks better to. If you can afford 585, go for it


----------



## Gnarly 928

*Dissagree with Ico..*



ElanS3 said:


> How do you rate 585 vs Orbea Orca. I´m trying to make up my mind which to buy, Opal, Orca or Look 585. Your input could help. Thanks.


 I wouldn't call the Orca stiff at all. And I certainly wouldn't call the 585 'soft', by any means. I would call the Orca, let's see..."Sloppy?" Buzzy, noisy, even "tacky", while I'd describe the 585 as "taut" sharp, focused, together, purposful..like that.

The Orca sounds hollow when you ride it, and it jumps around under hard cornering at the rear..Scared the crap out of me when I mistakenly chose to ride it in a criterium. They say the Opal is less flexy..don't know about that. The Orca has pretty poor build quality. My frame had a tacky little mass-produced plastic badge stuck on with pressure sensitive adhesive..It was even crooked, before it came off. The paint on the forks flaked and the carbon layup was full of filler and put into the mold in a sloppy manner. The geometry is odd, what with the tall headtube. The frame, with it's weird shapes and large side profile is quite sensitive to cross winds..All in all, a mediocre attempt at bike building, in my opinion. Not awful, but not a 'keeper'

The 585, on the other hand, is very well done and it works perfectly for me. No flaws in the build quality..(other than the silly cable guide routing) Very 'tight' handling bike, good climber and yet extra stable on fast descents. 

The Orcas are like Schwinns or Treks or Giants..kinda upper mid range..the Looks are like Colnago, Time or total customs..very very competant bikes and flawlessly made..

Hope that helps. Don Hanson


----------



## sweet frames

*585-595*

Your review about the 595 and it's design potential is appreciated, the only problem is that it's "the theory behind what's supposed to be".
I'm looking forward to some posts from riders who actually ride the new 595, and also have experience on the 585, so that they can give us some actual field reports !!


----------



## Aviously

*Ridden Both!!!*

I have ridden both, I own the 585 since early 06 and have ridden the 595 at different times: such as when the Look Rep Came through, as well as Interbike and so on. I stand by my word as to the actual field tested 585 and 595. The 595 is as comfortable a ride as the 585. But as I said before the integrated seat post design most certainly increases the lateral rigidity encurring and enhanced power transfer. I am a consultant here at Wrench Science and regard accurate review as very important part of consultation. One should not speak on a topic if they do not have accurate information. I am sure most would agree. I am not the type to speak about something that I am not fully educated about. I cannot say that, that I have ridden the 595 as extensively as I have ridden the 585 but the differences as noticable undoubtedly.


----------



## Gnarly 928

A tangent query? 

Why don't people in the bike biz figure out a way to actually quantify "lateral frame flex" or "bottom bracket flex" or whatever all the ad guys always say is 'better" on this model? I mean, have you ever heard or seen an add that says, "this frame is flexy"? Nope. Every add touts how stiff the frame is, yet vertically compliant, blah blah. It couldn't be too difficult to put a certain amount of force onto various frames and see how far the BB deflects, or something.. 

You can actually get a good idea of lateral frame flex by just holding a frame by the bars and saddle with the wheels in line with your feet and then pushing on the crank with the nearside pedal at "6'Oclock" If you extend your arms so the bike takes an angle away from your bod, then push down on the nearside pedal, you'll see an amazing amount of deflection at the BB in every frame. Some way could be agreed upon by frame builders to use a uniform force, the same angle, and measure how far the BB moves, that would tell us exactly how 'flexy or stiff" our frame really is..

How bout something like that, Mr. Wrench Science consultant? Any talk around the industry about real actual data? Prolly not. Much easier to just always say something like, 'very stiff ride laterally, but remarkably compliant and smooth riding" hee hee.

Don Hanson


----------



## sirbikealot

i have a full season on a 585 and love that bike to death, if there is one thing i would add to it that would be a tiny bit more stiffness for those hard sprints and hill mashing, mind you i don't really do many 100kmplus rides, i'm all about 2 ish hrs of punishing rides

well what i'm getting at is when i got on the 595 i had truly found the answer , the same amazing comfort and compliance i had in the 585 but its just a bit stiffer everywhere, i almost couldn't believe it, it truly must take a serious amount of research to nail this frame but they did it

also frame weights are about 1080 for a 595 and 990 for a 585, same size, once you factor in seatposts the integrated seatmast/post can make it lighter than an average seatpost on a 585


----------



## chas

Gnarly 928 said:


> Why don't people in the bike biz figure out a way to actually quantify "lateral frame flex" or "bottom bracket flex" or whatever all the ad guys always say is 'better" on this model? It couldn't be too difficult to put a certain amount of force onto various frames and see how far the BB deflects, or something...


Gnarly - I am not an engineer, but I will try to speak on this as best I can. As you can probably imagine, new frames undergo an extensive amount of testing before they are introduced to the market; one series of tests that we do at Look does in fact measure lateral deflection in N/mm's at various parts of the frame (headtube, B/B, rear triangle). 

I think that the reason this information is not advertised as much as other quantifiable data - weight or geometry, for example - is that these figures on their own don't really tell you much about the bike. Look framesets for example, are designed with a focus on the overall ride quality from the very earliest stages of development. With carbon frame technology as advanced as it is today, this means that stiffness throughout the frameset (tubes, lugs, fork, etc.) is tuned specifically to work together to give that particular frame the best possible overall ride quality. 

The other thing to take into account is that these deflection statistics don't take into account vertical compliance. On the 595 frameset for example, the tubes, lugs, seattube/E-Post and fork are all tuned to work in conjuction with one another to provide a frame that balances stiffness and comfort. This is achieved through features such as internally and externally shaped tubes, specially shaped tube/lug interfaces utilizing carbon-nano technolgy, monocoque fork with oversized lower bearing and monocoque seatstays and chainstays, and a seatpost that is held in place with an elastomer expander to help dampen road vibration. Each of these features is specifically engineered to make what we consider to be the best riding frameset on the market.

Sorry for the longish post, but hopefully this will shed some light on why a single statistic like B/B "stiffness", when taken on its own does not really provide much information, and why "stiffer" does not always equate to "better".




Gnarly 928 said:


> You can actually get a good idea of lateral frame flex by just holding a frame by the bars and saddle with the wheels in line with your feet and then pushing on the crank with the nearside pedal at "6'Oclock".


One thing to remember though is that most of the movement you will see with this method is a result of tire and wheel flex and not frame flex.

*[email protected]*


----------



## sweet frames

For the record, how much do you weigh ??


----------



## sweet frames

*Ridden Both*

Thanks for clarrifying that. I had not realized that you had some trial time on the 595.
Seems the 595 will be even a notch better than the already praised 585.

So, can you tell me what is the downside to more and more stiffness, for example in the bottom bracket and improved vertical compliance, as with the 595. I hear people say they have ridden bikes that are too stiff. Does it mean that the bike does not "give", and so the feel is too hard ??


----------



## chas

sweet frames said:


> So, can you tell me what is the downside to more and more stiffness, for example in the bottom bracket and improved vertical compliance, as with the 595. I hear people say they have ridden bikes that are too stiff. Does it mean that the bike does not "give", and so the feel is too hard ??


That's pretty much what they're saying. Traditionally, the stiffer a frame is the more harsh the ride feels. This is because shock from the road is not absorbed by the frame and is transmitted to the rider. The rider generally has less control and tends to suffer more discomfort.

Stiffer bikes tend to have a better feel climbing because there is less energy lost making the frame flex...more power to the pedal. On the flip side, if stiffness is not balanced with comfort, the bike will beat you up on longer rides and over rough surfaces. The 595 happens to perform this balancing act quite well IMO. :thumbsup:


----------



## Aviously

215 pounds


----------



## vclune

*Anybody on an Ultra model?*

May I ask why a 215lb. rider isn't on an Ultra model 585 or 595?

Inquiring minds need to know, Inquiring 215lb. mind. 

Thanks,
Vince


----------

