# 585 or 585 Ultra



## varian72 (Jul 18, 2006)

Any reason not to get one or the other? I live in VT where we have rough roads and lots of climbing. I'm not a racer and don't plan on being. I like to climb and descend. That is my goal for a ride. Currently ride a Tarmac which I like. Smooth, good geometry, but 3 years old, bought used and on the heavy side. Would like to give myself a present in '08.


----------



## rcarbs (Feb 10, 2004)

*585*

I have a 585 origin and love it. I ride about 150 miles per week. I don't "race" but love a fast group ride. I have had the 361, 461, and 585. My 585 took me across the country in the Team 2007 Race Across AMerica. It is by far the best frame I have ridden. The Ultra is listed as a more stiff 585. I don't think that 90% of us will ever really need that extra stiffness. The 585 Origin is a great frame for the majority of us. Get the origin and you won't regret it.


----------



## HammerTime-TheOriginal (Mar 29, 2006)

The larger the frame size/the heavier the rider/the more out of the saddle "wailing"/the greater the tolerance to shock transmission, then the greater the relative benefit of the Ultra. I ride a 585 Ultra small and by no means find it to be a rough ride, even on washboard pavement, but that depends on the rider, as well as wheels/tires/inflation pressure.


----------



## SuperSlow (Feb 11, 2005)

Yep I have an ultra, am 170 lbs and it is the most comfortable bike I have ridden


----------



## unknownrash (Dec 25, 2005)

I ride an ultra and a lot of the roads around where I live are rough pavement but find it way more comfortable than my old Specialized Allez alu frame. I like to get out the saddle and hammer the bike and the ultra just squirts forward.


----------



## psycholist (Jan 18, 2006)

Hi,
I test rode a 585 origin before taking the plunge for the 585 Ultra. I weigh 175 lbs and ride a large. The 585 ride is a tad more compliant than the 585 Ultra. But it isn't by any means uncomfortable.. you just know it's a little stiffer laterally. These frames are great all-around performers. When climbing, you get a lively feeling with very good power translation to the wheels. Descents are a pleasure because of the frame/fork combination, giving you good stability and tracking. It really boils down to your own riding preferences.. but no matter what frameset you do choose, I sure you will be happy with your decision.


----------



## msc (Jan 22, 2004)

*Get the Ultra...or Something Else*

I have been riding a 585 Ultra for a few weeks now and am impressed that it is not very stiff in the bottom bracket area at all. If you've been riding a Tarmac, I would wager you are not going to like the Origin. I have an S-works frame and it is much stiffer than this Ultra. In fact my old Roubaix Pro was stiffer than this. The Ultra is plenty comfortable, but I think I've figured out why.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

msc said:


> I have been riding a 585 Ultra for a few weeks now and am impressed that it is not very stiff in the bottom bracket area at all. If you've been riding a Tarmac, I would wager you are not going to like the Origin. I have an S-works frame and it is much stiffer than this Ultra. In fact my old Roubaix Pro was stiffer than this. The Ultra is plenty comfortable, but I think I've figured out why.


Considering that that it's next to impossible to quantify or even qualify lateral stiffness at the BB, statements like yours or those of others really have no value. Or maybe you just crank out so much power that you make Thor Hushovd look like a babe in swaddling clothes.

I don't think you understand how stiffness effects performance. Uhm, it doesn't. The problem you're having with your 585 Ultra says nothing about stiffness. You don't know even know what the problem is. PM Chas, since he is part of Look here in the US, and he'll help you out. It's entirely likely you've got a one-problem that has zero to do with lateral stiffness.

FWIW, Tour Magazine's test results are anything but scientifically conclusive, nor do they tell anything other than the results of one narrowly focused and possibly questionably configured test.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I'd say his comments have plenty of value since he owns several other bikes that he has compared it with. If stiffness is not a problem then why can't Look simply tell him how to get rid of the flex? 

Stiffness, like compliance is highly susceptible to rider preferences but, isn't this mostly true with many things bike related?


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

rnhood said:


> I'd say his comments have plenty of value since he owns several other bikes that he has compared it with. If stiffness is not a problem then why can't Look simply tell him how to get rid of the flex?


Well, no. As I said, stiffness is not something that is easy, at all, to quantify or qualify by the seat of your pants or by watching the BB as you ride. A person cannot discern whether what they're seeing or feeling is a result of a lack of stiffness or some other factor or factors.

Has he contacted Look? Did I not suggest PM'ing Chas?



rnhood said:


> Stiffness, like compliance is highly susceptible to rider preferences but, isn't this mostly true with many things bike related?


No, stiffness is a measureable quantity that is not affected or influenced by rider preference.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I disagree somewhat. Some saddles are considered stiff and, this stiffness can be effectively measured also. Doesn't mean a specific rider will like it tho. 

It still boils down to preferences, though measurements can provide the rider with an idea of how stout the frameset will be - to a point. There are several attributes that riders typically comment on when they ride a bike, and I believe the term "stiffness" is the one most often commented on.

Look makes the 595 in two varieties and, the only difference that I've heard them mention is that one is 15% stiffer than the other. I can only surmise one of two reasons for this; one exhibits a higher performance capability (which you say it doesn't) or, some riders will prefer a stiffer bike (rider preference).


----------



## ethanweiss90 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Musings on stiffness.*

I like how high and mighty, as usual, Forrest Root thinks he is. It's really quite entertaining. His sarcasm is knee-slappingly first-rate.

I do agree that it is impossible for someone to realistically quantify bottom bracket stiffness by riding a bike, looking down at the frame's sway. But how the hell do you expect someone to describe a bike? "Uh...I like the colors. They're black. And white. And Red." If you were to ride, back-to-back, two frames like a Look and a Litespeed, I _do_ believe you could legitimately describe a difference in "stiffness" between two frames. 

What is the purpose of this forum? To discuss quantifiable, black-and-white facets of the bicycle world, like grams, colors, or how long a centimeter is in inches? I guess all of those would be scientifically verifiable. Oh wait, is your balance zeroed? Do you have the Benjamin Moore list of ingredients for that Baby Blue? Are you checking your significant figures as you find that 1 inch equals 2.54cm, because actually, it would be 3cm?

I wasn't going to reply to this until I saw your last jab. It's quite a cheapshot. You know perfectly well what he means, that people's preferences of how "stiff" they would like their frameset to be varies. 



FORREST ROOT said:


> Originally Posted by rnhood
> Stiffness, like compliance is highly susceptible to rider preferences but, isn't this mostly true with many things bike related?
> 
> 
> No, stiffness is a measureable quantity that is not affected or influenced by rider preference.


Some like stiff-as-a-board, others a park bench. Give me - and him - a break.

P.S. I've got a 585 Ultra. I think it's a great bike. For a 59cm, it's as *stiff *as one could hope. Doesn't rattle me to pieces, but maybe that's because I'm 18.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

rnhood said:


> I disagree somewhat. Some saddles are considered stiff and, this stiffness can be effectively measured also. Doesn't mean a specific rider will like it tho.


I wasn't saying that you can't measure stiffness. I was saying that a human being is a lousy stiffness meter when it comes to discerning exactly what is stiff and what isn't. I certainly didn't discount rider preference or perception. All I am saying is that the perceptions may not correlate with the reality. 



rnhood said:


> Look makes the 595 in two varieties and, the only difference that I've heard them mention is that one is 15% stiffer than the other. I can only surmise one of two reasons for this; one exhibits a higher performance capability (which you say it doesn't) or, some riders will prefer a stiffer bike (rider preference).


Riders' preferences are all over the place. That's a given. What is fact though is that there has never been a study of any sort that indicated stiffer frames performed better. There is zero data that suggest that. In fact, first and second order analysis of the forces and energies involved in getting a bike down the road show that any energy lost to frame flexure is amazingly small, so small as to be insignificant.

I have always said that rider preference is paramount. I've never contradicted that. However, it has to be remembered that rider preference has no correlation with what is actually going on with the physics of the whole thing.

Look does offer the Ultra flavors, and I'm willing to bet that they do it because of varied rider preference, not because they did a study of any sort re: frame hysteresis and how it relates to losing a sprint or KOM points. Remember, as Chas has pointed out several times, Thor Hushovd and the entire Credit Agricole team rode off the shelf 595 Origins when they debuted in the Pro Tour.

Lastly, at Eurobike, several manufacturers--well known manufacturers--commiserated over the fact that the bike industry had gone overboard with the whole stiffness fetish and that they were stuck with the fruits of that sales job since the buying public now believed that stiffness was king. In fact, in the next two years, there will be a few new frames and wheelsets that explicitly do not follow the stiffness paradigm blindly. 

That was all that I was saying. If people like a frame that "feels" stiff to them, well, more power to those people. They should buy what "feels" good to them. The mind is a powerful thing, and the power of suggestion can be even stronger.

FWIW, the list of things that people perceive on a bike to be one thing but turn out to be another is long and storied:
_Tires with high pressure are faster:_ this has been proven to be the exact opposite of the reality.
_Stiff wheels are fast:_ Mavic proved with its own study that riders--and I'm assuming that Mavic used some of its pro riders for the study--cannot reliably tell what wheels are stiff and what wheels aren't.
_Tied and soldered spokes make for a stiffer wheel:_ Not. Tied and soldered spokes do keep broken spokes in place, though.
_Tubular tires corner better and are faster:_ Not. They corner as well as clinchers, and the jury is out on definitive comparisons of crr.
_Deep rims make for a harsher ride and cause racers to crash in the European classics:_ Uhm, no. Studies show this to be blatantly false.

The list goes on and on and on. The point, though, is that people should occasionally be wary of claims about bike performance and how it relates to bike characteristics.

For the record, I think Look is one of the few companies that doesn't try to BS customers. Their ads seem to be pretty fair, and I think Chas' comments on this forum reflect that.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

ethanweiss90 said:


> I like how high and mighty, as usual, Forrest Root thinks he is. It's really quite entertaining. His sarcasm is knee-slappingly first-rate.


There was no sarcasm, however, I guess it's safe to assume, from your comments, that you don't have any informed opinion about bike stiffness and how it relates to performance.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

OK, so back to the issue raised by MSC about his 585 Ultra, he's describing consistent front derailleur rub despite adjustments/replacements of the derailleur. And in a different thread describes being able to see the bottom bracket flexing when he steps hard on pedals at a stop (forgive if I'm slightly off in recounting the latter). That isn't some subtle ability or lack of ability to perceive frame stiffness/flex, nor a debate over how much difference stiffness actually makes. It's a description of a problem, one which has NOT been noted by the many other posters describing the 585 and 585 Ultra. Sounds like a problem with MSC's frame, or something about the setup. All this back and forth about what riders can or cannot perceive, although interesting hypothetically, is not germane to MSC's 585 Ultra, as he is not describing something subtle at all. The genuinely useful information here will be what Look has to say about MSC's problem, and I suspect the frame will have to be checked out in order to gain that information.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

LookDave said:


> OK, so back to the issue raised by MSC about his 585 Ultra, he's describing consistent front derailleur rub despite adjustments/replacements of the derailleur. And in a different thread describes being able to see the bottom bracket flexing when he steps hard on pedals at a stop (forgive if I'm slightly off in recounting the latter). That isn't some subtle ability or lack of ability to perceive frame stiffness/flex, nor a debate over how much difference stiffness actually makes. It's a description of a problem, one which has NOT been noted by the many other posters describing the 585 and 585 Ultra. Sounds like a problem with MSC's frame, or something about the setup. All this back and forth about what riders can or cannot perceive, although interesting hypothetically, is not germane to MSC's 585 Ultra, as he is not describing something subtle at all. The genuinely useful information here will be what Look has to say about MSC's problem, and I suspect the frame will have to be checked out in order to gain that information.


That is why I suggested, above, PM'ing Chas. You did see that part, right? You also read, right, the insistence with which some pressed home the idea that the 585 Ultra was noodly, right? I hope so, because it was all right here in the various related threads. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if one can see such dramatic movement in the BB/BB shell, something is very wrong and out of the ordinary.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

Forrest Root said:


> That is why I suggested, above, PM'ing Chas. You did see that part, right? You also read, right, the insistence with which some pressed home the idea that the 585 Ultra was noodly, right? I hope so, because it was all right here in the various related threads. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if one can see such dramatic movement in the BB/BB shell, something is very wrong and out of the ordinary.


Ummm, I was agreeing with you, implying but not quoting you on PM to Chas/Look USA. In different words, MSC has something wrong with his 585 Ultra, clearly not representative of 585 Ultras in general, or 585 Origins for that matter. As far as we know not yet checked out by Look dealer or Look USA. Suggestions on this thread about the frame not being a good choice for the OP based on comparison to a Tarmac, if suggestions are based on MSC's problem Ultra, are misleading. The back and forth about perceptions of stiffness, etc., carried the thread away from the fact that MSC has an individual bike where, as you succinctly state, "something is very wrong", and thus not a good reference point for the OP's question about 585's. Getting input from Look (Chas is exceedingly helpful - either PM or on this thread) or others at Look USA is precisely on target.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

LookDave said:


> Ummm, I was agreeing with you, implying but not quoting you on PM to Chas/Look USA. In different words, MSC has something wrong with his 585 Ultra, clearly not representative of 585 Ultras in general, or 585 Origins for that matter. As far as we know not yet checked out by Look dealer or Look USA. Suggestions on this thread about the frame not being a good choice for the OP based on comparison to a Tarmac, if suggestions are based on MSC's problem Ultra, are misleading. The back and forth about perceptions of stiffness, etc., carried the thread away from the fact that MSC has an individual bike where, as you succinctly state, "something is very wrong", and thus not a good reference point for the OP's question about 585's. Getting input from Look (Chas is exceedingly helpful - either PM or on this thread) or others at Look USA is precisely on target.


Yer right.


----------



## Wal (Dec 5, 2006)

Going back to the original post - I have the 585 ultra (57cm) and have found it to be a comfortable ride. I haven't ridden the origin so am unable to make comparisons, but have been for rides up to 160km (hilly course) on the ultra without problems. I had intended buying the origin but went with the ultra when I couldn't get the origin in black - I have no regrets with the decision.


By comparison, I have a wilier izoard which, subjectively, I find to be a bit zippier but too uncomfortable for rides of more than 2 hours. I also ride a bianchi C2C which I find to be super comfortable but more sluggish than the 585 ultra. Setting aside any differences that could be attributed to the different wheels on my bikes, all in all, the 585 ultra has the best all round qualities for me.

I am around 82kg.


----------

