# Look 595 vs. Cervelo R3



## haynen (Jun 4, 2007)

Anyone have any input on this matter? 
I have ridden the R3, and I think its a great bike. 
Will race and train on it, but have other bikes to mix into the training line-up. 
I'm 5'9 and 167#, like climbing especially.
Thanks.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*different geometry - which one fits you better?*



haynen said:


> Anyone have any input on this matter?
> I have ridden the R3, and I think its a great bike.
> Will race and train on it, but have other bikes to mix into the training line-up.
> I'm 5'9 and 167#, like climbing especially.
> Thanks.


I am guessing you need size 54cm in R3 and Medium (53cm?) in Look.

R3 has slacker 73 STA and 73 HTA and Look is steeper 73.75 STA so the reach will be different by I think ~8-10mm (a rough guess) meaning ~10mm longer stem on R3 than on Look. Which geometry suits you better - slacker STA or steeper STA? What is the saddle height so you see which head tube will fit you better?

Apart from that, in size 54cm R3 is a fine bike (less so in smaller sizes) and so is Look 595. Buy what fits you best and if both fit then buy what appeals to you most (or what your favourite LBS can supply and service). Also note that 595 has the ISP and R3 is more traditional. What do you prefer?


----------



## haynen (Jun 4, 2007)

This is the deal: I have the R3 in a 54. Have been riding it for about 1.5 yrs, and have been having some L knee pain, occasionally some low back pain on longer rides and decided to get re-fit by one of the two fit gurus in my area. He suggested that the 54 is actually too small for me, and went through every detail of why and it made a bunch of sense. Oddly, even though the TT on the R3 is listed as 54.5, it actually seems to measure out closer to 53! He raised my seat by over an inch(!) and lessened my drop (beyond the seat ht. adjustment). Naturally I was a little reluctant to believe my 54 is too small, so he set up one of his bikes to the numbers he recommended through the fit process, and I took it out for a ride. Felt so good! Kinda like "oh, I get it..." I have not the slightest doubt that I will fare better on a little bigger frame, its not just marketing.

I don't know which STA would suit me better - I don't know how that translates to riding style other than one extreme is TT geometry and the other is touring. I believe biggest effect would be the change in frame size.. 

Anyway, since I have been trying to decide between another R3 - which I have had nothing but fantastic things to report, or the little bit more exclusive and expensive (unfortunately) 595. There aren't any built 595s that I have access to, but I cannot imagine it wouldn't be a phenomenal ride. Plus, by my calcs the 595 (L - 55cm) is roughly 200g lighter, d/t fork weight and the ISP.

Probably I can't go wrong either way. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## lsthe3 (Jul 15, 2006)

I test rode the R3 and liked it, then I bought the 595 and LOVED it. It was no comparison whatsoever! The 595 is the best bike I have ever ridden!


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

haynen said:


> This is the deal: I have the R3 in a 54. Have been riding it for about 1.5 yrs, and have been having some L knee pain, occasionally some low back pain on longer rides and decided to get re-fit by one of the two fit gurus in my area. He suggested that the 54 is actually too small for me, and went through every detail of why and it made a bunch of sense. Oddly, even though the TT on the R3 is listed as 54.5, it actually seems to measure out closer to 53! He raised my seat by over an inch(!) and lessened my drop (beyond the seat ht. adjustment). Naturally I was a little reluctant to believe my 54 is too small, so he set up one of his bikes to the numbers he recommended through the fit process, and I took it out for a ride. Felt so good! Kinda like "oh, I get it..." I have not the slightest doubt that I will fare better on a little bigger frame, its not just marketing.
> 
> I don't know which STA would suit me better - I don't know how that translates to riding style other than one extreme is TT geometry and the other is touring. I believe biggest effect would be the change in frame size..
> 
> ...


First of all, I just noticed that the reach measurement given by Cervelo seems very different from the one computable from the the Look information (virtual top tube - setback, that is, B-E on their geometry diagram),. Cervelo computes it with respect to the top of the top tube, while Look does it with respect to the centre of the top tube, which is quite a difference given Cervelo's oversized tubes (maybe 1 or 2 cm difference as a result). This could explain the radically different reach numbers of similarly sized frames from Cervelo and Look. You should also take this into account when trying to recompute the reach of your R3. Since Cervelo's diagrams are still not very clear (they actually changed them after I pointed out inaccuracies, or that may have been a coincidence, they changed them right after an e-mail exchange), I don't quite trust their numbers. So, I am waiting to actually try out a Cervelo to see how it fits. This is another example of the Look company's superior attention to detail, which I find impressive. 

Secondly, I would say that the 595 is not a good choice if you are still searching for the correct position. In particular, if you need to continually change saddle height, as is the case when finding the optimal position, you will need to ride around with spacers and continually remove the post and add or remove spacers (which will require a special bag for the spacers). Compare this with a normal seatpost, where you just loosen, adjust, and tighten the bolt (assuming you can do that without breaking the collar ). There is also the unlikely but possible case where you need to have your saddle tilted to one side, which is impossible with the 595 (for almost everyone, this is a good thing). Basically, it seems to me that the 595 is intended for experienced riders who have a very good understanding of their position, e.g., if they have to change their position due to new pedals or shoes, then they won't have to fiddle a lot with it, and who probably won't be making much changes to their position in the short term. 

For this reason, I won't be getting the 595 after all (despite lengthy calculations as to bike case fit), since I hurt my back, and I'm not too confident about my position in the near future. Also, I had my saddle slightly tilted to the right for the last 12 years, and after setting it straight, in preparation a new 595, I hurt my back. That was probably not the reason for my injury, but I have to eliminate any new variable. In any case, I think the 585 is a better choice for me, as I am a pretty smooth rider, and I never break anything (same rear wheel for the last 30,000km, trued at most once). so stiffness is not a big issue. In any case, it will be stiffer than my Ritchey, which is a noodle (and which I will keep for the cobbles). 

Finally, there is the following abstract consideration. If you compare Look, Time, and Colnago, you will see that their frame geometries are extremely similar, and differ by a few millimeters for comparable sizes, and the frames are built similarly (lugged carbon), so given the established fact that these are considered the best frames in the business, you can imagine that they are not too far from optimal. 

-ilan


----------



## haynen (Jun 4, 2007)

*Went w/ the 595*

I'm replying to my own post here. I now am the extremely delighted owner of a "L" size 595. The large size is roughly comparable to the 56 in the Cervelo. I am still curious if the Cervelo in the 56 (rather than the 54 I was riding before) would compete at all with the 595 - as it is the Cervelo doesn't begin to compare. BUT I feel this is comparing apples to oranges in a sense, and if I had an optimized fit in the Cervelo perhaps the comparison would be more fair.

As it is, the 595 is pretty incredible. It is far and away the best bike I have ever been on. That could mean so many different things (depending on numbers of bikes ridden) but when something feels right I have to believe it is. My first ride was a circuit race, which I got destroyed in, and somehow my shoes and saddle were weirdly wrong there. I changed them (from specialized s-works and fizik aliante carbon to shimano R-300 and flite gel flow, respectively) and everything came together. My third ride was a century ( I felt that good about my bike and fit and position) and I felt almost like I was cheating. The best I can say is that I felt like I was "in" the bike rather than on it. (Yes, Zoolander fans, "its IN the computer"...) It's a magical bike I think and I cannot recommend it highly enough. I found myself riding towards the rough stretches of road, because they are genuinely pleasurable to traverse w/ the 595. 

I still want very badly to ride the cervelo in the 56 for comparison's sake, but I honestly can't imagine something riding better than the 595 so I'm not entirely sure there is a point.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Well, an amusing similarity between Look and Cervelo is that the French company picked an English name and the English Canadian company picked a French inspired name. Foreign stuff sounds more exotic.

-ilan


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

ilan said:


> Well, an amusing similarity between Look and Cervelo is that the French company picked an English name and the English Canadian company picked a French inspired name. Foreign stuff sounds more exotic.
> 
> -ilan


Interesting observation. Just like Time, another French company that has been very successful.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

FondriestFan said:


> Interesting observation. Just like Time, another French company that has been very successful.


Thanks. Some day, I would like to know the whole story about Look and Time, they basically produce the same stuff, and both started in Nevers, and as you point out, both have English names. Otherwise, I find the Time website quite annoying, it has some of the worst English I've ever seen in a corporate French website. As I stated before, I appreciate attention to detail, which is sadly lacking from Time, in this respect. 

-ilan


----------

