# "Upgrading" from 381/481 to 5-5 Look



## tv_vt (Aug 30, 2007)

Anyone here 'upgrade' from a Look 381 or 481 to one of the 500 series frames (555, 565, 585, 595)? If yes, what were the differences between the older and newer models? Any comments appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*well...*

I made the switch from a KG381 to a KG461 first, then a 585. What's different? Just about everything other than the steering geometry and the BB (still English).

One big difference in the 51cm size that I ride is the much steeper 74.5 degree seat tube angle. With the old models, all the STAs were 72.5. As a result, I use a seat post with 25-32mm of setback.

In the same 51cm frame size, my 585 has about 6mm more reach and a 5mm taller head tube. The latest models also have the new headfit headset that adds about another 5mm to the minimum stack height.

FWIW, the ride is even better, so don't worry about harshness.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I went from a KG481 to a 585. I will be honest...I liked the ride of the 481 better. I don't race, and it was a responsive bike, but not a bike that was begging to race crits on it. It was very laid back and great for long rides. Don't get me wrong, I love my 585 (which is why I have been riding the same frame since 2005), but I really loved my 481 too. Huge improvement in the seatpost clamp too. I HATED the stupid pincher bolt design on the 481. It was very hard on carbon posts. Plus having a 27.2 seatpost gives a lot more options for seatpost. The fork on the 585 is nicer, and it has a much cleaner appearance with the integrated headset.


----------



## twiggy73 (Jan 19, 2010)

I went from a KG86 to a 2010 585 and i found the ride to be very similar to the KG 86 interms of road vibrations (they got just right there) but the handling is very much improved and I am absolutley loving the 585 it does everything well and you wouldnt be dissapointed when adding it to your collection

Twiggy


----------



## saab2000 (Mar 16, 2004)

I have a 381 and a 585. The 585 is stiffer and more 'racy' feeling but the 381 is absolutely worthy as a race bike. Precise handing and very stable. I really, really wish a had a 481 in the 57 cm size.

That said, the difference is not huge in how they ride. It feels evolutionary, not revolutionary. But the sizing is a bit less flexible on the 585. They don't make as many sizes and the geometry is a bit more standardized. I consider this a negative as the 381/481 geometry, fit and sizing was really great for me and my proportions. Also the 381/481 was available in 1CM increments. The 585 is not, unfortunately.

That said, the 585 is my go-to ride these days. It is more solid feeling and not as muted in the ride quality. But the front end and BB areas are stiffer and the ride is not crappy. Just not as smooth as the 381, which really is hard to describe until you ride one.

The 27.2 seatpost is a massive improvement. The old clamping mechanism was cool looking but mechanically a disaster and the 25.0 size was not ideal at all.

My ideal Look would be the improvements of the 585 with the 1CM increment sizing of the 381/481 as well as the geo of the 381/481. This was one of the things which made it really special. 

But even so, the 585 is still world class and I really enjoy mine. It is posted in the Look gallery.


----------



## Amfoto1 (Feb 16, 2010)

I have to agree with most everything that's been posted here already...

The larger diameter tubing of the more recent bikes makes a difference by allowing more "tuned" stiffness than the earlier bikes enjoyed, at the same or similar weights, which is achieved by going to thinner walled tubing and orienting the carbon fiber. On the other hand, the 481 was at the top of the game, in its day. 

If looking at used bikes (which you must be if considering 555 and 565), it should be noted that the 555 sizing changed in 2007 or 2008. I don't know all the details of this, so you'll have to do some research. 

It can be hard to find geometry info on some of the discontinued models. 565 is identical to 585, FYI. 

Fit and finish on all of them are very nice, the styling has changed. Look appears to change their logo just about annually (sort of weird from a marketing viewpoint, but it along with the different color schemes allow you to determine the year of a used bike pretty easily... sellers often give out incorrect info I've noticed). 

All these later bikes will have a heavier and glossier clear coat than your 481. It really helps keep the bikes looking nice and is relatively easy to touch up. A little clear fingernail polish often does the trick for minor scratches... Easier than trying to match paint colors or having to replace decals. From a more practical standpoint, the thicker clear coat might even give some added protection to the carbon fiber underneath.

I have a 2007 565 "commuter" that I really like. Partially it's the styling of this particular bike that appeals to me. It's the "mostly nude carbon" model with the large carbon weave - which is particularly amazing out in the sunshine, altho probably not as light in weight - and has fewer and more subtle Look logos and graphics (silver outline with some red accents) than most Look, which I like a lot. Nice ride, not the lightest or raciest, but damned nice. 

Starting with the later 481 a lot of these bikes use the same HSC 5 fork. It's excellent. From your list, the 555 is more commonly found with and HSC 4 SL instead. It's also good, just a little heavier (maybe 40-50 grams, primarily because it uses a standard pressed on crown race, where the HSC 5 has a 45 degree race molded directly into the carbon). And the 595 uses a different fork from all the others... It shares the HSC 6 with the 586. This has a tapered steerer 1-1/8" at the top, 1-1/4" at the bottom. The last two years have also seen a unique headset design, which offers some slight weight savings (about 40 grams net, mostly by eliminating the compressor cap). The fork itself is actually slightly heavier than the HSC 5. The 595 also has the "shelves" molded directly into the carbon inside the head tube for the headset bearings to sit upon. This design means an additional, replaceable metal seat is used under the bearing.

The 481, 595 and 585 use an internally routed rear brake cable. The others don't. 

The weight of 481, 555 and 565 frames are about the same, in the range of 1400 grams (53/54cm). 585 drops to about 1200 grams. 595 further drops to 1000 grams. Of course, you pay a lot more for a little less weight. 

You didn't mention the latest entry model... the 566. It's a very nice and popular bike, too. The most noticeable differences with it are the truly huge diameter of the downtube and the kink in the top tube (a design element borrowed from the Tri/TT bikes?). It also uses a fork that's unique to the model. I suspect it's outsourced, but don't have any info on that. There is no fork model designation. I haven't ridden a 566 can't really comment. It seems quite popular though. 

You also didn't mention the other current road model, the 586. It's a lugless monocoque frame design, a little bit lighter than the 595 as a result. It's a "climbers" bike, by design. It's probably not as rigid as some of the 585/595 models. But, it's the only current Look road bike that still emulates the diamond shapes of some of the 481 main tubing, as well as the squared seat stays, although everything is much larger-diameter and thinner-walled. (My favorite current Look model, design-wise.) 

Both the 595 and 586 share another thing: The integrated seatpost fitted with an ePost on top. It's a very clean and good design, with some adjustment possible using various shims, plus incorporating elastomers to make for a nice ride. But if shopping used bikes a seat mast that's been cut short is a very important consideration. (There is now a "RePost" available from Look, but like all things Look, it's not cheap.) 

It should be mentioned that you will find 595 and 585 in "Ultra", "Origin" and "Optimum" versions. "Ultra" and "Optimum" both appear to be stiffer designs, perhaps for the strongest riders. 

You will also find a smattering of "Elle" versions among some of these models, designed for women. The geometry of the Elle is slightly different, to better accommodate shorter torso and reach. Earlier Elle were painted pink (a marketing disaster, the Look equivalent of the Edsel)... Later ones just have a removable Elle sticker, so might be a little more difficult to identify when buying used. 

All the bikes you listed are tube and lug designs. The difference is that the more recent bikes use more carbon lugs. Your 481 used aluminum (inverted lugs, so they aren't as obvious). The BB area of the less expensive current and recent models remain largely aluminum. The 585 and 595 use threaded alu sleeve inserts in carbon BB, to save weight. 
Something to watch out for in the lighter, higher end bikes that use those aluminum BB sleeve inserts, they sometimes loosen. They are epoxied into the carbon fiber BB. Serious creaking will usually be the main symptom of a loose BB sleeve. 

You are already familiar with carbon fiber, but it bears repeating... If buying used it might be worthwhile to have any CF bike checked out carefully by a shop, just in case there has been damage and/or repairs.

Have fun shopping! Hope this helps.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

> The 481, 595 and 585 use an internally routed rear brake cable.
> The others don't. It should be mentioned that you will find 595 and 585 in "Ultra", "Origin" and "Optimum" versions. "Ultra" and "Optimum" both appear to be stiffer designs, perhaps for the strongest riders.


This is interesting as my '09 585 does not have internally routed cabling.
Also I think the 585 Ultra has been discontinued for 2010 and did not know the 595 came in the Optimum version, which on the 585 has a shorter top tube and taller head tube to give the rider more up-right (comfortable) position, but is not stiff like the Ultra, but rather closer to the Origin.


----------

