Photo from Caley Fretz's instagram. Can't see a whole lot of the bike...

_________________
--Max.

More here

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ica-37755/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


BB65 bottom bracket !!!

Its actually not easy to sling something lightweight and "air catching" under a helicopter..I wonder if its been weighted?

Well, based on model 695 aero. No disc brakes, yet.
Some change for the Stem and lighter 1.5k carbon used. 65mm bottom bracket has been standart on Zed crankset many years.

http://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/look-unve ... light.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

_________________
Team KAS-RAK: http://www.pellossalo.fi/pellossalonnousu/
My Look 695 SR + EPS : http://www.pellossalo.fi/content/uploads/images/medium/Look695EPS.jpg
http://www.pellossalo.fi/content/uploads/images/medium/20120513_003.jpg

They don't seem to have done anythign "aero" to the main tubes of the frame?

It looks nice and neat hiding the brakes, but surely shaping the down tube a bit would have helped the "aero"?

_________________
"We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities." Oscar Wilde

Pegoretti Responsorium, Parlee Z5i, Donhou Commuter, 1946 MacLeans Featherweight L'Eroica!, 2x MTB 'dales

WEIGHED....not Weighted.

No. Weighted.
- defn: having additional weight

When I see quotes such as "That saves a claimed 90g for the frameset and LOOK are able to get a complete bike comfortably under the 6.8kg UCI weight limit in a number of off-the-peg builds." ( RoadCyclingUK ) or "Look say the bike tips the scales under the UCI 6.8kg weight limit, so the four Cofidis riders who'll be using it during the Tour will presumably be adding some ballast to their machines." (BikeRadar) I wish the reviewer had pulled out a hanging scale (bike journalists all have hanging scales, right?) and checked it.

Caley Fritz @ VeloNews has a good review.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1

I really like the 695, although honestly not as much as the 595 I already own. A few things about it have put me off completely from buying/building one up. This "new model" adds things to what I don't like!

1. Price is unreasonably high for what other bikes in the same arena are going for.
2. I simply detest anything proprietary. The ZED crankset, as good as it may be, it is one thing in this bike that stands to me as "I don't like/want it". I would build it with Campagnolo, so I don't even know what the BB65 means for putting Campy cranks on it. The hidden brakes are another proprietary thing to hate for me. Plus, it is so marginally of a benefit, if any, that I can't for the life of me comprehend the complication. Other than adding another gimick to sell a new/same model bike.

For the price, if you get + 600€ crankset, 150€ stem, 150€ seatpost and 150€ pedals to same baggage and now with 695 aerolight also 200€ brakes, I can say you got one of the best frames and fork under 3000€. Not so expensive anymore??

I have had Look 361, 381, 585, 595 and now 695 and believe me, there is a huge difference between 595 and 695. In fact 585 and 595 felt a bit similar. 695 front end is much much stiffer and Zed2 crankset is one of the lightest and stiffest what you can find on the market. It has also very low Q-factor.

But I understand you anyway. I'm also a bit worried about the integrated brakes...until I test ones. I also like new aero C-stem.

_________________
Team KAS-RAK: http://www.pellossalo.fi/pellossalonnousu/
My Look 695 SR + EPS : http://www.pellossalo.fi/content/uploads/images/medium/Look695EPS.jpg
http://www.pellossalo.fi/content/uploads/images/medium/20120513_003.jpg

Tumppi, what front rings are you using with your ZED cranks? How good or smooth is the shifting compared to the SR cranks and rings? Especially with SR EPS!

I preferred the old lugged Looks. Not as stiff at the front end true, but ride so well ... nervosity!

_________________
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!

dgasmd: the Zed cranks are easily the best stiffness/mass available (strongly correlated with axle diameter), so swapping those out would be the last thing on my mind. I'd be more concerned about Tumppi's comment that the ride quality was better on the 585, which was decidedly not up to the stiffness standards of most current carbon frames (unless you count the Calfee, which also gets excellent reviews for its ride quality).

I think the 695 is a very cool bike. I love seeing innovative, functionally-focused design. I'm not sure I'd want one, though, since I view frame flex as more of a low-pass filter than an energy loss mechanism.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1

You're right about the 585 though for most riding I've come to view the relative softness is an advantage (I am 165lbs and 300 FTP on a good day). Better ride quality = more enjoyment = more enthusiasm = faster.

Chose the 585 over my Ultimate SLX and S-Works Venge on a recent trip to the Pyrenees ...

_________________
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!