What happened to Look bikes?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

maxxevv wrote:
53x12 wrote:
maxxevv wrote:
53x12 wrote:
Except for not being lugged carbon.....


End of the day, its not about lugged or monocoque construction.

Its about the ride quality of the bike. Its as old as lugged steel versus TIG steel.

As long as it rides good, construction methods are secondary.


Disagree. It is about construction method and that is why people are still talking about the 585 and 595, TIME RXRS and why people still buy the C60 over the V2-R or Concept. Even used C50/C59s are popular. Construction method truly does matter.


We no longer deal with homogeneous carbon layers or tubes anymore. Construction methods are no longer the be all and end all of things.

I can assure you, given a blind test, you won't be able to tell the difference with modern bikes.

And as jbaillie pointed out, its the integration of parts that turned people away from Look. They were a pain to live with.
But having ridden the 586 and the 695 monocoques, they were great riding bikes too. But the custom parts were a big turnoff.


I owned a 586 for a short while, sold that off as I didn't care for it. The 695 also doesn't compare to my 585 Ultra. I can assure you that many owners were turned away from Look after they no longer made lugged carbon frames. Just read this thread if you want to get an idea. There is a reason people still buy the C60 or a Parlee Z1/Z2/Z3. They are timeless, traditional and people prefer they way they look and ride. It could be argued that one couldn't tell a difference between a C60 vs. a Specialized/Trek/Cannondale/Canyon monocoque frame. But I'm not entirely sure that is the case. Each person has a different butt dyno for those kind of things.

Look lost me as a customer when they moved to the 695 and 795. The new 785 is definitely a step in the right direction, but for a monocoque frame they are now just one in a big sea of other monocoque frames. Not sure they have really differentiated themselves too much from the likes of the Cannondale Evo/Trek Emonda/Specialized Tarmac SL6/Felt FR FRD...etc. At a certain point, they are just one of the masses. A lugged carbon frame differentiates them from the crowd since the number making a more traditional frame is small.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

by Weenie


KWalker
Posts: 5885
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

I agree with you, but unfortunately most of Look's buyers are people that want the modern template bike with the Look name on it. I definitely do like the 785, but it's not as inspiring for sure.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

c60rider
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:12 pm

by c60rider

53x12 wrote:
maxxevv wrote:
53x12 wrote:
maxxevv wrote:
End of the day, its not about lugged or monocoque construction.

Its about the ride quality of the bike. Its as old as lugged steel versus TIG steel.

As long as it rides good, construction methods are secondary.


Disagree. It is about construction method and that is why people are still talking about the 585 and 595, TIME RXRS and why people still buy the C60 over the V2-R or Concept. Even used C50/C59s are popular. Construction method truly does matter.


We no longer deal with homogeneous carbon layers or tubes anymore. Construction methods are no longer the be all and end all of things.

I can assure you, given a blind test, you won't be able to tell the difference with modern bikes.

And as jbaillie pointed out, its the integration of parts that turned people away from Look. They were a pain to live with.
But having ridden the 586 and the 695 monocoques, they were great riding bikes too. But the custom parts were a big turnoff.


I owned a 586 for a short while, sold that off as I didn't care for it. The 695 also doesn't compare to my 585 Ultra. I can assure you that many owners were turned away from Look after they no longer made lugged carbon frames. Just read this thread if you want to get an idea. There is a reason people still buy the C60 or a Parlee Z1/Z2/Z3. They are timeless, traditional and people prefer they way they look and ride. It could be argued that one couldn't tell a difference between a C60 vs. a Specialized/Trek/Cannondale/Canyon monocoque frame. But I'm not entirely sure that is the case. Each person has a different butt dyno for those kind of things.

Look lost me as a customer when they moved to the 695 and 795. The new 785 is definitely a step in the right direction, but for a monocoque frame they are now just one in a big sea of other monocoque frames. Not sure they have really differentiated themselves too much from the likes of the Cannondale Evo/Trek Emonda/Specialized Tarmac SL6/Felt FR FRD...etc. At a certain point, they are just one of the masses. A lugged carbon frame differentiates them from the crowd since the number making a more traditional frame is small.


I agree totally about the Look style. Their first carbon frames were lugged as were Colnago's. People buy C60s and their predecessors for that continuation and link to the past. And Look would never have lost me if there was a model that did that. Take away the paint and decals then even the new Look would be difficult to distinguish from any other generic monocoque. There's nothing special or unique about them. Much like aero bikes they're the ugliest things ever (in my opinion) and they all look the same as they've been designed in a wind tunnel and there's only one design that will come out the fastest. But Colnago still design the C60 for style as much as function. If you don't like them that's ok but it totally appeals to me as it does many others and there's almost nothing else out there that compares. Look aren't producing any frames at the moment that link into their past. But at least the style of this new one is getting back to a normal looking bike and it has me interested again. Let's hope they read these forums and a bit of weight weenie magic happens.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6847
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

I agree to the above posts but we should accept that it is our (the consumers) fault as well if all manufacturers are obliged to follow the same route. We were asking usually for the same thing: light, stiff, aero without really caring about where and how it is made, we do not care about ride quality, design concept, history, labour ethics, innovation, etc. etc.
Sure, Look 595 was a great frame but most riders, even in this forum, would consider (and buy) an s-works or a Cervelo as a better, more 'advanced' frame.

flying
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

I don't like lugged carbon due to any link to the past.

Nor is it for me about the visual appearance of lugs etc..
It is about the builders ability to tune a frame to flex...yes I know for many the word flex=bad

Perhaps flex is not the best word but this flex or give & take etc is something that
can make a frame very nice & lively in a good way IMHO

It is not that I do not want stiffness
But I want/would like stiffness tuned to give & take in the right amounts
giving the ride a more lively & yet also comfortable result

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post