Apr 18, 2002 6:18 PM
|first i guess i just want to know your opinion on the look carbon frames as they compare to say the trek and colnago offerings.
also, from what i can gather, they seem to be quite heavy (relatively speaking for other carbon bikes of course) weighing around 3lbs/frame. can anyone explain why?
Apr 18, 2002 8:42 PM
|Two of my bikes are are a KG281 and a Colnago CT1. Although The KG is a very good bike, it is a bit harsh compared with the CT1. I'm selling the KG bike. Oh, my brothers KG 381i is also quite stiff. He says it isn't as comfy as his C40.
If you like stiff semi-comfy frames then the LOOK might be for you.
The LOOK frames are similar weight to other carbon frames. They are NOT heavy!
|Let's compare weights||Dave Hickey|
Apr 19, 2002 3:43 AM
|For the lastest World Cycling catalog
LOOK 381i Frame/HSC4 Fork 1750 grams $2199.95
Colnago C40 Frame/Star fork 1050+350=1400 grams $3799.95
Difference is 350gr or .772 lbs.
Colnago is for a 55cm( measured c-t) and the LOOK is for 54cm(measured c-c)
The LOOK frame uses aluminum lugs while the C-40 and Trek OCLV use carbon.
I'm a big fan of LOOK frames, but they are not for everyone. If you want something different, I'd go with the LOOK. At last weekends Ride For the Roses, I counted a handfull of C-40's, Hundreds of Trek OCLV's and two LOOK's( not including mine).
|Ernesto's scales are WAY skewed!||JohnG|
Apr 19, 2002 6:17 AM
|As much as I love my Colnagos ........... Ernesto couldn't give an accurate weight to save his life. Add 250-350 grams and you've got an accurate weight. |
|Three very different||djg|
Apr 19, 2002 5:44 AM
|choices in geometry. Of course you can make adjustments with the stem, etc., but I'd wonder about which offers a better fit before I worried that a (nearly) three pound frame is too heavy--it just isn't.|| |