RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


2003 Looks(23 posts)

2003 LooksCheezhead
Sep 3, 2002 6:24 PM
The new Look bikes are on their site. What do y'all think???

www.lookcycle.com

Say Cheez
Cheez!look271
Sep 3, 2002 7:14 PM
Friggin' frogs. Man am I glad I didn't get a KX this year. Now I want a KX light! Dammit man, why'd you go and do that? =)
re: 2003 Looksflying
Sep 3, 2002 8:23 PM
Well my 381i just cleared customs in NY & should be here in a day or so.
But I bought the 2002
Doesn't seem to have changed except they claim a better finish( I think)
re: 2003 Lookscollinsc
Sep 3, 2002 9:39 PM
I posted some preliminary shots from some french site a while back, glad we finally see all the options.
I have a 386, and my friend has a 381i. We both really likePaul
Sep 4, 2002 3:54 AM
them. No problem so far. A guy on this board seems to be the authority (Dave Hickey), he has 3 and has owned others. You'll love the 381i, best bang for the buck thru totalcycling.com. My friend bought his there.
I have a 386, and my friend has a 381i. We both really likeflying
Sep 4, 2002 7:20 AM
Thanks Paul & yes i agree & bought mine at Total cycling.
Mike gave me such a great deal I couldn't say no ;-)
Was Mike's deal above and beyond posted price?Paul
Sep 4, 2002 10:02 AM
Is it better to call then use the e-mail form? Let me know more how you did it. My friend justed faxed his order.
thanks
Was Mike's deal above and beyond posted price? Yesflying
Sep 4, 2002 10:17 AM
Hi Paul,
Yes what happened was this.....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1852056414&rd=1

As you can see I was 2nd best bidder.
So I also got one for that price. ( actually a bit less )
This was only on the Kelme frame though for whatever reason.
They must have over stocked.

In either case it was a super deal ;-) They were so easy & professional to work with. I am sure I will deal with them again.

Thanks for all your input it helped me decide along with what filtersweep, Dave H. & Paul G. added.
Paintfiltersweep
Sep 4, 2002 4:27 AM
The paint on those 486s are getting a bit out of control.

I personally think Look is one of the "best kept secrets" in framesets in the US market... but then again, I may be biased, since I ride one.
486 is worthy of a prom dateWrigleyRoadie
Sep 4, 2002 5:20 AM
That frame is stunning! I now have visions of Botero chasing down the enemy on that black one during the Vuelta time trials... I wonder if Kelme will have them in time. It would make sense marketing wise. With CSC going to Cervelo, Kelme is Look's only chance to make some noise I think. Credit Agriole is probably still in group therapy after the TDF.
1 1/8" headsets, 27.2 seat postsTig
Sep 4, 2002 6:23 AM
Most of the 2003's are sporting larger diameter headsets and seat posts, which were the only complaints I've heard by some owners from past editions of Look. I don't want this to turn into a 1" vs 1 1/8" headset debate, but it has become common knowledge that a 1" carbon fiber steerer tube has more flex than most people like and is very limited on spacer stack height.

Any Look in all black is beautiful to me.
honestly?DougSloan
Sep 4, 2002 7:04 AM
Is it bad form to comment negatively on bikes that others here may have, or are honest opinions valued?

If honestly is ok, my opinion is that the Looks appear to be a little chunky, as opposed to elegant or organic, over weight, and offering little or no benefits versus comparably priced bikes or other carbon bikes. They need to lose a good half pound to a pound to be competitive, unless there is some benefit to that extra weight that is lost on me.

If there is some benefit to these bikes that escapes me, I'd really be interesting in hearing what it is. My mind is open.

Weight is not everything, but all else equal (more or less), why ride heavier bike?

No offense intended for those who love their Looks. :-)

Doug
I haven't ridden a C40, butLook381i
Sep 4, 2002 7:29 AM
here are a few reasons, mostly very subjective:

I went with the 381i because I think its ride (and appearance) resembles that of my lugged steel, my former favorite ride, with slim tubing and classic, if laid back, geometry. I preferred its cost, ride and appearance greatly over the Trek 5500 and 5900, even though there is weight penalty. I also got mine on sale, so that upgrading from Chorus to Record and adding other fancy bits was "free."

I considered the C40 but thought it too expensive and already have a Dream Plus. I also like having a bike no one else I know rides. The De Rosa and Giants offer compact frames, but I don't like that look. The 386, now 486, has monocoque construction and less weight, but again I didn't like its appearance.

The only other carbon I considered briefly was the Calfee. Again, more money and gussets.

In the end, I went for ride, fit and appearance over weight and popularity. My 381i rides like silk, weighs less than my steel, has superior components and draws a lot of positive comments from folks who have never seen one. All in all, a lot of positive reinforcement for my choice. I think I'll keep it.
honestly?flying
Sep 4, 2002 7:30 AM
""Weight is not everything, but all else equal (more or less), why ride heavier bike? ""

If this is the basis why ride carbon at all?
Why not starship or U2? Why ride heavier?

You know the steel guys will be all over you for that 1 ;-)
Yes I have a Colnago MXL & love it.
But I just bought a 381i with no test ride based on all the reviews I have heard in which they state its comfort & most of all its *liveliness* is what sold them.But also I bought the relaxed angles & top tube length. On my Mxl I have the seat slamed all the way back & want more.

All my rides are climbs that average 3-5 hours & it sounded like the bike. C40 was out of the question because to my mind it is beyond its value by at least 1500. As I said I ride Colnago now so its not a Colnago bash per se. Only the C40 is out of line value wise IMHO & to tell you the truth I have grown tired of the busy paint too ;-) So the understated Look was refreshing to me in both looks & value. Now if it lives up to its reputation I will be a happy man.
You will love your Look 381i! The bike handles/rides like aPaul
Sep 4, 2002 8:52 AM
dream. I have a 386, and love (others also in my club) it's design. My friend (I 've ridden his) has a 381i, and won't get off it. Has a custom Specrtrum and a merlin x-lite. Says he feels a part of it unlike other bikes.

Enjoy! I hope to get another Look soon, and the 381i is on top of my list.

Let me know how you like it.
I wouldn't call 16.3 lbs heavy. Not as lite as a C-40, but aPaul
Sep 4, 2002 8:44 AM
lot less money. I weighted my 386 bike in two different shops. It's built up with Dura Ace and K's. You can get the 381i (Kelmeframe/fork/bearings/spacers for 1190. Now tell me where can you get a bike of this quality for that money. Totalcycling has C-40's for 2500. Personnally, C-40's are over priced in my book. $1,000 for a paint job is too much money for me. Treks are okay, but the Look has panache. They can be easily repaired due to their construct, plus, they ride like a dream!!

No offense taken, debate is debate, opinion is opinion. We're all friends.
I agree here...Dave Hickey
Sep 4, 2002 9:06 AM
I'm not looking to start a war, but LOOK is one of the few manufacturers that use accurate weights. LOOK bases their weights on a 54cm frame AND fork. I've seen some claimed weights on certain Italian frames and either their scale is way off or they are using a 47cm frame as a guide. I'm not suggesting that there aren't lighter carbon frames, it's just that when compared to most of the other carbon framesets, the weights are closer than the published numbers.
We all know what Mavic is like when it pertains to weight. nmPaul
Sep 4, 2002 10:05 AM
Take one for a good test ride.look271
Sep 4, 2002 9:23 AM
You'll be hooked. I've been on Trek OCLV's, C-dale's, good steel (DeRosa), and titanium. Nothing rides like my Look. Haven't been on a C-40, but I can't imagine it could be that much better (especially consdidering the difference in cost.)
then why are so many TDF riders making the same mistake? (nm)ET
Sep 4, 2002 11:10 AM
.
honestlyfiltersweep
Sep 4, 2002 11:46 AM
I actually like the industrial design of the Look... but that is a matter of taste. Weight? For my money, the framset looks better than any Trek offering, and is cheaper than any competition out there- and the ride is amazing. Granted I was comparing it against a Trek, since, well, I couldn't check out a Parlee or Calfee... or Kestrel or Aegis (neither of which are that light anyway).

I think Look overstates the weight- to my shock, the LBS weighed my bike (a 281) in my presence after they built it (ignorance is bliss... I didn't even WANT to know) and I was VERY pleasantly surprised (sub 17 lbs for less money than a 5200... Ok- price doesn't include wheels, since I used my own).

Assume it IS heavier... why do people ride steel or Ti?
Don't forget the Look wallpapers for your desktopTig
Sep 4, 2002 9:29 AM
If you have, or at least dreaming of a Look you should treat yourself to their selection of wallpaper downloads:

http://www.lookcycle.com/english/corporate/wallpaper_std.htm
I had to take it off. I kept buying too many frames nmDave Hickey
Sep 4, 2002 12:33 PM