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 )


Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900(13 posts)

Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900dmoulton
Oct 9, 2002 9:54 AM
Assuming one can get a "fit" with each of these machines curious how those in the know out there feel these 3 machines measure up against each other. Is there a "good, better, best" and if so why?

Thanks.
re: Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900CT1 Guy
Oct 9, 2002 10:37 AM
Look KG381i - nice looking, stiff, but compliant ride - heaviest and not 100% carbon construction

Colnago C40 - most proven design out there, stiff, and comes in loads of colors - however, not everyone likes a Colnago and they can be pricey (depends where you buy it)and you have to wait for non-stock sizes / colors

Trek 5900 - Lance rides one - and so does everyone else - stiff yes - limited colors - sketchy front end and not as light as you'd think. Smaller sizes geometry is weird
Look KG381iflying
Oct 9, 2002 11:51 AM
All 3 bikes are proven time & again in the TDF. In fact proven in all racing period.

The weight diff between the bikes at this level is negligible IMO. The difference in reality is probably a 1/4 full water bottle.

I went with the Look 380i & have no regrets at all. You can see my review in review section or email me if you have any Q's about it.

flying--at--hialoha--dot--net
Look KG381ifiltersweep
Oct 9, 2002 1:17 PM
To me it was between the Trek and the Look- I went with Look (I'm not made out of money- no Colnago). Trek's pricing can be a bit deceptive unless you are completely happy with all the stock parts.

I wouldn't worry about the Look "weighing more" than either of the others... manufacturers use so much slight of hand with published weights anyway that who really knows how much any of them weigh? The Look weight includes the fork- which I assume is uncut and includes the headset... plus the ride is amazing, though arguably would be amazing with any of those frames (though I did prefer it over the Trek's ride).

The Look really needs to be seen in person to be fully appreciated... and better yet, ridden. Some people might be put off by the lugged, more industrial design, compared to the other two, but to me, it is rather retro-futuristic ;)

I'd be struggling with your question if you asked Calfee vs. Look...
re: Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900Cheezhead
Oct 9, 2002 12:28 PM
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was trying to decide between the Look and the Trek myself (never considered the Colnago because of $$$). I'm coming off a 5200 (which was destroyed when I got hit by a car, but that's another story), so I know exactly how the Trek carbon rides, and I was 90% sure that I was going to go with the 5900 because I really did liked my 5200. That's until I took a 381i for a test ride. What a difference! The look was much livelier, super stiff (but I only weigh 155), looks cool as hell, and there aren't 2 billion of them around. Ordered my 2003 Look KG381i a couple of weeks ago, and I'm waiting for it to come in so I can build it up with Dura-Ace and probably Zipp wheels! Can't wait!!!

Say Cheez
Hate to ruin this for you (jk)TrekFurthur
Oct 10, 2002 3:57 AM
The 5200 and the 5900 are different animals. I too replaced my 5200 after an accident; I went to the 5900 and was surprised at its stiffness, though the overall ride is still smooth. However, I don't think that means your Look will be terrible; I've never ridden one. Enjoy!
re: Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900Racer C
Oct 9, 2002 2:33 PM
In response to some of the other questions out there, I work in a shop that carries both Trek and Look. One word of caution is that the Trek 5200 does not ride the same as the 5900. The 5900 is much more stiff, responsive and lively, but still carbon compliant. One thing to consider is the aluminum luggs on the Look frame. This is a cost cutting measure that cheapens the bike (though you wouldn't know it from the price!) Go with the Trek, you'll thank yourself. Plus, if you really hate the Trek name, contact your shop. If you order it directly from Trek factory and pay a premium ($50), you can get a nude frame with no decals. Good luck.
Lugs?filtersweep
Oct 9, 2002 3:29 PM
Um... don't Trek's have internal Lugs? Another thread here describes a company that makes carbon fiber tubing for Trek... two "cost cutting" measures, if you ask me ;)

Hey, there is nothing wrong with a Trek frame, but the Look is so different that it comes down to a matter of taste.
Oh Please..............Dave Hickey
Oct 9, 2002 4:05 PM
Trek is a lugged bike also. Granted the lugs are carbon but why is the LOOK cheapened with aluminum lugs? Most people here know I'm a bike fan of LOOKs but I won't comment on LOOK vs Trek, Colnago etc...... because I've never owned/ridden the other bikes.
Stick with what you know Racer C and don't make comments you cannot back up.
My friend has a 381i, plus 5 other road bikes, and he likes thePaul
Oct 10, 2002 3:10 AM
381i the best. I have a 386, and it's the best ride I've ever had. If you go with the Look, totalcyling has a great price. My friend bought it through them, and it came with the bearings, and Look carbon spacers. The 381i, unlike the others, has an adjustable wheel base. colnago doesn't have a replaceable hanger,it's too expensive, and over-rated. If you like a fancy paint job, buy it. My choice would be the Look, Trek, Colnago in that order.

My friend won't ride his Merlin X-lite, says the Look is the best bike he's ever own. He also has a custom Spectrum, Kestrel Ironman, Trek AL, etc.

Good luck
Over-rated ... I take that personally Look-Boypmf1
Oct 10, 2002 5:13 AM
Over-rated? By whom? If this is the Paul I think it is, then here's a guy who would have told you Cannondale was the best bike on earth (he's got 3 of them) a year ago. Now he buys a Look and its the best bike on earth.

The C-40 is a nice riding bike, and about a pound lighter than the 381. Adjustable wheelbase ... if tinkering with the 3mm of adjustment is a big deal to you, then I guess this is a plus. I doubt it makes a difference. Replacable hanger? So what. If this were a really desirable feature, wouldn't more manufacturers use them? Colnagos don't need one, they never break.

Too expensive? You can get a C-40 for around $2700 at a number of places. That includes a fork (say its worth $350 even though Colnago sells them for $700) and a carbon post and stem (say those are worth $150). So the cost of just the frame is close to $2200, which isn't that far off from what the Look costs. The paint jobs on these bikes are truly beautiful.

Seriously, all these bikes are good and I doubt anyone would be unhappy with any of them. Even Paul.

So Paul, doing the Seagull on Saturday? Take some pictures of the rest stops so you can show the Red Cross what they're supposed to look like.
about the weight dealJohnG
Oct 10, 2002 6:20 AM
I've built up both a C40 and a 381i for my brother and I KNOW they are very nearly the same weight (frame and fork). Certainly within 100 gms.

As far as which is "best": All three are nearly identical in ride "quality". In terms of absolute "performance" the differences are absolutely ZERO.

The LOOK is probably the most technically advanced of the three but it won't get you down the road any faster than the others.

JohnG
re: Look KG381i - Colnago C-40 - Trek 5900dasho
Oct 10, 2002 8:42 AM
I had a Trek 5200 for 3 years which I liked a lot but got an opportunity to get a Look KG 281 cheap and have since sold the Trek. The Look is more lively than the Trek as mentioned, is a bit more supple, and the riding position is more relaxed. My 281 is built with Dura Ace and weighs 17 1/4 lbs with pedals so I don't understand why people complain about it's weight.
I have heard that the C-40 is even better than the 381. This from a French cycle shop owner who sells Look, Trek, and Colnago. For what it's worth, he claims the C-40 is the best riding bike he has ever ridden.