|Look 381 vs. Trek OCLV||my327vette|
Apr 9, 2003 4:00 PM
|Hi, I currently ride a Trek 5200. But I have read some good things about the Look 381, as well as noticing that a lot of people are riding them. I am thinking about getting one, and was wondering if anyone could tell me how the ride of the Look will differ from the ride of my Trek? If it matters, I am 195 pounds, and don't race but do a lot of fast rides with friends and plenty of nice, long solo rides at a decent pace. Thanks!|
|re: Look 381 vs. Trek OCLV||look271|
Apr 9, 2003 5:35 PM
|You know what I will say. Buy the Look. It rides similar to a good steel frame, except it is more damped due to the carbon. It is lively, unlike an OCLV, yet light. Stable as a rocket ship on rails. My opinion is completly biased, but there are LOTS more out there that will agree.|
|Hey, I agree||filtersweep|
Apr 9, 2003 6:30 PM
|I'd argue that a 381 will provide more road feedback (in a good way) than an OCLV. Also, it is much easier to do your own build with a Look (Trek really spanks the customer who wants to pick and choose components, especially outside the Trek "family" of products).
The geometry and sizing are quite different- a 57 Look will be larger than a 58 Trek, for instance. You can probably buy a well-equipped "off-the-shelf" Trek cheaper than a Look, and the frame will be lighter, but there is something super-cool about the Look ride (can you tell I have one?).
|I'm with look271||High Gear|
Apr 10, 2003 1:40 AM
|I have had both frames...well the 281, and he hits the nail on the head. Out of my four bikes, I like my Look the best.|
|re: Look 381 vs. Trek OCLV||Horace Greeley|
Apr 9, 2003 6:38 PM
|I haven't had any significant time on a Trek OCLV to compare, but my Look 381 has all of the positive attributes of my aluminum frame (C'dale CAAD 3) without many of the drawbacks. It's stiff and responsive, but I no longer brace myself for each bump in the road. It's hard to describe, but it's very lively ride while at the same time you get the feeling it is floating over the road (as if on ice). Plus, with the Look you get to pick and choose components as the someone else noted.|
|re: Look 381 vs. Trek OCLV||kelmeboyAZ|
Apr 9, 2003 6:42 PM
|I road a 2000 Trek 5500 for about 5000 miles then I bought a 2002 Look KG381 Team Kelme (HSC 4 fork). I've got about 4000 miles on the Look. I swapped the D/A components over and kept the Ksyrium's I'd been riding so it's a fair comparison of frame/fork combo. The Trek was comfortable but as they say muted. The KG381 geometry is more to my liking and sizing is different (I rode a 56 Trek and a 54 Look). The Look ride is superb - comfortable as hell but bright and responsive almost like steel! Way, way better than the Trek. Maybe a little twitchy on descents, that's my only criticism. Wonderful climber. You'll love it and won't covet another bike for atleast a year.|
|Hey, nice handle!||look271|
Apr 9, 2003 7:34 PM
|I just built up a 2001 kg361 in team Kelme colors. Great bike. Smoother and stiffer than my kg271. I'll have pics by next week. (I swear-really!) Maybe I could be "kelmeboyPA"? =)|
Apr 9, 2003 7:57 PM
|I bought a 381 about a year ago and it's a great bike. One of the nicest looking frames I have ever seen. Trek makes a great bike and I dont think anyone can argue with that, but they are ugly in my opinion, and I'm not into 2 inches of spacers and a riser stem that everyone puts on them because there geometry is terrible. The 381 is not the lightest carbon frame out there but mine comes in at just under 17 lbs. without pedals with full DA, USE carbon post and deda bar and stem, 55cm buy and enjoy.|
|re: Look 381 vs. Trek OCLV||barnaby|
Apr 10, 2003 12:49 AM
|USed to have a 5500 and currently own a KG261. Not in the best position to comment on the 381, but can say that there is a huge difference between Look and OCLV geometry generally. Given the sort of riding you say you do the Look sounds like a better option. However, be careful with sizing, as someone has already noted, it is nothing like Trek sizing so you may have to start from your own basic measurements.
I beleive the ride between the two brands is noticeable, however which is better is purely personal preference. However for comfort even the cheaper Look is considerably above average.
Apr 10, 2003 4:49 AM
|Depending on the frame size, there may be a substantial difference in the fit. These two brands are at the extreme ends with regard to STA and TT length.
Post a specific size Trek and I can compare it to a 381.
Newer model LOOK frames like the 486 and 461 have different geometry.
Apr 10, 2003 11:34 AM
If you could compare a 58 Trek to a 56 381, I would really appreciate it. I'm almost done building up my 381 now, and my main concern would be what size stem to get to make the reach comparable to my Trek (which had a 110 stem). Thanks for any help!
As to the original subject of this thread, definitely go with the Look IMO. Coming of a 5200, I test-rode a 381 (with my wheels) and the difference was noticeable right away! As others have said, the Look is much more 'lively' (hard to explain unless you ride one). The Trek frame is going to be a little lighter, but for me, I wanted to build up a bike that's all about the RIDE, and there's nothing quite like the ride of Look carbon. Good luck in your decision!
Say Cheez (from PA)
|here it is..||C-40|
Apr 10, 2003 4:32 PM
|The 58cm Trek has a 73 STA and 57.1cm TT.
The 56cm LOOK 381 has a 72.5 STA and a 56.9cm TT.
Compared to the Trek, the LOOK has an effective TT length of 56.3 (subtract 6mm for the .5 degree difference in STA).
A 10mm longer stem will produce approximately the same reach, once you get the saddle adjusted to the same KOP position.
|here it is..||my327vette|
Apr 10, 2003 6:44 PM
|Hey everyone...thanks for all the info! it sounds like i would really like the 381. I am currently riding a 54cm trek 5200 which feels just a hair small for me, but i used to have a 56cm that felt a hair too big for me, so i have no idea what the right size would be. i felt a little too stretched out on the 56, but my elbows almost bump my knees when in the drops on the 54. Both bikes had the standard size stems that came on the bikes. I guess maybe i should get professinally fitted for the look, huh?
Hey Cheezehead....i'm in PA too! Do you know where to get a good deal on the 381? I would really like to get the team CSC colors (flat carbon with white letters). Thanks again!
|I'm in PA, too.||look271|
Apr 11, 2003 11:03 AM
|Where are you at? Don't know of any great deals around here, but a shop here in HBg will build it up if you get a frame-will run you $100-$150. If you buy a frame from them and they build it, they will do a professional fitting take it off the price of the bike. Otherwise it's about $50.|
|I'm in PA, too.||Cheezhead|
Apr 11, 2003 1:45 PM
|Hey my327vette and look271,
I live in the Philadelphia area. I work at Bike Line in Ardmore, right on the main line.
As far as getting a good deal on the Look around here, good luck. We don't usually stock Looks, I got mine on an employee purchase from the same place we get our Look pedals. However, if you're close by and want to come in and check out the bike, just stop in! I work tues, thurs, and sat. If I get my Nokon cables in soon (they're the only missing link!) i'll let you take it for a test ride too (it's a 56).
Hey C-40, thanks for the math. That's what I figured too, just wanted to double check. As a matter of fact, my 120mm stem just came in today. I put it all on, adjusted it up a bit, and the reach is perfect! Now if those cables would only come in....
Say Cheez (in PA)
|Help with picking a size???||my327vette|
Apr 12, 2003 8:10 PM
|Hey C-40. I have just about decided to get a 381. I am currently riding a size 54 Trek 5200 which almost feels a just a hair on the small side, but my old 5200 in size 56 felt just a hair big. Can you tell me what size Look 381 would be comparable to my 54 Trek, and also, since they come in 1cm increments, would there possibly be a size that is in between a trek 54 and 56? Thanks for all the help!|
|Help with picking a size???||look271|
Apr 13, 2003 10:17 AM
|Judging from what you said, I'd look at a 54 or 53 Look. Treks tend to have a larger size versus other brands, so it would follow that you would need the 54 or 53 Look, since you say that the 54 is too small and a 56 is too big. My advice? Go to a shop that will do a fit testing on you so you are set up right. Here's the link to Look's home site (not the USA site). It has the geometries for all Look frames. http://www.lookcycle.com/english/catalogue/2003/cadres.htm|
|Help with picking a size???||my327vette|
Apr 13, 2003 12:03 PM
|I would love to go to a shop and get fitted, but i plan to purchase it online so i will not be able to do it. The prices online for the 2002 models are signifigantly cheaper than the shops around me. hopefully i can figure out the size with a little help from you guys.|
|Help with picking a size???||look271|
Apr 13, 2003 3:28 PM
|Check the geometry chart on the link that I gave you. Compare it to your Trek. My best guess, from what you've said, is a 53 or 54. Note that there is a difference in the tt (B) length between the 53 and the 54.|| |