|Anyone with experience with a Look KG486||hudsonite|
Sep 18, 2003 1:07 PM
|After a long and hard search, I have pretty much made up my mind on buying a Look kg486. Looked at many other carbon frames but this one stands out with respect to appearance and geometry. I think it will do the job.
I do not race, but like to ride long distances (100 -> 200 miles) fast. Love the hills too.
But before I make my final decision; has anyone had any experience with the frame?
I need something strong (190#) and want a durable frame that is going to last more than a few years. I do not want to have durability troubles with a bike.
BTW, I love Treks OCLV's but the geometry does not work for me. Too stretched out for my body style. It was my first choice, but cannot get a big enough frame that does not stretch me out too much. The Colnago C-40 would also fit my body style, but it is too much money. No calfee dealers around so that is out. Cervello R2.5 might work, but they have no track record in CF yet.
Sep 18, 2003 2:58 PM
|I've a couple thousand miles in the saddle of this KG486, many of them in the Angeles Forest and San Bernadino Mts. It's a very comfortable all day ride as well as a competent climber. In my advancing years, I'm not quite the climber as in years past, but then again I never rode equipment as well tuned as the current available technology. This ride is a very good example of that.
When hitting some of the rough stuff, it's not as shock absorbent as the KG381 for instance, but the rebound is snappier. The rubber gets back down on the pavement a bit quicker than it did on the 5900. I've read/heard some riders suggest that it's a snappy handler, but I find it rather neutral.
This buildup weighs in at 17.0 lbs (size 57) and it's not hiccupped once. I'm in under 170 lbs these days.
|Hey Bixe, really nice bike.........n/m||Toothpick|
Sep 18, 2003 3:18 PM
|Thanks for the Info||hudsonite|
Sep 18, 2003 3:58 PM
Thanks for the info. Your bike is very, very nice. I really like the way it is put together. I noticed your photos on an earlier post. It is one of motivating factors in my decision.
My wife likes the new white and black model. I like both, the black and the black/white. We shall see.
You mentioned that the weight of the bike comes in under 17#. Did you have a chance to weigh the frame before it was built?
The reason I ask is that the new 2004 Look web site lists the frame and fork this year at about 200g more than it did in 2003. The new fork is supposed to be lighter, which means that the 2003 published weight is wrong or the new one has changed in some way.
One last thing. How does this bike fit compared to the Trek 5900? In other words, if you are riding a 57cm now, what size of trek did you ride before?
|Thanks for the Info||filtersweep|
Sep 18, 2003 5:06 PM
|I ride a 381- which I believe has a similar geometry and my Trek 58 was actually smaller than my 57 Look.
Also, Look is weird with their weights- they almost always include the fork and I believe they also include the headset. I assume the fork is also uncut when they "weigh" in. My bike is very light, but if you look at just the published stats, you'd expect it to be a bit portly. If anything, Look overestimates weight rather than deceptively weighing a bare frame without even a cage bolt- in maybe a size 48... after they sorted through 100 to find the lightest one... also, you can certainly buy lighter frames and forks, but the 81 series is about as smooth as it gets- and that 86 you are looking at is about as beautiful as it gets!
|Is there a rationale for Look's naming scheme?||JonnyHu|
Sep 19, 2003 6:25 AM
|Is there a meaning behind the numbers "381", "386", "486", or are these just random numbers? Also, what is the practical difference between the 386 and 486? I think the 386 is pretty, and it's $1,000 less than the 486 and only 50 grams heavier.|
|re: Anyone with experience with a Look KG486||Ian|
Sep 19, 2003 6:49 AM
|Here is a buddy's bike. He loves it. The 04' is heavier, they made it even stiffer.