Versions Look 585

[Cloozoe]

Any changes to 585 over the course of its production run? Any that matter much? Any that were in response to significant problems in the forerunner version?

[Look585]

There were a few changes to the original 585 over its production run:

2005/6: Introduced
2008/9ish: Added "Ultra" version (stiffer layup, same geo)
2009/10is: Added "optimum" geometry with a bit more headtube and less reach. "origin" remained untouched.
2010/11ish: Changed headset system to some sort of locking system. I built one for a friend with the new HS system, but it was pre-assembled and adjusted correctly so I didn't open it up. Didn't seem like a huge improvement, so neither a reason to seek out nor avoid the newer HS version.

So basically 3 versions:
Standard/origin
Ultra
Optimum

They were labeled well so unless a repaint you should know what you are looking at. There were also some "team" and "limited edition" paint schemes but the frames were not any different.

Key things to look for in the used market is the presence of the headtube cable guides; they are a bit delicate and can crack if whacked. Also, there are two steel headset inserts that are *mandatory* with the early generation frames. They install between the carbon headtube and the upper and lower HS bearings. On the fork (HSC5) most (all?) had a molded bearing seat at the fork crown. Do not install a crown race, just drop the lower HS bearing right on the molded bearing seat.

There was also a 565 early on that had a lower grade of carbon tubes and an aluminum BB lug instead of the massive molded carbon BB lug of the 585. Identical geometry, so if you find one and but can't find a geometry chart, just refer to the 585. Cool feature of the 565 is that the BB>downtube junction is open and thus one can run an internal Di2 cable by drilling out the DT cable guide rivets. No actual carbon is harmed in the process as the rivet hole is already there. Then you can mount an internal junction and seatpost battery and pop the FD/RD wires out the BB drainhole. (This is not possible with 585 as the BB>DT junction is sealed.)

Lastly there was a 555 for a while, but that was a meaningfully different frame than the 585/565, despite very similar cosmetics.

[Cloozoe]

Very helpful-thanks much

[adub]

Not sure if they make their own frames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

[zmalwo]

Not sure if they make their own frames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

They definitely didn't expect people to "Look" inside :banana::banana::banana:
Seriously tho, the more I watch his videos, the more I'm glad that I sold off all my carbon bikes and kept my 1997 Colnago Superissimo as my only bike.

[Look585]

Look produced(es) most of its carbon frames in its own factory in Tunisia. Some lower end carbon frames may have been outsourced (the 555 for example); however, the 585 and 565 were built in-house.

[parallelfish]

Not sure if they make their own frames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

However, not applicable to the 585, which is of carbon tube and lug construction. Such a fine frame!

[Black Dog]

Here is a factory tour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

[Dave]

I've owned both the original and ultra model frames. Both worked extremely well. I never cared for any of the integrated seatpost models. I wanted to try the new low priced 785, but it's only available as a complete shimano equipped bike. I had a deal to get the frame for $1750, but that fell through. I ended up with a colnago c-rs frame for $950, after selling off the shimano build kit.

The new 785 is lighter than the old 585. The 785 RS is even lighter, but twice the price. I'm too old and slow to need that.

[delish]

Any changes to 585 over the course of its production run? Any that matter much? Any that were in response to significant problems in the forerunner version?

What are the significant problems you refer to?

Tire clearance seems to be another variable. Mine is a 10/11ish Origin and fits 28’s but others have reported that 25’s are the widest that fit.

[Cloozoe]

What are the significant problems you refer to?

None that I know of. I was asking if there were any. You know, like "early versions of the Acme Ultralight were notorious for disintegrating in the rain. This issue was addressed in the MkII version when they stopped using cardboard downtubes"

Evidently, based on what I've been told here, Look eschewed using their paying customers as beta testers for the 585.

Thanks for the info on tire width. How do you like yours?

[tv_vt]

I've had the Origin model and the Optimum model, which fit me better. Very high quality bikes, beautiful, and rode very smoothly.

[kramnnim]

Not sure if they make their own frames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

There's a GCN video of a factory tour.

[Cloozoe]

BTW, anybody have stack and reach figures for Lg. 585?

[Hawker]

My Optimum. And with it, I am well pleased. Fits me like a glove and rides very nice.

[wpod]

Running Conti 4Season 28's on my Ultra and am still stoked every time I ride it.

[saab2000]

Running Conti 4Season 28's on my Ultra and am still stoked every time I ride it.

Which rims?

I've used 25mm Vittoria clinchers on mine with 20mm internal width rims and it seems to be about the maximum. Actually, I don't want wider than this but I've reported to folks that I can't imagine a 28 fitting, or if it did there would be so little room under the fork and behind the seat tube I can't imagine a grain of sand getting through.

[arimajol]

I'm excited to be getting one up and running. Seems like everybody loves these bikes.

[Keith A]

I recently helped a friend acquire a 585 and he couldn't be happier.

[Cloozoe]

Further digging has lead me to discover that there was apparently a problem with some 585s; to wit, the alloy BB insert de-bonding from the carbon housing.

Apparently this was a short-lived issue, limited to some (all?) 2006 examples.

Which leads to a few questions:


Is it true/wide spread enough to be cause for concern?

If true, was it indeed limited to 2006 model year?

Any way to tell model year of a 585? Got my eyes on one that predates the Origin/Ultra/Optimum era, but that's all I know about its vintage. Seller is clueless.


As always, thanks in advance. Nobody knows more than the cumulative group here, and I appreciate and value the expertise.

[rePhil]

We all like what we like....I can only answer from my own experiences.I currently have more than one 585. I have never had a single issue with BB's or anything else for that matter with any of them, with the exception of sourcing a replacement fork after being crashed by a car.


Further digging has lead me to discover that there was apparently a problem with some 585s; to wit, the alloy BB insert de-bonding from the carbon housing.

Apparently this was a short-lived issue, limited to some (all?) 2006 examples.

Which leads to a few questions:


Is it true/wide spread enough to be cause for concern?

If true, was it indeed limited to 2006 model year?

Any way to tell model year of a 585? Got my eyes on one that predates the Origin/Ultra/Optimum era, but that's all I know about its vintage. Seller is clueless.


As always, thanks in advance. Nobody knows more than the cumulative group here, and I appreciate and value the expertise.

[old_fat_and_slow]

No issues with my BB insert (so far). I'm not the original owner though. I'm pretty sure mine is one of the earlier versions around 2005 or 2006.

Seen here: https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=215909

.

[Cloozoe]

We all like what we like....I can only answer from my own experiences.I currently have more than one 585. I have never had a single issue with BB's or anything else for that matter with any of them, with the exception of sourcing a replacement fork after being crashed by a car.

You sound offended. I wasn't trying to knock your taste or your bikes, but apparently there was an early problem that they quickly recognized and resolved. Reportedly some early 2006 examples relied on sort of a toothed surface on the alloy BB liner kind of just digging into/grabbing the carbon shell in lieu of adhesive. It didn't work very well and there are numerous reports of them failing so Look went to adhesive. Or so goes the story. I'm agnostic about the explanation of why they came loose but less doubtful that a certain batch were prone to it; too many people claim it happened to them to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm trying to determine if the stories are true and if so how to dodge one of the relative few that fall into that category.

Clearly it's not all the 585s or even most of them, but rather a specific run in 2006. You may like what you like, but it's hard to imagine you'd like that.

In short, chill, my brother, and perhaps read more carefully.

[rePhil]

Sorry, It didn't come out the way I intended..I didn't mean it the way you took it at all. It's more in the vein of why I own more than one. I bought one here, liked it so much I sold my steel bike and bought another, and then there was the Moots...

You seem to have a good handle on possible problems with some BB's. I was just giving my personal opinion that I hadn't experienced any issues. (and hope my good luck continues:)

They can be had for a decent price these days. I hope you find one you can't resist!
What size BTW?



You sound offended. I wasn't trying to knock your taste or your bikes, but apparently there was an early problem that they quickly recognized and resolved. Reportedly some early 2006 examples relied on sort of a toothed surface on the alloy BB liner kind of just digging into/grabbing the carbon shell in lieu of adhesive. It didn't work very well and there are numerous reports of them failing so Look went to adhesive. Or so goes the story. I'm agnostic about the explanation of why they came loose but less doubtful that a certain batch were prone to it; too many people claim it happened to them to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm trying to determine if the stories are true and if so how to dodge one of the relative few that fall into that category.

Clearly it's not all the 585s or even most of them, but rather a specific run in 2006. You may like what you like, but it's hard to imagine you'd like that.

In short, chill, my brother, and perhaps read more carefully.

[Cloozoe]

Sorry, It didn't come out the way I intended..I didn't mean it the way you took it at all. It's more in the vein of why I own more than one. I bought one here, liked it so much I sold my steel bike and bought another, and then there was the Moots...

You seem to have a good handle on possible problems with some BB's. I was just giving my personal opinion that I hadn't experienced any issues. (and hope my good luck continues:)

They can be had for a decent price these days. I hope you find one you can't resist!
What size BTW?

In turn, sorry I misinterpreted you.

I'm kinda a 'tweener re: their large L-XL, but as I prefer a slightly shorter TT/Longer stem, rather than vice/versa on the typical classic Italian steel frames with which I'm familiar, as well as the tighter feel/handling of a smaller bike, I'd go L.

[gemship]

You sound offended. I wasn't trying to knock your taste or your bikes, but apparently there was an early problem that they quickly recognized and resolved. Reportedly some early 2006 examples relied on sort of a toothed surface on the alloy BB liner kind of just digging into/grabbing the carbon shell in lieu of adhesive. It didn't work very well and there are numerous reports of them failing so Look went to adhesive. Or so goes the story. I'm agnostic about the explanation of why they came loose but less doubtful that a certain batch were prone to it; too many people claim it happened to them to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm trying to determine if the stories are true and if so how to dodge one of the relative few that fall into that category.

Clearly it's not all the 585s or even most of them, but rather a specific run in 2006. You may like what you like, but it's hard to imagine you'd like that.

In short, chill, my brother, and perhaps read more carefully.


This is an interesting subject. I don't doubt what you say but to speak in favor of BB's on carbon bikes in general it seems to me a debonding of the threaded shell to the carbon of the bike can possibly be subjective. People may not properly grease the threads, or perhaps they don't tighten to proper torque specs. Possibly when they do tighten to proper specs they do so in a way that forces things to separate rather than a more gradual buildup to proper torque. After saying all that there is the possibility that some folks may ride in harsher/wetter environments and in that respect even if the BB is in proper working order it maybe reasonable to take apart and reassemble the BB with proper cleaning, lube and reassembly more often just to avoid parts seizing up. Again I think it maybe a subjective issue, just a thought and a more optimistic approach. I mean I would let that negative hype deter you from the bike if you were to find one you liked.

[Cloozoe]

Certainly an interesting, reasonable take. Thanks.

My first choice would still be to find out how to identify a 2006 frame --paint ? Serial #? -- and at least have the option of considering whether the better part of valor might be just to wait for one a year or more newer to come along.

But your points are taken.

[saab2000]

Over the years I have owned six (6) Look 585s and not a one has had a single issue with the bottom bracket. I have no idea what year they were but the first was owned in about 2010, so probably a pretty 'old' one at the time.

AFAIK, they're really nice bikes and if you can find one that fits they're keepers.

FWIW, I'm also realistically between the L and the XL. I owned an L and sold it post haste. It did little for me. The XLs I have owned have been stiff enough and the Ultra versions have been a bit more 'stiff enough'. I don't know if it's just a mental thing because of the labeling, but I think I can tell the difference.

They don't have barrel adjusters. They have cable stops and I use an inline barrel adjuster for the front derailleur, as seen in this picture.

They're not perfect, but they're awfully good and hearken back a few decades for me. I have a bit of an emotional attachment to the brand and these models, which are direct descendants of the original ones ridden by Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault in the 1986 Tour de France.

Sadly, the Look 585 was after the end of the 1-cm incremental sizing for the brand. The Look 481i, a very nice frame in its own right, was the last model that had 1-cm increment sizing.

If they fit and are in decent condition they are fantastic bicycles.

These are the two I'm riding at the moment. It's a well-worn 585 Ultra in the XL size, outfitted with Shimano 5800 stuff (53/39 and 11-28 cassette) and wheels by Ergott Wheels - Wheels Mfg. hubs laced to Pacenti Forza rims. It's a workaday bike from a decade ago and way better than my current fitness should allow. The white one is in Minneapolis at a family member's home for when I'm in town there. Similar construction, identical fit. The white paint is not original. It was a respray and looks pretty nice, but it's not quite the way Look produced them.

Both pictured bikes have shortened steerer tubes and lowered bearing top covers, to lower the front end to a more appropriate height for me. I wish I could lower them another CM but that isn't really possible without some other compromises.

If you can find one that fits with the original headset it's a very nice bike.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1844/43554075405_2cd0243d62_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2924/34010157152_da1fca05de_b.jpg

[savechief]

BTW, anybody have stack and reach figures for Lg. 585?

For a Large 585:
Stack ~558
Reach ~397

[paredown]

For a Large 585:
Stack ~558
Reach ~397

I also had the L vs XL debate--and one thing that may influence you is that the XL is level top tube while the L is slightly sloping.

I went L (mainly because that is what I got a good deal on from the Forum) and I'm happy I did (although I debated buying the bargain 595 XL that came up this fall, just to try it out.)

I have a non-stock fork so that that for what it is, but I find the 585 among the better bikes I have ridden (of any material).

[Cloozoe]

As posted by savechief, stack and reach for Lg are just about right in my wheelhouse, but as I said, I lean toward a set-up that's slightly shorter in the toptube than others of my size might choose with good bit of setback at the saddle and longish stem. For reference, I'm 6' 1/4" tall, slightly torso-long (33" inseam)

[saab2000]

As posted by savechief, stack and reach for Lg are just about right in my wheelhouse, but as I said, I lean toward a set-up that's slightly shorter in the toptube than others of my size might choose with good bit of setback at the saddle and longish stem. For reference, I'm 6' 1/4" tall, slightly torso-long (33" inseam)

I’m almost exactly the same size. Tough call between the two sizes.

[Cloozoe]

I’m almost exactly the same size. Tough call between the two sizes.

Agreed. I've gone back and forth thinking about it numerous times.

[Keith A]

As posted by savechief, stack and reach for Lg are just about right in my wheelhouse, but as I said, I lean toward a set-up that's slightly shorter in the toptube than others of my size might choose with good bit of setback at the saddle and longish stem. For reference, I'm 6' 1/4" tall, slightly torso-long (33" inseam)I always felt like I had long legs for my height, and you guys have confirmed it. I'm just under 5' 10" and my inseam is the same as yours :eek:

[Cloozoe]

I always felt like I had long legs for my height, and you guys have confirmed it. I'm just under 5' 10" and my inseam is the same as yours :eek:

Or we have short legs for ours. Never did know what "normal" was.

[Dave]

5'-6.5" tall with a 32-5/8" cycling inseam. Long legs, short torso, but still ride with stock frames, little or no spacer and a -17 stem.