Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Please explain "LOOK" naming approach

Started by Walrus · · Last activity · 8 posts · 2,024 views

← Back to Cycling Equipment

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postPlease explain "LOOK" naming approachWalrus · 2 Oct 2005 02 / This pagePosts 1–8Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #8alienator · 17 Sep 2007

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
2 October 2005
Last activity
17 September 2007
Original author
Walrus
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,024
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Walrus
    Archived post
    #1

    Can anyone explain how LOOK name the frames in their range? Is there any pattern or logic? I can't find anything on their website, and it's hard to determine where a frame sits in the range. The 486 is more expensive than both the 555 and the 585 (Competitive Cyclist), so it's not as simple as "the higher the number the better the bike".

    The current range is:
    486 SE - High end with fancy paint job and matching carbon Ergopost
    486 - LOOK's Premier frameset
    585 - The latest sub 1kg offering which has rave reviews
    481 SL - Successor to the 381 (Laurent Jalabert)
    555 - Lightweight
    461 - Compact geometry all round racing frame
    386i - All purpose
    KX Light - Diamond shaped tube, compact geometry
    496 - Track bike

    If anyone can spot a pattern here...please let me in on the secret.

    Report
  2. nbfman
    Archived post
    #2

    I've wondered about the numbering scheme, too. No good ideas to offer, but am looking forward to any answers. Just curious - you mention rave reviews for the 585. Can you send a link for the review? Also, know of any reviews of the 555?

    Report
  3. Walrus
    Archived post
    #3
    nbfman said:

    I've wondered about the numbering scheme, too. No good ideas to offer, but am looking forward to any answers. Just curious - you mention rave reviews for the 585. Can you send a link for the review? Also, know of any reviews of the 555?

    Yep, here's a recent one pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.com

    It also won the Race bike of the Year in Cycling Weekly (about a month ago).

    Haven't seen any 555 reviews, sorry.

    Report
  4. pase
    Archived post
    #4

    there is also a 565 for their '06 range

    same as the 585 but an alloy BB shell, so a little heavier
    hopefully cheaper as i would love to ride a 585 or a 565

    featured on the cyclingnews site from some trade show

    Report
  5. MattAussie66
    Archived post
    #5
    Walrus said:

    Can anyone explain how LOOK name the frames in their range?
    ...
    If anyone can spot a pattern here...please let me in on the secret.

    I think I can spot a pattern..... maybe...

    The first number is a "platform" revision;
    - I think that all the frames that start with 3 all have alloy lugs, these would all be manufactured on the same line, only the geometry is different.
    - I think all the 4XX bikes are have a mix of carbon lug and mocoque, again I think all the bikes in 4XX are made the same way
    - I would guess that the 5XX bikes will be the next big thing?

    The second number is the geometry/use X8X are all general road bikes, X6X is a compact frame, X9X is a track frame, X5X is a specialist climber,

    The last number is the "position" in the range; 1 is lowest (engineers) and 6 is highest (merchant bankers).

    The rest of the "SE", "i" "SL" and "KX light" malarky are all from the North America marketing division as numbered models don't work in the USA (marketing 101).
    This also means that the 386i is the old platform with a slight upgrade.

    I currently have a 381 which I'm pretty happy with - but now I'm holding out for a 986 :eek:

    Report
  6. CAMPYBOB
    Archived post
    #6

    The last number is the "position" in the range; 1 is lowest (engineers) and 6 is highest (merchant bankers).

    LMAO!!! Good one!

    Report
  7. ToffoIsMe
    Archived post
    #7
    MattAussie66 said:

    X9X is a track frame,

    595 isn't a track frame.

    Report
  8. alienator
    Archived post
    #8
    ToffoIsMe said:

    595 isn't a track frame.

    Eggzactly.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionCycling Equipment Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.