I’m looking to get a new bike and I would like to get few reviews before I make the purchase
Thanks
.
The only review I have seen from someone who has ridden it is the one Tom Demerly did:
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/Look_596-2009.shtml
I have this bike and it kicks ass but I’m not a qualified reviewer and probably blinded by partiality. Tom’s review is spot on though.
X2 - check out Demerly’s review. I would have to agree with all of it.
There have also been numerous posts on this site about it.
I have a 596 in white size XS. I am 5’9" and evenly proportioned. 31" inseam. Demerly is spot on in saying that this bike will not fit anyone under 5’6". The geometry of the frame yields a long and low fit. Since the stem actually mounts 5 cm further from the headtube the reach is a little longer than quoted.
The key features that attracted me were the crankset, monoblade fork/stem mount, unique/WT tested frame, the geometry, and LOOK’s unmatched experience with carbon frames.
I have logged plenty of miles on it and completed 3 races so far. My bike splits have been faster as well as my run splits. I think the frame is faster and fits me better. The frame is very stiff laterally and is very efficient.
If an opinion counts as a review then please feel free to continue reading, if not then feel free to x out:
My 596 arrived in February of this year. I’ve been riding Zipp 2001’s for the past 4-5 years in racing and training. The 596 is even or better in road shock absorbtion (SP?) then the 2001 with a beam. The bike rides awesome, smooth and tracks really well, even though the stem mount looks wierd and appears as though it may not steer or track well, it does! The fork/stem system is the best I’ve ever owned. Its great to work on. Its easy, adjusts well and has alot of adjustments. The best thing about this bike, IMO, is the crank set. I had to get a second one in because UPS destroyed the first one in shipping. The second one arrived in what appeared to be and empty box, its that light. This includes the bottom bracket and crankset since its all one unit. The bottom bracket spins easier then any bb I’ve ever seen. To install this thing: push it through the bb shell, install a small collar on the non-drive side, tighten one small set screw, done. Its takes about 2 minutes to install the bottom bracket and crankset since its all one unit. The seat collar…oppss, there isn’t one. The ePost slides into the seat mast, and you tighten the elastomers, they come in hard, medium and soft, I use the medium.
Over the past 19 years I’ve built up and raced on many bikes, Trek 5200 and 2300, Cannondale Cadd4 and an older model I can’t remember, Softride SE7, Zipp 2001’s x4, Kestrel, Tiemeyer custom and I’m sure I missed a few others. This bike is by far the lightest, fastest, and best handling bike of them all. The engineering of this frame is surpassed by none. It was worth every single penny I spent on it. I put on the proprietary parts and takeoffs from one of my Zipp 2001’s and without regard to weight, this large frame weighs in at about 18.5 lbs. Far less then any bike I’ve ever owned.
Its fast and comfortable as hell!!!
X2 - check out Demerly’s review. I would have to agree with all of it.
There have also been numerous posts on this site about it.
I have a 596 in white size XS. I am 5’9" and evenly proportioned. 31" inseam. Demerly is spot on in saying that this bike will not fit anyone under 5’6". The geometry of the frame yields a long and low fit. Since the stem actually mounts 5 cm further from the headtube the reach is a little longer than quoted.
The key features that attracted me were the crankset, monoblade fork/stem mount, unique/WT tested frame, the geometry, and LOOK’s unmatched experience with carbon frames.
I have logged plenty of miles on it and completed 3 races so far. My bike splits have been faster as well as my run splits. I think the frame is faster and fits me better. The frame is very stiff laterally and is very efficient.
The stack and reach in the database accounts for where the stem mounts. I made some assumptions, which I list, but the bike’s stack and reach are accurate (or as accurate as they can be) for a bike with that sort of front end.
Thought you may find this useful (go to - http://www.cyclesuperstore.ie/shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=266&idproduct=22895#details) for pictures and graphs:
Aerodynamic Frame (Wind Tunel Tested)
The New LOOK 596 was created for Triathlons where aerdynamics is crutial. The bike is ideal for the riders who seeks a position for speed. Aerodynamics is the Top Priority of the bike. Our engineers studied all angles and shape of the tubes in order to obtain the most aerodynamic bike on the market and tested in the wind tunnel at the Magny Cours Race Track in Nevers, France. Each tube of the frame is positioned to optimise the air flow between the rider and the bike together in MOTION. In collaboration with Look engineers and the aerodynamic engineers ar Magny Cours, Look improved the aerodynamic of the 596 by 10% more aero than the 496. Both were tested in the wind tunnel. Aerodynamics and rigidity is often difficult to have in one bike. Look was able to achieve this by integrating the bottom bracket with the downtube in one continuous shape
Monobloc Construction
The 596 was manufactured in a special way in order to obtain the stiffness and aerodynamic shape. The 596 consists of 3 Monoblocs: the front triangle integrated with seatpost and the 2 halfs of the rear triangle - left & right sides. This is a new concept: 2 wishbones and half of the seat & chainstays. The connection of the seat stays is also a new technique by using a flat surface to act as a carbon plate. This technique allows for a greater contact surface resulting in more durable & stiffer frame
Carbon Monobloc ZED Cranks
The Carbon ZED cranks are delivered with the 596 Tri. This is a true Monobloc crankset (2 crankarms and axle are FULL MONOBLOC). The crankarms alone (not including bearings and chainrings) weight only 320 grams! The ZED crankset use special oversized 65mm
bottom bracket. The CETrilobe technology enables the triathlete to choose the crankarm length 170, 172,5 and 175 mm without changing the actual crankarms. The ZED is also compatable with 110mm and 130mm chainrings.
Integrated Seatpost, E-Post R32
The E-Post R32 gives the Triathlete the Ideal Position. It is reversible so effectively the saddle can be positioned +/- 32mm from the seattube centre line.
Easy angle adjustment - Easily accessible one bolt adjustment
Vibrations dampening - 3 elastomer blocks are part of the seatpost. It results in more comfort - rider is isolated from road vibrations
Offset Aerodynamic Monoblade Fork
The Offset LOOK Aero Fork has an important function as it is the part of the bike that penitrates the air first. The 596 fork was designed to act as a fairing. With a specific designed stem it adds a stiffer and responsive front end for steering precission
Carbon Indexed Stem
The carbon stem is composed of 2 carbon arms with aluminium collar. The stem is adjustable by rotating carbon arms and the height can be fine-tuned by the upper or lower inserts. There are 4 lengths available for the Triathlete to fine tune the cockpit
Analysis of resisting forces
When riding a bike cyclist must overcome several forces opposing forward movement. There is 4 main forces:
Rolling friction - resistance from contact of the tire with the surface + resistance on the wheel bearings
Gravity - resistance due to the weight of bike and rider when cycling up the slope
Aerodynamic resistance - resistance due to the airflow around rider and bike
Mechanical friction - resistance from moving mechanical parts (chain, chainrings, cogs, BB bearings)
From the analysis only Aerodynamic Resistance id depending from the velocity - it increases with the square of the velocity. It means the faster rider goes, the amount of effort required to maintain that velocity increases significantly.
To better understand effects of these 4 forces Look tested 596 in real cases.
Rider was providing fixed power output of 300 Watts under 3 different riding conditions:
steep hill (1)
slight hill (2)
flat road (3)
The chart below displays distribution of total 300 Watts Power between 4 forces:
First observation of the values above indicates that the power to overcome Rolling Friction and Mechanical Friction varies only slightly among all three cases. On the other hands Gravity and Aerodynamics forces consume the majority of power provided.
In case 1 and 2 (elevation) the most consuming force is Gravity. In case 3 when riding on flat with 40km/h speed Aerodynamic Forces consume 87% of total 300 Watts Energy
Note that with rising speed from 30km/h to 40km/h (a 33% increase), the Aerodynamic impact progressed +138%!
The graphics below provides a view of the distribution of power consumed by the four forces identified earlier mapped against both the velocity and slope for a given rider constant power output of 300 Watts
Conclusions: As observed in the above graphics both the ROLLING and TRANSMISSION losses remain minimal.
To the left of the vertical line on graphics (green area) less than 33km/h, the power consumed by GRAVITY is most significant (slope ranging from 22% to 3%).
To the right of the vertical line on graphics (red area) greater than 33km/h and at a slope less than 2% AERODYNAMIC losses are most significant
The main point demonstrated here is the great importance of the aerodynamics of the riderand bicycle system when speed increases - especially over 30km/h.
Why the gap?
On new 596 Tri chainstays and the fork are distanced from the wheels. What Look engineers claim - not everything that look Aerodynamic is Aerodynamic. After numerous test in Wind Tunnel experimenting with small gap and large gap between frame and tyre the results were surprising - large gap made bike faster!
The greater the distance (d) between the fork and the wheel, the more effectively the 2 opposing flows pass: aerodynamic flow is good.
In contrast, the more the distance (d) is reduced, the 2 opposing flows collide more and the aerodynamic flow is poor, resulting in turbulence - resistance to forward motion.
To reinforce the discussion, LOOK performed a simulation comparing airflow for the 596 and a hybrid frame based on the 596 but with a seat tube close to the rear wheel (see the image below)
The low pressure zones (in blue) that oppose forward motion are more significant in case 2.
Simulation shows that thanks to bigger gap Aerodynamics is improved by 2% - that translates into increase of 0.67% in speed.
In other words, nearly 30 seconds saved over a flat 1 hour race at 40km/h based on just this sole difference in design.
When you look on 596 from the front - you will notice same gap between thin fork blades and stays spaced far from the wheel, allowing the wheels to “breath” and thus favoring air flow.
Aerodynamic profiles
When a solid passes though air, it encounters pressures that generate a resistance to movement called drag.
In the case of a cylindrical solid, the resulting phenomenon is the following:
The ideal aerodynamic profile supports the flow of air allowing it to slide over the surface without separation nor turbulence, the drag is thus minimal:
The principles shown above applied to the entire set of sections of the 596 frame and fork, result in an excellent Aerodynamics of the bike:
The 596 is the ultimate weapon against the wind.
What makes the LOOK so different from its competitors is that aerodynamic efficiency lies in the consideration of the effect of rotating wheels, which is not negligible at the level of performance required by the 596.
LOOK seems to have added a new feature/tool on their website under the 596 Tri Frame which allows you to find the “optimum” frame size and stem position.
Click on “Stem Positioning” under the 596 Tri Frame information and a new window will pop-up. They also provide a CAD type diagram showing all the possible stem options/angles once information has been inputed.
Base on the amazing review I made the purchase last Weekend 
.