# Look 996 Pro Team Full Suspension



## Cranked (Jun 1, 2006)

Ok the only info I have comes from the "latest news" section here at MTBR, and this new bike is really a great looking machine....but at 2500 grams for a small frame(carbon) and shock, It just seems totally excessive. If this info is correct, I just wonder why. The one huge upside to carbon is its weight advantage. My alloy Racer-X is lighter than this, with the same travel. What do you all think. I hope that this is early info and not quite right, cause I really like the bike, but if its true....they have some serious competition to reconsider.


----------



## Upandatem (Apr 11, 2004)

Sorry OT, but what front derailleur is on that look?


----------



## Cranked (Jun 1, 2006)

In photo # 13 it looks like a SRAM X9 to me, but hard to tell for sure. Upon closer inspection it looks like the rear triangle may actually be alloy. Guess this would play some part in the weight issue, along with the virtual linkage configuration. At this point I suppose its all speculation.


----------



## sonyisdope (Jul 24, 2004)

The virtual linkage configuration should not be an issue. Look at the BMC Fourstroke 01. 1850 grams (claimed weight without shock) for a full suspension virtual pivot frame. Even if you add a 300 gram rear shock, you are still coming in about about a pound less! Look really missed the boat on this one IMO. I'm sure this bike will be ridiculously expensive (which is acceptable for a bike like this) but is not the lightest and comes from a company with no full suspension roots. I would be all about this bike had it had an integrated seatmast. Because, lets be honest, that would like sweet. For now, I will continue dreaming about getting a BMC Fourstroke 01. Yes, thats right, I'm not changing dreams. Also, the steep headtube angle is kinda weird in this day and age. Without riding it though, I find it hard to complain about the geometry, so I'll reserve judgment on that for now.


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Just wanted to inform you that of course Head Tube angle and Seat Tube angle are mixed up in the article.

Heat tube angle is 70.5° with an 80mm fork, 69.7° with a 100mm fork.
Seat tube angle is 73° with an 80mm fork, 72.2° with a 100mm fork.

Both front and rear triangle are carbon. Links are aluminium.

Hope this helps...

Ps : Francois, can you correct the article with correct HT and ST angles ? Thanks !


----------



## Cranked (Jun 1, 2006)

xc-rider, I'd guess that you have an inside track over there at Look. Can you give us some more detailed information on this new bike. The things that interest or confuse me the most about this new ride are:
1 weight
2 suspension design from a company w/ seemingly limited background
3 no ISP (this is a rich mans bike and they will want you to know it)

I would say as follow up that your road bikes are among the nicest out there. I hope you will follow suit in the MTB world. Please take this with a grain of salt, as I'd like for you to do well in this realm too.


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Cranked,

1) The weight is correct in the article, 2.5kg with shock. I understand it seems high compared to what already exists on the market but if you look at what's usually called VPP kind of bikes (two "small" links) we are pretty much where everybody is. Of course we wish we could be the lightest "VPP" out there but reliability is still what matters the most and that's why we are not lighter.

2) You are right, this is our first fully... but we used the necessary time to do it right. You won't be disappointed by the kinematic, nor will you be with the quality of the pivots.

3) We know how to do ISP, but thought that we could find some custommers on this bike, which isn't a racing machine (still can be) as much as the 986 is, that would want to lower their saddle on some downhills, etc. It was a tough choice to make as we are very enthousiastic with our ISP Epost design and only time will tell us if we made the right one.

Hope this helps... this is pretty much as much as I should tell for now ;-)

Pierre


----------



## sonyisdope (Jul 24, 2004)

xc-rider said:


> Cranked,
> 
> 1) The weight is correct in the article, 2.5kg with shock. I understand it seems high compared to what already exists on the market but if you look at what's usually called VPP kind of bikes (two "small" links) we are pretty much where everybody is. Of course we wish we could be the lightest "VPP" out there but reliability is still what matters the most and that's why we are not lighter.
> 
> ...


So, you mean. . .

1) The BMC Fourstroke 01, which weighs 1 pound less, is going to be an unreliable bike? I doubt that. What about the Titus Racer X Carbon? I hate Titus. I'm the furthest from a Titus fan that you can find, but even the racer X Carbon is at least a half a pound lighter, I realize that it is heavier than the BMC, but you are posting in the WEIGHT WEENIES FORUM. If it's not the lightest, get it out of my face. BTW, the BMC is a VPP style suspension design, AND it's lighter. Whatev'.

2) Suspension with limited background?! Please. Give me more of a "cookie cutter flavour of the month." Seriously. Did Look draft up this design on their own drawing boards? I freaking doubt that. I've seen this design from at least 5 other Chinese or Taiwan manufactures. If Look really cared, they would have probably included their own design cues, not implemented the latest and greatest of FS designs. Please, give me something more boring than this frame for 2010. Look is lame.

3) This isn't a race machine?! Even if the frame is $1500, which I'm sure it won't be, it is still a complete rip off. You can get a BMC Fourstroke 02, which will weigh the same for a few bucks more, and give you a more supported warranty (Any bike shop in the US can warranty a BMC). It is far from the lightest FS bike out, and looks like a poser bike to the "T". Don't be dumbasses at Look, use the E Post, because it is all you've got in the MTB world if you aren't going to build the lightest mountain bike frame, and try to charge a ridiculous price for this bike.

Don't get me wrong, I love Look. I've rocked the 986 in the past and loved it. I have been riding a 555 road bike all summer, and it's been ok, but this bike is a waste of money. XC-Rider should be ashamed for trying to support this frame in the "Weight Weenies" forum. We are all about light weight, and this frame is light years from being considered light weight. I am sick of hearing about it. It may look cool, but it is far from being competitive in the FS frame category. There are so many great frames out there that are in a similar weight range that NO ONE should even consider this frame unless they want to look like a mountain biker wannabe on the trail. For the same (if not less) money anyone can get a Turner Flux, BMC Fourstroke 03, or even a Titus Racer X which will ride better and weight the same.

Get this Look madness out of the Weight Weenies forum. It is stupid, gaudy (sp?), and a waste of money. Thank you for your time.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

Man what side of the bed did you wake up on this morning?


----------



## 20.100 FR (Jan 13, 2004)

what an hatred post !

If you don't like it, do better, and THEN open your mouth.!


----------



## Soba (Jul 30, 2006)

I would like to think that even in the WW forum people would accept that weight is not the only performance attribute to a frame. If it was, we'd all be riding full rigid.

Also, carbon is not neccessary lighter than aluminium. It's real strength is in the way you can layer it up to suit.


----------



## Soba (Jul 30, 2006)

sonyisdope said:


> For the same (if not less) money anyone can get a Turner Flux, BMC Fourstroke 03, or even a Titus Racer X which *will ride better* and weight the same.


Oh, so you've ridden this bike now? Or can you magicly tell exactly how a bike rides from a photo?


----------



## Scalfred (Oct 9, 2005)

20.100 FR said:


> what an hatred post !
> 
> If you don't like it, do better, and THEN open your mouth.!


The way things are said about the new Look is probably too rude, I agree with you.

But most of us on this forum are consumers not bicycle builders... so please keep that stupid sentence for different situations or people.

IMO it's true that the weight of that S frame seems to be way to high for a new generation of fully xc bike. From a weight wennies point of view that's really too bad when it comes from a company like Look.

But that's also true that a very low weight is not the only way to make an efficient frame, it can still be very fast and fun to ride even 1 lbs heavier than the competition.


----------



## sonyisdope (Jul 24, 2004)

ha! Man, I read that post the next day, and it sure did come out mean sounding. I was at work and me and a buddy were having a pretty heated debate about when and why bike companies come out with new stuff, and this post just came at the tail end of the argument. 

I realize that it is hard to come out with something spectacular, but I guess I would have expected more from Look. Almost every company that comes out with something that isn't the lightest always tries to talk about the ride quality of the bike. If you are going to go the "ride quality" route, that is equally as hard of a group of bikes to attack. There are already MANY amazing full suspension bikes out, that I would find it very hard to convince me that this virtual pivot point style frame rides better than the top offerings from Santa Cruz or BMC.

Basically. . .
If this bike was $800 for the frame, I would be all about it.
If this frame weighed less than 2000 grams, I may consider it.
If this frame was a truly new and unique frame design, I would be intrigued by it.
If this frame was Turners first foray into the carbon world, I would be all about it.

It's not the cheapest, it's not the lightest, it's not new, and it may ride awesome, but it is up against some stiff competition in the ride department. Heck, I may even get one one day to try it out, but IMO it is very average right now, if not boring. It says "Look" on the side, so I guess that's pretty cool though.


----------

