I am looking at these two bikes, both used to replace my way to commen 50 cm 5200. Both of these bikes are advertised as 2003 models. The 361 is a 49 cm and the 461 is a 51 cm.
I ride about 4000 miles a year doing centurys and faced paced group rides. Is there a difference in geometry, and or stiffness. In you opionion are these two bikes of comperable size?
My main ride is a Waterford 2200 with a sta of 75 degrees and a top tube length of 52.5cm. I am wondering how either of these looks will measure up to this bike.
Thanks for any replys

The Look frame sizing is different to the Trek. Trek's are measured from centre of BB to the TOP of the top tube. Whereas Look's are measured from the centre of BB to the CENTRE of the top tube. So, a 50cm Trek frame will be approximately the same size as a 48cm Look frame. Have a look on the website for the geometry chart to compare top tube lengths. For example, I know that my Look 481SL has a longer TT length than 'standard' geometry. This TT measurement should be what you use to size the frame.

As for the two frames in question, the 461 replaced the 361 in 2004. The 361 and the 461 should follow the same geometry size chart, therefore the 51cm is two sizes bigger than the 49cm. I'm not sure how they can call the 461 a 2003 frame. I suppose it was maybe released at the end of 2003. I don't know which one is better. All I know is the 461 is the more recent. Check out some of the reviews posted on this forum.

I hope that helps a bit.

SB