Izalco Team and Cayo - what's the difference?
Ailsabob
Posts: 23
On paper at least these are 2 pretty different styles of bike.
Sizing wise I am somewhere between a 56 and 58. Competitive Cyclist Eddy Fit (see attached) puts me on a 58. On this basis I am trying to decide between an outgoing Izalco Team in 58 and a new Cayo in 57.
The marketing blurb would have you believe that these are 2 different styles of machine - flat out race bike versus Sportive. Albeit a Sportive that is on the racy side of Sportive.
Look at the geometries though for the sizes I require, and they are virtually identical.
Izalco Measurement first, Cayo Measurement in brackets () :
ST 58cm (57cm) Obviously!
ETT 57cm (56.8cm)
HT 16.6cm (16.5cm)
Stack 57.2cm (56.9cm)
Reach 40.1cm (40cm)
ST and HT Angles identical on both bikes.
So I guess my question is a simple one - precisely what is the chuffing difference between these bikes in terms of geometry/position on the bike. Because too my untrained eye, albeit one that has spent quite some time poring over this, they look virtually identical.
I've attached my stats from Competitive Cyclist, which are on the basis of an Eddy Fit.
Please help because the more I look, the less I understand. I'd appreciate some comments please.
Thank you kindly.
Sizing wise I am somewhere between a 56 and 58. Competitive Cyclist Eddy Fit (see attached) puts me on a 58. On this basis I am trying to decide between an outgoing Izalco Team in 58 and a new Cayo in 57.
The marketing blurb would have you believe that these are 2 different styles of machine - flat out race bike versus Sportive. Albeit a Sportive that is on the racy side of Sportive.
Look at the geometries though for the sizes I require, and they are virtually identical.
Izalco Measurement first, Cayo Measurement in brackets () :
ST 58cm (57cm) Obviously!
ETT 57cm (56.8cm)
HT 16.6cm (16.5cm)
Stack 57.2cm (56.9cm)
Reach 40.1cm (40cm)
ST and HT Angles identical on both bikes.
So I guess my question is a simple one - precisely what is the chuffing difference between these bikes in terms of geometry/position on the bike. Because too my untrained eye, albeit one that has spent quite some time poring over this, they look virtually identical.
I've attached my stats from Competitive Cyclist, which are on the basis of an Eddy Fit.
Please help because the more I look, the less I understand. I'd appreciate some comments please.
Thank you kindly.
0
Comments
-
The Izalco is supposedly stiffer, however the Cayo is actually lighter and more comfortable
The Cayo is UCI approved and a lovely ride
MattScott Foil Di2 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020685&p=19496365#p19496365
Genesis Volare 853 viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=13020702&p=19589281#p195892810 -
Thanks, both. You've both mentioned comfort. Are you referring to ride comfort? i.e. a bike that will be a little more accommodating of my dreadful Mancunian roads?0
-
Have not checked details, but I would imagine the izalco may have a shorter wheelbase?
Perhaps chainstay length, different front center?0 -
Izalco wheelbase shorter by 2mm.
Yes, tubes really bulked up on new Cayo. that generally equate to more smooth ride then?0 -
Ailsabob wrote:Izalco wheelbase shorter by 2mm.
Yes, tubes really bulked up on new Cayo. that generally equate to more smooth ride then?
All other things being equal, it would mean exactly the opposite. But I would imagine that the lay-up has been changed and wall thickness thinned-out. The new Cayo frame is actually lighter than the old one.0