Colnago C59 Sizing?

bluedog99

Hi,
I am looking at the possible purchase of a used Colnago C59. The bike is a size 58 without a sloping top tube. I am 5` 11" and wondering if this bike would be a fit for me? Do any forum members own one and if so any advice would be welcome.
Thanks.

mfin

I think it might be a little long for most at 5'11", it's pretty much a 73 seat tube and 565 ETT. But, when you consider its 177mm Head Tube too you can see it's pretty much too big. On a non-sloping geometry I think you'd want a 56cm, or a 52s if sloping.

(By the way, I'm 6'0" and have a 52s, and if it wasn't a sloper I'd have a 56cm).

Here's the geometry table if anyone else would like to comment

proto

Be careful of Colnago sizing as they do things slightly differently. Is the frame on offer sloping top tube or horizontal?

Colnago make the C59 in two versions, sloping top tube and horizontal top tube. Whilst dimensionally the same (apart from sloping top tube, or not, and seat tube length), they are listed differently by Colango.

So a 48S (slope) is equivalent to a 52cm (horizontal), and 56S is equivalent to a 60cm (horizontal), and so on.

A 58cm is a big frame, and I would think too big for you. A 58S is a huge frame and would definitely be too big for you, in my opinion.

Have a look here:

mfin

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19712636#p19712636]proto[/url] wrote:

Be careful of Colnago sizing as they do things slightly differently. Is the frame on offer sloping top tube or horizontal?

Colnago make the C59 in two versions, sloping top tube and horizontal top tube. Whilst dimensionally the same (apart from sloping top tube, or not, and seat tube length), they are listed differently by Colango.

So a 48S (slope) is equivalent to a 52cm (horizontal), and 56S is equivalent to a 60cm (horizontal), and so on.

A 58cm is a big frame, and I would think too big for you. A 58S is a huge frame and would definitely be too big for you, in my opinion.

Have a look here:

Read his post, it's not a sloping top tube.

letap73

Assuming the 54 sloping is directly equivalent to the 58 traditional, then the reach is only 385 (384 for the 52 sloping). The stack of the 54 sloping is quite a lot for a reach of 385 (582):

http://colnago.com/geometry/?lang=en

If you are more legs than torso then the 58 may well fit. What is the geometry for your current bike?

bluedog99

Thanks for the replies, really informative. I am taking the advice given, its to big for me.
Cheers.

on-yer-bike

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19712771#p19712771]bluedog99[/url] wrote:

Thanks for the replies, really informative. I am taking the advice given, its to big for me.
Cheers.

Where is this frame a friend would be interested?

bluedog99

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19712680#p19712680]letap73[/url] wrote:

Assuming the 54 sloping is directly equivalent to the 58 traditional, then the reach is only 385 (384 for the 52 sloping). The stack of the 54 sloping is quite a lot for a reach of 385 (582):

http://colnago.com/geometry/?lang=en

If you are more legs than torso then the 58 may well fit. What is the geometry for your current bike?

My current bike has a, 565 c-c top tube, a 560c-c seat tube with a slight slope. It is 575 c-t.
Cheers.