Colnago vs TIME

ken newlan

Some advice please:
1. Either a marked down TIME Fluidity VRS or a Colnago C60 - what is best? - for leisure and sportifs.
2. Campag (Record or Chorus) or Shimano - I have heard that Campag are more tricky ( need constant adjustments) and spares harder to get in a hurry - are Shimano more reliable?
3. Wheels - Mavics or Campag carbon rims?
Thanks

philclubman

I'd go for the Colnago with Campag (don't mind which one) and Campag Bora tubs.

lostboysaint

1. Couldn't tell you, neither can anyone else. Try them both for size and fit and then decide. But the specs are very different in terms of front end height - which is what usually separates "race" and "sportive" bikes.
2. You heard very wrong indeed.
3. Campag to go with the groupset.

fenix

There's no best.

Its like asking what colour do you prefer. It's all subjective,

What are you riding now ? How far do you ride and what do you want to do ?

The Campag v Shimano argument has raged for decades now, but millions of people are happy with each.

Wheels ? Too many options - what models ? Do you climb ? Are you a sprinter ? Are you big boned ? Do you like being able to stop ?

It sounds like you're new to this - spending a big wodge on a bike can be an expensive mistake. Most of us are on our winter bikes now with full guards and wider tyres. If you are buying it to ride now - go for winter bike.

Midlands Grimpeur

As above, neither is better so to speak, the "best" is the bike that you feel most comfortable on and enjoy riding. The Colnago is stiffer and has slightly sharper handling but Time offer a little more comfort. The Fluidity in particular is targeted as a sportive style bike i.e. Greater comfort over longer distances in the saddle but that's all marketing hype, you can ride both a long way and would not notice much difference.

Never had any issues with campag, owned multiple groups and never had to adjust any of them or replace anything other than the standard chain/cassette/rings but that is just my experience.

Not used carbon mavics but campag hyperons and bora are both very good wheelsets, IMO campag hubs are as good as anything available.

BenderRodriguez

lostboysaint wrote:

the specs are very different in terms of front end height - which is what usually separates "race" and "sportive" bikes.

Is this right? These are two of the frames I was looking at when I put together my 'best' bike, and geometry-wise they seem to be very similar. For the 'medium' Time fluidity and size 54 Colnago C60 the stack is 580mm on the Time and 582mm on the Colnago. The head tube on the Colnago is 179mm, as opposed to 184 on the Time. The other specs are also very similar.

I was rather surprised by the long 'sportive' headtube on the C60, given it is supposed to be Colnago's top of the line race bike. In fact both the C60 and Fluidity would have given me a far too 'upright' a ride, compared to what I am used to.

In the end I got a Time NSX (now Izon) their slightly stiffer, more race orientated frame, which has 562 mm of stack and a 166mm headtube. With a slammed Time Monolink stem this gives me the perfect position.

With regards the ride and construction, I have been amazed how good my Time NSX is. Precise steering, even down bumpy Alpine cols, super responsive when climbing and still very comfortable. I would also say that the Time has the edge when it comes to the technology of its manufacture, with the Resin Transfer Moulding system and every piece of hand-laid carbon contributing to the ride and rigidity of the frame, whilst the Colnago's lug and tube construction means that the design is a little more constrained by the need join the various parts of the frame together.

The clinching factor was the price, as in the end I got my Time in a 'flash' sale from a shop in France for 2,199 Euros (then about £1750) when the Colnago was going to cost about 3,800 Euros, even from Maestro. :shock:

Tiesetrotter

If price isn't an issue it has to be Italian bling.

On Campagnolo / Shimano. I have both. The main difference in quality is that Campagnolo has a far better sounding name. That's it. Both once set up are a dream to keep in tune. If I am to compare for me personally:

Front mech - Shimano just feels more solid
Rear mech - no difference
Levers - the button shift is lot quicker and precise than the Shimano lever at changing gear and the ergo hoods are just much nicer for me
Spare parts availability - not had a problem
Cost - Shimano

The thing with Campagnolo is that Chorus, Record and Super Record are the same. You're just paying fantastical amounts for Italian craftsmen (engineers) to muck about with un-necessary uber expensive materials to save minuscule amounts of weight. Look at the brake levers I can see one difference - SR two cut away holes, R one cut away hole and Chorus no cut away hole .............. now go and look at the price difference.

So buy Italian bling all the way down to the wheels, it'll be the choice you'll never think ..... i wonder what the Colnago Campag bike would have been like.

Garry H

You seem to know very little about how to choose a bike for yourself. Just get a BTwin from Decathlon and save yourself the possibility of spending thousands on an unsuitable bike.

pblakeney

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I was rather surprised by the long 'sportive' headtube on the C60, given it is supposed to be Colnago's top of the line race bike.

It was Ernesto Colnago's assertion that a racer on a comfortable bike would be better placed to win at the end of a race. Even more so on stage races.

flanners1

As above pick the bicycle colour you like and stick a groupset you fancy on it....I never understand why posters ask other people what bike they should buy when they are considering shelling out £000's, how can there be indecision which requires a straw poll with a myriad of views who from your post know nothing about your type of riding or experience etc.

How most riders are able to explain their apparent ability to pick up flex and the energy sapping give in a C59 or C60 et al which they profess to suggest is robbing them of transferring their power is totally beyond me as a mere mortal. Most of my bike purchases over the years have been down to aesthetics, branding and finances.

mfin

Midlands Grimpeur wrote:

The Colnago is stiffer and has slightly sharper handling but Time offer a little more comfort. The Fluidity in particular is targeted as a sportive style bike i.e. Greater comfort over longer distances in the saddle but that's all marketing hype, you can ride both a long way and would not notice much difference.

Interesting, how much time have you spent riding the Time Fluidity Vrs and the Colnago C60? You must be one of the very few that has, it would be interesting to hear more about the comparison.

BenderRodriguez

PBlakeney wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I was rather surprised by the long 'sportive' headtube on the C60, given it is supposed to be Colnago's top of the line race bike.

It was Ernesto Colnago's assertion that a racer on a comfortable bike would be better placed to win at the end of a race. Even more so on stage races.

But nearly all Pros have a very radical position and have no problem with comfort. The head tube on the C60 would have me sitting far too upright, and I am only a few years off being 60! I would bet that any pros who use a C60 use a very small frame and long stem to get a position suitable for actual top level racing.

From what I have seen, the C60 is actually designed to be attractive to Colnago's largest target market - sportive riders with loads of cash and probably not much less flab around the waist!

cougie

Wonder what ken bought?

smoggysteve

Flanners1 wrote:

I never understand why posters ask other people what bike they should buy when they are considering shelling out £000's,

Simple answer is too often they care more about how it looks and how nice it stands out on group rides at 15mph than how it actually performs or if it is even suitable for their actual needs. If you can afford a C60 then fair one. But to care about other peoples opinion is narcissistic.

fenix

Or it could be the OP hasn't bought a bike like this before and just asked for opinions.

To me though if you have to ask then you don't need to spend this kind of cash.

pblakeney

BenderRodriguez wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I was rather surprised by the long 'sportive' headtube on the C60, given it is supposed to be Colnago's top of the line race bike.

It was Ernesto Colnago's assertion that a racer on a comfortable bike would be better placed to win at the end of a race. Even more so on stage races.

But nearly all Pros have a very radical position and have no problem with comfort. The head tube on the C60 would have me sitting far too upright, and I am only a few years off being 60! I would bet that any pros who use a C60 use a very small frame and long stem to get a position suitable for actual top level racing.

From what I have seen, the C60 is actually designed to be attractive to Colnago's largest target market - sportive riders with loads of cash and probably not much less flab around the waist!

Ask those who rode for the Europcar team. Tommy Voeckler for example. I was simply putting forward why Colnago's frame geometry is the way it is. Some people overthink things.

BenderRodriguez

PBlakeney wrote:

Ask those who rode for the Europcar team. Tommy Voeckler for example. I was simply putting forward why Colnago's frame geometry is the way it is. Some people overthink things.

Don't forget that one of the main advantages of the C60 design is that it lends itself to custom fitting - even ordinary customers can order a custom frame. Given this the team bikes are unlikely to have the humungously long head tubes of the standard, off the shelf frames.

Having looked at some pictures of Europcar team bikes most of their riders do seem to go for the smallest frame possible with a big drop from the seat to the bars, just like all other pros in fact.

I am sure that the off the shelf frames fit the majority of Colnago's customer base very well, even if the pros will use something more tailored to their needs.

Ber Nard

BenderRodriguez wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

the specs are very different in terms of front end height - which is what usually separates "race" and "sportive" bikes.

Is this right? These are two of the frames I was looking at when I put together my 'best' bike, and geometry-wise they seem to be very similar. For the 'medium' Time fluidity and size 54 Colnago C60 the stack is 580mm on the Time and 582mm on the Colnago. The head tube on the Colnago is 179mm, as opposed to 184 on the Time. The other specs are also very similar.

I was rather surprised by the long 'sportive' headtube on the C60, given it is supposed to be Colnago's top of the line race bike. In fact both the C60 and Fluidity would have given me a far too 'upright' a ride, compared to what I am used to.

In terms of reach, the medium Time is a better match for a 52 sloping or 57 traditional C60, both of which have lower stack heights.

BenderRodriguez

Ber Nard wrote:

In terms of reach, the medium Time is a better match for a 52 sloping or 57 traditional C60, both of which have lower stack heights.

But reach does not take into account the effect variations in seat tube angle has, and on a 52S Colnago the seat angle is a rather steep 73.57 degrees. (Such an increase in seat angle is classic small frame geometry, suggests it is intended for shorter riders with correspondingly shorter thighs.)

If you look at the virtual top tube measurement on a size 52 Colnago C60, it is just 538mm, as opposed to 550 on the Time. To get a 550mm virtual top tube on a C60 you need a 54S.

As I said, to get a stretched, 'low front' racing position on the Colnago you need to size small and use a long stem and / or a lot of set back on the saddle. I use a 12 Cm on my Time NSX - with a 52S Colnago I would be looking at a 13, and I am no pro!

Just look at some other frames that are intended to be out-and out-race frames and compare their reach and head tubes. (If you think reach is the important measurement.) For example, a size 52 Specialized S-Works has a 386mm reach and a 537 mm virtual head tube, almost the same as the 52S Colnago, but it has a head tube of just 120mm and a stack of 526mm, compared to a relatively 'sit up and beg' 565mm on the Colnago.

For a frame aimed at wealthy leisure and sportive riders - who are doubtless their main target market - the geometry of the C60 makes a lot of sense. For a pro race frame, not so much, at least in the stock sizes.

Ber Nard

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ber Nard wrote:

In terms of reach, the medium Time is a better match for a 52 sloping or 57 traditional C60, both of which have lower stack heights.

But reach does not take into account the effect variations in seat tube angle has, and on a 52S Colnago the seat angle is a rather steep 73.57 degrees. (Such an increase in seat angle is classic small frame geometry, suggests it is intended for shorter riders with correspondingly shorter thighs.)

If you look at the virtual top tube measurement on a size 52 Colnago C60, it is just 538mm, as opposed to 550 on the Time. To get a 550mm virtual top tube on a C60 you need a 54S.

As I said, to get a stretched, 'low front' racing position on the Colnago you need to size small and use a long stem and / or a lot of set back on the saddle. I use a 12 Cm on my Time NSX - with a 52S Colnago I would be looking at a 13, and I am no pro!

Just look at some other frames that are intended to be out-and out-race frames and compare their reach and head tubes. (If you think reach is the important measurement.) For example, a size 52 Specialized S-Works has a 386mm reach and a 537 mm virtual head tube, almost the same as the 52S Colnago, but it has a head tube of just 120mm and a stack of 526mm, compared to a relatively 'sit up and beg' 565mm on the Colnago.

For a frame aimed at wealthy leisure and sportive riders - who are doubtless their main target market - the geometry of the C60 makes a lot of sense. For a pro race frame, not so much, at least in the stock sizes.

To get an effective top tube length of roughly 550mm you'd need a 52 sloping or a 55/57 traditional.

http://www.colnago.com/c60/

BenderRodriguez

Ber Nard wrote:

To get an effective top tube length of roughly 550mm you'd need a 52 sloping or a 55/57 traditional.

http://www.colnago.com/c60/

But 'virtual' measurements aside (from where and to where?) it still looks as though the 52S Colnago is still 'shorter' than the medium Time Fluidity, which is specifically marketed as a leisure / 'sportive' frame:

On the medium Fluidity the reach is 378mm and the seat set back 161mm: total 539mm.

On the 52S Colnago the reach is 384 mm and the seat set back 141mm: total 525mm.

On the 54s Colnago the reach is 385mm and the seat set back 151mm: total 536mm

To me, the 54s is a much closer match to the Fluidity than the 52S is and the 52S would need a longer stem to get the same saddle to bars reach as the Fluidity.

I think that there can be so much discussion as to which frame is comparable with which other frame just goes to show that so many factors affect the fit of a frame, and that trying to reduce this down to a simple measure such as 'stack' or 'reach' or 'virtual' measurements cannot give the full picture.

Bottom line is that, whatever C60 best matches another frame that is specifically marketed as a leisure ' sportive frame, compared to most frames specifically intended for racing such as the Specialized S-Works or even the Time Izon, the C60 has a much more higher fronted, 'sportive' orientated geometry.

smoggysteve

The front end of the bike is not the only area that separates frame types. A race oriented frame will be much stiffer than a sportive frame which although will have a level of stiffness will also have more flex in areas that provide comfort. The C60 is designed for getting the power down. The chainstays and bb area will be a lot stiffer than the Time Izon. The length of the top tube varies massively from bike to bike anyway so will get some longer than others. Bikes with very stubby headtubes tend to be quite twitchy and sacrifice control more than anything else so you may end up putting a longer stem on to counter to you then can feel quite stretched out on it. I would rather have a slightly taller headtube and a front end that behaves itself.

mfin

Body shape comes into it as well as fit. There's plenty of people who can get their fit on a C60 without that falling into the category of 'sit up and beg'. In short, you get a bike that fits you not one you like the look of then pick a size. The two bikes in question might be useless to lots of people.

You also won't find many bikes where the chainstays and bb area are designed to be less stiff, only ones that fail to do it or don't do it as well.

This thread was started off a bit daft, but there's some daft stuff being debated too, people are weird.

smoggysteve

mfin wrote:

You also won't find many bikes where the chainstays and bb area are designed to be less stiff, only ones that fail to do it or don't do it as well.

Really? Read this then.


http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1310/the-cyclist-guide-to-frame-stiffness

Make a frame too stiff and it effects all sorts of properties of the frame.

BenderRodriguez

mfin wrote:

Body shape comes into it as well as fit. There's plenty of people who can get their fit on a C60 without that falling into the category of 'sit up and beg'. In short, you get a bike that fits you not one you like the look of then pick a size. The two bikes in question might be useless to lots of people.

Which is way I was arguing that, for me, the 'sloping' C60 was too high at the front in a size that gave me the right top tube length and saddle setback, which surprised me given that the C60 is supposed to be a dedicated race frame.

Yes, perhaps I should have looked at the 52S, but I would have had to be prepared to put up with the relative lack of saddle setback, having half a yard of seatpost sticking out and a 13cm stem but, for me at least, both the 52S and 54S would have represented a compromise. I also agree that I should have given more consideration to the standard C60, and that a Standard C60 in a 57 would have fitted me much better than any of the sloping sizes. I guess the message is anyone looking for a C60 really should make a careful comparison of the geometries of the sloping and standard frames to see which would fit them best.

Whatever, it is still the case that when comparing frames you can't just look at the reach and stack, not least because the reach ignores the impact different seat angles has - just look at the medium Fluidity which has 6mm less reach than a 52S C60 but puts the seat a whole 2cm further back due to the shallower seat angle. Just how pointless measure of 'reach' often are is well illustrated by the S-Works frames, for which there is just 1mm variation in reach between the 49 and 54 cm frames. For the sloping C60 there is just 2mm variation in reach between the 48S and 54S.

I would still argue that to get a typical, radical drop and reach 'pro' fit on a 'sloping' C60 most riders would have to go far a smaller than normal frame, and then both push the seat right back and add a really long stem, or go for the custom option. Similarly, many other out and out race frames, such as the Specialized S-Works have a much lower front end than the C60, for a frame otherwise matched for size.

I see that the C60 is also available in a 'high' version. Now that really does look like a sit up and beg frame.

mfin

SmoggySteve wrote:

mfin wrote:

You also won't find many bikes where the chainstays and bb area are designed to be less stiff, only ones that fail to do it or don't do it as well.

Really? Read this then.


http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1310/the-cyclist-guide-to-frame-stiffness

Make a frame too stiff and it effects all sorts of properties of the frame.

Read the word 'many'.

mfin

BenderRodriguez wrote:

mfin wrote:

Body shape comes into it as well as fit. There's plenty of people who can get their fit on a C60 without that falling into the category of 'sit up and beg'. In short, you get a bike that fits you not one you like the look of then pick a size. The two bikes in question might be useless to lots of people.

Which is way I was arguing that, for me, the 'sloping' C60 was too high at the front in a size that gave me the right top tube length and saddle setback, which surprised me given that the C60 is supposed to be a dedicated race frame.

Yes, perhaps I should have looked at the 52S, but I would have had to be prepared to put up with the relative lack of saddle setback, having half a yard of seatpost sticking out and a 13cm stem but, for me at least, both the 52S and 54S would have represented a compromise. I also agree that I should have given more consideration to the standard C60, and that a Standard C60 in a 57 would have fitted me much better than any of the sloping sizes. I guess the message is anyone looking for a C60 really should make a careful comparison of the geometries of the sloping and standard frames to see which would fit them best.

Whatever, it is still the case that when comparing frames you can't just look at the reach and stack, not least because the reach ignores the impact different seat angles has - just look at the medium Fluidity which has 6mm less reach than a 52S C60 but puts the seat a whole 2cm further back due to the shallower seat angle. Just how pointless measure of 'reach' often are is well illustrated by the S-Works frames, for which there is just 1mm variation in reach between the 49 and 54 cm frames. For the sloping C60 there is just 2mm variation in reach between the 48S and 54S.

I would still argue that to get a typical, radical drop and reach 'pro' fit on a 'sloping' C60 most riders would have to go far a smaller than normal frame, and then both push the seat right back and add a really long stem, or go for the custom option. Similarly, many other out and out race frames, such as the Specialized S-Works have a much lower front end than the C60, for a frame otherwise matched for size.

I see that the C60 is also available in a 'high' version. Now that really does look like a sit up and beg frame.

I'm used to getting bikes to fit dead on too and never use stack and reach to do it. Yes, many bikes might be wrong for some people because of their geometry and no available size would fit them.

Plenty of riders will get a good fit on a C60 of course but a few that want to "get a typical, radical drop and reach 'pro' fit" might have trouble doing so on a C60 although it's more middle of the pack than particularly high at the front and plenty of seatposts are around for various saddle positions.

smoggysteve

mfin wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

mfin wrote:

You also won't find many bikes where the chainstays and bb area are designed to be less stiff, only ones that fail to do it or don't do it as well.

Really? Read this then.


http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1310/the-cyclist-guide-to-frame-stiffness

Make a frame too stiff and it effects all sorts of properties of the frame.

Read the word 'many'.

Many could be anything from 2 to 2 million. So pointless observation

flanners1

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ber Nard wrote:

In terms of reach, the medium Time is a better match for a 52 sloping or 57 traditional C60, both of which have lower stack heights.

But reach does not take into account the effect variations in seat tube angle has, and on a 52S Colnago the seat angle is a rather steep 73.57 degrees. (Such an increase in seat angle is classic small frame geometry, suggests it is intended for shorter riders with correspondingly shorter thighs.)

If you look at the virtual top tube measurement on a size 52 Colnago C60, it is just 538mm, as opposed to 550 on the Time. To get a 550mm virtual top tube on a C60 you need a 54S.

As I said, to get a stretched, 'low front' racing position on the Colnago you need to size small and use a long stem and / or a lot of set back on the saddle. I use a 12 Cm on my Time NSX - with a 52S Colnago I would be looking at a 13, and I am no pro!

Just look at some other frames that are intended to be out-and out-race frames and compare their reach and head tubes. (If you think reach is the important measurement.) For example, a size 52 Specialized S-Works has a 386mm reach and a 537 mm virtual head tube, almost the same as the 52S Colnago, but it has a head tube of just 120mm and a stack of 526mm, compared to a relatively 'sit up and beg' 565mm on the Colnago.

For a frame aimed at wealthy leisure and sportive riders - who are doubtless their main target market - the geometry of the C60 makes a lot of sense. For a pro race frame, not so much, at least in the stock sizes.

Some good points about sloping size choice on Colnago's. Many punters seem to go solely on reach and height, I have a 52S CLX with 120/sometimes a 130mm stem and a 54S C60 with a 110mm stem, both 'fit' me well maybe a 53s would be nirvana..the 54s is better for me as it is less of the fashionable pro fit and as I am not too flexible and don'r race..I prefer comfort over the latest sometimes unforgiving road rocket that beats me up within an hour or so of riding.

bontie

So much misinformation here, I suggest the OP goes to a shop that actually has these bikes on the floor.
A 54 Colnago, assuming a standard 54 (as he mentions a M Time) is a 50S, which has a 145mm headtube. No idea where the179mm is from, perhaps looking at a 54S, which is a big bike - 58traditional.

Internet advice os not always good.

BenderRodriguez

bontie wrote:

A 54 Colnago, assuming a standard 54 (as he mentions a M Time) is a 50S, which has a 145mm headtube. No idea where the179mm is from, perhaps looking at a 54S, which is a big bike - 58traditional.

Yes, we have been discussing the peculiarities of Colango's sizing in their sloping models, not their traditional ones which are very different. Whatever, no way is a Colnago C60 in a 50S equivalent to a Medium Time!

On the Time Izon the reach is 384mm and the saddle set-back 161mm: total 545mm
On the medium Time Fluidity the reach is 378mm and the seat set-back 161mm: total 539mm.
On the C60 in a 50s the reach is 383 and the seat set-back 131mm: total 514mm.

On the Time fluidity and Izon the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube measures 550mm,
On the C60 in a 50s this distance is 500mm.

On the Time Fluidity in a medium the stack is 580mm, and on the Izon 562mm.
On the C60 in a 50s the stack is 547mm.

I would say that the C60 is a 50s is a much smaller frame all-round than a Medium Time...

Yes, the 179 mm headtube is to be found on a 54s C60, which is the closest match to a medium Time in terms of reach and saddle set-back, seat tube length and seat tube angle.

I think all this goes to show that Colnago's sizing in their sloping models really is rather unusual, and that to get a frame equivalent to a frame with a more standard design one will be either accepting a relatively 'oversized' frame with an unusually long head tube and high stack or, if one focus's on matching the stack, a relatively 'undersized' frame with a steep seat angle, reduced saddle set back a lot of seat pin showing, along with the need to use an unusually long stem to get the same reach.

The Colnagos also seem to have an unusually large top tube 'drop' in the sloping models, if a 50s is held by them to be a 'virtual 58cm' frame. Then again, such 'virtual' measuremens are often pretty meaningless.

Appropriately perhaps, the 'Traditional' Colnago's do match the more standard designs of other manufactures much better.

bontie wrote:

Internet advice os not always good.

I know, just look at your post. In the same sentence you say both that "a standard 54... is a 50S" and "a 54S.. is a big bike - 58 traditional."