Colnago vs TIME
Comments
-
Looking around it seems that I am not the only one who has found Colnago's sizing on their sloping models to be rather 'odd'. Plenty of other people also seem to have found that the sloping has a lot of stack in any given size and that their ideal fit is somewhere between two of the available sizes, with the 'correct' size being determined by which measurement they end up deciding is the most important - stack or everything else. Again, for many the solution is to size small and add a long stem, or to forget the sloping and buy a 'Traditional' instead.
For example:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/colnag ... 44574.htmlAs we all know, Colnago sizing is a bit "odd" but I am considering a 52s c60 which has a 73.57STA, 55TT; and 163 HT. Stack is 565 (due to the taller HT) and reach is 384. Setback is 141.The taller stack will enable me to eliminate the spacers on the Colnago. I should be able to go with either a 110 or 120 stem to achieve the same overall reach. We don't get HTA from Colnago.
I think the 50s would be too small with a 54 TT: 145 HT; 547 stack and 383 reach; setback of 131. I would be up to 20mm of spacers and believe I would have to push my saddle back due to less setback.
By the way, I am not suggesting that Colnago don't know how to design a frame. When you think about it, having a 'comfy' position in conjunction with the 'pro' look of a long, slammed stem is exactly what many of their punters are looking for. "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
" 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. "
I totally agree with that for my height/dimensions and riding style. Competitive Cycling give this sizing chart for a C60
SIZING CHART
Bike size by rider height
42s 4'11"5'5"
45s 5'5"5'6"
48s 5'6"5'7"
50s 5'7"5'8"
52s 5'8"5'10"
54s 5'10"6'0"
56s 6'0"6'1"
58s 6'1"6'3"
60s 6'3"6'9"
Looking at Scott's sizing for their Foil for instance the 54s Colnago C60 almost matches their geo for a L/56 in tt length with 9mm shorter head tube, whereas on their old CR1 the heatube and tt was the same as Colnago's for their L/56 size. So for me a carte blanche just add 4cm to a Colnago sloping size isn't the whole picture.Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
Meanwhile - the OP hasn't been back in a week....0
-
Not seen that before, but that puts me on a 54S - which is also the size I worked out would fit me best - other than the fact it has a head tube length and stack around 2cm more than I wanted. (And about 4 Cm more than on an out-and-out racing frame such as Specialized S-Works.) I never knew that making this simple observation would lead to so much debate!Flanners1 wrote:" I totally agree with that for my height/dimensions and riding style. Competitive Cycling give this sizing chart for a C60
SIZING CHART
Bike size by rider height
42s 4'11"5'5"
45s 5'5"5'6"
48s 5'6"5'7"
50s 5'7"5'8"
52s 5'8"5'10"
54s 5'10"6'0"
56s 6'0"6'1"
58s 6'1"6'3"
60s 6'3"6'9"
Bottom line is, if you want a 'comfy' Colnago C60, with plenty of stack and not too much reach for the size, but which allows you to pretend that you are a pro with a long, slammed stem, go for the sloping. If you actually want to race it and /or ride like a pro, go for the traditional. "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Yes that is the conclusion I came to.Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
I have never understood the fascination with sloping frames.
Traditional all the way.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:I have never understood the fascination with sloping frames.
Traditional all the way.
For me these things don't 'matter', but led to believe it is strength and weight, a smaller premium frame has less 'flex' and is lighter in weight. Also I am sure I read somewhere that it enabled manufacturers (bespoke and Colnago etc excluded) to maximise profits and save money by offering less choice, economies of scale, fewer moulds to make etc.Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
Option B.Flanners1 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:I have never understood the fascination with sloping frames.
Traditional all the way.
For me these things don't 'matter', but led to believe it is strength and weight, a smaller premium frame has less 'flex' and is lighter in weight. Also I am sure I read somewhere that it enabled manufacturers (bespoke and Colnago etc excluded) to maximise profits and save money by offering less choice, economies of scale, fewer moulds to make etc.
You don't think the seat post counts as part of the bike?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Im 5-10 I ride a 52S. If I wanted more drop I would ride a 50s. I can get my current position on both sizes but the 50S requires too many spacers. What's the problem?Pegoretti
Colnago
Cervelo
Campagnolo0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Option B.Flanners1 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:I have never understood the fascination with sloping frames.
Traditional all the way.
For me these things don't 'matter', but led to believe it is strength and weight, a smaller premium frame has less 'flex' and is lighter in weight. Also I am sure I read somewhere that it enabled manufacturers (bespoke and Colnago etc excluded) to maximise profits and save money by offering less choice, economies of scale, fewer moulds to make etc.
You don't think the seat post counts as part of the bike?
What do you mean?Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
Consider a frame with seat post and saddle. Both are a requirement IMO.Flanners1 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Option B.Flanners1 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:I have never understood the fascination with sloping frames.
Traditional all the way.
For me these things don't 'matter', but led to believe it is strength and weight, a smaller premium frame has less 'flex' and is lighter in weight. Also I am sure I read somewhere that it enabled manufacturers (bespoke and Colnago etc excluded) to maximise profits and save money by offering less choice, economies of scale, fewer moulds to make etc.
You don't think the seat post counts as part of the bike?
What do you mean?
Why would a traditional frame flex more than a sloping frame and extended seat post when there is load on the saddle?
If there is no load on the saddle (standing) then the frame shape at the seat post makes no difference to the torsion.
Traditional frame plus short seat post = Sloping frame plus long seat post weight. More or less.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
And once again BR forums descends into the same posters banging away at each other while the OP hasn't been seen for well over a week.0
-
thegreatdivide wrote:And once again BR forums descends into the same posters banging away at each other while the OP hasn't been seen for well over a week.
Yes this was stated a few pages back, in any case what other patron's have discussed has got my interest, OT I guess but interesting more so than the usual 'I have x cash/future debt and I am so insecure I don't know what to purchase' type thread.Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
Flanners1 wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:And once again BR forums descends into the same posters banging away at each other while the OP hasn't been seen for well over a week.
Yes this was stated a few pages back, in any case what other patron's have discussed has got my interest, OT I guess but interesting more so than the usual 'I have x cash/future debt and I am so insecure I don't know what to purchase' type thread.
No, it's just you and PBlakney banging away at each other.0 -
thegreatdivide wrote:Flanners1 wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:And once again BR forums descends into the same posters banging away at each other while the OP hasn't been seen for well over a week.
Yes this was stated a few pages back, in any case what other patron's have discussed has got my interest, OT I guess but interesting more so than the usual 'I have x cash/future debt and I am so insecure I don't know what to purchase' type thread.
No, it's just you and PBlakney banging away at each other.
yes it's a Forum a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Your assertion is unfortunately incorrect in any case.Colnago C60 SRAM eTap, Colnago C40, Milani 107E, BMC Pro Machine, Trek Madone, Viner Gladius,
Bizango 29er0 -
Banging away?thegreatdivide wrote:Flanners1 wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:And once again BR forums descends into the same posters banging away at each other while the OP hasn't been seen for well over a week.
Yes this was stated a few pages back, in any case what other patron's have discussed has got my interest, OT I guess but interesting more so than the usual 'I have x cash/future debt and I am so insecure I don't know what to purchase' type thread.
No, it's just you and PBlakney banging away at each other.
You don't get out much. This is a polite discussion.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
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!
You've hit the nail on the head there...how do I know?....because it's me!
C60, Campag Record, Campag Bora's and do you know what, I love it and don't give a flying f@ck what anything thinks!0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
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 Timebontie 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.
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
I would say that the C60 is a 50s is a much smaller frame all-round than a Medium Time...
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.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."
A 50s is a 54cm effective top tube and in no way a "virtual 58". Comparing the BB to center of top tube measurements on a sloping vs horisontal top tube frame is not really sensible,I would think.
In Colnago a 54s has an effctive top tube of 58cm and a 50s has an effective top tube of 54cm, so I am not sure what your last sentence means? I am a shorty at 5"9 so to me a 54s with a 58cm eff top tube is a "big bike"
I hold to my story that OP should go to a shop to compare the bikes.0 -
Look at Colnago's specification sheet. This shows that a 54S has a 'virtual' top tube of 565mm, not 580mm. Such 'virtual' measurements are not always consistent, but we can also see that on a 54S the reach is 385mm (only 2mm more than the 50S and 48S) and a saddle set back is 151mm, giving a total of 536mm. Neither of these figures given by Colnago indicate 54S has a '58 cm' effective top tube.bontie wrote:In Colnago a 54s has an effctive top tube of 58cm and a 50s has an effective top tube of 54cm... I am a shorty at 5"9 so to me a 54s with a 58cm eff top tube is a "big bike"."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Don't forget that they also do the C60 in a 'high' version. I think this is particularly aimed at those elderly Italians one sees when on hoilday in places such as San Remo, many of who wear full team kit, are on a top of the range Colnago fitted with Super-Record, and have a girth akin to that of Big Daddy at his peak.SoSimple wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote: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!
You've hit the nail on the head there...how do I know?....because it's me! "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Is there a reason that old people shouldn't own nice things?0
-
Of course not, but when people buy expensive performance equipment with the aim of going faster, when what really limits them is the flab around their waist - and to a vastly greater degree than any equipment purchase can remedy - then one has to wonder at their logic.Flasher wrote:Is there a reason that old people shouldn't own nice things? "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
Of course not, but when people buy expensive performance equipment with the aim of going faster, when what really limits them is the flab around their waist - and to a vastly greater degree than any equipment purchase can remedy - then one has to wonder at their logic.Flasher wrote:Is there a reason that old people shouldn't own nice things?
This fellas looking a bit old and weighty, maybe he shouldn't be allowed nice kit either!
0 -
No one said that flabby old giffers 'shouldn't be allowed nice kit'. :roll:Flasher wrote:
This fellas looking a bit old and weighty, maybe he shouldn't be allowed nice kit either!BenderRodriguez wrote:
Of course not, but when people buy expensive performance equipment with the aim of going faster, when what really limits them is the flab around their waist - and to a vastly greater degree than any equipment purchase can remedy - then one has to wonder at their logic.Flasher wrote:Is there a reason that old people shouldn't own nice things?
I would also bet that the old boy in that photo would have more sense and experience to think that the path to increased performance was the latest carbon bling, negating the need to train and get lean!"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Wrong.BenderRodriguez wrote:I would also bet that the old boy in that photo would have more sense and experience to think that the path to increased performance was the latest carbon bling, negating the need to train and get lean!
That guy was obsessive about equipment. I'd wager he would have carbon to the max.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No doubt Merckx always used the best kit available. However, I didn't argue otherwise.PBlakeney wrote:
Wrong.BenderRodriguez wrote:I would also bet that the old boy in that photo would have more sense and experience to think that the path to increased performance was the latest carbon bling, negating the need to train and get lean!
That guy was obsessive about equipment. I'd wager he would have carbon to the max.
What I actually said was that Merckx would have never thought that having the best kit "negated the need to train and get lean". I am sure he would have always looked first to where the biggest gains were to be made, and why spend thousands to lose 200g off a frame when one is carrying 10 kg of excess lard?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
He didn't win because of his bikes - it was his legs.0
-
A nice bike that's set up right is a nice bike, regardless of who is riding it.
It is the same with fast cars, people buy all sorts of incredibly engineered performance cars and drive them around at pretty normal speeds but put them on the track and they can't drive for toffee. It doesn't matter though, the car is still that car regardless of who is driving it.
Who cares, it's only money.0
