Colnago vs TIME

cougie

And a fast bike won't be a fast bike with an unfit dude on.

pblakeney

BenderRodriguez wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

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!

Wrong.
That guy was obsessive about equipment. I'd wager he would have carbon to the max.

No doubt Merckx always used the best kit available. However, I didn't argue otherwise.

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?

Buy what you like and be happy. Other people's opinions are available, but worthless. Buy the bike & you will lose the weight.

flasher

I would never slag someone off because they are overweight, old and ride a nice bike, you have no idea about them, their health, their finances, you may one day be in their shoes, surely better for everyone to be out on a bike, no matter what.

winton

BenderRodriguez

Sorry to be a pedant, but you can't do the simple setback+reach equation on the C60 as Colnago measure the effective top tube and reach to different points on the headtube. Won't make a huge difference but the figures quoted won't be quite right.

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

BenderRodriguez

Winton wrote:

Sorry to be a pedant, but you can't do the simple setback+reach equation on the C60 as Colnago measure the effective top tube and reach to different points on the headtube. Won't make a huge difference but the figures quoted won't be quite right.

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

Yes, but the relationships between these measurements should still be fixed, rather than the virtual top tube getting disproportionately larger with increasing frame size. Their diagram shows the 'virtual top tube', reach and saddle set-back values as all being measured parallel to one another and between vertical set points, with the virtual top tube effectively being the sum of the reach and set-back, plus a little bit. However, when one looks at the quoted 'virtual top tube' values, it is clear there is no such fixed relationship between these values.

For example, a 48S has a reach of 383mm and a saddle set-back of 121 mm, giving a total of 504mm, whilst the quoted virtual top tube is 520 mm, giving a difference of +16mm. With a 50S the difference is 540 - (383+131), giving a value of +26mm; on the 54S, the difference is 580 - (385+151), giving a value of +44mm; and on a 56S the difference is 600 - ( 396 + 156), giving a value of +48mm. These differences suggest that Colnago's diagram does not accurately represent how the measurements are actually taken.

Given this and all the confusion relating to 'virtual' sizing, it is perhaps no wonder there are so many discussions on the web about what size one should take in a sloping' Colnago. As has been suggested, the only real measure is probably to go and sit on one.

mfin

Just ignore all the saddle setback measurements, look at the ETT and HT, and scrounge about to find BB drop on forums or ask and owner to compare to a known bike's BB drop with same wheels in. Once you know ST angle, simple maths comparing to an existing bike can let you determine what layback of post you'll want and a ballpark of rail position within a few mm (which can then be set up to the mm during setup of course), plus ST angle will let you work out effect +/- on ETT between bikes when you have the Effective Seat Tube length or a near as dammit guess as to where the ETT would join the ST.

I don't see what's so complex unless you get into Reach, Stack and these Saddle Setback values. These are three things I've never once used when calculating which colnago (or any bike) to buy or whether it will suit someone, I do understand trigonometry very well though. Have yet to get it wrong too.

"Going an sitting on one" is a daft way to size a bike as it won't be set up for you, no point in trusting your senses on a bike that is not setup for you any bike if you already know your fit is correct on another bike, just map it over using maths and measurement.