Ryan's Vulgar Colnago C59 - 5,708g (Final Pics Up, pg 4)

[KCookie]

I suppose the main question is do you feel comfortable. If so leave well alone.

[LionelB]

Definately not too small. I even think you could get a setback post and raise the saddle a bit. Honestly.

This way you would also get ride of that ugly seatpost

[PSM]

[Wingnut]

Definately not too small. I even think you could get a setback post and raise the saddle a bit. Honestly.

Nice ouftfit too.

Agree saddle could be moved back but saddle height looks a little high to me. I notice the right leg is close to full extension already and toe is pointing down, getting close to hyperextended...I like a little more heel drop but who can tell from a picture?

[RyanH]

Putting the saddle further back is going to put my knee way behind the spindle. From a classical fit standpoint, I think that's going the wrong direction, no?

Also, not sure if it's affected but I was holding myself upright with my right side, I don't remember if I had my knee jutted out against the glass or not so don't read too much into what the right side is doing.

Any thoughts on whether I look stretched out at all? I sometimes feel like I am if I hadn't ridden in a bit but I recall trying to find a frame with less reach than 37/38cm pretty hard.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[Wingnut]

Upper body looks good to me...easy to misconstrue with pics rather than video...

[AJS914]

You look well fit on your C59. A 50S would have been a perfect size for you but that will work.

I'm 6 foot (183cm) and I'm also on a 52S. I could easily be on a 54S. All my Colnago research seemed to point towards going for the smaller frame so I did.

[Calnago]

I don't know where the idea that Colnago "fit" is some mysterious thing and you should go smaller or whatever with yourself draped over a stem way out in front comes from. There was one old article that people continue to reference written by a guy who used to work for a guy that worked at the old distributor (TriAltir, in the US, long gone) that said something to that effect and if you search you'll find it. Personally, I think it's hogwash. Fit is fit. Geometry is what it is. My 61 Traditional Colnago fits me perfectly, and it equates to a 60 Trek H2 fit, or the closest in a Specialized Tarmac for example would be a 58. The number manufacturers put on their sizes depends on how they measure them which can be very different between manufacturers. To throw a wrench into all this, I'm just shy of 6'1" (185cm) with a 91cm inseam and there's no way I would be riding a 52s or a 54s Colnago. The closest sloping size would be 56s but then I'd have to use spacers under the stem. My ideal size (and I've tried smaller and larger) is definitely a 61 Traditional. This is just another datapoint. Mostly to say, take what people say on the Internet, including myself, as far as sizing goes with a grain of salt. Read the advice, try to figure out why someone your size may prefer a smaller or larger frame than you, but ultimately use your best judgment as to feel. It "looks" to me like maybe you're saddle could come up and forward a bit. From the pic I'd almost say you're already a bit too far back but it is next to impossible to tell from that static pic especially when you're concentrating on the the remote control camera trigger. Here's a little test just as another data point. When you're in the drops looking down at the stem, do the handlebars block out your front hub. A pretty random guideline I know but it seems to be often a good one. If my sight line lets me see the front hub in front of the bars then I would likely try a longer stem and conversely if I could see the hub on the near side then I might think a shorter stem. But you also have to take into account the bar reach and where the hoods are. So super rough guidelines are just that, super rough. Experiment on the road with saddle position. You're close though. Trust your gut going forward. And balance on the bike. Is your torso failry balanced if you try to ride with no hands hovered over the bars? Get the seated position right and balance first however. Then concentrate on reach issues. But never let reach issues dictate your ideal seated position. Anyway, like I said, read everything, look at others fits, and figure out what makes most sense to you.

[AJS914]

You read a lot into my post. I don't exactly agree with everything in that article either. He claims being able to feel a big difference between 52 and 53cm frames. I'd counter that a difference of 1cm in the traditional sizes is too small to notice an enormous difference in handling.

In the sloping sizes of Colnago's lineup though there are 2cm gaps. If they had a 53S I probably would have went with that. The 54S would have given me less flexibility in raising/lowering my stem. I don't mind a couple of small spacers. I don't buy the 'buy a bigger frame until you are slammed' mentality you find on this board. I'm actually thinking of lowering my stem a bit and on a 54S I'd be struggling to do that without resorting to a negative degree stem plus spacers.

The fact is that there is not a lot of difference between a 52S or 54S. They have basically the same reach. The biggest difference is a longer head tube and 17mm more stack plus a few more millimeters of wheelbase. I'm glad I got a 52S. It's just about perfect for me with a 12cm stem. A hypothetical 53S might have been exactly perfect. Could I have made a 54S work for me? Probably. And I'm sure it would have ridden great as well.

[Calnago]

There are fit issues and handling issues. You can get a proper fit on several frame sizes without too much problem. But a few millimeters of wheelbase makes quite a difference in handling etc. Plus, as you say, the headtube length is critical as well, depending on how much drop you like. Wasn't trying to read too much into your post @AJS914, just that I don't know how all your research led you to go to a smaller frame. It's a preference thing, really. Fit is fit... we all have our preferences, and within a range, it comes down to those preferences.

[PSM]

RyanH, ride your bike and smile!

[ronderman]

I don't know where the idea that Colnago "fit" is some mysterious thing and you should go smaller or whatever with yourself draped over a stem way out in front comes from. There was one old article that people continue to reference written by a guy who used to work for a guy that worked at the old distributor (TriAltir, in the US, long gone) that said something to that effect and if you search you'll find it. Personally, I think it's hogwash. Fit is fit. Geometry is what it is.

Yes. All true, but people became fixated on the TT length as the singular most important geometry metric. The industry is just getting over this and finally coming to a better standard with reach and stack. My Colnago measures out exactly the same w/ a 130mm stem and my 2015 Merckx w/ a 120mm stem - the colnago TT horizontal is 58cm and the merckx is 59.6.

I can also state that my C59 in 56s with a 130mm stem handles better than my previous 58s with a 120mm stem.

The OP has a slammed stem with a negative angle and not a heck of a lot of seat post showing - I suspect the frame size was purchased because of the TT. It will work, but a smaller size would have probably been the most ideal and how Ernesto would have done it.

[xena]

Posting a photo of yourself on your bike is going to get all the experts yelling
If your not happy with your position then make small adjustments and see if they work for you.
If Froome or Bertie posted in the same context, they would get the wrath of the so called experts as well. You see pro riders with all kinds of different stem's ,seatpost's frame size's It come's down to what works for you.

Just ride and enjoy.

[RyanH]

Ya, as Xena said.

Any who, @ronderman, no, I bought the frame based on stack and reach numbers. I saw that a - 17 (parallel to the ground, not negative) would put my fit within a few mm of my Litespeed. Reach doesn't change in the Colnago sizing between 48s and 54s, just stack.

Overall, I'm happy with my position and it's been reviewed by a professional fitter as I mentioned but I found it weird so many commented on my 6cm of bar drop, so I was curious to see if the same commentary would be applied if they actually saw the rider on the bike. I don't look like I'm riding upright so maybe I just have odd proportions?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[thp]

C59's look so well proportioned. Great looking bike. The all matte looks turned out very well.