Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:20 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous 17 8 9 10 11 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:47 pm
Posts: 107
Very interesting thread, thanks. I have built 4 C60s, one for me and three for friends, all with Record or SR and one C59. The grungy rear brake is very frustrating, I thought about putting some PTFE sleeving round the cable but thought of loosing it inside the TT stopped me. I am not quite sure how you will get all that out of your TT when you replace the cable. I did spray a little GT85 into the front hole which helped. Im not a fan of crossing the gear cables on any bikes I think it would add friction also I prefer the cables at the cockpit not to loop out so far. My gear cable outers do not touch the head tube due to the angle of the exit holes. I don't understand your issue with the the brake shoe clips, they've never bothered me and the fit is not nearly as tight as on the older brake shoes, so I feel they might be necessary.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
Yes, I couldn't live with that "grungy rear brake" as you call it either, caused by the brake cable routing through the top tube and the cable rubbing on the edges of the internal frame guides in the front and rear top tube lugs. Hence my solution presented in this thread. I have been riding it for months and it is silky smooth (just like the front) and I have not heard one teensy "ting" or "slap" from the brake cable hitting the inner side of the top tube. So I'm pretty happy about that. PTFE sleeve alone internally won't stop the rough feeling when activating the cable however. You need to have a short piece of PTFE from the point of entry and extend past whatever ridge internally the cable has to go over in order to get that super smooth feel as if it was a completely enclosed cable run like on the C59. As for getting it out, no problem at all... I experimented quite a bit as I was installing it to make sure this was an easily done task. The hole in the seat cluster lug where the brake cable exits is a "keyhole" shape and allows a tool like a pick or tweezers to be inserted for fishing around there. Since building my C60 I've finally picked up one of those Park internal cable routing systems with the magnets and all kinds of little attachments. Can't believe it took me this long to get one. I have little magnets and things but the Park kit, and other kits, make very quick work out of what can be a very frustrating task.

Crossing the gear cables internally is also not a problem on the C60. The cables cross on the same plane so there is no worry that pulling one will cause tension on the other, and the straight stainless steel cables create no friction at the crossing point. It is very clean. And it allows for the least friction possible of the alternative routing methods. Just make sure you don't get the cables "twisted" around each other versus just crossing over each other. It is easy to experiment yourself with a length of derailleur cable. Create a large radius C-shape with the cable housing, run a derailleur cable through it and test the friction. Now, with the same housing, squish it into and 'S'-shape as would be the case where you don't cross the cables internally and run a derailleur cable through it and draw it through. I think you'll be quickly able to ascertain which of the two allows the cable to flow through more easily. In the old days of skinny steel tubes, the crossing of cables underneath the downtube was quite common for this very reason, especially on small frames where the distance from the cable stop to the levers was very tight. Made for much more relaxed bends and hence, better shifting. Then, as tubes got bigger, the downtube often got in the way of routing cables this way, or the cable stops were placed at a spot that also wouldn't allow a cross underneath the downtube, so you didn't see it very much anymore. Then fastforward to today where the downtubes are huge and the cables are routed internally and there really is nothing preventing one from adopting than internal crossing of cables along with relaxed derailleur cable housing bends. So, it has become my preferred method of routing on frames that will allow it. And it does keep the cables from rubbing on the head tube as well.

The brake shoe springy thingies are just a pain in the ass on the Campy brake shoes. The equivalent of lawyer tabs on dropouts, except they are there as a precaution in the event that some careless mechanic installs the brake shoes backwards. So, if you're fairly confident that you can install brake shoes the right way, and don't ride your bike backwards while braking, then I much prefer the ease of pad changes without the springy thingies.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:37 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:08 am
Posts: 282
Location: The Washingtons: DC and the state
You guys need the right tool. I use a Park Tool pick to leverage the "springy thang" out of the shoe. Works very well. By far my biggest scream out loud and go grab a beer and calm down mechanical issue is running the cables through the frame. It can take me some time to get those dang cables out of that tiny rectangular opening at the bottom bracket.

_________________
Democracy dies in darkness. It's not fake news just because it's not flattering, Trump.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
I have the right tool, teensy pick, teensy screwdrivers, everything you can imagine.... but it's still a pain compared to just grabbing the pads with some needle nose pliers and pulling them out. No worries, I did it for years with the springy thingy in there but now that it's out, I wish I'd have done it long ago.
As for the cable routing, you can also use a little pick to grab the cables from the opening but a strong magnet makes the job super easy.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:08 am
Posts: 282
Location: The Washingtons: DC and the state
Cal, I should have assumed you had the proper tools. I went out and specifically bought a Park Tool magnetic cable routing system to make thw job easier. The magnet aupplied isn't quite steong enough to coax the cables into position. I'm gping to buy a big much too powerful magnet and give that a try. Great idea. Thanks.

_________________
Democracy dies in darkness. It's not fake news just because it's not flattering, Trump.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
The magnet I use is just the one in the Park Kit, and yes, you sort of have to guide the ends of the cables pretty close to the opening then just use the magnet to guide it out a bit. But for the C59/C60 openings I've found that if you have a clamp type stand that swivels the whole bike then just positioning it so that the down tube is high and angled sharply down (but not perpendicular to the ground), that that's usually enough so just pushing the cables all the way through will allow them to find their way out the opening naturally.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 861
Location: Pa USA
Neodymium magnets from hard drives work great for moving cables. As a frustrated supersix owner, I can vouch.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:06 am
Posts: 9
beautiful....


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:57 pm
Posts: 1
Dear Cal,
first of all - BRAVO. The art of bike assembly displayed and explained.

I'd like to ask on how is the RIDE itself ?
+ I guess (but have not found) a lot has been written on this but : you ride 61 frame and is 184 tall ? I am 185 and ride C59 in 52s size ... (120mm stem / 765mm centre of bb 2 saddletop). Can you clarify on this ? Seems a huge frame for a figure of your size ...

Thanks and enjoy your C fleet

xkoum17


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:55 am
Posts: 763

_________________
The Harem
Speedvagen | Argonaut 2.0 | Pinarello F10 | Mosaic RT-1 | Festka Scalatore | Pegoretti Responsorium Ciavete | Wilier Cento10Air Ramato | Trek Madone 9

Incoming
Rob English | Field

Ex's:
Factor | Field | Baum | Stinner


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
xkoum17 wrote:
Dear Cal,
first of all - BRAVO. The art of bike assembly displayed and explained.

I'd like to ask on how is the RIDE itself ?
+ I guess (but have not found) a lot has been written on this but : you ride 61 frame and is 184 tall ? I am 185 and ride C59 in 52s size ... (120mm stem / 765mm centre of bb 2 saddletop). Can you clarify on this ? Seems a huge frame for a figure of your size ...

Thanks and enjoy your C fleet

xkoum17

Thanks, the ride is great... I know I haven't been on here to update the thread and probably should. The C60 in this thread is a 59 Traditional, not 61. It works just fine, as does a 61 Traditional, and so would a 56sloping. The ride is rock solid. Neutral handling. No surprises. Took a little while to get my fit exactly dialed due to the slightly different frame size. Played with 130mm and 140mm stems. The 140 with the same saddle setback as my 61 Traditional was a good "fit" but the center of gravity just seemed a tad too forward over the front for me. So I compromised and moved the saddle back maybe 5-7mm and went back to a 130mm stem and the whole weight balance over the frame seems perfect now. No complaints for sure.

My saddle height (in the initial post), is 804mm I believe and I have an inseam of 905mm. I can't imagine riding a 52sloping. With my 59T I still use the tall headset cap and 2cm of spacers on top of that and still have a saddle to handlebar drop of over 8cm. So for me it works. I do have a friend who might be more like you perhaps... he has a much shorter inseam than me but is almost the same in height, and hence a much lower saddle height. As a shop owner he has had several Colnagos over the years. He would generally get a custom geometry which would have the frame shorter (like perhaps a 56T) but with a longer top tube than a 56T would come with stock.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:45 pm
Posts: 8
Calnago wrote:
Ok... let's line out everything that goes onto the fork steertube next, and cut it.
Image
From left to right, except for the fork insert (above the tall Colnago cover):
- Compression ring
- Shim
- Short Acros Headset cover
- 5mm spacer... this spacer is critical to take up the gap between the lower Acros headset cover and the taller Colnago cover which I am placing over it strictly for aesthetic reasons. Without the spacer there would be a "gap" in the chain of spacers that the preload must travel through in order to do it's thing on the compression ring and upper headset bearing.
- Tall Colnago cover (not supplied) I found this and don't know which model headset it originated from. There are a few very similar but not quite the same. Some are solid, some have a lip at the edge (like my C59) which wouldn't have worked here. Etc. In any case, I like the profile of this cover as it gradually tapers up it's 15mm height finishing at exactly the right diameter of the spacers above it making it look all very integrated as if it was planned to be like that :) . I was very conscious of the spacer tower I was constructing, not that it is that bad by any means but I can almost hear the "Slam That Stem" crowd as I write this... "WTF... that thing belongs in Dubai it's so tall". Ha ha... Bite me. It works.
- 15mm carbon spacer
- 6mm red alloy spacer (Chris King, I like their anodization). This spacer was needed in addition to the 15mm (which was essentially the difference in headtube lengths between my 61 and the 59 frames) because I'm using a -10 degree stem here versus a -8 on the C59. So to make sure the bars end up in the same point in space the stem needs to start a bit higher. Plus, I like the red and it sort of viually breaks up the tower I'm constructing. Again, the spacer police are a tough crowd.
- Stem
- 5mm Carbon spacer (Whenever possible I always cut my steertubes just a smidge taller than the stem for two reasons... 1) because I like the stem to have full complete contact with the steerer along it's entire collar height, and 2) the little lip provides a place holder to position the top spacer upon so that it doesn't move around. Oh, and I guess the main reason for the 5mm spacer is also to provide enough of a gap to adjust the preload on the headset, slight as it may be.
- Custom C60 top cap (it's what I do :) )

Oh, and here's a gratuitous shot of the top cap, even though we haven't got that far yet...
Image

Next up... cutting the steer tube... (to be continued, I'm going for a quick spin on this thing now)



First off - congrats! Awesome build! I have a question about a thin metal headset shim. Where does that go in the stack 'hierarchy'? :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
From left to right, exactly as shown, the thin shim goes on top of the compression ring. You can use one or several depending on how much shimming is required. It's purpose is simply to ensure that the top cover clears the headtube when turning, rather than binding/rubbing on the edges.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:45 pm
Posts: 8
Calnago wrote:
From left to right, exactly as shown, the thin shim goes on top of the compression ring. You can use one or several depending on how much shimming is required. It's purpose is simply to ensure that the top cover clears the headtube when turning, rather than binding/rubbing on the edges.



Calnago, thanks a bunch for a quick answer!

Another q-n:

I am building a 50s RSWH C60 right now - all Campy SR 2015+ (all components marked with 'A'). So I fitted the IC15-RE41 BB cups (wider and without the rubber o-ring) using Morgan Aqua paste and an Enduro tool - all went well.

However, when I fitted the new 2016 53/39, 172.5 SR UT crankset, there is only about 2mm of clearance between the driveside chainstay and an inner chainring. I can't find a lot of pix online with that particular angle - some pro bikes seem to have a clear protection sticker in that area.

Also tried the 2009 53/39, 172.5 SR UT crankset with IC11-RE41 BB cups (narrower and with the rubber o-ring), but the protruding chainring bolts gave less than 1 mm of clearance almost brushing up against the chainstay.

I also have a C40 and a C50 with standard outboard BB cups which give plenty of clearance in that area - C60/Campy seem to dial that in to a bare minimum.

Did you have a similar experience? I realize that that specific area is super stiff and there is next to zero flex but I'd like to sleep better knowing this isn't an issue.

Thanks in advance!


Attachments:
c5000002.jpg
c5000002.jpg [ 35.97 KiB | Viewed 288 times ]
c5000001.jpg
c5000001.jpg [ 33.86 KiB | Viewed 288 times ]
Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4770
You are fine with the 2015 stuff. And definitely use the newer cups (IC15-RE41). That clearance looks similar to mine and I’ve not had any touching. It’s solid. Keep in mind that with the older outboard cups the BB shells were only 68mm (eng) or 70mm (ita) wide and the chainstays joined up with the BB a lot closer together. With the wider shelled BB’s they can place the chainstays as far a part as practical. It doesn’t look like much clearance but that C60 BB lug doesn’t flex. Sleep well.
And yes, as you realize, with the pre 2010 rings and the male/female chainring bolts, it’s the backside of the bolts that can sometimes cause interference.
Oh, and throwing on a chaincatcher is always good insurance as well. I much prefer the K-Edge Pro over the supplied Colnago chaincatcher as the K-Edge has Independent mounting and adjustment bolts, versus just a single bolt that requires you to perfectly adjust the derailleur alignment and the chaincatcher alignment simultaneously.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:25 pm 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous 17 8 9 10 11 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago C60 57 traditional feeler

in For sale - Pictures are mandatory 22-3-13

ultyguy

0

441

Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:10 am

ultyguy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago Traditional Geometry Question

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

Mr.Gib

15

1793

Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:50 pm

BdaGhisallo View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago C60 Sizing help - Slope or Traditional?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

Nejmann

27

2568

Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:15 pm

Calnago View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Colnago C60 - 61CM Traditional PLWH

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Introduce Yourself / Gallery - Please use metric weights.

garypremo

15

3464

Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:34 pm

mag View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Traditional Drop Aero Bars

in Road

r_mutt

8

1474

Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:59 pm

hambini View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Autriche, mrfish, RMcC, Squashednuts, tomaz69 and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited