Colnago C60 Traditional vs Slooping vs Pinarello Dogma F8

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
3Pio
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:13 pm

by 3Pio

Hi there.. Im in to the buying a new frame.

After trying few bikes, and reading everything i found, i decide to go with Colnago C60 or Pinarello Dogma F8

Im 40 years old, in ok shape, a bit overweighted, and i really love to climb.

This bike i'll keep at least 6-7 years maybe more.

I ride a lot of mountains, but also very often long riding like 120km-200km at once.

As first, in term of performance what is the difference between Traditional and Slooping C60?

Which of this two geometries is faster and better for climbing and for long distance riding?

Except the look, is there any performance difference that i'll notice?

If i need to choose only based of look, i prefer traditional.. But this time i want to choose based on performance (Climbing :) )


And if i compare Pinarello Dogma F8 with winner of those two (slooping vs traditional), which is better and why? (Again i'll prefer climbing performance, but in same time to be able to ride long distances)

Until now, i ride Pinarello FP3 in 53cm size


Greetings and thanks a lot in advance


Darko

p.s. Please let's talk just about those selection.. I'll buy one of this

LionelB
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Aix en Provence

by LionelB

There is no performance difference between std geo or sloping geo on the C60. Purely look. Some would argue that the sloping one is stiffer but I seriously doubt anyone can tell any difference.

The C60 and the F8 are top of the line frames, the F8 will be a bit lighter and maybe a bit stiffer. Overall it is sort of hard to go wrong with any one these two. If one fits you better than the other maybe go for that.

by Weenie


TomColnago
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:05 pm

by TomColnago

I've got a C60 and love the way it rides and is stiff but also comfortable for long distance. mine is a 59 traditional geometry and I chose this because it suited me more than a 52 or 54 sloping. you will probably love which ever one you get but one is a colnago so i would choose that :thumbup:

mimason
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Florida

by mimason

Maybe search the forum for the other relevant C60 vs F8 discussions. The bikes behave differently. One is more aggressive than the other more comfortable. But seriously there are several other threads with the same discussion points.

3Pio
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:13 pm

by 3Pio

mimason wrote:Maybe search the forum for the other relevant C60 vs F8 discussions. The bikes behave differently. One is more aggressive than the other more comfortable. But seriously there are several other threads with the same discussion points.



If u believe me, i read every thread i found on the net :)

But there is never ever comparation of traditional vs slooping in term of performance.. Most of the comparation is just based on look..

While we talk about this, i add Pinarello Dogma F8 just to complete my search.

Sorry if there is overlap with some other threads, but maybe this would help a lot of other that have the same doubts.

Thanks in advance

Darko

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5656
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

No performance difference. Colnago introduced sloping frames in the mid 2000's, at least in their C series frames. It was the trend for all manufacturers to reduce costs by offering fewer sizes and sloping frames allowed more people to fit a given size. That's it, despite what marketing claims they liked to make at the time. They would probably like to move to all sloping frames but I think there is still a decent demand for the traditional geometry from a lot of folks. But once we all die off, or demand wanes, I suspect you'll only see sloping frames being offered.
Like Lionel says, you can't really go wrong with your choice here. They are both far from the lightest bikes you could buy so I would base your decision on simply two things:
1) which one you can get the best fit on. I personally would be kind of between sizes on the Pinarello but sounds like you're on a Pinarello now, so that's likely not an issue; and
2) whichever one "speaks to you" the most. Unless you're a hard core racer and the bike is strictly a tool to get the job done, don't underestimate the pleasure you will get over the years from just admiring your fine bicycle, whether it's while your struggling up a huge climb or enjoying a coffee once you're at the top.
Fun times bike shopping.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

I just built a bike. The shop I worked with insisted that on a smaller frame sloping looked better, arguing otherwise the seat post is too low. At 53 cm I don't see it applying that much to our situation but perhaps a little. I've gotten used to my sloping C59 which is a 45cm sloping.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Trek 5200(ultegra)

3Pio
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:13 pm

by 3Pio

Calnago wrote:No performance difference. Colnago introduced sloping frames in the mid 2000's, at least in their C series frames. It was the trend for all manufacturers to reduce costs by offering fewer sizes and sloping frames allowed more people to fit a given size. That's it, despite what marketing claims they liked to make at the time. They would probably like to move to all sloping frames but I think there is still a decent demand for the traditional geometry from a lot of folks. But once we all die off, or demand wanes, I suspect you'll only see sloping frames being offered.
Like Lionel says, you can't really go wrong with your choice here. They are both far from the lightest bikes you could buy so I would base your decision on simply two things:
1) which one you can get the best fit on. I personally would be kind of between sizes on the Pinarello but sounds like you're on a Pinarello now, so that's likely not an issue; and
2) whichever one "speaks to you" the most. Unless you're a hard core racer and the bike is strictly a tool to get the job done, don't underestimate the pleasure you will get over the years from just admiring your fine bicycle, whether it's while your struggling up a huge climb or enjoying a coffee once you're at the top.
Fun times bike shopping.



I had a small chance to try them both few months ago... But i still cant choose becouse they had different wheelset (Colnago Had FastForward), and Pinarello Had Bora Ultra 35 (very stiff, but uncomofortable).

And Colnago was 48S (small for me ), and Pinarello even beeing 53cm (same as mine), was with all the spacers removed from the stem (i ride mine with 1cm spacer and plus conical headset cup, so i guess my position compared to that Dogma is 1.5cm higher).

Also i had injury (fall down from my Bianchi Pista 1 Month ago, and in the time of riding i was off the bike for 40 days (so not in proper shape) , and still a lot of pain in my arm, so couldnt say that i tried them properly).

From that test how i feel them at the moment:

Colnago C60: Not that responsive on climbing (maybe the wheelset were problem, maybe the small size), but very comfortable, and very stable on downhill

Pinarello Dogma: Very responsive, very fast on climbing (im not sure if that was result from the wheelset), but i got pain in my neck and i feel a bit uncomfortable.. Also nervous on downhill (still it could be becouse the stem was too low for me).

When i compared on Strava, i had faster time on Colnago (but i rode it Colnago First, and i was tired allready when i tried Pinarello after).

I ride them both for like 40km each

So ideal would be: Acceleration and responsivnes from Dogma, but beeing comfortable and beeing stable on downhill as Colnago.

So u now understund why im trying to get more suggestion on this forum..

The problem is that i cant try any of them again, and i need to order like this (i'll buy them from city 1000 km away from my place, and this is closest i can find them :) ), and also need to wait like 3 months from order


Darko


p.s. If any of u had a chance to try them with similar wheelset, i would really apreciate to share ur experience

AJS914
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

When I bought my C59 I specifically wanted sloping because I think it looks better. I like the slightly sloping top tubes on Colnagos versus a more sloping top tube you might find on other bikes.

One advantage of the traditional geometry is that they come in 1cm increments so you can dial in your sizing exactly. The sloping models come in 2cm increments. It's not a big deal but it's something to think about.

>>Colnago C60: Not that responsive on climbing (maybe the wheelset were problem, maybe the small size), but very comfortable, and very stable on downhill

I'd guess that it was the wheels. A C60 should be pretty stiff and transmit power well out of the saddle (at least my C59 does). My C59 is one of the best handling bikes I've ever ridden and the ride quality (road feel) is second to none. I wouldn't want to trade it for anything right now.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5656
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Traditional sizing does not come in 1cm increments anymore. Just odd sizes... 53, 55, 57, etc.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

AJS914
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

I stand corrected. The C59 did come in 1cm sizes.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6754
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

3Pio wrote:As first, in term of performance what is the difference between Traditional and Slooping C60?

no
3Pio wrote:Which of this two geometries is faster and better for climbing and for long distance riding?

both
3Pio wrote:Except the look, is there any performance difference that i'll notice?

no
3Pio wrote:If i need to choose only based of look, i prefer traditional

You are right. Traditional lugged Colnagos always look better. The production of sloping frames was a decision directed by marketing (fewer sizes, lower cost) as Calnago said.
3Pio wrote:And if i compare Pinarello Dogma F8 with winner of those two (slooping vs traditional), which is better and why?

Both frames are amazing. Check their geometry and buy whatever you like.
If I were you a C60 traditional would be my choise. It is a work of art made in Italy that will keep a high value for many many years.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

AJS914 wrote:When I bought my C59 I specifically wanted sloping because I think it looks better. I like the slightly sloping top tubes on Colnagos versus a more sloping top tube you might find on other bikes.

One advantage of the traditional geometry is that they come in 1cm increments so you can dial in your sizing exactly. The sloping models come in 2cm increments. It's not a big deal but it's something to think about.

>>Colnago C60: Not that responsive on climbing (maybe the wheelset were problem, maybe the small size), but very comfortable, and very stable on downhill

I'd guess that it was the wheels. A C60 should be pretty stiff and transmit power well out of the saddle (at least my C59 does). My C59 is one of the best handling bikes I've ever ridden and the ride quality (road feel) is second to none. I wouldn't want to trade it for anything right now.



I'm on a C-59 with Dura Ace C-24 wheels. I'm going under the assumption that the differences between a C-59 & C-60 are subtle. That said, I've been very pleased with climbing on my C-59. I do believe the Dura Ace wheels made a huge difference. When I first got the bike the wheels were Mavic krysium's
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Trek 5200(ultegra)

3Pio
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:13 pm

by 3Pio

fromtrektocolnago wrote:
AJS914 wrote:When I bought my C59 I specifically wanted sloping because I think it looks better. I like the slightly sloping top tubes on Colnagos versus a more sloping top tube you might find on other bikes.

One advantage of the traditional geometry is that they come in 1cm increments so you can dial in your sizing exactly. The sloping models come in 2cm increments. It's not a big deal but it's something to think about.

>>Colnago C60: Not that responsive on climbing (maybe the wheelset were problem, maybe the small size), but very comfortable, and very stable on downhill

I'd guess that it was the wheels. A C60 should be pretty stiff and transmit power well out of the saddle (at least my C59 does). My C59 is one of the best handling bikes I've ever ridden and the ride quality (road feel) is second to none. I wouldn't want to trade it for anything right now.



I'm on a C-59 with Dura Ace C-24 wheels. I'm going under the assumption that the differences between a C-59 & C-60 are subtle. That said, I've been very pleased with climbing on my C-59. I do believe the Dura Ace wheels made a huge difference. When I first got the bike the wheels were Mavic krysium's



Just to mention that i allready have other parts except frame. The new bike would be build with Campagnolo Record 52/36 12-29, Fizik R1 Stem, Selle Italia Carbonio Flow Saddle, Time eXpresso 10 Pedals and Campagnolo Shamal Ultra Wheelset

I allready ride Shamal Wheelset for like 900 km, and i got big improvement when i switch to them on my FP3

Bogan
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: Boganville, Australia

by Bogan

I wish I could afford either of them :cry: .
MAMIL? Never. O.F.I.L. yeh! (Old F**ker in Lycra)

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post