Calfee, Colnago, Parlee?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

c50jim wrote:My son has a 58S but it's cold in the garage and I don't have any confidence in my ability to measure the slope. It looks pretty good if you're worried about it having a steep slope that looks odd. However, I'd suggest that a 58S would be too big for you. My son is 6'4" so quite a bit taller than you and I. I've always been happy with 59T, had one 60T and a 54S. Both of those were OK for me.

Really?
The only frame of these (Kish, Colnago C50 62T; Colnago C60 58S) that I have ridden is the Kish, for 12+ years. It fits perfectly.
It seems, to me, that the geos are pretty close among the three:
Attachments
Kish - Colnago C50 62T Frame Geometry.jpg
Kish - Colnago C60 58S Frame Geometry.jpg
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

Sleepless
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:58 pm
Location: Istanbul, TR

by Sleepless

I'm 6.11" and have C60 in 56S. From your Kish-58S comparison chart, I can say it's indeed a little too big for you. Maybe try comparing a 56S? I can also try to measure sloping degree for you.

by Weenie


User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Sleepless wrote:I'm 6.11" and have C60 in 56S. From your Kish-58S comparison chart, I can say it's indeed a little too big for you. Maybe try comparing a 56S? I can also try to measure sloping degree for you.

Ha ha! At first I read 6' 11", I saw Turkey, and I thought, "What, why is this guy not in the NBA? Taller than Hedo!" :D
But then I read again. OK...whew.

Why do you think 58S is too big, and 56S better?
I am not committed to "S", though; all things equal I actually prefer a level TT.

There is no need to measure any C60 head tube angle, thank you. I found out that now Colnago publish hta, so my Kish is 73.0°; 73.12° on a C60 58S; and 72.88° on a C60 56S...all very close.
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

Sleepless
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:58 pm
Location: Istanbul, TR

by Sleepless

Well, I'm no fit expert but I'm comparing stack and seattube length. Reach doesn't change a lot. A 56S or 59T is closer to your Kish than a 58S.

User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

OK, I am very confused by the different replies regarding Colnago-equivalent sizing in this thread.

I just re-did a chart (attached below) comparing my Kish to the latest Colnago geometry charts.
These are all for the C60, with "new" (integrated headset) geometry; I think the "old" numbers I have for a C50 are still valid.

So, at least for a "new" geo Colnago C60, compared to my Kish, which do the more experienced among you think would fit better?
N. B.: It would really help, also, if you can not just state a size, but please provide even a very brief explanation as to why, so that I can better understand.

In traditional, level TT: 59 T or 61T?
In sloping TT: 56 S or 58 S?

Thank you.
Attachments
Kish - Colnago Frame Geometry_current.jpg
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Sleepless wrote:Well, I'm no fit expert but I'm comparing stack and seattube length. Reach doesn't change a lot. A 56S or 59T is closer to your Kish than a 58S.

OK, thank you.
I just posted above the most current comparison I could find.

This is really difficult.
It is almost as if:
1) Everyone definitely must ride a Colnago because they fit so extremely well! Legendary!
2) It is really impossible to tell how a Colnago will fit you until you actually buy one! Sorry!
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

AJS914
Posts: 1757
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

I just used a geometry spreadsheet and mapped out the fit down to the stem stack height, how many spacers you'd run, etc.

I'm almost 6 ft. tall (182cm) and ride a 52S. I could also make a 54S fit but I think it would feel too big and I'd rather fall on the side of a smaller frame.

c50jim
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:42 am
Location: Calgary

by c50jim

Your chart is pretty complicated for this senior citizen. As I read it, the 58S has a much longer effective top tube and head tube than your Kish, but is similar for front centre. Other Colnagos are closer on the other measurements than 58S. Is your main focus front centre length? Maybe a used 60T if you can find one (or NOS, R&A recently had some of those in C59s) would be the best. Unless you're using a lot of spacers, I'd think the bars would feel high on anything bigger than a 60T. If you're worried that front centre being shorter means the Colnagos would be too quick handling, don't worry. They're stable as all get out. Why 60T rather than 59T? Just because it had a slightly longer top tube and that might work for you. I think it also had a head tube length closer to 59T than 61T or 58S. If you HAVE to have a C60, I'd probably go with a 59T because they've worked so well for me. Since it's a new bike, you should be able to get a 59T just as easily as a 61T or 56S. 56S would be my second choice in the new, smaller list of available sizes.

My comments on size are based on having owned about a dozen 59T, one 60T and one 54S and riding well over 100,000 km on those over the last 22 seasons (14,295 this year mostly on 59T Colnagos with about 3,000 on an S&S coupled Moots with an imitation of 59T geometry). My son who's 6'2" has successfully ridden one of my 59Ts in the Pyrenees but took his Look this year to Switzerland and the Dolomites because he thought the Colnago was too slow handling. My son who's 6'4" was riding my old steel 59T for several years until I moved him up to a 58S which should be a better fit for his size. Of course, he didn't return the 59T since it still works for him and work commitments kept him pretty well off the road this year. So, based on all those experiences, I think the most appropriate sizes for you would probably be 59T, 60T or 56S. You might fit a 54S too (I found it OK but sold it someone about an inch shorter than me who finds it OK for him and you might not like the seatpost extension at your weight). I like 59T, you might prefer 60T but frankly both handled so closely that I'd have trouble differentiating them.

User avatar
fa63
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, US

by fa63

Based on the chart you posted, I would suggest 58s / 61t. Keep in mind you will need to run about 15 mm more spacers with the Colnago, assuming the Kish has an external headset which adds roughly another 30 mm to the head tube length (plus you have the factor in the fork length and BB drop).

User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Can someone answer this question?
Why is it that on Colnago's own geometry chart the dimension "O" (Effective top tube, level, from center of head tube to center of seat tube) does not match the dimensions "Reach" (horizontal dimension from center of bb shell to center of head tube?) + "Scs" (setback, horizontal dimension from center of bb shell to center of seat tube)?

On a 58s, "O" = 590mm, while "Reach" (401mm) + "Scs" (160mm) = 561mm.

What am I missing here?

Image
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

alistaird
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:21 pm

by alistaird

I'm no expert but is their diagram a bit misleading and O would be the effective top tube length with a horizontal top tube (as P looks like the effective seat tube length with a horizontal top tube)?

A

moonoi
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:04 pm

by moonoi

Don't know if it helps, but I'm 187cm with a 92cm inseam and my LBS recommended a 56S or 61T, I went with the 56S and personally I preferred the look of the sloping frame in larger sizes.

When I compared the geometries with my 60H2 Emonda I thought a 58S was the best size, but the LBS was right, at least in my case.

User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

alistaird wrote:I'm no expert but is their diagram a bit misleading and O would be the effective top tube length with a horizontal top tube (as P looks like the effective seat tube length with a horizontal top tube)?

A

I'm certainly no expert either, but the diagram is not misleading; rather, the listed (and contradictory, to me) geometry figures seem to be.

My understanding is:
"O" and "P" designate actual TT (center-center) and ST (center-top (bottom of seatpost clamp)) lengths on level top tube frames.
"O" and "P" also designate effective TT and ST lengths on sloping frames.
"Os" and "Ps" designate actual TT (center-center) and ST (center-top) on sloping frames.
"Pcc" designates actual ST (center-center) on level TT frames.
"Pccs" designates actual ST (center-center) on sloping TT frames.

So, if "O". "Reach", and "Scs" all refer to horizontal center-center dimensions, as the diagram indicates, why then do "O" and "Reach" + "Scs" not equal the same total? :noidea:

I do not know if the small gap between the HT vertical lines of the "O" and "Reach designations means anything (and if so, what?), or is just a graphic issue, since on the other end the "O" and "Scs" lines do in fact overlap. I have looked, but I cannot find one of these new Colnago "Stack/Reach" diagrams that also has an explanatory legend.

Image
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

User avatar
MJB
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:17 am
Location: bottom edge of Australia

by MJB

That diagram is faulty.

There is definately no gap between where Colnago measure O and Os - they both should be measured from the point at the direct centre of the head tube at the centre of the top tube junction.

What height are you?

by Weenie


User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5302
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I know that someone linked me to that head banging against a wall gif once, but I can't find it now, when I really need it.

1) That chart above leaves a lot to be desired... probably produced by someone to "get a chart online" in a hurry. Here's a better chart, taken directly from their dealer catalog... it should help explain things better...

Note that Reach plus Scs does NOT equal O. That is because reach is measured at the center point of the very top of the head tube. Whereas O is measured from the center point of where the top tube and the headtube intersect. Because the headtube is angled those two places will not be the same. Reach can be a deceiving number sometimes for some people and when comparing between bikes it is only a comparable number if it is measured at exactly the same stack height. As it is, Reach will always be a function of headtube length. People seem to forget that, or never think about it a lot of the time. A good "reach" number to be measuring is the reach at the stack height that you ultimately want your handlebars to end up at, which would take headtube length out of the equation. You certainly want to know headtube length when it comes to determining how many spacers you will need, however.

But the above only explains part of the difference that @cadence90 is wondering about. The other part is that Scs is measured at the actual seatcluster center, NOT the effective seat cluster center which would be higher and further back. So, they show the effective top tube length (O), for a sloping geometry, but they only show the actual setback of where the actual seat cluster sits in space, and for a sloping frame that spot is a fair bit lower and further forward than a traditional frame of equivalent size. Hope that clears things up a bit, or maybe it just confuses things more.

So, having said that... here's a more accurately drawn chart...
Image


And here's the entire geometry chart, although it doesn't have headtube angles which are currently shown on the charts on Colnago's website...
Image

Have fun.... and Happy New Year!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post