Colnago C60 Sizing help - Slope or Traditional?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Nejmann
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 6:25 pm

by Nejmann

You guys rock.

I will measure it later @calnago. Thank you so much again for the great post. No one has said anything about a bad fit, only that my bike looks small, which i knew already.

And @wingguy you are actually right, i can not stay in the drops for very long. That and the looks of the bike, got me thinking of getting a new one (and of cause the yearly new bike syndrome :D haha.

Here is a picture from the colnago thread. The 60S actually doesn't look that bad.

Image

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Actually, I'm not 100% sure that is a 60s in the pic, or if he said that he has built another one like it but in a 60s. I've pm'd him to find out for sure. But if that's a 60s, then I like it. It's not at all to gangly looking, and since your friends have commented that your Baum looks small for you, I'd say they're probably right. And since you can't stay in the drops for any length of time i'd also say the drop is too large. It sure looked massive to me, but to each his own. Your inability to ride the drops however for any length of time kind of indicates that is indeed too much. So now I'm thinking a 60s might be the better way to go, the 61 traditional would probably leave you wanting a higher head tube as well as too much seatpost sticking out.

Also, with the C60 they added another large size which is nice, since the previous 58s (the largest size in the C59) was kind of a catchall for all the big guys and it definitely looked somewhat awkward in my opinion. So it's good they've now split the difference for the big guys in the name of "no barngates", or at least made them kinda nice looking when built up properly.

Edit: Just confirmed from @superdomestique that the bike in the pic you posted is indeed a 60 sloping with a 6mm shorter headtube.
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

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Nejmann
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 6:25 pm

by Nejmann

Calnago wrote:Actually, I'm not 100% sure that is a 60s in the pic, or if he said that he has built another one like it but in a 60s. I've pm'd him to find out for sure. But if that's a 60s, then I like it. It's not at all to gangly looking, and since your friends have commented that your Baum looks small for you, I'd say they're probably right. And since you can't stay in the drops for any length of time i'd also say the drop is too large. It sure looked massive to me, but to each his own. Your inability to ride the drops however for any length of time kind of indicates that is indeed too much. So now I'm thinking a 60s might be the better way to go, the 61 traditional would probably leave you wanting a higher head tube as well as too much seatpost sticking out.

Also, with the C60 they added another large size which is nice, since the previous 58s (the largest size in the C59) was kind of a catchall for all the big guys and it definitely looked somewhat awkward in my opinion. So it's good they've now split the difference for the big guys in the name of "no barngates", or at least made them kinda nice looking when built up properly.

Edit: Just confirmed from @superdomestique that the bike in the pic you posted is indeed a 60 sloping with a 6mm shorter headtube.


Yeah sounds like the 60s is the way to go.

6mm shorter headtube? As in custom or?

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Don't know if it was custom, maybe, although I've seen slight discrepancies especially in headtube lengths from the geo charts when compared to actual. Also, the geo charts do not include the thickness of the headset cups (2.5mm * 2mm = 5mm). So, that can also add to a bit of confusion if you're trying to match those numbers exactly. For instance, on my C59 the headtube length from the geo chart is 195mm. The actual measurement is 197mm, then add the thickness of the flange cups which makes the total length 202mm. So, if one was really trying to get exact as to the ultimate placement of the stem etc, then the 202mm would be the relevant number. And my C60 headtube is actually a couple of millimeters shorter than the geo chart specs.
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


Nejmann
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 6:25 pm

by Nejmann

:thumbup: That's a lovely bike. My favourite paint scheme.

But when I see it, i think the 61 with a spacer and some more seatpost is more me. Don't like the extra headtube sticking up there on the toptube.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Did you measure from the front axle to the bottom of the stem at the steertube? I have a feeling with a 61T you would end up with at least 3cm of spacers above the tall top cap of 15mm, and that's just to get you where you are right now, which is a massive amount of drop that you've just said makes it pretty difficult for you to ride in the drops. Don't be the lady in the shoe store.

I agree that the picture of the black 60s looks a little awkward due to the headtube, but I also think that's partly due to some camera distortion. Look at the front wheel versus the rear wheel for example. Theres definitely some angles that are not really cooperating well for the camera. But yes, the amount of headtube above the top tube looks like it's significantly greater than on the orange C60 posted earlier.
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

nestornnk
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:44 pm
Contact:

by nestornnk

Calnago is right.

60s will be the better option for you.

Also have in mind that you can now order a C60 with direct mount brakes

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ok, after a ride yesterday I jacked up my seatpost to a whopping 864mm, 6cm higher than my saddle height of 804mm. Here's the result...

Image

Frame: C59 61 Traditional, top tube length: 586mm; seat tube angle: 72.8 degrees
Headtube length per geo charts: 195mm. Actual, including headset cup flanges: 202mm.
Spacers: Standard 16mm Tall Colnago top cap, plus one 3mm red anodized spacer.
Stem: Deda Zero 100, -8 degree, 130mm
Saddle: Specialized Romin Pro (pre 2017, 175mm length)
Seatpost: Deda Superzero 21mm offset
Saddle Height to straight edge across top: 864mm
Saddle Setback: 110mm
Saddle to handlebar drop: 145mm
Tip of saddle to middle of bars at stem: 647mm
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

LionelB
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Aix en Provence

by LionelB

Looks good to me. Bring it back own 2.5cm and it's a perfect fir for me :)

Nejmann
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 6:25 pm

by Nejmann

Front Axel (skewer to bottom stem) is 60 cm and my drop is 14cm and my sadle tip to midle handlebar is 62.7 cm :-) Hmm maybe 61 is'nt that bad? Your bike with my saddle height looks pretty good to me?but maybe it will be that same as the Baum more or less. But I think my seatpost looks worse on pictures than in Real life.

SuperDomestique
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:07 pm

by SuperDomestique

I am building a C60 61T this week, saddle height 870mm but wihth a 120mm stem.

I'll stick photos up.

FWIW, on the 60s C60 we built above the saddle is at 858mm.

The geometry is custom pro team, the head tube is a little low vs normal. On this one I think it was 6mm shy of standard measure...

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

@SuperDomestique's upcoming build should be the best example yet of what you might expect. Perhaps he can include some setup stats with the pics as well, like Saddle setback, tip of saddle to middle of bars, saddle to bar drop, etc.

@Nejman: Ok, initially you said your drop was 17-18cm, which is really huge. And you also said you couldn't really ride the drops comfortably for any length of time. The pic of your bike looks like the drop is yes, indeed around that, and to me it looked even more. And the saddle looks overly tilted downwards, perhaps to compensate for the huge drop to your bars? Anyway, I'm going to go way out on an internet limb here and suggest maybe your fit could be a bit better. Firstly, I think the photo you show may present a slightly distorted view, and the bike is clearly leaning backwards against the wall, so that may have something to do with it as well. But your photo of you on the bike looks to me like if you were actually in the drops, you would be too scrunched up, in essence too short a reach, which causes a curve in your back and with the big drop, if you want to look forward then yeah, that's going to create a huge strain in your neck I would think. So, I would actually try a longer stem, and less drop. But now you're saying that your drop is 14cm, a far cry from the "about 17-18cm" you thought it was earlier in this thread.

So... with that info in mind... here's a few things to think about...

1) For comparison sake... the distance from my front axle to the bottom of the stem at the steertube, is 59cm. Yours is 60cm. This is only relevant in figuring out the overall "look" at the end. For example, if you had my 61T set up like yours, you'd need at least 1cm more spacer in my bike to get you to where you are now. But...
2) You say that even with the 14cm drop it is hard to ride the drops. I'd try to get it to no more than 11cm, which is still a pretty huge drop. I'd also extend the stem length to at least 120mm to start, depending also somewhat on the reach of the bars you use. You're a big guy, it's a big bike, scrunching up just makes riding very uncomfortable.

So, extrapolating to a fit with your current saddle height and using my bike as a mule, you would need about 35mm of spacers under the stem and abover the 16mm top cap (assuming a -8 degree angle as in the Deda), to achieve a saddle to bar drop of around 11cm. I guess the question is if you can live with 35mm of spacers under the stem? The 60s doesn't look bad at all imo, the only unknown to me is really what would be a good reach for you, and I certainly can't tell that over the internet. So the biggest caveat here, is that I'm just going on what you've said, and couple pics, which is in no way a substitute for seeing everything in person and maybe even riding with you to see how you look on the bike.

Anyway, at this point I think you have some good things to think about and the choice is ultimately yours. Report back with pics if you eventually get one and set it all up to your liking.

Good luck!
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

Post Reply