Colnago C60 as climbing machine...

[3Pio]

On the way up and down the Colnagos just feel more planted than the SL4 did. Don't get me wrong, the Tarmac is also a great bike and I may try the new design at some point - but my position on the Colnago just feels better climbing.. and I don't think the C59 or C60 give up anything to the Tarmac as far as responsiveness. They just do it without beating you up so much (the increase in comfort was at least as drastic going from the SL4 to C59 as it was from Venge to SL4).

As far as descending, this is where the sensation of being "planted" is more pronounced. I thought the front end of the Tarmac was a little flighty on rougher surfaces. In that regard, I actually preferred descending on the Venge to the Tarmac. Descending is, without question, my favorite thing to do on a bicycle. I grew up riding and racing motorcycles (dirtbikes and then supersport) and the Colnagos are the only bikes I've ridden that remind me of the supersport days when I'm stringing sweeping turns together.

Whether or not the C60 is better by enough to justify premium over a Tarmac... well... that's another argument.

I had test ride on Venge (short ride and maybe my position was not properly adjusted), and for me was most uncomfortable bike i ever rode.. ). On Tarmac similar feeling as u describe (actually i prefered Tarmac vs Venge).. The good thing for C60 in this part of the world is that is same price as Tarmac (and sometimes it can be get even cheaper, so no premium over Tarmac...)

[darnellrm]

lol everyone trashing on the OPs skills. All I'm reading is that he prefers the comfort of the C60 over lighter bikes. That's fine... main problem is that the post is on weightweenies.

No, the problem is that the OP was bragging on the Colnago's descending prowess and confidence inspiring abilities, but his ride he shared surely did not back up his claims.

[3Pio]

lol everyone trashing on the OPs skills. All I'm reading is that he prefers the comfort of the C60 over lighter bikes. That's fine... main problem is that the post is on weightweenies.

No, the problem is that the OP was bragging on the Colnago's descending prowess and confidence inspiring abilities, but his ride he shared surely did not back up his claims.

I dont base my opinion about Colnago C60 climbing based just on today ride..

Here, another ride..

This is almost only climbing (for about one hour), and same bike as i rode today...

https://www.strava.com/activities/974472878

And still waiting to check ur climb rides, and ur ability, and of course opinion of frame u rode there (really would love to learn from other user real world experiences..Also that way will have better idea about ur personal experience, and how u know what is good climbing machine, and what is not.. Thats what i tried to do to share my personal experience.. Of course u dont have to read it if u dont like (also u dont have to share real world experiences if u dont want or have..) And There is a lot of threads in this forum.. Hope u'll find something from many of them which is suitable to ur taste..

[wheelbuilder]

90 miles and 10,000 feet is a pretty damn good ride..........props to the op. Could he have attained 50mph? Who knows? I wasn't on this ride with him to know that.

[RyanH]

The OP was kind enough to share his ride data. You should think twice about judging him otherwise for those that do I expect you to post up power data when making claims about stiffness and ascending prowess

In my opinion, for days like the OP, comfort trumps all. I did a similar ride a couple months back on my Litespeed Classic which was pushing almost 2kg more than my Evo but I couldn't have been happier that I had the Classic with me that day.

[Delorre]

Today i done proper climbing test.. 3168 meters climbing in 147 km...

And i can say C60 is perfect climbing machine..

Here is strava link:

https://www.strava.com/activities/1112193542

With all respect for that epic ride and massive elevation gains, with your level of climbing power, I really don't thing any decent bike would make a difference in climbing compared to the c60 apart from weight maybe. Any 'pro-tour' level bike is designed to cope with lots and lots more power than you (and most of us ) are capable off, so I don't think you can bring the c60 or other bikes to life when climbing for extended time. My father and other recreational riders in his riding group confirmed that : apart from more or less compliancy, stability and weight, when climbing for longer periods, most of their bikes feel the same, mostly due to their modest power output. But they nevertheless enjoy riding their top level bikes, and that's the most important thing

On today ride i did not climb with my max power, since it was long ride (and i'll have another big ride in three days). But ok, lets say that this is my max power. Even in that case, For this kind of ride (with not small elevation i got), even for recreational rider as my self it's important how frame ride, and yes difference is noticable (i dont have to ask my father and other recreational rides, i can realize that my self , thats why are test rides sometimes... And this is Maybe even more for recreational rider then to be professional (since they can ride whatever u give them, and they are much better for taking beating up whole day, or having technics going down on not that stable bike, or even to adjust technics on less stiff frame (thats why some of them pick what they ride not based on carateristics of frame, but of sponsors. And yes, even with this kind of power u can feel the frame difference for climbing (u can easy measure ur time on climbing segments u know well, and compare different frame u rode there (as i done for some frames i tested). Ussually in this kind of comparation u ride with ur max power

What is good climbing bike for me? To be stiff where should be stiff (and transfer the power in the wheel), and in same time to be comfortable where should be comfortable enough.. Colnago C60 does exactly that. For example i tested Pinarelo Dogma F8 and it feel flexy in the bottom bracket in some situations, and in same time harsh (based on reviews i went to Treviso to buy it and to test ride it.. Good that i test ride it (and also C60 few days before), so instead with Dogma F8, i come back with C60

My advice to u is to try test ride ur self, and to dont listen all the time to ur father and other recreational riders

Also i dont agree with Calnago that every gram count (even if going just up).. It count on wheelset, but in frame not sure.. And even going 20 km/h uphilll (or less), if frame is harsh still beat u if the road is not perfect.. Of course is better if it's a bit lighter, but only if keep the same comfort/stifness/stability/reliability performances as a bit heavier frame (in this case C60). After testing few bikes, somehow im not sure that is possible to have extra light and all other important positive carateristics...

p.s. What is ur opinion about min climbing power for one hour, where u can actually feel the frame stifness?

As I don't consider myself a real recreational rider anymore (most of my rides, alone or with 2 or 3 buddies), are 20mph avg and up, even on 200 km rides with >3000m elevation (f.ex : https://www.strava.com/activities/666657672) , I'm not able to judge myself, but quote what some other riders told me. OK, you always have to take that with a grain of salt, but it makes sense, and confirm my feeling I have with f.ex my Addict. When I do a recovery ride, and climb at lets say 200w, that addict feels OK, but not different as my previous Canyon Ultimate. Only a little more harch. It's only when I start pushing the bike (>300w for longer times), that the differences between both become obvious. The ultimate start to feel soft, while the addict feels better, the more power you throw at it. Same when out of the saddle. If very gentle, with moderate power (something like on your ride), both feel the same, but here again, when you go full throttle out of the saddle, the Canyon feels mushy, while the addict flys. Every frame is different, but some frames require a lot of power, wile below that, i feels a little dead. The old Scott Foil was a good exemple of such a frame. Most TI frames are a little more flexy, and therefore maybe more pleasant to ride, even with moderate power output.

But as I said, the most important thing is what YOU feel when on the bike. If the C60 is great for you, anf better than an F8, OK, I have nothing to say against that

[Delorre]

[quote="RyanH"]The OP was kind enough to share his ride data. You should think twice about judging him otherwise for those that do I expect you to post up power data when making claims about stiffness and ascending prowess
quote]

Totally agree with you. I've thought twice (and more) before commenting on the power output of the OP (but I did, with total respect ) vs the C60 being a climbing machine. I explained why in my previous post. Everyone is different, buth that's the great thing of a forum like this : everyone can share his own opinions, and free to other to disagree of course

And my Strava account is open to everyone (I should ditch the link to my previous Canyon and replace it with a link to Strava, or, WW should offer the possibility to add more than 3 links in the signature ) https://www.strava.com/athletes/3544114

[torinb]

I have been on Colnago C60 for 3,5 years, previous bikes include Bianchis, De Rosas, Storcks and several Colnagos.

Already on the first ride with the C60 i discovered the amazing downhill capabilities of the frame. I was able to maintain over 80 kph through a mild right hand curve with the same confidence as appx 70kph with My De Rosa King3 or my Colnago M10.

I do not feel much difference while climbing, but the C60 is fantasticly stable when the road turns downhill.

[reedplayer]

Today i done proper climbing test.. 3168 meters climbing in 147 km...

And i can say C60 is perfect climbing machine..

Here is strava link:

https://www.strava.com/activities/1112193542

With all respect for that epic ride and massive elevation gains, with your level of climbing power, I really don't thing any decent bike would make a difference in climbing compared to the c60 apart from weight maybe. Any 'pro-tour' level bike is designed to cope with lots and lots more power than you (and most of us ) are capable off, so I don't think you can bring the c60 or other bikes to life when climbing for extended time. My father and other recreational riders in his riding group confirmed that : apart from more or less compliancy, stability and weight, when climbing for longer periods, most of their bikes feel the same, mostly due to their modest power output. But they nevertheless enjoy riding their top level bikes, and that's the most important thing

+1

[3Pio]

The OP was kind enough to share his ride data. You should think twice about judging him otherwise for those that do I expect you to post up power data when making claims about stiffness and ascending prowess
quote]

Totally agree with you. I've thought twice (and more) before commenting on the power output of the OP (but I did, with total respect ) vs the C60 being a climbing machine. I explained why in my previous post. Everyone is different, buth that's the great thing of a forum like this : everyone can share his own opinions, and free to other to disagree of course

And my Strava account is open to everyone (I should ditch the link to my previous Canyon and replace it with a link to Strava, or, WW should offer the possibility to add more than 3 links in the signature ) https://www.strava.com/athletes/3544114

Thanks Dellore for sharing ur strava profile. This really help to get idea what we ride, where the power is important, or just get idea what to ride etc..

Also ur idea about sharing strava in forum profile is great (i suggested something similar few weeks ago, but nobody replied). Why is that important? I always appreciate someone who actually ride and comment, then to someone who dont ride at all, and just comment around based on what he read on the net or magazines (and have his bike just for show up in cigar club...).

And for people commenting about low power outpot on 3000m climb, i still wait for their 3000m climbs, since i will be really suprised if someone can ride that full power . Usually on this kind of ride u dont push that much, but idea is to finish after all (if someone tried to ride this kind of ride im sure he know that).

Anyway i got interested about ur ridings and i really like how many km's u done this season (u deserve more then kudos for having 12130 km this season, thats really impressive and im glad u replied to my topic). But i can also see that u ride are not in hilly area and most of ur climbs are not that long but more of rollings hills. There is different power on short climbs (its more like sprinting), then on continous and steep. (maybe there is long rides, but i stopped analyzing). Of course on this short climbs sprinting u better feel reaction of frame, but believe me.. On very long rides, with not much power u also start feeling every aspect of ur bike including climbing capability (beside lower avg power), so that why i shared that ride as climbing test (and not short ones where i push more).

Just to have idea what i like to ride (very hot temperature here, 38-42 deg celsius):

https://www.strava.com/activities/1079586038

Or this one:

https://www.strava.com/activities/1058327276

Or my Birthday ride: https://www.strava.com/activities/689686613

Of course i dont always ride massive elevation same day, and sometimes ride a bit harder when climbing (at least i try ):

For example:

https://www.strava.com/activities/1047570037

Check segment: Tetovo-Lisec (11.1 km, 7% HC), i averaged 220W and 12.9 avg speed

Or https://www.strava.com/activities/1020354594 (Segment: Ramno, 8.4 km, 9% avg grade HC), i averaged 216 W



Im lazy for looking for my best climbs on C60 , but from this u have idea what i ride ussually. I tried some of those climbs with different bikes, and i really feel C60 like better reacting when i push the pedals, and in same time more comfortable (very important for long rides...)...

Whatever it is, i really enjoy riding my C60. It make me want ride more, and thats most important. Just wanted to share my personal experiance (and rides), and will be very good if other members of this forum share their rides or even better as u said to include strava in the ww signature... So we'll better know how users shape their opinion...

Consider again that C60 is a bit cheaper then S-Works Tarmac, or Cervello frames or Oltre XR4, or Specialissima.. So i did not buy it as status simbol, but i really enjoyed most of everything i tried..

And nobody answer me, what is ur opinion about minimum power effort to be able to feel the frame difference?

[Delorre]

@3pio : you are right, during the week, I mostly ride on rolling terrain with hills of max 1,5 km, and of course, you can ride them above FTP as long as you don't get too tired at the end of a ride; in the weekend, lots of rides in our Belgian Ardennes, with more longer climbs, but there also, max 2,5 till 3 km.

But have a look at my holiday rides I did in France in april this year or in september last year. f.ex this one :

https://www.strava.com/activities/937414297

a climb of almost 10 km and some other longish ones. Those were ridden at almost FTP, knowing I had to ride every day for a week, so I better not blew me up too mush. And on those rides, other aspects as pure performance come into play, such a (lack of) comfort, handling on fast descents etc. But I stay with may initial idea (not toward you in particular, but more in general): as long as you don't push a bike toward it's limits, uphill or downhll, it's not possible to have an idea of what the bike is capable of, and all you can compare is weight, confort and maybe stabiliy or lack off. A bike can be really stable at low speeds, but that can change dramatically from the moment you start pushing, if the bike lacks front end stifffness, it will feel very vague and unstable in high speed corners or hard braking on bad roads. You get th picture

As every frame is different, it's impossible to give a power numer from where you start to really feel a difference between frames. It also depends of your riding style (gear masher or spinner, seated or standing on the pedals,...), body weight etc. A gear masher @ 300w will stress a frame differently as a 100rpm climber at the same power. Think Froome vs Porte (or Jan Ulrich, Bjarne Riis back in time)

[Alexandrumarian]

50mph is often suicidal on public roads, I'd say. You do not have two lanes like the pros have in races, and maybe not even a full lane. There is always the chance of being rammed from behind, or encountering a driver that crosses the line coming from the opposite. I don't have a lot of bike-km in the mountains but I have them in a car and seen enough crap to make me stay on the right as much as possible, brake dragging and all.

[Johnnysmooth]

I have been on Colnago C60 for 3,5 years, previous bikes include Bianchis, De Rosas, Storcks and several Colnagos.

Already on the first ride with the C60 i discovered the amazing downhill capabilities of the frame. I was able to maintain over 80 kph through a mild right hand curve with the same confidence as appx 70kph with My De Rosa King3 or my Colnago M10.

I do not feel much difference while climbing, but the C60 is fantasticly stable when the road turns downhill.

Ditto almost word for word except for different former bikes, in my case Look 595, fondriest and derosa
It really is a comfortable bike going up and beautiful coming down. I've also hit ~70kph and still did not feel like I was pushing her even close to limit

[JKolmo]

Yeah, downhill (road that is) the C60 really shines! Such a stable and sharp ride truly in its own league.

[kgt]

Its geometry is the main reason. Colnago is one of the masters (if not The Master) of road racing frame geometry.