Colnago C64 First Look

[fromtrektocolnago]

[




second time i've seen a c64 with meilenstein wheels. local bike shop is show casing it this way

[CanadianBiker]

Came in at 6.3kg. Love it

I wasn't sold on that colour scheme but seeing this final build it looks incredible. Very nice choice!

Has anyone see the Art Deco out in the wild or are the base colours coming out first? Also Has anyone seen a disc version of the bike?

[ride1970]

48s frameset
Lightweight mellenstein wheels
Cont comp tyres 23mm
Lightweight skewers
Lightweight (Selle) saddle
Syncros aero integrated bar/stem
Lightweight bar tape
SRAM etap chainset
Ultegra direct mount brakes ( for colour match till sram available))
Lightweight bottle cages
Speedpkay titanium pedals

[cocoru]

looks great....
my dream bike.....beautiful

[scb]

Fantastic looking bike!

Does anybody have any information on when the proprietary stem and related handlebar will be available? I have not been able to get any real information on the bar—carbon, aluminum, drop etc. or who is sourcing it for Colnago.

[TurboKoo]

I am pretty surprised that nobody hasn't raised the stack and reach issue of the geometry. Looking at geometry table you'll gain 4mm in reach when going from 45s to 54s

[mag]

Stem should be available in May
Re reach: Yeah, but it's been pretty much like that before (5mm between 45s and 54s for C60). What's also important is that the angles (especially seat tube) are different - that puts you further back on larger sizes by default.

[corky]

Which is why reach is such a limited metric.....

[wilwil]

Seem to be quite a few C60s at one UK online bike store. Reduced prices

Merlin
Which??

[TurboKoo]

Which is why reach is such a limited metric.....

Could you please open up this a bit as I feel that only way to compare bike geometries is stack and reach. I fail to see why someone who is shopping for 45s should have the same reach as someone for 54s. Saddle will come closer to bb just by dropping seat height so there is no need to make different seat tube angles in different sizes.

[Zakalwe]

I always find the effective top tube to be a better point of comparison, in the case of the two sizes mentioned there’s 31mm of difference even though reach from the B.B. is only 4mm. Smaller bodies with shorter limbs require a different fit to taller ones with longer limbs. Just making the front of the bike longer isn’t the way to address that - I ride near enough a 52S, if the front was any further away I’d have to use a mtb stem, 0 offset post or even turn my 25mm forwards, I’d be hanging off the front if the bike

[SuperDomestique]

Which is why reach is such a limited metric.....

Could you please open up this a bit as I feel that only way to compare bike geometries is stack and reach. I fail to see why someone who is shopping for 45s should have the same reach as someone for 54s. Saddle will come closer to bb just by dropping seat height so there is no need to make different seat tube angles in different sizes.

Hey,

The reach is not really comparable between frame sizes as it is only relevant at the associated stack height.

The reach of the 45s is 381mm at the stack height of 522mm but if you want to compare to the 54s that has a stack height of 583mm (reach 385mm), the 45s reach at this stack height would be 360mm.

The reach of a 54s frame at the stack height of 522mm would be 405mm.

Hope that makes sense.

Think about head tube angle, as you put more spacers under a stem it increases the handlebar stack but also decreases the reach at the same time.

[TurboKoo]

I'm more than familiar with the effect of spacers, stem length etc.
What I don't understand is that in vertical line why would center of headset sit in same line as in smaller size. I do understand that front center is longer and also the effects of seat angle vs top tube

I'm a firm believer of constant stack and reach.
Maybe I was brainwashed at Cervelo camp who knows. Maybe I've been understanding bike fitting wrong all these years.


Photo courtesy of DJconnel

[SuperDomestique]

They don't sit in the same line. At a given stack the reach of a smaller colnago frame will always be shorter than the longer.

Whether stack and reach increase should be linear is something else.

Unless I misunderstand you, and apologies if so, I think the graph is misleading you.

[SuperDomestique]

OK I get what you are saying...

Can't say I've ever had issues fitting the smaller Colnago frames to really think about it before so in that respect is it an issue? For me, no.

I'm mainly fixating on the saddle clamp and handlebar X and Y range available than the frame S/R.

Certainly slack seat angles on small frames cause me more grief.