Advice on Colnago C59 Geometry
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Hey Eurperg, that's a cool slope/no slope graphic, but here's a couple of things to consider.
1) The 54 sloping C59 is imo one of the more balanced looking sloping frames that Colnago does. The paint scheme also helps with the silver angled along the top of the top tube against the white background it visually can look a little less sloped than it is.
2) Your graphic is slightly incorrect in that I believe you made the top of the top tube the horizontally level side (correct me if I'm wrong here). In actuality, the top tube of the C59 (and EPS) is a significantly larger diameter at the head tube than it is at the seat cluster. The horizontal level line of a C59 is the UNDER side of the top tube, not the top. Your graphic actually makes the top tube look like it's sloping downwards, when in fact, even on a traditional Colnago (C59, EPS, with the varying diameter of the top tube), the top side of the top tube actually has a small slope to it due to the increasing diameter from the seat cluster to the head tube.
I have a preference for traditional Colnagos (at least the lugged frames like a C59 for example). This goes for any brand quite frankly. I prefer a horizontal Parlee over a sloped Parlee for the same reasons. On the other hand, on molded carbon frames I think it's easier to make a sloped frame look better, and there's no question it's easier to make fewer frames to fit more people using sloping geometry than traditional.
When I ordered my C59, I thought maybe times were changing and that the traditional level top tube of a nice road bicycle was going the way of the Dodo bird, so colnago was kind enough to send me both a traditional 61cm and a sloping 56 (closest I could get to the 61 Traditional). Well I mocked up the traditional 61 with some wheels etc., and that was good enough to satisfy my curiosity. I didn't even have to mock up the sloping 56. It was clear that the traditional was, to my taste at least, far and away more appealing. Plus, with the 56 sloping I would have just ended up using an extra 1cm of spacers under the stem. I do however, see the appeal to a sloping frame, regardless of construction, on small frames however.
As for sitting on the top tube of a sloping frame with the nose of the saddle in my lower spine wedging me in while descending at 50mph, no thanks. Death wish in my opinion.
1) The 54 sloping C59 is imo one of the more balanced looking sloping frames that Colnago does. The paint scheme also helps with the silver angled along the top of the top tube against the white background it visually can look a little less sloped than it is.
2) Your graphic is slightly incorrect in that I believe you made the top of the top tube the horizontally level side (correct me if I'm wrong here). In actuality, the top tube of the C59 (and EPS) is a significantly larger diameter at the head tube than it is at the seat cluster. The horizontal level line of a C59 is the UNDER side of the top tube, not the top. Your graphic actually makes the top tube look like it's sloping downwards, when in fact, even on a traditional Colnago (C59, EPS, with the varying diameter of the top tube), the top side of the top tube actually has a small slope to it due to the increasing diameter from the seat cluster to the head tube.
I have a preference for traditional Colnagos (at least the lugged frames like a C59 for example). This goes for any brand quite frankly. I prefer a horizontal Parlee over a sloped Parlee for the same reasons. On the other hand, on molded carbon frames I think it's easier to make a sloped frame look better, and there's no question it's easier to make fewer frames to fit more people using sloping geometry than traditional.
When I ordered my C59, I thought maybe times were changing and that the traditional level top tube of a nice road bicycle was going the way of the Dodo bird, so colnago was kind enough to send me both a traditional 61cm and a sloping 56 (closest I could get to the 61 Traditional). Well I mocked up the traditional 61 with some wheels etc., and that was good enough to satisfy my curiosity. I didn't even have to mock up the sloping 56. It was clear that the traditional was, to my taste at least, far and away more appealing. Plus, with the 56 sloping I would have just ended up using an extra 1cm of spacers under the stem. I do however, see the appeal to a sloping frame, regardless of construction, on small frames however.
As for sitting on the top tube of a sloping frame with the nose of the saddle in my lower spine wedging me in while descending at 50mph, no thanks. Death wish in my opinion.
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
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
I have a question for the cycling experts. I own a c59 in 48s, C50 in 48s and a masterlight traditional size 50. I want to buy another C59 just because! There are many nice buys right now in 50 sloping. When i look at the charts the difference doesn't seem that much. I am 5'6", weight 170 lbs and a 30 inseem. On the c59s i am currently running 100 mm stems and 7" of seatpost. My size 50 masterlight seems a little small. Would i be misserved with a size 50 sloping c59? Please help
P.S. i have consulted my local bike shop but honestly i think you guys seem to
Know more. They do not have experience with colnago.
P.S. i have consulted my local bike shop but honestly i think you guys seem to
Know more. They do not have experience with colnago.
Last edited by mnmasotto on Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
A 48S is the equivalent of a traditional 52cm in terms of top tube length and headtube height.
That's probably why you feel that the 50 traditional is a little small.
A '50s' is the equivalent of a traditional 54cm. Its probably too big for you if you're of normal proportions at 5'6" as the top-tube is a full 2cm longer.
That's probably why you feel that the 50 traditional is a little small.
A '50s' is the equivalent of a traditional 54cm. Its probably too big for you if you're of normal proportions at 5'6" as the top-tube is a full 2cm longer.
You'll be fine on a 50S although the look of having less post showing might jar some. No need to change stem length.
The difference in top tube is nominally 10mm but the seat tube is half a degree slacker. That means the real difference in reach to the bars will be in the region of 2-3mm - nothing in other words.
The 50s will give you the option of having a more relaxed riding position as the headtube is longer.
So in short, you will lose an inch or so of visible seatpost and only gain a tenth of an inch of reach at worst.
The difference in top tube is nominally 10mm but the seat tube is half a degree slacker. That means the real difference in reach to the bars will be in the region of 2-3mm - nothing in other words.
The 50s will give you the option of having a more relaxed riding position as the headtube is longer.
So in short, you will lose an inch or so of visible seatpost and only gain a tenth of an inch of reach at worst.
mnmasotto wrote:I have a question for the cycling experts. I own a c59 in 48s, C50 in 48s and a masterlight traditional size 50. I want to buy another C59 just because! There are many nice buys right now in 50 sloping. When i look at the charts the difference doesn't seem that much different. I am 5'6", weight 170 lbs and a 30 inseem. On the c59s i am currently running 100 mm stems and 7" of seatpost. The size 50 masterlights seems a little small. Would i be misserved with a size 50 sloping c59? Please help
P.S. i have consulted my local bike shop but honestly i think you guys seem to n
Know more. They do not have experience with colnago.
No shop needs extensive "experience with Colnago." Their geometries are standard. The only difference is that they measure frames C-T (top being the underside of the seat clamp).
If you ride a 48s and are comfortable, I wouldn't touch the 50s. 50s covers the 53-55 cm trad. size range. It is true that due to STA, your reach will not be much more (.5 cm at most), but it will require you to position your saddle .5 cm farther forward, which depending on femur length and your current saddle position could force you to push the saddle farther forward than is optimal. The only reason to take a 50s would be if you need less drop.
Sorry but that's incorrect. Or at least it's worded in a way so as not to make the point you intend. There is a 0.6 deg difference in ST angle.
If you position the saddle in exactly the same place in relation to the BB as you would on a 48s, thus not affecting your seating position, the effective reach will be at worst +3mm than the 48s.
In my case I can get virtually an identical position on a 54 std, a 52s or a 50s Colnago.
If you position the saddle in exactly the same place in relation to the BB as you would on a 48s, thus not affecting your seating position, the effective reach will be at worst +3mm than the 48s.
In my case I can get virtually an identical position on a 54 std, a 52s or a 50s Colnago.
-
mvacolnago
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:29 am
I own a 50s c59 and a 53 traditional EPS the fit is very comparable. If you look at the photos of my bikes previously posted you can see that there is not a lot of seat post exposed compared to what others prefer, I also like a 110 -120 cm stem
-
SalsaLover
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:21 pm
- Location: Zürich, Switzerland
A point many lose, is that Colnagos are frames made with italian racing geometry.
That means low bottom brackets, slanted head tubes and shorter top tubes.
They are thought to be setup, on "long and low" stems, so your weight would be properly balanced.
I have had Colnagos ( C40s, C50s, EP, EC ) on sizes 54,55,56, 56 "freuler", 52s, 57 and 58
I can sure get the exact same fit on all those by using the right combination of stem and seatpost seatback.
But the one that really fits, handles, climbs, descends and rolls perfectly for me is the 56 traditional on a 120mm stem, (-6° no spacers, or the equivalent fit on -17° ). It simply puts me on the right place. no doubt about it. Coincidentally this fit is "balanced" so I have exactly 56cm "Saddle-tip-to-center-bars" and 56cm "center-bars-to-center-front-hub".
Some people don't know that and tend to set up their Colnagos on "short and high" stems and that is IMHO wrong. even more with compact bars with the shifters pointing up. While that setup can be right on an american geometry sloping frame, they are not good for the italian traditional geometry.
there is an interesting read on RKP about this here
http://redkiteprayer.com/2009/10/a-study-in-geometry/
That means low bottom brackets, slanted head tubes and shorter top tubes.
They are thought to be setup, on "long and low" stems, so your weight would be properly balanced.
I have had Colnagos ( C40s, C50s, EP, EC ) on sizes 54,55,56, 56 "freuler", 52s, 57 and 58
I can sure get the exact same fit on all those by using the right combination of stem and seatpost seatback.
But the one that really fits, handles, climbs, descends and rolls perfectly for me is the 56 traditional on a 120mm stem, (-6° no spacers, or the equivalent fit on -17° ). It simply puts me on the right place. no doubt about it. Coincidentally this fit is "balanced" so I have exactly 56cm "Saddle-tip-to-center-bars" and 56cm "center-bars-to-center-front-hub".
Some people don't know that and tend to set up their Colnagos on "short and high" stems and that is IMHO wrong. even more with compact bars with the shifters pointing up. While that setup can be right on an american geometry sloping frame, they are not good for the italian traditional geometry.
there is an interesting read on RKP about this here
http://redkiteprayer.com/2009/10/a-study-in-geometry/
Set up and positioning on a 56 traditional and a 52s will be identical - they will both fit the same.
Front centre is identical. BB drop identical. Virtual TT identical and ST angle virtually identical. Saddle setback would be maybe 0.5mm different but position over the BB and in relation to front centre and wheelbase would be the same.
I guess people love the mystique though.
What does vary significantly (although not between 56 and 52s) is front centre, so although reach may be more or less unaffected by moving a size up or down, the handling will be. Go for the smaller suitable size and it handles a little faster than the larger size.
Front centre is identical. BB drop identical. Virtual TT identical and ST angle virtually identical. Saddle setback would be maybe 0.5mm different but position over the BB and in relation to front centre and wheelbase would be the same.
I guess people love the mystique though.
What does vary significantly (although not between 56 and 52s) is front centre, so although reach may be more or less unaffected by moving a size up or down, the handling will be. Go for the smaller suitable size and it handles a little faster than the larger size.
-
SalsaLover
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:21 pm
- Location: Zürich, Switzerland
The difference between the 56 and the 52s is minimal, the 52s have maybe a tiny bit more of weight at the front, so it was a bit more agile climbing off the saddle where the front is pointing up.
The 56 was more stable seated, and that covers better the rolling, climbing seated and descending for me.
My choice of the 56 was only for esthetical reasons
I sold my 52s ST02 Extreme Power that was a truly beautiful bike and kept the 56 traditional ST01 C-50, no regrets.
The 56 was more stable seated, and that covers better the rolling, climbing seated and descending for me.
My choice of the 56 was only for esthetical reasons
I sold my 52s ST02 Extreme Power that was a truly beautiful bike and kept the 56 traditional ST01 C-50, no regrets.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
