Colnago C64 - Inside and Out

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
guyc
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am
Location: Hampshire, England
Contact:

by guyc

Nice.....I put a C-Bear in mine. That should be rather lovely.

My final build list. The wheels should arrive tomorrow or Weds:

Frameset - C64 PKWH 56”
Stem - 3T Apto Team Stealth 110mm
Bars - 3T SuperErgo Team Stealth carbon 40cm
Saddle - Fizik Antares R1
Wheelset - Campagnolo Bora Ultra 50mm Dark Label
Chainset - Dura-Ace 9100 52/36 175mm with 4iii power meter
Front Mech - Dura-Ace 9150 Di2
Rear Mech - Dura-Ace 9150 Di2
Calipers - Dura-Ace 9100 Direct Mount
Shifters - Dura-Ace 9150 Di2
Pedals - Dura-Ace 9000
Bottom Bracket - C-Bear Ceramic
Bar tape - Fabric Hex
Computer - Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt
Mount - K-Edge Aero
Tyres - Continental GP4000S II 25mm
Tubes - Continental Race Light

Not weighed yes as waiting for wheels but my guess will be around 6.9kg

by Weenie


SuperDomestique
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:07 pm

by SuperDomestique

Thanks for all the kind words guys! :beerchug:

Got a second 56s BFBL to build as soon as I get the new Colnago bar and stem for it then will post up on the Colnago main thread.

The BFBL is so much better in the flesh, so to speak.

ginofausto
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:24 pm

by ginofausto

right post in wrong thread...

Freewayflyer
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:31 pm

by Freewayflyer

"There it is, the underside of the top tube where it meets the seat tube and the bolt which tightens the new seat clamp. They say the clamp saves 15grams, so given that the old seat collar clamp weighed 25 grams, I'm estimating this clamp at 10grams."

Hi,

First things first :-) this thread is outstanding !!!
It's rich in information and detailed pictures of great value for many of us before investing a respectable sum of money in a new frameset and even more if you intend to use a it for many trouble free years like me...

That said, could you please upload some pictures of the internal seatpost clamp itself ?

I intend to buy a new Colnago frameset (as an adition to the upgraded klein quantum race that I own since new...and use happily...) and am very much interested to see how the internal clamp in C 64 frameset actually looks and functions inside the frame in order to convince myself that it's raliable enough.
What is your opinion about it in comparison to the alternative...C 60 frameset that is still an option...? with conventional external seatpost clamp... Many thanks :-)

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Freewayflyer wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:24 pm
Hi,

First things first :-) this thread is outstanding !!!
It's rich in information and detailed pictures of great value for many of us before investing a respectable sum of money in a new frameset and even more if you intend to use a it for many trouble free years like me...

That said, could you please upload some pictures of the internal seatpost clamp itself ?

I intend to buy a new Colnago frameset (as an adition to the upgraded klein quantum race that I own since new...and use happily...) and am very much interested to see how the internal clamp in C 64 frameset actually looks and functions inside the frame in order to convince myself that it's raliable enough.
@freewayflyer: You must have missed the relevant post, a few pages back, but I've copied the relevant porition here for you again so you won't have to go digging for it. I think it's a very good design, solid, and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be very reliable.


Heres a view into the upper seatclamp area with the clamp itself removed....
Image
Note that there is a hefty chunk of steel molded into that seatcluster lug. You can't really see it very well, but there is a wedge shaped piece in there that forces the seatpost to get even tighter should it start slipping. A look at the clamp itself might help explain this...
Image
Above is the face of the clamp that butts up against a roughened part of the seatpost. The bolt enters from underneath the top tube and when you tighten the bolt it pulls the clamp against the steel wedge in the frame thus jamming up against the seatpost and holding it there.
Here's a side view where you can see the angled wedge....
Image
I like that there isn't any rubber or plastic sleeve/dustcover over the whole thing from the top. Those usually are pretty flimsy and seem like likely places for water ingress. I guess I was just mostly impressed by the big hunk of steel embedded in the seatcluster lug for this often very used piece to butt up against. It seems like it will last.

In sum... the design seems sound, strong, and built to last. It also seems unlikely to slip. I'd still put some carbon paste at the rear and on the sides, but not on the roughened up portion of the clamp or the seatpost.
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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Freewayflyer wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:24 pm
...
I intend to buy a new Colnago frameset (as an adition to the upgraded klein quantum race that I own since new...and use happily...) and am very much interested to see how the internal clamp in C 64 frameset actually looks and functions inside the frame in order to convince myself that it's raliable enough.
What is your opinion about it in comparison to the alternative...C 60 frameset that is still an option...? with conventional external seatpost clamp... Many thanks Image
To answer your question fully, there's much more than just the design of the seatpost clamp to think about between the new C64 vs C60. The C64 in my opinion, is well... it's very good, excellent as a matter of fact. If I was in the market for another road bike today... this would be the one I'd get. After looking at all the differences, and having had Colnagos for a lot of years, here's why I personally like the C64... Mind you, I have a lot of the other C-series Colnagos, so it may be an easier choice for me than for folks who don't have any. Quite frankly, the choice for me would be made much more difficult if I was told that if I got a C64, I would have to get rid of one of my other Colnagos. They're kinda like family now. More than just "tools".

Up until lately, the main reason manufacturers started producing sloping road frames was more due to cost of production decreases... fewer sizes fitting more people. They would market these "compact" frames as being lighter, stiffer, blah blah blah... but in reality it was the lower number of frame choices, and hence lower costs of production that were the driving factors behind fewer sizes etc. It also makes dealers' lives easier in they don't have to stock so many sizes, and put up with as much uhming and awwing from customers as they labor over deciding which incremental size they should get. There's fewer "inbetweeners" as a result, although I could still fit several Colnago sizes just fine. With most other manufacturers there's going to be one size that probably fits me best. Still, the size choices we have today had evolved a lot since the early days of the "compact" road frame when you had as few as three sizes to choose from... Small, Med, and Large.

But with the C64 (and the VR series frames), for the first time as far as Colnago is concerned, I would be happy to go with the sloping design, and it's not simply because they no longer offer a traditional design (horizontal top tube). It's because manufacturers are designing more veritcal compliance into the frames... and how do they do this... by tuning the seatpost and seattube as one, and I think it works... So, it's a bit ironic that at the beginning of the "compact" or sloping frame era, "stiffness" was a key marketing spin, yet fast forward to now, and we've discovered that better compliance can actually be built into the frame as a whole with the design, so long as it's desinged as a whole and not just an afterhtought by providing a super flexy or super stiff elongated seatpost.

I love the look of a traditional horizontal top tube road bike, no doubt. It's classic, and just really nice looking to my eyes and a lot of others. But with relatively little seatpost there's not that much leeway for "tuning" the ride in that area. I think the ride of my C60 is great, but the seatpost extends pretty far down into the seattube, which can only make the whole thing stiffer. I first noticed how a well thought out layup schedule in this area really does add to the compliance with the Trek Emonda SL I got in 2014. With it's "ride tuned" seatmast even without the isospeed technology found in the Domane, there is some compliance inherent to that design. With more seatpost exposed, and not having that seatpost buried halfway down the seattube, it opens up all kinds of options for tuning the layup schedule. I could notice it. And now Colnago is doing the same thing with their sloping frames on the C64, which is already present in the VR-1 and VR-2 models. I don't think they would be able to build the same type of compliance into a traditional type of frame. That's not to say they aren't enjoying some reduction of production costs by moving away from offering a tradtional frame as well, but finally there's a reason for us, as the consumers, to start recognizing that there could be some benefits to it from a ride quality standpoint. As long as that's what the manufacturers are really doing with the design and I think a lot are.

But when we buy bicycles, looks count for a lot of people, and I'll be the first one to stand up and say I wouldn't buy a bike if I thought it was ugly. I made that mistake once because it was such a good deal money wise. I won't make it again. So, looks count, but I want to know, or at least believe, that it's functionally the best as well, all things considered, at least for my purposes and priorities. If two choices were really close, however, and one made a better apple pie, but the other just made me melt when I looked at her, all else being equal... well, I can overlook the pie drawback. Oh, excuse me... I'm drifting a bit here Image

And I also know that a 56sloping would fit me perfectly... in fact it would be right in the middle of the traditionally sized frames I have (59T and 61T). I know I could set it up to look perfect (just look at @guyc's C64 on this forum).

So, to you folks that will end up with one of these frames in the future, can't say I'm not a bit envious. Enjoy!
Last edited by Calnago on Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
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

Freewayflyer
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:31 pm

by Freewayflyer

Hi@Colnago,
That's great ! Thanks for the all the information about the seat clamp and your perspective about the benefits of the C 64 compliance. I totaly understand not parting from previous "tools"....bikes (as proof to that there's my 2001 klein qr). I am prety sure it will coexist with a C 64 hopefully soon ;-). C -60 would have suited me as well more than fine since I'm used to a non compliant frame as kleins are known as stiff frames but they also have some magic vibration absorprion in them. It would have been interesting to see kleins evolution up to these days...but anyway mine is a keeper :-). I'll folow this thread and maby report my own experience with the future C 64...

istigatrice
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 8:32 am
Location: Australia

by istigatrice

Calnago wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:06 am
the main reason manufacturers started producing sloping road frames was more due to cost of production decreases... fewer sizes fitting more people. They would market these "compact" frames as being lighter, stiffer, blah blah blah... but in reality it was the lower number of frame choices, and hence lower costs of production
I have a 'conspiracy theory' about this which I feel obliged to share here. I suspect a compact frame also requires less material, so bike manufacturers could buy less carbon/resin/steel/alloy.

To further add to this conspiracy, I think it was also this time that people were (for what ever reason) starting to ride smaller bikes with longer stems. A smaller bike = less carbon too. Think back to the days when bikes had 90-130mm stems and a fist full of seatpost. Now bike shops are telling me my bike is 'too big' for me because I'm running a 110mm stem and have 8cm of seatpost showing from the (imaginary) horizontal clamp. For some reason 130-150mm stems with 20cm of seatpost is 'normal' nowdays.

This falls appart when we start considering the latest aero trend (if you're still taking me seriously). :noidea:

Also, thought I might add, in terms of production cost decrease, I don't think Colnago save that much by going sloping with the C64. I think they still produce as many 'useful' sizes (less overlap in terms of stack and reach, though they could have gone even further by offering half of the smaller sizes), and they have a 'tall' geometry as well. I'm probably wrong on this but they appear to offer more stock sizes than Parlee and other custom manufactuers (though I suppose the whole point of custom is to go custom). So I suspect the reason why there's "fewer sizes" is not to cut costs (I mean they've got 5 different chainstay lengths!) but rather just removing double ups.

While I'm commenting on the costs, I would like to see Colnago make 3 different forks, 1 for the smaller sizes, 1 for the larger sizes and 1 for the 'tall' geometry (at least). You can justify 5 different chainstay lengths so why can't smaller riders experience the same mythical 59mm of trail that the taller riders get? I'm still sour because I'd be after a 48s, 50s or 52s, and the steepest head tube angle I can get is 72 degrees! If that's paired with a 49-50mm rake fork fine, but 43mm of rake is just too slack IMO.
I write the weightweenies blog, hope you like it :)

Disclosure: I'm sponsored by Velocite, but I do give my honest opinion about them (I'm endorsed to race their bikes, not say nice things about them)

User avatar
corky
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills

by corky

I agree on the head tube angle/fork rake point in the smaller sizes.......it’s something that’s always bugged me.

6degree stems are always too high on slack head tube angles.........I run a -12 deg extralite on. 54trad Exreme Powers because of this.....(-17 is too much from a height perspective and visually for me) .but on the positive side, there is no toe overlap.

User avatar
Magnum
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 5:11 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames, UK

by Magnum

Am I right in thinking the cables on a mechanical system are running directly across a painted surface when they go through the moulded cable guides on the underside of the bottom bracket? Also once the paint has worn away will it not be wearing away the carbon fibre?

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

No, you should use teflon liner that inserts up through the downtube, and for the rear derailleur into the chainstay as well. Love this system for sure. So clean and almost creates a completely sealed cable system if you do it right. I described it in detail somewhere in this thread... cable routing is always one of the things I look at very closely... here's a couple pics to give you the general idea...
Image

Image

Image
Last edited by Calnago on Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

User avatar
Magnum
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 5:11 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames, UK

by Magnum

OK, that makes more sense. Thank you.

kimmie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:09 am

by kimmie

Hi all, new comer, but I have been reading this forum for years. I just placed order on a Disc Colnago C64 frame, and been told that the waiting time is, at least until December 2018. This is due to the new 'internal routing' stem and fork. Has anyone heard or have update about the new stem/fork thing? Second question, just wondering what people with a Shimano Di2 internal battery, use with the seatpost battery mount? Thanks

rexyi1990
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:05 pm

by rexyi1990

moonoi wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:38 am
Received my CeramicSpeed T45 Shimano BB, pictures of what you get in the box. Still waiting for the frame to arrive though...

Image
Image
Image

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
No more than 30NM?

by Weenie


c60rider
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:12 pm

by c60rider

I'm guessing that tool will remove the existing Colnago cups fitted to the frame. Anyone know? Surely they're not making a slightly different shape and making you buy the Colnago one as well :lol:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post