Colnago C59 - is it really that good?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Colonia wrote:Well, I disagree. High-end carbon bikes mostly ride similarly. The end effect of the materials and workmanship on performance at this level/price range is minimal.


Well I would disagree there :)

I found the ride of all of the carbon bikes I've owned to vary noticeably - although I would not go so far as to claim any of them made me faster per se.

Given that in many cases these comparisons have involved the same parts and virtually identical geometry, I would have to put differences down to layup and design I'm afraid - although all of this is entirely subjective of course.

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

They ride similarly in the sense that they ride at a (very) similar speed for a given input, and when you steer, it turns, etc. The feel, though, can be very, very different, for a lot of reasons. It's like some are forgetting that carbon is one of the most tunable materials. Just recently I took a Time bike (RXRS?) for a short test ride on a familiar section of slightly broken pavement. As I started hitting the bumps, I was surprised at how sharp the impacts were and how much it seemed like the front and rear of the bike went out-of-plane. I would not have guessed that from that frame, and I would have to look at that bike's specific setup before making a definitive assessment.
But regardless of wheels, no frame has felt more solid, predictable, yet unpunishing to me than a Dogma, and that was a surprise to me as well.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta

User avatar
SalsaLover
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:21 pm
Location: Zürich, Switzerland

by SalsaLover

Max Gravity wrote:I had a C59 size 62 and found it uncomfortable as well as very unpredictable/nervous on descents.
The geometry is also very old style felt more like sitting on top than just on.

To be honest I never ridden an Italian bike that handles well downhill mostly I think that this is an Italian thing:
"large bikes don't handles well" I had accepted this until I got a TREK SSL and suddenly it was a new game.
One thing is that Italians seems to think that it is ok with the same fork rake over all sizes.

After 3 weeks with the C59 I went to my LBS and ordered a new frame, I have never had a bike for so short time before.
The bikes I use now is a Look 595 ultra XXL and a BMC slr01 s60 both are in another league entirely.

This saying that all CF bikes are the same, serious? It had never been bigger difference between framesets.
In the old days "everyone" bought Columbus SL tubing but now the possibilities to set up your own character is endless.
For good and bad.

Buy a C59 if you like the looks of it and don't have any other modern frameset to compare too.

Feel free to have another opinion.



Where you maybe using a "short and high" stem setup ? that would explain your experience.
Hucken The Fard Up !
Colnagos : C50 ST01 - Master 30th AD10 - C40 Mapei WC

TimW
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: England, UK

by TimW

I've had a C59 for almost 3 years and I still don't even consider changing it for any other bike.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6779
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Max Gravity wrote:To be honest I never ridden an Italian bike that handles well downhill mostly I think that this is an Italian thing:
"large bikes don't handles well" I had accepted this until I got a TREK SSL and suddenly it was a new game.


You do something wrong obviously otherwise the Dogma would not be the fastest bike downhill among other top bikes.
http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Tested-B ... ello-Dogma

User avatar
giant man
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Essex / Lincs UK
Contact:

by giant man

airwise wrote:
Colonia wrote:Well, I disagree. High-end carbon bikes mostly ride similarly. The end effect of the materials and workmanship on performance at this level/price range is minimal.


Well I would disagree there :)

I found the ride of all of the carbon bikes I've owned to vary noticeably - although I would not go so far as to claim any of them made me faster per se.

Given that in many cases these comparisons have involved the same parts and virtually identical geometry, I would have to put differences down to layup and design I'm afraid - although all of this is entirely subjective of course.

+1 - I totally agree, most of the high end bikes feel quite different from each other, and rightly so. Due to different geometries and different ways of manufacture of course. But the C59 is absolutely up there, wonderful frames!!

Colonia
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:34 am

by Colonia

airwise wrote:
Colonia wrote:Well, I disagree. High-end carbon bikes mostly ride similarly. The end effect of the materials and workmanship on performance at this level/price range is minimal.


Well I would disagree there :)

I found the ride of all of the carbon bikes I've owned to vary noticeably - although I would not go so far as to claim any of them made me faster per se.

Given that in many cases these comparisons have involved the same parts and virtually identical geometry, I would have to put differences down to layup and design I'm afraid - although all of this is entirely subjective of course.


Well, I agree with that. What I was referring to was the effect that materials and engineering (at a C59's price level) will have on actual performance. I definitely notice differences in the way some bikes feel, but I have yet to find a bike that would really put me at any kind of advantage/disadvantage in performance.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

carbonLORD wrote:
Calnago wrote:Absolutely. One should never let the bars dictate where you sit on the bike. The proper seated position is first and foremost in the fit process. Everything else follows from that.


But I look at your bike, and your height (and inseam) and wonder... Not much post showing, he might be better off with longer cranks and a smaller frame....

I mean, You are 6'1 and ride a 61. I am 6.25 (realistically, I always round off to 6'3") and prefer the tighter frame, more post and in some cases a longer crank. Your inseam is way too long for 175's I'd think.

But if it feels right, it is right. I know you changed out that crazy -17° stem at one point, (though they do look good on traditional geometry).


So, now I'm really curious. My saddle height is 810mm measured to a straight edge across the top, dead level. It's a pretty flat saddle, but has maybe a 4mm "dip" from the straight edge so some might say the saddle height is actually 806mm. I always use a straight edge and measure to that to be consistent. I arrived at that saddle height over years of trial and error and not by any formula. I have 95mm of setback at that height. I run a 130mm stem and rotundo bars on that bike which have a reach of 83mm. @carbonLord...your Ergosums have a 89mm reach and you run a 110mm stem. I bend and land right on the bar hoods which are about 77-78cm from the tip of my saddle to the nearest edge of the hoods. Feels really good and a natural place to land. No unnatural reaching at all. If I thought for a moment the bars were either pulling my natural seated position forward or pushing me back I would change them immediately. I never build a bike or spec a frame without knowing what bars and stem I will be using. Differences in bar reach etc can have even more of an effect on fit than an incremental change in frame size, all else equal. When I tried the -17 degree stem, I was experimenting a bit for aesthetic reasons, knowing full well what range of steertube etc I was playing with. I used that first because if it didn't work out (which it didn't) I could cut some more steertube and go to a -6 degree stem but I couldn't do that in the reverse order. None of that process was not ridiculously thought out before I started. Initially I thought a 120mm stem would be ok, but in the end found that the 130mm was perfect for me.

So I struggle to understand how you can have such a problem with your fit and insist the bars are forcing you forward. Easy fix, change them. Yet, sounds like you are even taller than me on a smaller frame, not that means much without knowing all the other physical attributes. However, like you say, if it feels right, it is right. So be it.

But I've totally missed your logic as to suggesting that due to my height and inseam that I should perhaps have 1) a smaller frame; and 2) that my inseam of 91cm is way too long for 175mm cranks.

A smaller frame does not change my seat height. I'm a bigger guy (not a waiflike pro with nothing but bone above the wasteline). So when I'm in the drops that puts more weight forward on the bike and I would argue that a 61 Colnago puts me in a very balanced position. Good weight over the front so that it's not feeling like it's 'washing out" and far enough back that I can confidently descend without feeling like I'm one small mistake away from going over the bars. A pro who weighs 160lbs at the same height might very well have a shorter (lengthwise) frame as his center of gravity is naturally going to be further back in the same postion. There is nothing worse than center of gravity which is too forward while descending (imagine riding in a tt position on a short wheelbase). For me, this frame feels like my ultimate sweet spot. If you're a bigger guy weight wise, and ride in the drops aggressively, a little bit longer frame "might" serve you well. Don't flame me because I said that, I just wish more people would consider what's "right for them" versus adopting what I call the "woman in a shoe store mentality".

But back to your theory on crank length... again out of curiosity what crank length would you put me on, if not 175mm? And how do you arrive at that number?

Thanks for listening, or not, if you didn't. I generally try to stay way clear of fit issues on the internet, but I think this is generic enough that I'm ok. Oh, and one last thing... just because it's a Colnago, doesn't necessarily means it fits everyone. We all have our preferred geometries, and if we don't, then welcome to the lifelong process of discovering it. There's lots of great bikes out there.
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
carbonLORD
in the industry
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:31 pm
Contact:

by carbonLORD

Calnago wrote:@carbonLord...your Ergosums have a 89mm reach and you run a 110mm stem. I bend and land right on the bar hoods which are about 77-78cm from the tip of my saddle to the nearest edge of the hoods. Feels really good and a natural place to land. No unnatural reaching at all. If I thought for a moment the bars were either pulling my natural seated position forward or pushing me back I would change them immediately.


And I believe it is those bloody 89mm bars, once I change them everything will be perfect.

My observation of your bike was only just that, without actually seeing one on a bike, its a subjective matter based on pictures.

Indeed if it feels right, it is and once I have brought the hoods back to where they match on the Venge I suspect the bike will be even better then it already is.

I'd never flame ya Cal, you're one of the few people on here that inspire and know what you're talking about.

Cheers!

cL
carbonLORD.com

poppiholla
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:18 pm

by poppiholla

Why is Colnago still using 31,6 seatposts instead of 27,2 that is claimed to give more comfort.

TimW
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: England, UK

by TimW

Because they don't need to...

MarkTwain
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm

by MarkTwain

carbonLORD wrote:you're one of the few people on here that inspire and know what you're talking about.

Quite the assertion to make.

Not without a sense of irony :roll:

User avatar
PSM
Posts: 1570
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Location: Stockholm, The Arctic...

by PSM

Why does Pierre Rolland choose the M10?

User avatar
SalsaLover
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:21 pm
Location: Zürich, Switzerland

by SalsaLover

he has always been on the M10 AFAIR, pure climbers bike ?
Hucken The Fard Up !
Colnagos : C50 ST01 - Master 30th AD10 - C40 Mapei WC

User avatar
PSM
Posts: 1570
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Location: Stockholm, The Arctic...

by PSM

Mine climbes extremly well.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post