Colnago C60 as climbing machine...

[3Pio]

I know there is a lot of people having doubts how good is Colnago C60 for climbing since is a bit heavier frame compared to others.. I keep telling that this weight difference is only 200-300 gm max, and that is not that important for climbing when that difference is in frame. But for climbing (specially a lot of climb), is very important also how comfortable is it, how stiff and how stable going downhill..

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

p.s. If i somehow glue the damn tubs probably will be even better (@sungod, @Geoff, @Calnago... )

[AJS914]

I love my C59 - I'm so happy with the bike. I don't think anybody is going to say that 300 grams is going to make a significant different on a climb. For me that is a .3% different in total weight of rider, bike, clothes.

[Calnago]

Ok, I love my Colnagos for sure, but when climbing, every gram really does count. I've been on multiweek loaded bike tours and it's always the same... it doesn't take long before you are shedding every spare ounce of weight you don't need. It's just the nature of the beast. Stiff and light, that's the climbers dream. Speeds are low, not much danger of crashing on the ascent... all you're really concerned with is a bike that tracks straight, is light, and stiffer the better (you're going slow a stiff frame doesn't really seem to beat you up too much under those conditions in my opinion). The downside of ultralightness becomes much more apparent when you crest the top and start your way down. And this is where the solidness of a frame with a little extra beef to it really shines. There is nothing worse than a frame that feels the least bit unstable underneath you when descending at speeds in the mountains, where there are turns to contend with as well as gusts of winds that can hit you from the side as you leave the shelter of the mountain side for a brief moment to be exposed to the wind. There really is such a thing as being too light imo, and that number gets higher as goes the weight of the rider and how aggressive the descents get. Everyone has a sweet spot I suppose.
So, if someone told me I was only going to do nothing but climb today and get a bus off the mountain, I could very well choose the lightest steed that didn't feel like mush when I stand on the pedals, assuming a good fit of course. Proper gearing would also be a prerequisite... the brand of bike really doesn't come into it so much on the way up, but a solid feel on the way down is something I would never give up for the sake of a few grams.

[Imaking20]

I will agree that my C59 and C60 have been my favorite bikes to climb on. I think they climb better than my Tarmac did (which was a 200g lighter frame) and descending is in another atmosphere.

Light wheels do bring another element to the fun though!

[Delorre]

I will agree that my C59 and C60 have been my favorite bikes to climb on. I think they climb better than my Tarmac did (which was a 200g lighter frame) and descending is in another atmosphere.

Can you elaborate at little bit more? In what respect do the c59/c60 clim better than the tarmac (sl4??) ? Less stiff and more responsive than the tarmac maybe? And on the way down, what was wrong with the tarmac? Twitchy? Also too stiff?

[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

[Imaking20]

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.

[3Pio]

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?

[darnellrm]

With a max speed of 33.6 mph for your mountain ride, the Colnago sure does not appear to be very quick nor confidence inspiring to me!

[3Pio]

With a max speed of 33.6 mph for your mountain ride, the Colnago sure does not appear to be very quick nor confidence inspiring to me!

To measure is some ride fast or not , u should ride the same track.. (for example today on 33.6 mph in tight turn there was a cow jumping in front of me, had to brake hard and to make turn to avoid it in same time.That place it's not with clear view on the turns, and on same ride car approach that had to react very fast..) Do u still think Colnago does not appear to be very quick and confidence inspiring?



But let's pretend that there was totaly perfect trail, no cows, no nothing.. If someone have not that good downhill technics, do u think he'll be better on more stable frame or not that stable frame, even on 33.6 mph max?

[darnellrm]

If you are decending multple Cat HC, 1,2 climbs and not breaking 34 mph, there is a problem somewhere....

[3Pio]

If you are decending multple Cat HC, 1,2 climbs and not breaking 34 mph, there is a problem somewhere....

Because sometimes words cant help, i send u a picture.. But seem that even picture does not help sometimes..

[bilwit]

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.

[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.

And would love to see others climbing rides and hopefully with different frames for comparation on same climb.. That way, we'll share our personal experience and learn what is really better or not, to dont get idea just on marketing payed reviews from magazines or net...

p.s. The C60 i have is not heavier compared to my friend Dogma F8 (also Campagnolo Record and similar wheels) or other Friend Willier Zero 7 who have frame "declared" as 799 gm (and my C60 is about 1200). His bike have Ultegra Shimano i have Campagnolo Record (with Chorus 11-29 cassette), and similar weight wheelset. Both those frames are "considered" like "a lot lighter"...

[Imaking20]

I also don't understand why this is quickly turning into a bash thread... but there are plenty of Colnagos on this site and plenty of people on the forum (even in this thread) who don't particularly care for light bikes.

Yeah, I know, it makes a lot of sense.