Colnago C64 Fit Question

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 12457
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Any fitter with more than half a clue will know which frame is appropriate for you based on reach and stack.

wilwil
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:47 pm

by wilwil

Im 178 cm, longish legs, saddle height 755mm and I ride a 52s with a 110 stem and compact bars. My saddle to bar drop is 84mm. with 15mm volcano+ 10 spacer. I could ride a 50s but would need around 25mm + 15 mm volcano of spacers. If I was young and flexible I would ride a 50s. I do still do wonder if a 50s would be nicer.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Any fitter that puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on stack and reach has less than half a clue.
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

mag
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

I'm 179cm as well as OP and I was also deciding between 54s and 52h and went for 54s for the following reasons.
Just to note: Yes 54s is on the large size for my height, but that was intended. I didn't want to go very low on the front and also wanted slightly longer frame if possible since I prefer a stretched out position (everyone's different).

52h: The frame is smaller, based on 52s, just higher. As I was seeking more stretched out position I preferred the larger 54s that would give me more of that right away. Aesthetically less appealing (to me). Height at the front (stack) ok. I think perhaps the most interesting thing with this one is 2cm shorter seat tube which means approx. 2cm (angles are different so it would be probably slightly less in reality) more of exposed seatpost -> potential for more comfort.

54s: Larger frame overall, closer to what I'd prefer (could be even slightly longer actually). Aesthetically nicer. I believe (and it's really just my belief and I could easily be wrong) that s-sizes are their primary focus so if they did tune their frame construction for certain ride characteristics, they put more effort into these.

edwardk
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:30 pm

by edwardk

As the OP, I want to extend my thanks to all for your comments. I particularly enjoyed reading what Mr Colnago would probably recommend, at least second hand! My experience with fitters has been similar to that of one of the other posters, in that no matter how many measurements they take, they all have their own tastes and norms, and at a certain point in life one finds a formula that works for one. I'm there. By way of reference, here are a few quick measurements I took off my two existing bikes. I was really surprised to see how identically they're set up:

Center of BB to top of saddle where sit bone meets leather (measured along seat tube): 77cm

Back of saddle to center of handlebars: 83cm

Center of front axle to top of HBs: 61cm (measured vertically).

On my Parlee Altum, this translates to an ML frame, a 'tall' top cap, and 10mm of spacers.

One question I have remaining, which is why some of you think that stack and reach is so unimportant. I've found them to be pretty reliable guides to whether I can find a comfortable fit without too many spacers or too short a stem. I can see weight distribution between front and rear not being captured by stack and reach, but in what ways are they misleading measurements?

My thanks again!

beeatnik
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:26 pm

by beeatnik

Edward, I "sized up" from a 56 traditional (rough equivalent to a 52S) to a 54S. In my experience, Colnago geometry isn't aligned (haha) with the tiny bike wannabe PRO trend. In any case, as others have mentioned I was only really sizing up in terms of stack as the reach between the 56(52s) and the 54s is identical. However, the 54s is 17mm taller for which I compensated with a fully slammed (lowest stack cover) -17 stem so my contact points only vary by a few millimeters on both bikes. Interestingly enough, even though the frame seems to have a super tall headtube, my saddle to bar drop remains 13cm. Based on your numbers, it seems your required saddle to bar drop is around 8cm.

For the sake of comparison here are my numbers

BB to top center of Arione: 77cm
Front axle to bars: 56
Back of saddle to handlebars (tip of saddle is a better measurement: essentially reach): 87 to 87.5 with a 25mm setback post, 120mm stem and Arione saddle (longer than most, right?)

My height: 180.34 (5'11")

Based on my calculations, if you use the high stack cover, 10 to 15mm of spacers and an 82 degree stem, you'll be at your 7-8cm drop.

Here's the bike.
Image

By the way, most people think I'm riding a 54 when I'm on my C60. So dont think longer or bigger as you can make 2 or 3 sizes work depending on your setback (that's for another post) and front end preferences.
Last edited by beeatnik on Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

edwardk
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:30 pm

by edwardk

Thanks! I'm not home right now but 7-8 cm of drop from saddle to HBs sounds about right:
Attachments
Kleinbard bike.jpg

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Edward, stack and reach aren’t unimportant, they are but just one datapoint to consider among many. And from your last post you seem to have a pretty good grasp of what you can get from it. I’m sure you know that reach is only comparable between two frames if measured at the same stack height. And what good is published stack height if you’re not “slamming” your stem.
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

edwardk
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:30 pm

by edwardk

Thank you Cal. I approach stack from the other direction and ask, is it sufficiently high that I don't have to replicate the Leaning Tower of Pisa with an enormous stack of spacers under my stem?

Edward

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ha... I had just started that post, then it was gone. So I've come back to it and see the couple sentences I did write. So let me finish... lol

First off, fit advice over the internet is fraught with potential pitfalls, and none of us have phsyically seen you either on or off your bike. So take all this as just some food for thought. I think you've already given it a good amount of thought, so I don't think my comments will be wasted on someone who won't understand.

I'm going to say based on everything you've said, I would go for the 54S, same as Beaatnik was suggesting. Ok... here's probably what my next sentence was going to be in my premature post...
Comparing reach numbers is only relevant at the same stack height. The relevant stack height for you to be comparing reach numbers is not at the top of the headtube (published stack and reach point), but at the point on the steertube where your stem starts. You say you typically need a couple centimeters of spacers . Figure out the stack height where the bottom of your stem starts (on the bike you think fits well), and use that stack height to compare different reaches at. Then you have some relevant stack/reach numbers for you and where you actually want to end up.

Going with the 54, doesn't sound like it will put you too high. Sounds like you're more concerend about it being too long a reach. Well, that's where the above advice comes in. With the 54s, I think you'll be right in the ball park of where you want be reach wise. The 52s is going to have way too short a reach by the time you get to the stack height you need. Not only that, with a headtube length of only 158mm compared to the 54s HT of 175mm, you'd likely end up with not 2cm of spacers, but 3-4cm. The 54 will get the height you need, perhaps with 5-6mm more reach which can easily be compensated for by the stem. And it will look a whole lot better aesthetically than the other two when built up.

Here's another piece of the puzzle... Seat tube angle. Going from the 52 to the 54, the seat tube angle slackens by almost a degree. At your saddle height of 77cm, that's going to mean that, assuming your saddle remains in the same point in space on the two frames, and assuming the same seatpost offset on both bikes, the seatpost clamp will be clamping the rails almost a full centimeter further back on the 54 than on the 52. The saving grace I suppose is that the C64 seatpost comes in 3 different offsets, the standard of 15mm, 0mm, and 30mm. It is something I consider, because aesthetically I think it looks best and seems most functional if the rails are being clamped relatively in the center area of the rails. The worst is when the clamp is jammed back as far as it can go on the rails.... saddle just looks awkwardly forward and looks like if you hit a bump while on the nose that thing is just gong to break off. But with the 3 choices of seatposts you should be ok. Just don't know how long it may take to get an alternate one if you needed it. But think about it a bit.

Handling etc... This shouldn't be considered independent of "fit". It's quite easy to achieve those three fit points in space on a wide range of different size bicycles. I think the most important thing is to have an appropriate balance on the bike, and you've allueded to that earlier so I know you know what I mean. If it's too small, the bike will feel twitchy... some may call it quick handling. There's a difference. A quick handling bike is the right size, but the steering geometry is such that it is quicker to steer etc. My Koppenberg vs my Colnago is a good example of that. Twitchy has a negative connoation, as it should, and implies just very poor geometry or sometimes simply a bike that is too small for the rider, or just an imbalance between rider position and frame, could be a lot of things causing it. Any bike two sizes too small is going to "feel" quicker, but it's just because it's too damn small. If you go that route, you need to be more attentive for sure and really be sure you know what you're getting and why. Also, are you a heavier rider or lighter rider? I'm heavier. If I'm on too small a bike and get at all too far forward, that weight distribution over the front wheel is a bit unnerving. Feels like I might go over the bars a little too easily in the event of a sudden stop or unforeseen mishap. A little bit longer wheelbase just feels, and is, a bit more stable. Whereas a waife of a bicycle racer can lean way over the front, and becasue he weighs nothing, probably not get the same unnerving experience, or at least not to the same extent. Sometimes, you can overlap sizes and both will work if you're in between. Then it's up to you to make the call. It must have been frustrating being a colnago dealer when they had incremental sizes of 1cm in both traditional, then sloping models in the even sizes, etc. etc. The agonizing customer would take forever to figure out and second guess if he was getting the "perfect" size. Oh, and then they had to choose a color. Lol

Ok... that's all. But once again as a caution... I've never seen you in person or ridden with you, and the advice is free...

Cal
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

beeatnik
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:26 pm

by beeatnik

Calnago, I like your erudite style.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Thank you @beeatnik, I think. I like your style because it makes me look up words, and I become even more "scholarly".
Fit is weird.
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

beeatnik
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:26 pm

by beeatnik

Calnago wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:20 am
Fit is weird.
Truly.

edwardk
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:30 pm

by edwardk

Thank you all once again, including in particular the most recent erudite post from Calnago, and beeatnik's channeling of Mr. Colnago. I now feel empowered and confident in my decision -- 54s it will be. Please remember however that if the spouse reaches out to any of you, to apply the standard WW 75% discount figure when you reveal the cost of the frame.

Edward

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Fit advice is free. Lying to one's spouse is gonna cost ya. :)
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

Post Reply