Colnago 64 fittment question

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

Just finalizing purchase of my dream ride and want to get frame size right. I'm 6'3" in height and have long arms and legs with 36" inseam. Current ride is Bianchi Sempre with Campy Chorus groupset and 61" frame. Worried 56S might be to small or go should I go for the 58S ?? I've just turned 60 and may not be quite as limber as I once was. Ride up on the hoods mostly. I haven't seen one picture of a Colnago 64 in a 58S frame? If anyone can post one that would be great! Appreciate any and all advise!

by Weenie


DJT21
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:35 pm

by DJT21

56s will be too low at the front, 58s will be too long. 56h would be better.

mag
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

Photos: I've seen some photos of 60s and 62s (it's a ladder Jim! :-D ), but not sure about 58s.

56s vs 58s: you can achieve almost the same handlebars position (relative to BB) by adding/removing 15mm of spacers and 10mm longer/shorter stem.
56s vs 56h: you can achieve the same position by adding/removing 20mm of spacers.

Not sure what's your current setup, but 58s and 56h are a little taller than the Sempre at size 61 so if you don't have any spacers there it might be a little difficult to replicate the same (or very close) fit on the 58s or 56h. Perhaps some of the -10º -12º or -17º stems might get you there.

Sempre vs 56s: same length stems, 10mm more spacers on the C64 and you should be within approx. 2-3mm horizontally of each other, C64 being shorter by those 2-3mm.

Sempre vs 58s: 10mm shorter stem on the C64, 5mm less spacers on the C64 and you should be within approx. 1mm horizontally of each other, again C64 being shorter by that 1mm.

Sempre vs 56h: same length stems, 10mm less spacers on the C64 and you should be within approx. 2-3mm horizontally of each other, C64 being shorter by those 2-3mm.

Less apacers look better, but to me those large size frames look pretty ugly themselves (only some nice paintjob may save their appearance). So if you wouldn't need a lot of spacers you might be better off with the smaller frame size.

Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

Selecting a new frame is the only time in my life (other than being on a plane) that I'd prefer being of shorter stature. Cosmetically the look of a 52 frame compared to that of a 58-60 frame is....... lets just like looking at 5'2 Blonde with size 36 breasts to that of 6'0 blonde with size 30 breasts :wink: Regardless I've seen some nice looking Colnago frames in both 56H and 56S but nothing in C64 58s or H? I hope the owners don't take offence to using pictures of there rides but here are 3 examples of gorgeous looking 56's. The first is a 56H followed by the 56S which happens to be in the same color scheme as I've selected and lastly a 56S at the online dealer of where I've purchased with the same stem/handle bar combination. That said the dealers ride looks to slammed for my comfort. As a side note I have a 120 stem on my Sempre with spacers. Appreciate the feed back and it's looking like 56H or 58S ?
Attachments
56 h.png
40362852504_a73ebd0b77_o[1].jpg
!cid_B2C44963-9191-4705-9DF4-5D8380350CE3.jpg

AJS914
Posts: 3468
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

How do pictures of bikes help you figure out the size?

If you like your Bianchi's fit, I'd figure out its stack and reach and then compare to the Colnago's stack and reach.

Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

Pictures were purely used as example to show that larger framed road bikes can still look great aesthetically given longer head tubes. :thumbup:

guyc
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am
Location: Hampshire, England
Contact:

by guyc

The second one you've posted is mine (56s) and I'm 6'1" with a 34" inside leg. I run that slammed with the standard conical spacer and a 120mm stem (in the pic there it was just after collection and has a 10mm spacer and a 110mm stem based on how I ran my old Canyon Ultimate - over the next couple of months I went 10mm lower and longer). Gut feeling is that a 58s will suit you better. If you've long arms then a 56s might well be a little too short and need a longer stem than you'd like which might lose some of the stability you'll want from a Colnago....

mag
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

Yes larger size is safer bet unless you need to get lower than what that frame size can offer you (see above).
Also agree with the stem length. I currently use 120mm stem on my C64 and definitely wouldn't go longer as the handling would feel strange. Shorter stem (110mm) feels better handling wise (I also have that stem lying somewhere, but the resulting fit feels a bit short to me). With 56s you'd most likely need a 120mm stem (same as you have now) while with 58s it would be 110mm.

By the way, here are some photos of 58s:
viewtopic.php?t=152793
I don't like the looks of that size much (too long head tube), but it could still look fine with some paintjobs (all white should look better but you'd need to go the custom paintjob way, that art decor blue probably as well, maybe the one with red lugs or all black one too)

Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

guyc wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:41 am
The second one you've posted is mine (56s) and I'm 6'1" with a 34" inside leg. I run that slammed with the standard conical spacer and a 120mm stem (in the pic there it was just after collection and has a 10mm spacer and a 110mm stem based on how I ran my old Canyon Ultimate - over the next couple of months I went 10mm lower and longer). Gut feeling is that a 58s will suit you better. If you've long arms then a 56s might well be a little too short and need a longer stem than you'd like which might lose some of the stability you'll want from a Colnago....
Your bike and pictures are stunning. Given your height and leg inseam the 58s will be the frame of choice as were 2" difference. Appreciate your comments and use of your picture!

Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

mag wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:57 am
Yes larger size is safer bet unless you need to get lower than what that frame size can offer you (see above).
Also agree with the stem length. I currently use 120mm stem on my C64 and definitely wouldn't go longer as the handling would feel strange. Shorter stem (110mm) feels better handling wise (I also have that stem lying somewhere, but the resulting fit feels a bit short to me). With 56s you'd most likely need a 120mm stem (same as you have now) while with 58s it would be 110mm.

By the way, here are some photos of 58s:
viewtopic.php?t=152793
I don't like the looks of that size much (too long head tube), but it could still look fine with some paintjobs (all white should look better but you'd need to go the custom paintjob way, that art decor blue probably as well, maybe the one with red lugs or all black one too)
Thank you for the link. I came across that one previously but for whatever reason thought it was a 56s frame? The 58s will be the frame of choice and I really appreciate your guidance. I will change my stem to a 110 and I should be good to go : )

Thanks again!

guyc
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am
Location: Hampshire, England
Contact:

by guyc

Italia wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:35 pm
guyc wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:41 am
The second one you've posted is mine (56s) and I'm 6'1" with a 34" inside leg. I run that slammed with the standard conical spacer and a 120mm stem (in the pic there it was just after collection and has a 10mm spacer and a 110mm stem based on how I ran my old Canyon Ultimate - over the next couple of months I went 10mm lower and longer). Gut feeling is that a 58s will suit you better. If you've long arms then a 56s might well be a little too short and need a longer stem than you'd like which might lose some of the stability you'll want from a Colnago....
Your bike and pictures are stunning. Given your height and leg inseam the 58s will be the frame of choice as were 2" difference. Appreciate your comments and use of your picture!
Thank you and you're welcome - I've made a few tweaks since that initial build (power meter, saddle, stem, steerer height and tyres) but I absolutely love this bike. Enjoy yours and post some pics up!

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8526
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago


@Italia... what you really might want to compare with @guyc’s bike is your saddle height and saddle to bar drop, two kind of key measurements that would be easily reconcilable and allow you to visualize how your setup would look on both a 56 or a 58. For instance, if you know that Guyc’s setup has for example, say, a 105mm saddle to bar drop and that his saddle height is say around 81cm then, knowing your setup stats it would be easy to determine the changes to Guyc’s bike necessary to make it work for to, if they makes sense. Perhaps you already did this to come up with deciding that the 58 is your choice. But I don’t think basing that decision on what seems to be “pant leg” differences (36” vs 34”) or overall height differences is a definitive way of determining if. They are datapoints for sure, just not ones I would weight too heavily in the decision.
As one more datapoint for your comparisons, I’m 184cm, and have a “cycling inseam” (floor to a hard jam in the pubic bone) of 905mm. I know that a 56s would be my size in this frame. I run a 84mm saddle to bar drop and saddle height (to a level line across the top of the saddle) is 804mm.
Last edited by Calnago on Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:14 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

mag
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

@guyc Just out of curiosity, how much of seatpost do you have currently exposed? Just post a photo of the rear with that scale visible if you can. Those older photos seem like there's quite a lot of seatpost exposed for the frame size 56s and 34" inseam. But maybe it really works for you that way...

guyc
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am
Location: Hampshire, England
Contact:

by guyc

mag wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:19 pm
@guyc Just out of curiosity, how much of seatpost do you have currently exposed? Just post a photo of the rear with that scale visible if you can. Those older photos seem like there's quite a lot of seatpost exposed for the frame size 56s and 34" inseam. But maybe it really works for you that way...
It's at the 30 marker so a fair amount exposed but a way off max. Saddle height is 815mm (170mm cranks) and the saddle to bar drop is 12.5cm - I like to run my saddle fairly high. Aggressive-ish but perfect for me. No pain/discomfort even with a history of a broken neck and snapped shoulder blade/dislocation from motorbike days. I'm not exactly young either at 49 but have always been pretty flexible.

Italia
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm

by Italia

Calnago wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:14 pm
@Italia... what you really might want to compare with @guyc’s bike is your saddle height and saddle to bar drop, two kind of key measurements that would be easily reconcilable and allow you to visualize how your setup would look on both a 56 or a 58. For instance, if you know that Guyc’s setup has for example, say, a 105mm saddle to bar drop and that his saddle height is say around 81cm then, knowing your setup stats it would be easy to determine the changes to Guyc’s bike necessary to make it work for to, if they makes sense. Perhaps you already did this to come up with deciding that the 58 is your choice. But I don’t think basing that decision on what seems to be “pant leg” differences (36” vs 34”) or overall height differences is a definitive way of determining if. They are datapoints for sure, just not ones I would weight too heavily in the decision.
As one more datapoint for your comparisons, I’m 184cm, and have a “cycling inseam” (floor to a hard jam in the pubic bone) of 905mm. I know that a 56s would be my size in this frame. I run a 84mm saddle to bar drop and saddle height (to a level line across the top of the saddle) is 804mm.
Please forgive my amateurness as I'm not one that travels down this path very often. I'm attaching pictures not knowing for certain where saddle measurements are to taken from. I can take other measurements as directed. There is no stupid question is there? :oops:
Attachments
IMG_4992.jpg
IMG_4996.jpg
IMG_5003.jpg
IMG_5004.jpg

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post