Wilier to Colnago C64 upgrade

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Ilovesocks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

by Ilovesocks

After 8 years of loyal service, and a lot of saving, it was finally time to upgrade the frame on my 2011 Wilier Cento Uno.

The frame/forks were actually the sole remaining original parts, having gradually upgraded over the years as wear demanded and funds allowed.

I still loved the big Willie, resplendent in its Super Record groupset and 50mm Mavic carbon Cosmics, with Deda finishing kit. But I'd been longing after a new Italian beauty, a little more exotic. In fact I'd planned a C60 upgrade but by the time I was in a position to go, the C64 was available.

Rich
Attachments
9252E365-64E4-4E38-A728-9885BE722B2A.jpeg

by Weenie


User avatar
kgt
Posts: 7831
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

That was my second carbon frame. Very nice back in 2009-2013, stiff and comfortable in a lovely way. However, I am certain that C64 will be a much better frame overall.

Ilovesocks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

by Ilovesocks

So it came time to size and order the frame. A big thanks to all those who post on here, particularly Calnago - your help has been invaluable.

I'm 182cm, standard ratios of torso, limbs etc and tend to ride a 56 whenever I demo a bike, although I've previously been fitted to a 57.

Talking to various dealers I got a mixture of "52S" or "54S" replies. Few had demo bikes so I relied on a lot of calcs. I also got professionally fitted to the Cento (confirmed my own set up although dropped saddle a bit) and the Reutel set up for virtual 52S and 54S geometry. Same conclusion, between sizes, could ride either, the aesthetic trade being a bunch of spacers (smaller frame) or marginal exposed seatpost (larger frame).

So my logic ran as follows; my comfy Wilier (Cento Uno Large) has a 560 stack (plus 30mm cap & spacers) and 385 reach (plus 110mm stem).

The smaller 52S has 565 stack and 384 reach. 25mm of spacers/cap gets me to right height and 110mm stem should be ok, maybe 120mm if too cramped.

The larger 54S has 583 stack and 385 reach. So only need 7mm cap/spacers (slammed baby !) and probably 100mm stem allowing for effect of the spacers.

This is backed up by the old skool Horiz TT which is 555 on Wilier, slightly shorter 550 on the 52S and longer 565 on 54S.

Easy peasy, the 54S fits best, I can stretch out with minimal spacers and enjoy the ride. Then a deal on an ex-demo in Black came up and I jumped. Happy days, or at least I think so.....

....I'd sort of forgotten about stand over and the comfort/aesthetic of exposed seatpost. I'm not a Pro (far from it) but I don't want to look like I'm riding a giant's bike. For the record, my Cento had about 190mm exposed post (clamp to rail), the 52S grew to 205mm (nice) but the 54S is a paltry 185mm. This is with a 760mm saddle height.

So I think I've done the right thing, but it does feel a bit big after the Cento. Maybe I just have to get used to it but I really would welcome your feedback. As a last resort, I do have a riding buddy who loves the deal I got and would buy it off me for what I paid if I did decide I should have gone smaller.

And yes, I know I'm shallow but I've worked bloody hard to get it and am having slight doubts ☹️

Rich
Attachments
A835F97E-1591-43F4-B8F0-DE890EB1FA4A.jpeg

yinya
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:06 pm

by yinya

Looks very fine to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ilovesocks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

by Ilovesocks

Thanks 😀 A couple more pics...
Attachments
A7A82D8D-E1DF-42D5-A40B-025702DAC4CA.jpeg
9440ACC7-90AB-4414-92AE-8FE435126C00.jpeg

Ilovesocks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

by Ilovesocks

And for interest, a local dealer did have another model CLX in 52S, this is it set up for me, which pushed me to the larger frame.

And I bumped into a guy riding this C64, similar height to me but he'd gone smaller 52S. If I'd gone this route, my bike would look similar in terms of seatpost (well, 10mm less for me) & headset spacers.

Like I said, I could ride either but welcome thoughts form the combined wisdom on this site 😀
Attachments
67DF28C9-9621-4A15-84D2-202D63E1E6C6.jpeg
EF02D3CE-0651-43C9-9693-7E5B5DB12FFE.jpeg

AJS914
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

Looks great! I'm 183cm and went with a C59 in 52S. I feel like I'm right in the middle of Colango's sizing and could go with either a 52S or 54S so I chose to go smaller. I also like the way a 12 or 13cm stem feels so the 52S allows me to use those sizes.

If I needed more saddle to bar drop a slammed 54S wouldn't work at all because then I'd be resorting to a negative stem or other ugly solutions.

Image

gorkypl
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:31 am
Location: Poland

by gorkypl

Judging purely by the pictures, 54 looks like a better fit. Seatpost is exposed enough, and no spacers is always better than some spacers.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8541
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

@Ilovesocks: There are always two aspects to choosing a size, the fit aspect and the handling aspect. From what you’ve said and what I see I would definitely have you on the 54s. It’s not like you have a multitude of choices anymore such as a 57 Traditional or a 59Traditional on either side of the 54s, so it makes it even easier. IMO the 52s would be too small. Granted I haven’t seen you on the bike but your current setup looks proportionally right to me. It’s a personal thing for sure, but for me if I was in between I would likely opt for the larger size, within reason, or be looking at a different bike with different geometry that fit me better. I hate it if a bike is too short, wheelbase wise, especially if you’re stretched out or aggressively descending. It can easily put your weight too far over the front end and makes for all kinds of nervousness especially when descending, when stability at speed is a nice thing. On the other hand, if it’s too long, then that’s not good either as it will feel like things might want to wash out on you in turns etc. It’s a Goldilocks scenario of finding what’s “just right” with your weight balanced nicely between the wheels for the type of riding you do. Also, being a heavier rider, that feeling of having too much weight getting thrown forward is even more noticeable if the frame is too small, again especially when descending and during hard braking. Yours looks very close to being “just right” as it is.
For what it’s worth, I am 184cm, have an inseam of 905, maybe 910mm, and a saddle height of 804mm with a saddle to bar drop of 84mm. A no brainer size choice in a C64 for me would be the 56s. I have a 59cm Traditional C60 and for sure that is the smallest size Colnago I would ever go. My C59 is a 61Traditional. A Goldilocks Colnago Traditional size for me would probably be the 60, but all those work just fine. There are millimeters of difference between most of the primary geometry numbers between Colnago sizes, and I think I’m pretty tuned into what I like finally after all these years as far as both fit and handling go, having been fortunate enough to own several sizes clustered around a tight range. As for other brands, I already know for instance that a 60 in a Trek is for me. On a Specialized Tarmac for example I’d be happy on a 58. Wiliers were funny... I can’t remember exactly but I’d likely be on XL in their sizing if I remember correctly, which seemed ok but the top tube is a bit short for my liking, and seattube a bit slack for my ideal setup. So I’d probably pass on a Wilier as I think there’s other frames that work better for me. And a 61 in a Bianchi Oltre XR4 would be pretty perfect. These are all frames whose geometries I’ve studied pretty closely as they relate to me, and they would all work. It’s funny how quickly the body adapts to whatever bike you’re riding as well, again within reason.
Enjoy, looks good to me.
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

Ilovesocks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

by Ilovesocks

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments and the feedback.

I agree that 182/183cm is exactly between sizes but that choosing to size up or down is a personal preference. I guess that's what I'm wrestling with - should I have gone down rather than up. But I also agree that we're talking a few mm here so in reality I could happily ride either 😀.

And that C59 is gorgeous !

In terms of more-detailed build spec;
Chainset- Super Record 11 speed
Brakes - Campag direct-mount
Wheels - Mavic Cosmic Carbon 50mm
Stem - Deda Superzero (was Superleggera) 100mm
Bars - Deda Suoerleggera with Colnago tape
Saddle - Berk lupina with oval rails
Cages - Blackburn (so you can see the frame number 😀)
Cables - Campy

Total weight 6.7kg without pedals (Look Keo carbon blade btw)

Rich

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8541
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I'm sure we've all been there... stressing over whether we made the right choice or not... should I have gone bigger, smaller, I like the color, but sheesh, that other color is nice too.... that's pretty normal. I would imagine Colnago had to be one of the most frustrating brands to be selling some years ago for a dealer, when they had sizes in 1cm increments in the traditional sizes, and as well you could get the sloping sizes in the even sizes. Then with the C59, they changed it so that even sizes were sloping, and odd sizes were traditional, but a sloping size was the equivalent of a traditional 4 nominal sizes larger (i.e a 52s would be pretty equivalent to a 56 traditional fitwise). That way, they still had very incremental sizing, at least still more than the vast majority of manufacturers, and you could likely get either sloping or traditional in a size that would fit. But you would likely still have to order the frame, and wait, and decide on the color. Ha... selling Treks and Specializeds has got to be so much easier. Plus, people buying their dream bikes are often a lot pickier about things, and stress over every detail. Versus those that walk into a shop and say "What's new? what's hot? Set it up and I'm outta here", and they write the check and ride off into the sunset. It's a bike. Not a wife.
Anyway, I would bet that if you chose the smaller size, you'd be stressing in exactly the same way as you are right now, except about whether you should have got the larger size. It's a big investment. And if you really want to try the smaller one, sounds like you can... since your friend will give you what you paid for your current one.
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

gorkypl
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:31 am
Location: Poland

by gorkypl

I'd go even further, and say it more definite - with your desired stack and reach, 54S is a correct fit. Seatpost is exposed very proportionally, on 52 it seems too high. You can go wthout spacers under stem which is also good. Also not sure why you would take 120mm stem on 52S but said you want to go with 100mm on 54. The reach is the same, the resulting stack would be the same (without spacers on 54 and with spacers on 52), so you'd need the same stem length.

It's absolutely normal to have such doubts after purchase, we've all done that, but you've made a good decision. Don't worry and ride :)

AJS914
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

gorkypl wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:44 am
The reach is the same, the resulting stack would be the same (without spacers on 54 and with spacers on 52), so you'd need the same stem length.
It doesn't work out like that in real life. You have other things influencing total reach. I've put both 52S and 54S in a geometry calculator and I'd need a 12cm stem on a 52S and an 11cm on a 54S (plus 20mm of spacers on the 52S to make stack equal).

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8541
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

A lot of people seem to compare published reach numbers from geometry charts as if they are actually comparable. The only way two reach numbers are comparable is if they are both measured at the same stack height. If the stack heights are different then it’s not that hard to make a mental adjustment for comparability sake (about 3mm per centimeter of stack).
The OP went through the correct mental gymnastics in his analysis imo. While he could get the same “fit” on either frame, I think the setup on the 54s looks more “right” than it would on the 52s. The OP seems a bit concerned that his exposed seatpost is only 18.5cm on his new C64 versus a whopping 19cm on his old Wilier. That’s funny. Now if the standover height was such that he was jamming his jewels into the top tube when simply straddling the bike, then that would certainly be a consideration, but I’m assuming that’s not the case.
@Ilovesocks: To put things in perspective a bit, I already mentioned that I know that for me a 56s C64 would be a bang on perfect fit from both fit and handling perspectives. And it would look proportionately perfect the way I would build it up. I’ve already gone through that many times in my head. If it helps, I know that the exposed seatpost measured consistently with how you’re measuring yours (where it leaves the frames seattube to the saddle rails) would be ~18cm. And that’s on a larger frame. So you could say you currently have proportionately even more exposed seatpost than that, on your smaller frame and all. You’re such a slut .
Ultimately, you have to like the ride and the C64 probably has a slightly longer wheelbase than Little Willy did (I know you like to call him Big Willy, but it’s not really that big). But from an aesthetic standpoint, I think you went the right way size wise. The bars look like they have a fairly long reach to them? If I changed anything I’d probably still keep the 110 stem and try some different bars perhaps. Don’t stress it too much. Looks good.
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

by Weenie


g32ecs
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:50 am

by g32ecs

52S would require you a tower of spacers like that other bike.

That 54 fits you well. Good amount of drop, stem length. Looks very proportionate without looking trying too hard.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post