Colnago World Cup frame size [help]

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

Hello,

So I bought a 2016 Colnago World Cup SL Disc 105 Cyclocross bike from someone and I'm worried about the size. On its frame there's a sticker with the size which says 56s. From what I understand the 's' means its a sloping geometry, and a 56s is equivalent to a 60cm bike(I didn't knew this when I bought it). To me, this bike doesn't seem to have a sloping geometry, but then again I'm somewhat new to cycling.

I have measured my bike and the measurements seems ok for my height(or at least what most bike manufacturers recommend for my height):
TT: ~550 mm
ST: ~560 mm
HT: ~143 mm
Chain Stay: 422 mm
Reach: ~370 mm
Stack: ~572 mm

I'm a bit worried because it does seem a little big for me(I'm 180cm with an inseam of 83cm (5"11; 32")). I have no standover clearance with no shoes (I touch a little) and I feel I have to stretch a little bit for the levers, but this might be fixable with a shorter stem(currently 11.5cm). I should mention that I've only ridden MTBs until now; this is my first road/cyclocross bike, so it might be that I just need to adjust to the new position.

Can someone tell me what's the deal with the Colnago sizes and if this bike should (theoretically) fit me? I might be able to return the bike, but I do quite like it.

Here you can find more info about the bike:
https://www.racycles.com/product/detail/10239
http://www.tweekscycles.com/bikes/cyclo ... -bike-2016

Thank you.

morganb
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:30 pm

by morganb

Looking at that reach and stack, that definitely doesn't sound like a 60 and looks like it fits more like a traditional 56, if not shorter than average. I'm 5'9" and on a 52 (nominal) with a reach of 375 and stack around 550.

biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

morganb wrote:Looking at that reach and stack, that definitely doesn't sound like a 60 and looks like it fits more like a traditional 56, if not shorter than average. I'm 5'9" and on a 52 (nominal) with a reach of 375 and stack around 550.

Hence my confusion.

I was hoping some Colnago experts might elucidate this.

I actually messaged Colnago official a few days ago, but they didn't respond.

Thanks.

PS: I apologize for posting in the road section, I thought I was in the cyclocross section.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yeah, it's a 56, not 60. I don't think they make any cross bikes in sloping sizes so I'm not sure what that 56s sticker you mention is all about. Sloping top tubes on a cross frame just make it harder to "shoulder".
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

gewichtweenie
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:12 pm

by gewichtweenie

im 176 with proportion inseam to yours and run a world cup in 54... frame is not sloped. my seatpost is a bit low and i think it'll fit you well. i wouldnt do 56 if i were you

biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

Calnago wrote:Yeah, it's a 56, not 60. I don't think they make any cross bikes in sloping sizes so I'm not sure what that 56s sticker you mention is all about. Sloping top tubes on a cross frame just make it harder to "shoulder".


The Colnago A1R CX seems to be a sloping frame, but you can clearly see in the pictures it is.

Maybe they put the sticker by mistake, but it clearly written "56s".

gewichtweenie wrote:im 176 with proportion inseam to yours and run a world cup in 54... frame is not sloped. my seatpost is a bit low and i think it'll fit you well. i wouldnt do 56 if i were you


How does the 54 fit you? My inseam is actually 33"(just read a guide and measured again correctly and came up with 84cm), not 32". Wiggle seems to recommend the 56 frame to me, but I guess the 54 is better like you said:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/colnago-world-c ... ross-bike/

Anyway, in the meanwhile, I changed the saddle and the bike seems much more comfy now.

Thanks.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes, I see what you mean about the sloping sizes in their cross frames this year. In fact, even the prestige is sloping and they've done away with the curved shoulder support between the top tube and the seattube. I notice that their sizes have a "c" designation after the number as well, and there is no 56 in the lineup, they go 52c, 55c, 58c. But I would always look at the actual geometry specs rather than a nominal "size' number anyway. And looks like the World Cup is gone from the lineup. Your World Cup does not have sloping geometry, and from the numbers you presented, it's most certainly not anywhere close to the equivalent of a 60Traditional, which a 56sloping would be if comparing between their road frames such as a C60. So, no idea what that label is doing on your frame. Picture?
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

biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

Calnago wrote:Yes, I see what you mean about the sloping sizes in their cross frames this year. In fact, even the prestige is sloping and they've done away with the curved shoulder support between the top tube and the seattube. I notice that their sizes have a "c" designation after the number as well, and there is no 56 in the lineup, they go 52c, 55c, 58c. But I would always look at the actual geometry specs rather than a nominal "size' number anyway. And looks like the World Cup is gone from the lineup. Your World Cup does not have sloping geometry, and from the numbers you presented, it's most certainly not anywhere close to the equivalent of a 60Traditional, which a 56sloping would be if comparing between their road frames such as a C60. So, no idea what that label is doing on your frame. Picture?


it's weird.

Image

AJS914
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

It seems to be a 56 per your measurements and the geometry chart. It has a 55cm top tube and steep seat tube angle (74.1 deg) which will make the reach about 1 centimeter longer.

I'm 6 feet tall (183cm) and I'd ride the 56 with probably a 12cm stem. I imagine that you can make it work with maybe a 10 or 11cm stem. You said that you have a 11.5 stem but you probably have a 12. 11.5 would be an odd size.

I have no standover clearance with no shoes (I touch a little) and I feel I have to stretch a little bit for the levers, but this might be fixable with a shorter stem(currently 11.5cm)


The top tube hugging your privates is normal with a traditional frame. :D

AJS914
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

The 56s sticker looks like a vinyl sticker you could just peel off. My C59 doesn't have a size sticker on it anywhere. My guess is that the bike shop or distributor put that sticker on so they can easily tell the bikes apart on the floor without having to break out the measuring tape every time.

biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

AJS914 wrote:It seems to be a 56 per your measurements and the geometry chart. It has a 55cm top tube and steep seat tube angle (74.1 deg) which will make the reach about 1 centimeter longer.

I'm 6 feet tall (183cm) and I'd ride the 56 with probably a 12cm stem. I imagine that you can make it work with maybe a 10 or 11cm stem. You said that you have a 11.5 stem but you probably have a 12. 11.5 would be an odd size.


The top tube hugging your privates is normal with a traditional frame. :D


I've changed the saddle with a Selle SMP TRK and it literally feels like a different bike. I might change the stem as well, which is definitely 115mm - it's inscripted on it.

And regarding clearance, people always told me I need at least 2-3 cm.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I don't know about what you "need"... a lot of different things work, but some clearance is good for sure. I probably have around 2 inches (5-6cm) under both wheels when I lift my 61 Traditional to my crotch in bare feet. I wouldn't want the top tube "hugging my privates" be it a traditional frame or a sloping frame.

Ha... I remember the days when you would walk into a bike shop and the determination of the "right size" basically consisted of standing over the top tube, lifting, and as long as you had some clearance, then you're good to go. Times have changed.
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

AJS914
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

It depends greatly on whether you have a relatively shortish legs, longish legs, etc. Really you size a bike by the reach. Like I said, I'm 3cm taller and I'd ride this 56 with a 12cm stem. It sounds like it's one size too big but it's still rideable.

biker11122
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm

by biker11122

Yeah, I figured it was a size too big, but at least it's not 2 sizes like I initially thought might've been the case.

I guess I'll think about it if I'm gonna keep it or not. I got it for $770 and it's in very good condition and although it's a bit heavy and a bit big, I quite like it :)

Thanks to everyone for the input.
Last edited by biker11122 on Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yeah, it's still good to have a bit of straddle height, for when you come to a stop and possibly need to put both feet down off the saddle. Kind of even more important if you're actually racing cross with uneven terrain and need to put the feet down. But the overall fit is still paramount, regardless of where the top tube is.
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
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post