It's obvious that C50 is the dream ride for many folks, but I just read that the C50 is actually 55% heavier than the Scott CR1. Assuming the Scott is a solid well made frame (any reason to believe otherwise?), then isn't Ernesto doing something wrong here if the C50 is that much heavier than a competitor's product but costs $1000 more?

No opinion on which is better, but the Scott CR1 is the lightest frame in production. Asian produced compact frame. Colnago C50 on the other hand is Italian made in the same factory that makes the CF monocoque for Ferrari F1. Colnago C50 comes in a full range of sizes plus has the option of custom geometry.

A Ferrari F360 Modena cost 200,000 while a similarly fast turbo-charged Toyota Supra cost only 70,000 along with extensive modifcation? Because they are just different. You pay Ernesto's people to make , rather than mass-produce, a frame for you. Weight is only one aspect to judge a bike, and IMHO the importance aspect is sometimes over-exaggerated.

Don't know how you came up with that 55% number. If this manufacturer's numbers are like most, the frame will weigh more than the advertised 880 grams.

If you compare frames alone, the advertised weight of the Scott is certainly less, but nowhere near 55%. Perhaps as much as 27% (1- (880/1200) = .27).

You're still talking about 300 grams or 2/3 of a pound, if all other parts are equal.

You're also assuming that the frame is adequately stiff and durable. There have been many ultralight frames made that are neither adequately stiff or durable.

At least the CR1 comes in six sizes. Better than 3, but nothing compared to Colnago's size range.

The Colnago paint job alone is worth hundreds more than the decals on the CR1.

I doubt that Ernesto is worried about declining sales due to competition from the CR1.

hmmm,
elviento stated the C50 was 55% more than the scott. So the comparison was referenced to the scott.
Therefore 1200/880 = 1.36 or 36% more

Your 27% more is based on the C50 as reference ie. 880/1200 = 0.73 or the Scott is 27% less than the C50.

Interesting analogy between the Ferrari and the Toyota. Some years back Toyota introduced a dual turbo Supra. Claimed 0-60 in 4.3 seconds. I test drove that car with full intentions of buying it on the spot. A few minutes in the cockpit quickly revealed that this Supra was no Ferrari. I have driven a quite a few Ferraris, too. No resemblence between the two cars. In the end, I stuck with the tried and true BMW. Not the fastest, not the flashiest, but the best behaved auto on the strasse.

If a Ferrari gets scratched, my heart skips a beat. If a Supra gets scratched, no big deal. If a BMW gets scratched, 5 minutes with some Zymol will having it looking good as new.

A Ferrari F360 Modena cost 200,000 while a similarly fast turbo-charged Toyota Supra cost only 70,000 along with extensive modifcation? Because they are just different. You pay Ernesto's people to make , rather than mass-produce, a frame for you. Weight is only one aspect to judge a bike, and IMHO the importance aspect is sometimes over-exaggerated.

Yes but Ferraris are made in Maranello and not in the far east then painted in Italy and advertised as made in Italy. C40s/C50s are not hand made. Don't fall for the marketing hype.

As a Ferrari owner, I totally appreciate the Ferrari/Toyota analogy but don't mix apples and oranges. I don't consider Colnago the Ferrari of bikes. Not even close. The Ferrari of the bike world isn't even made in Italy, imho.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=roadframes&sortby=real

According to the "real weight" column, the Scott is 846.6 g and the C50 in the same size is 1410g. That's more than a pound difference. It's actually be more than 55%. As the other gentleman pointed out, the percentage should be based on Scott's weight.

Again, all the answers here are about rhetoric and not about substance. If you tell me the paint job or just brand name or some other intangible quality makes the C50 worth the price, that's fine. In fact the C50 is much prettier than the Scott.

But my question really is: if it's technically feasible to build a solid carbon frame at 846.6g, why can't Ernesto also make one at a comparable weight, say 1000g? To fat slow yuppies like me, it probably makes little difference (actually a Tiagra equiped $600 alu bike will serve me just fine). But since Colnago prides itself as a racing bike master and C50 being the flagship, I'd expect a bit more.

I was actually considering shellilng out $3K+ on a C50 but I might just bite the bullet and get a VXRS.

But I have ridden a few bikes, and I want to limit the question to the weight issue alone.

A proper analogy would be: with a similarly powerful engine, if the Ferrari is 40% heavier than the Supra (assuming the Supra is a well build car), wouldn't you at least wonder why?

But I have ridden a few bikes, and I want to limit the question to the weight issue alone.

A proper analogy would be: with a similarly powerful engine, if the Ferrari is 40% heavier than the Supra (assuming the Supra is a well build car), wouldn't you at least wonder why?


I think that the point was more along the lines of, "number aren't everything and panache is a big factor." However, I think that Colnagos are crap. As I said in my other post here, I would not copare Colnago to Ferrari. I had a team issue C40 that I hated. They're poorly constructed, have a poor ride quality, and they're overpriced. However, they are beautiful and for whatever reason, people think that they're great. Sometimes that's all people want.

Along the Ferrari weight issue, Ferrari's F1 race engine is ~120# and puts out nearly 900 HP. Mercedes F1 race engine is ~90# and puts out nearly 900 HP. The difference is in the use of composite materials during construction. Mercedes utilizes CF push rods as one example. Kimi Raikenen (McLearn/Mercedes) has finished 3 races vs. Micheal Schumacher (Ferrari) who has finished every race.

The C50 utilizes a combination of "carbon tubings to carbon lugs ... head lug is now oversize,... the rear dropouts, anodized, with a new way of connection to the carbon chainstays. The dropouts have the classic internal pivot that penetrates the tube, and an external “spoon” that wraps the same tube. The bottom bracket shell is made of titanium, and the front derailleur hanger is glued and riveted." From the Colnago Web Site. Lugged frames, while adding weight, are relatively easy to repair. A broken tube does not mean the frame is ruined.

Scott utilizes Monocoque construction. A cracked tube means the frame is scrap.

PS. My main auto today is a Cooper S. BMWs collect dust. Like a $600 alu/Tiagra the Mini serves my day to day travel requirements best.

My understanding is that the C50 is Ernesto's finally understanding that he makes most of his money selling to oldr, and unfortunately, heavier riders, who need a beefier frame. It is a light frame by most standards, but definitely not a weight weenie frame. I have one and love it, but I ride at 190lbs. My lighter friends complain that it is too stiff for their liking.

The c-50 is not all about weight. If you have ridden one it feels great. I have also ridden the Scott and it is VERY light. It rides stiff and brittle in my opinion. The C-50 feels very substantial. The feeling of the Scott is more like an Orca - not what most people are expecting with carbon. If you want to try the ultimate ride (imho) try a Parlee. Looks like a c-50, but a carbon to carbon bond (no glue joint) with hand laid carbon lugs and custom carbon tubing selected for rider weight and performance characteristics. Bob Parlee makes some amazing bikes and has the capability to make a lighter less generic (one frame for all riders) frames than any other manufacture out there. A little bit of a wait, but well worth it. I had a chance to hold the bike that Bob built for Tyler in the 2002 season (the bike he rode in the Giro and Tour that said Look on the downtube). That bike was crashed at over 50mph and the clear coat is chipped. VERY light but strong. If any of you are ever in Michigan, look me up and I will put you on one for a test ride. Everyone is always impressed to say the least!

Chad Johnston

The c-50 is not all about weight. If you have ridden one it feels great. I have also ridden the Scott and it is VERY light. It rides stiff and brittle in my opinion. The C-50 feels very substantial. The feeling of the Scott is more like an Orca - not what most people are expecting with carbon. If you want to try the ultimate ride (imho) try a Parlee. Looks like a c-50, but a carbon to carbon bond (no glue joint) with hand laid carbon lugs and custom carbon tubing selected for rider weight and performance characteristics. Bob Parlee makes some amazing bikes and has the capability to make a lighter less generic (one frame for all riders) frames than any other manufacture out there. A little bit of a wait, but well worth it. I had a chance to hold the bike that Bob built for Tyler in the 2002 season (the bike he rode in the Giro and Tour that said Look on the downtube). That bike was crashed at over 50mph and the clear coat is chipped. VERY light but strong. If any of you are ever in Michigan, look me up and I will put you on one for a test ride. Everyone is always impressed to say the least!

Chad Johnston


Absolutely agree 100%. In fact, the Ferrari of bikes that I was alluding to earlier is a Parlee. I have over 34,000 miles on one and still looks brand new.

Along the Ferrari weight issue, Ferrari's F1 race engine is ~120# and puts out nearly 900 HP. Mercedes F1 race engine is ~90# and puts out nearly 900 HP. The difference is in the use of composite materials during construction. Mercedes utilizes CF push rods as one example. Kimi Raikenen (McLearn/Mercedes) has finished 3 races vs. Micheal Schumacher (Ferrari) who has finished every race.

The C50 utilizes a combination of "carbon tubings to carbon lugs ... head lug is now oversize,... the rear dropouts, anodized, with a new way of connection to the carbon chainstays. The dropouts have the classic internal pivot that penetrates the tube, and an external �spoon� that wraps the same tube. The bottom bracket shell is made of titanium, and the front derailleur hanger is glued and riveted." From the Colnago Web Site. Lugged frames, while adding weight, are relatively easy to repair. A broken tube does not mean the frame is ruined.

Scott utilizes Monocoque construction. A cracked tube means the frame is scrap.

PS. My main auto today is a Cooper S. BMWs collect dust. Like a $600 alu/Tiagra the Mini serves my day to day travel requirements best.

The Scott does not use a Monocoque frame. It is percision mitre cut and hand wrapped. That is one of the things that make it unique.

Chad

A local shop that I do a lot of business with hada demo in my size. The Scott Rep. is trying to have the bike shop sell the line. To create some hype and to see what the riders think, he dropped off an XL CR1 Team issue. DA10, SSL's, Ritchey components, Pro Race tires. Everyting just as you see on the website. My first impression is that it is extremely light. I was struck by the fact that I can actually squeeze the TT and to a lesser extent the Down Tube with my index finger and thumb and make an indentation. Makes me wonder about durability. Not sure what the warranty is. However, the head mechanic told me that it performed very well in fatique tests. I rode it briefly last night for about 20 minutes and will take it out for a few hours on Sunday. The bike seemed very stiff and I am 6'-2", 184. Very good acceleration, looking forward to see how it climbs and descends. It feels a little quicker than the Madone. It is more on par than with the 6/13. I have ridden a C-50 recently and it feels just "thick" compared to the others I have mentioned. Although, I really couldn't see any difference in ride quality between my old 5200 and a C-40 BStay. Both of those were much more comfortable than the Madone or even a 5900. I will be able to accurately compare the comfort of the CR1to the rest of the bikes on Sunday.

I owned two C-40's. Paid $2400 for the first and $2600 for the second. Darn nice rides. Now that the C-50 is over $3600, it's too rich for me.

After moving to the mountains, I pay a lot more attention to steering geometry for the best performance on technical descents.

I now own two LOOK frames. Paid $1650 for the 2004 KG461 and $1300 for a new 2003 KG381. Both frames together cost less than a C-50. I prefer the LOOK's steering to the Colnago's. The Colnagos just had more steering trail than I like.

At my weight of 133-136, I don't worry much about 1 pound of frame weight.

Along the Ferrari weight issue, Ferrari's F1 race engine is ~120# and puts out nearly 900 HP. Mercedes F1 race engine is ~90# and puts out nearly 900 HP. The difference is in the use of composite materials during construction. Mercedes utilizes CF push rods as one example. Kimi Raikenen (McLearn/Mercedes) has finished 3 races vs. Micheal Schumacher (Ferrari) who has finished every race.



well, critically speaking, Michael did NOT finish the race at Monaco (incident with JPM in the tunnel). This had noting to do with engine life though. :)

Had you used Barrichello in your argument......

Still Ferrari has gone over two full seasons without an engine related failure. Point taken.

Sorry for the detour - back to the topic at hand.....

Ryan
/weenie mode off...