This post has twp parts.

#1- I need some help here. My current bike is a size 58 and has a configuration of c-t 58 and t-t of 57.2 I am using a 110 stem and my seat almost all of the way back. My optimal saddle height is 74.5 which only gives me about 13cm of seat post exposure. This bike is set up very comfortable for me. I have been fit by two different people and this appears to be the correct size.
However, I am looking at getting a new C-50. Colnago’s sizing that fits the closest is a 59. C-t =59 and t-t is a 56.9. (it seems this appears to be the most important) I went to a dealer and they set up the serrota fit bike and had it all dialed in to the 59 which was a good fit but then I was told I could also go with a 58 and get a 120 stem. This would add additional seat post exposure. So I just was wondering what all of you thought. I am 6’0 with an inseam of 33 but do have shorter arms.

#2 I am debating about a new 2004 C-50 with the color PR4 (which I really like) and can get the frame and fork for about 3000.00 or a 2005 or ’06 for 3600.00. What are the major differences between the two years. And would I really notice them. Thanks. By the way I really enjoyed all of the pictures of your bikes.

How tall are you?

Your saddle height is similar to mine, assuming it's center of the BB to the top of your saddle measure along the seat tube.

I'm a little over 5'11" and ride a 57cm C-50. Colnagos are designed to be used with 120-130 stems due to the slack head tube angles. It's tough coming from a bike with the 73/73 seat tube and head tube angles to a colnago. The seat tube is fairly aggressive on a C-50 requiring a setback post and the longer stem to get your weight properly over the front end as well.

Another major consideration is the headtube length. Try to figure out your saddle to bar drop. That should also be a major factor in deciding between sizes. I could have ridden a 56 but would need about 1.5-2cm of spacers. On my 57 I have 1cm. BTW - I currently run with about 5.5cm of drop.

Hope this helps.

How tall are you?

Your saddle height is similar to mine, assuming it's center of the BB to the top of your saddle measure along the seat tube.

I'm a little over 5'11" and ride a 57cm C-50. Colnagos are designed to be used with 120-130 stems due to the slack head tube angles. It's tough coming from a bike with the 73/73 seat tube and head tube angles to a colnago. The seat tube is fairly aggressive on a C-50 requiring a setback post and the longer stem to get your weight properly over the front end as well.

Another major consideration is the headtube length. Try to figure out your saddle to bar drop. That should also be a major factor in deciding between sizes. I could have ridden a 56 but would need about 1.5-2cm of spacers. On my 57 I have 1cm. BTW - I currently run with about 5.5cm of drop.

Hope this helps.

I have 2 questions:
what do you mean the seat tube is "aggressive?", requiring setback post?
do you mean laid back?
Also what is connection between laid back head tube angle and long stem?
why is long stem necessary?

I have 2 questions:
what do you mean the seat tube is "aggressive?", requiring setback post?
do you mean laid back?
Also what is connection between laid back head tube angle and long stem?
why is long stem necessary?

I can't speak for the agressive seat tube, but I can say that Colnago designs his bikes for performance. The set-back post and the longer stem is to distribute your weight over the wheels... much like a Ferrari. This is what makes them handle so well, especially at speed.
Sorry, I know this isn't very technical. It the best I can do for typing short answers in between work ;)

This post has twp parts.

#1- I need some help here. My current bike is a size 58 and has a configuration of c-t 58 and t-t of 57.2 I am using a 110 stem and my seat almost all of the way back. My optimal saddle height is 74.5 which only gives me about 13cm of seat post exposure. This bike is set up very comfortable for me. I have been fit by two different people and this appears to be the correct size.
However, I am looking at getting a new C-50. Colnago’s sizing that fits the closest is a 59. C-t =59 and t-t is a 56.9. (it seems this appears to be the most important) I went to a dealer and they set up the serrota fit bike and had it all dialed in to the 59 which was a good fit but then I was told I could also go with a 58 and get a 120 stem. This would add additional seat post exposure. So I just was wondering what all of you thought. I am 6’0 with an inseam of 33 but do have shorter arms.

#2 I am debating about a new 2004 C-50 with the color PR4 (which I really like) and can get the frame and fork for about 3000.00 or a 2005 or ’06 for 3600.00. What are the major differences between the two years. And would I really notice them. Thanks. By the way I really enjoyed all of the pictures of your bikes.


As far as sizing goes... follow this link (http://www.wrenchscience.com/WS1/Secure/Fitting/Height.asp)

Thanks for the feedback and I ran the numbers of this and Competitive cycles. However I guess I didn't get my question stated clear enough. How much seat post exposed is acceptable as far as looks go? After being fit professional I can either be on a 58 or a 59. With the 59 I just have less seat post exposed and a shorter stem.

#2 what are the differences form the '04 to '05/06 c-50's. Would it be worth it to pay the extra 550 for a '05/06? Thanks again for the input.

I can't speak for the agressive seat tube, but I can say that Colnago designs his bikes for performance. The set-back post and the longer stem is to distribute your weight over the wheels... much like a Ferrari. This is what makes them handle so well, especially at speed.
Sorry, I know this isn't very technical. It the best I can do for typing short answers in between work ;)

Nonsense, total BS.

A setback seatpost combined with a steep seatube angle will no more distrubute your weight over a rear wheel than a non setback seatpost will when combined with a slacker angled seatube. The seatube angle or use of a setback post by themselves have zilch, I repeat ZILCH to do with where your saddle weight ends up relative to the center of the rear wheel.

Regardless of what the seatube angle is, your saddle should be setup to be a given height and a given HORIZONTAL SETBACK FROM THE CENTER OF THE BOTTOM BRACKET assuming you have set it up correctly, PERIOD! How far back your saddle ends up relative to your rear wheel center is 100% a function of chainstay length and bottom bracket drop, because these two things combined determine precisely how much horizontal setback the rear dropout has from the center of the frames bottom bracket - Pythagoreans Theorem, this determines exactly where the rear wheel is relative to the bottom bracket in the horizontal axis, and exactly where it should end up relative to your setup saddle on the horizontal axis! Whether your seatube angle is 75 degrees or 70 degrees or whatever should make no difference whatsoever as to where your saddle weight relative to the rear wheel center ends up assuming you have set up your saddle properly because your saddle should always have the exact same setback from the center of the bottom bracket. Chainstay length is what primarily determines how much of the rear wheel is covered by a given riders saddle once it is setup properly. Colnago's design does not inherently put the riders weight anymore over the center of the rear wheel than any other manufacturers frame with the same chainstay length and bottom bracket drop for a given size.

Ditto for the front wheel. There is nothing inherent in Colnagos slack headtube angles that puts more of your weight over the front wheel than any other manufacturers frame will. Total BS claim, 100% untrue!

A slacker headtube angle by design with a given rake fork will by Pythags Theorem move the front wheel farther forward relative to the headtube junction on the horizontal axis! This is junior HS geometry! To compensate for this relatively "father forward horizontal positioned front wheel" Colnago suggests you use a longer stem to get more of your weight over the front wheel, HOWEVER, in the end you do not end up with your weight any more over the front wheel in this paradigm than you do with another makers frame which has a steeper headtube angle (assuming same rake fork) on which you have used a slightly shorter stem because in that 2nd model the front wheels center is more tucked under the headtube junction to begin with - closer to the headtube junction on the horizontal axis - so you do not need as long a stem to cover the same amount of front wheel as in the first model with the slacker headtube angle.

The only way you can realistically spread your weight out more over the front and rear wheel centers of a bike than what you normally ride is if you ride a frame with a smaller effective toptube length than what you normally run, and you also consciously choose to change your saddle setback relative to the bottom bracket father back than what you would normally ride (assuming chainstay lengths are unchanged). This change in saddle position would effectively move your saddle father back, more centered over the rear wheel, and with the shorter effective toptube you could now perhaps also run a longer stem and cover more of the front wheel with your weight as well to acheive your desired reach to bars. But again, in this scenario, the key is you have basically changed your saddles horizontal riding position relative to the BB, it has nothing inherent to do with the frame designers frame geometry specific to Colnago.

Now, if you could show me that Colnago tends to design frames with shorter chainstays than other comparable frames for a given size from other builders then yes, your saddles position when properly setup would end up farther back (more centered) over the rear wheel - its position relative to the bototm bracket would be unchanged on the horizontal axis. If he builds "taller" frames than other builders this would allow you to run a shorter effective toptube frame while acheiveing desired saddel to bar drop and because of this shorter effective toptube length you could use a longer stem and cover more of the front wheel with your weight to acheive your desired reach to bar. These design parameters do make sense as far as putting more of a riders weight over the centers of the front and rear wheels, the stuff about seatube and headtube angles causing more wheel coverage with a riders weight is nonsense.

Know a lot about bikes, But Are my original two q's that confusing? #1 It seems I can fit pretty close on a 59 or a 58 what would be acceptable in asthetic(sp) appearance of seat post exposure? ( simply and asthetic Q)
#2 Does anyone know the difference between the '04 and '05/06 C-50's.
Thanks If you know or can answer these Q's. I am sure you all know a lot more(at least more than me) and can ramble about other stuff but really this is all I am interested in. Thanks again.

As far as I know there were no changes to the traditional C50 geometry between last year and this year. If there was, somone else should chime in.

As far as aesthetics, how can anyone in here tell you what would look better? It would be like asking someone to pick your house color for you because they think it looks better and is better suited for you. For 2006 the c-c difference in seatube length for a C50 comparing a 59 versus a 58 is 1 whole wopping centimeter, 1 centimeter difference! Do you really think a single centimeter difference in seatube length is going to result in such a difference in aesthetics as far as exposed seatpost that anyone will notice? Sorry for sounding harsh, but you should be picking the frame based upon which geometry will work best for you, not which you think the exposed seatpost will look better with and we're talking about 1 centimeter difference, approximately 2/5th's of an inch.

There's my on topic response. :-)

I understand just looking for some insight. Along those lines of reason The t-t difference from a 58 to a 59 is a whopping 1/2 cm even less so.......but thanks for the imput

#2 what are the differences form the '04 to '05/06 c-50's. Would it be worth it to pay the extra 550 for a '05/06? Thanks again for the input. jnwarner0,

The ushering in of the 2005 model year was the dawn of a new age...:( too much?

Beginning with the 2005's you'll see 'HM' on the chainstays (instead of HP). You might guess that the initials stand for 'High Modulous', said to be an improved carbon material over that used in the 2004. Colnago says that is allows them to use less material, reducing the weight of the frame, while yielding the same performance strengths.

The other difference that I know of beginning with the 2005's is the outer skin. The C50 sports the new 'Twill' weave. If my recollection is correct, the twill while still a woven grid pattern is oriented on a diagonal and the little squares might be a little bit bigger. I've never seen it, but it is supposed to be nice looking.

I encourage you to look at this link that gives more information. (http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1249) Watch out, if you have never visited the Competitive Cyclist site, it's lust factor rating is high and may lead to sleep deprivation.

There may be differences between the 05's and 06's, but I am not aware of any. I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Tshirt

Yeah, the carbon fibre is a little different but overall the weights are comparable - if you want the lightest bike out there you shouldn't be looking at a Colnago to begin with. The main difference to me is the paint. I have an '04 PR4 that I personally think is a knock-out with the hand airbrushed paint job :cool: . The '05 on the other hand is pretty generic and un-Colnago looking - IMO :o. I'm not an expert on fit but I would get the size that has you using a 120ish stem (what I've always read about Colnago's and it works for me). I don't think you're going to notice the difference in exposed seatpost between the two sizes, too small of a difference. Factor in the cheaper cost of the '04........either way I think you're going to be very stoked. :D

That is the exact frame I have been looking at Pr4 ''04. nice Price discount but new. Glad you like it. What did you build it up with? Also thanks to T-shirt also waht I was looking for. oou guys have all been very helpful.

I originaly built it up with DA 10 and Topolino wheels because that is what I had from my previous bike. I've since switched over to Campy Record with Campy Carbon cranks. I considered having the Topolino's redished and converted to Campy but got a screeming deal on some Campy Neutron Carbon wheels so I went that direction - not quite as comfy as the Topolino's but they blend with the bike a little better. I also just put a Cinelli Ram on it. Very nice and comfortable but a complete pain in the !@# to install. Enjoy building and riding your new bike, Lance.

You are approaching this the wrong way, see post by ALTIDUDE below, who happens to be riight, and then make sure to stick to center-to-center measurements. Center-to-top measurements from one bike manufacturer to another are not consistent as differences in seat collar heights always mix things up. If you want to replicate the sizing on your old frame simply be sure to follow your old c-to-c measurements. As far as all the other bologny you hear about radical differences in Colnago frame geometry, it is false. In fact Colnago follows a VERY traditional frame design. Their paint jobs might be nice and different but the frame design is age old traditional.
EM