Conago fit

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by johntp
Colnago fit...not seizure.

I'm looking at upgrading to a Colnago Tecnos and was wondering
if there are peculiarities to Colnago fit that I should keep in mind.

I'm 5' 10 1/2, average build w/ 32" inseam. Yes, I know that fit is an arcane and exact art and no one can make it right over the web. Still, how is one to get in the ball park while looking at bikes for sale out here in the electron flow.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Adios

You know what you've got and the geometry, or at least some measurements. Go to trialtir-usa.com and check the geometry charts. I ride a 58 in a Tecnos and some others,but 57s in other makes. Pay attention to TT length.

Yep, the only real way is to check the geometry dimensions of the bikes once you know your needs. I found the european page for Colnago better than the US version of the page when looking up dimensions in the past a few years ago.

When I was looking for my Colnago C40-HP, I kept reading that these frames are to be sized one down from what you normally ride.

I went through many formulas and found I needed somewhere between a 55 and 56 cm frame (I'm 6 foot with 34.5" inseam) and cranks from 172.5 to 185 mm. The formulas are all over the place. Anyhow, I got a 54 cm frame. A 55 cm might have been better.

As boudreaux mentioned, the TT is very important. To make some sense of any formulas, you should consider how you feel on your present bike(s) and how their geometry compares to the Colnago. If you presently feel too stretched out and your TT is 55 cm, then consider a 53 or 54 cm Colnago. When you compare the geometries, watch the angle of the seat tube as this will directly affect the seat position and add or subtract to the dimension of the TT with respect to how stretched out you are.

Some slight errors in frame size can be overcome with stem and seatpost offsets. However, the difference in height between the saddle and handlebars, is more tricky. Just make sure you don't trim the fork too short: if the frame is a little small, and you need to eleveate the seatpost, you could find yourself with a large difference between the top of the seat and your handlebars. Once all is dialed in, you can always go back and remove spacers from the fork/stem to lower the handlebars.

I bought a 54cm Colnago CT1 frame on E-bay. I was riding a 52 cm frame (c-c) previously but the Colnago 54cm (c-t) is 52cm (c-c) and has a 54cm top tube whereas my old frame had a 56cm top tube which I felt was too long for me, I am 169cm tall with a 81 cm inseam. I have since read on the net that you should go one frame size down on a Colnago and have a longer stem to throw your weight out further over the front wheel, as this is the way they are designed. Now I worry, but there wasn't a 52cm (c-t) frame for the price on e-bay at the time. I haven't ridden on the frame long enough to know whether it's right for me, or my adjustments, stem length, saddle position etc are right. It is such a subjective art with so many variables that it is hard to judge wether advice is bull**** or not, or even whether you are twanging your own wire when you feel something about your position or comfort. I think that only a general feeling gathered over a long period of riding time can be the real guide and the only way to do that is to take a stab based on general rule of thumb and then do a lot of tweaking over a long period of time with long intervals between changes.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mikeo I have since read on the net that you should go one frame size down on a Colnago and have a longer stem to throw your weight out further over the front wheel, as this is the way they are designed.

That is just alot of hooey. Since different make frames are sized c-c,c-t and c to top of extended seattube, nominal size is almost useless, when making generalization like this one.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
That is just alot of hooey. Since different make frames are sized c-c,c-t and c to top of extended seattube, nominal size is almost useless, when making generalization like this one.

This is what I meant when I said that it is difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff (avoiding the censor) in respect to frame sizing and positioning. This guy obviosly believes this to be true http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml.

As I said - I am trying to make my own decision over time.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mikeo
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml.

Bad link. Most morons beleive their drivel to be true. I have 2 conlagos. I also have alot of other bikes. I have all the geometry charts. There is no mystery. There is ALOT of hooey about Colnagos.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Bad link. Most morons beleive their drivel to be true. I have 2 conlagos. I also have alot of other bikes. I have all the geometry charts. There is no mystery. There is ALOT of hooey about Colnagos.

Sorry, Link doesn't work for some reason go to http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews then select 2003 Colnago Dream. I am not disputing you. This is just this guy's opinion. I believe there is alot of hooey out there about everything.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mikeo
I believe there is alot of hooey out there about everything.

Now you've got it. But there is still that wheat and chaff issue. I've also read that BS. My Colnagos are 58, c-t of seat lug and aproximately 56.3 c-c, with a 56.3 TT and 130 stem. Two other bikes are 57 c-c with 56.5 TT and 120 stems which I find ideal. Would I really want to go with a 57 colnago and a 55.5TT , and then have to stick a 140 stem on it?? if 57 c-c is my ideal, would I even consider a size smaller in a 56 Colnago with a 54.8 TT ?? No friggin way! It's just hooey.The bars would be way too low and the stems way too long. I had both a 58 Cdale and Merckx, both of which felt too high as he says, and a 57 Cdale was the fix, but Merckx geoemtry does not work for me. FWIW, a real framebuilder like Ricard Sachs and others can build a totally correct frame from ones measurements.

I have read about the longer stem theory also at this site - http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html ,which calculates bike fit according to various formulae after you input your size data. It also compare some common manufacturers' geometry formula preferences

[Quote]
Merckx's (so-called century geometry) formula is very slack seat tube angles and shorter top tubes. Like "the cannibal" himself the design is for longer legged cyclists with proportionally longer femurs. The design shows a preference (from Merckx's Pavé days) for longer stems to increase stability.
Series Colnago's are designed for very similar cyclists to those of Merckx. They share with Merckx the preference for longer stems. [Unquote]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mikeo
Colnago's are designed for very similar cyclists to those of Merckx. They share with Merckx the preference for longer stems. [Unquote]

There is such a thing as too long a stem regardless of all the theory. Most would _rap a gooseneck at the idea of anything over a 130, except in cases of some extreme body types. Seems like I recall a story about Merckx designing his fit around a 110 stem. All the theory in the world won't get you to correct fit. Find a guy at a shop that knows what he is doing or a shop with somethng like a serotta fit cycle and a guy that knows how to use it and quit guessing.

As I mentioned above, I went through many forumulas, including fit bikes. Most of them were fairly close with respect to the frame, but mostly varied with stem length, saddle height and crank length. This would suggest that you can probably accurately select a frame to within 1 cm (1/2"😉 accuracy on your own. The other parts are readily adjustable latter once you're riding the bike.

What I found with these latter variances is that if I used almost any formula/fitting bike, I might look 'good' on the bike, but my knees hurt like crazy after riding more than 5 miles. I only found comfort on longer rides (30+miles) when I grossly deviated from the experts (again, the fitting bikes included). I ended up using a 100mm stem (recommended was 120 to 130) and a saddle position that was 2" closer to the handlebars than the formulas/fitting bike. (My saddle is as forward as I can shove it.)

Thus, my recommendation to you is to use the formulas to select the frame and get you close. Next, gradually fine tune your position on the bike on your own with short rides, swapping stems and saddle positions and heights systematically. (Graeme Murray's adjustable crank is very helpful and can be set from 150 to 185mm: http://www.murraytourdeforce.co.za/index.html ) No bodies, preferences, flexibility, and conditioning are ever the same, so no cookie cutter method will do more than get you close. And I wouldn't fret too much on being more accurate than 1 cm with the frame itself.

Good luck, Robert

Thanks to all for responses and info. I was guessing it was something like rljones said.

Muchos Gracias

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by johntp
Colnago fit...not seizure.

I'm looking at upgrading to a Colnago Tecnos and was wondering
if there are peculiarities to Colnago fit that I should keep in mind.

I'm 5' 10 1/2, average build w/ 32" inseam. Yes, I know that fit is an arcane and exact art and no one can make it right over the web. Still, how is one to get in the ball park while looking at bikes for sale out here in the electron flow.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Adios

As it was said by others earlier, pay more attention to top tube/stem length as this determines your "reach" to the bars. I've also been a big fan of Nitto Technomic stems because the quill portion of the stem (the part that goes into your headset) is longer than most and it allows a more upright (i.e. comfortable) riding position. Of course there are alot of youngsters out there overdosing on testosterone who are more concerned with looking like Lance than being comfortable. Maybe that's why racers retire in their thirties.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by cmitch46
Of course there are alot of youngsters out there overdosing on testosterone who are more concerned with looking like Lance than being comfortable. Maybe that's why racers retire in their thirties.

Being a 60 + 'youngster', I'm still good with the Eruo Trash look, and with all due respect think the nitto technomics make better boat anchors than stems,but whatever turns your cranks.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Being a 60 + 'youngster', I'm still good with the Eruo Trash look, and with all due respect think the nitto technomics make better boat anchors than stems,but whatever turns your cranks.

I'm 56. I'm glad you're comfortable with the Euro Trash look. Do you race? If not, whats the point of a "aerodynamic tuck"?

I've been eavesdropping...mostly because I am a recent colnago owner. (purchased mine in the past 12mos) I have a long femur, was initially measured for a 48cm frame but am most comfortable on a 49cm frame-it's the first time I had a stem longer than 80 on my bike. I am also a woman so I guess that factors in (longer legs, shorter torso). In the past I rode 50cm bikes to get the seat angle I need-even now my seat is pushed back as far as it will go.
gentlemen-entertain my minor panic:
with all that said-should I be concerned about the fit?
**What other "hooey" is out there that I should ignore?
What should I "watch for" when I ride?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by cmitch46
I'm 56. I'm glad you're comfortable with the Euro Trash look. Do you race? If not, whats the point of a "aerodynamic tuck"?

Just because I don't race does not mean I don't go fast.The 'upright lads' are always just dead meat.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by stella
I've been eavesdropping...mostly because I am a recent colnago owner. (purchased mine in the past 12mos) I have a long femur, was initially measured for a 48cm frame but am most comfortable on a 49cm frame-it's the first time I had a stem longer than 80 on my bike. I am also a woman so I guess that factors in (longer legs, shorter torso). In the past I rode 50cm bikes to get the seat angle I need-even now my seat is pushed back as far as it will go.
gentlemen-entertain my minor panic:
with all that said-should I be concerned about the fit?
**What other "hooey" is out there that I should ignore?
What should I "watch for" when I ride?

Nominal frame size is relativley meaningless, as long as you have adequate standover. TT length and seat angle are more important. If you don't have a seatpost with setback,that may help with getting KOP position. It's also possible the seat angle on the small colnagos is too steep for for you. You can compare geometry of colnagos at www.trialtir-usa.com with www.lemondbikes.com for the differences in seat angle and TT lengths in smaller sizes. Geometry can make a big difference for some people, and Lemond just does not work for me. It's impossible to 'guess' indivudal fit from a distance, but assuming the underlying size and geometry are close to what you need, adjustmenst can be made to saddle position,stem length and bar height,within reason. The place you bought it from may be the best bet in helping sort it out,assuming they know what they are doing. I ride a variety of sizes and slightly different geometries(but bassically similar),but even so every one is different and the sorting out process to get everything just right is often time consuming, and involves all the variables of saddle,seatpost,bar,stem,lever position on bars and bar height. A good fitter can certainly help with the process.