's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Doug's C-40??(19 posts)

Doug's C-40??JBergland
Apr 3, 2001 7:04 AM
First look I thought this was Doug's bike... posting under a different name. Guess not. Where is that pic Doug??:)
no timeDog
Apr 3, 2001 7:15 AM
Just haven't had time to take pix, yet.

But, that's pretty much my bike, but with a black seat, no stickers on the Ksyriums, and with some aerobars on it right now.

not even for measurements?ET
Apr 3, 2001 8:05 AM
Still waiting for those: seat tube c-t of top tube; seat tube c-t of seat tube; seat tube c-t of clamp; seat tube c-c; BBH; center of BB straight up to top of top tube.

If that's too much, then just c-t of top tube and BBH.
what's wrong with importer or LBS #s?nm
Apr 3, 2001 8:11 AM
or do you plan on stealing Slaon's ride?
they're notoriously wrong or unclearET
Apr 3, 2001 8:21 AM
I'd say more than 50% of the published standovers are simply wrong. Then there's the c-t problem. Sure, its c-t, but c-t of what? top tube? seat tube? lug? clamp? decal? flower design?

I'd never trust LBS to get the right numbers; they have little incentive and are not as keen to measure accurately.

I simply want to add to my knowledge base exactly how Colnago measures. No, I don't plan on stealing Sloan's ride; wouldn't be caught dead on a bike looking like that. :-)
I'll measure mine for youpmf
Apr 3, 2001 8:36 AM
I've got the same bike Sloan does (different paint though).

Its never clear to me exactly how you measure a top tube. Is it inside or outside length? My bike is a 56 cm and the inside length is 54.8, just like they say its supposed to be. It seems like the more consistent way to do it would to measure halfway from the seat tube to halfway to the head tube. The lugs and tubes on this bike are thick. If it were made of thinner steel tubes, but had the same geometry, I'd guess the top tube would measure longer inside to inside.

Let me know EXACTLY how you'd measure it and I'll do it sometime this week.

I'm interested in this too. There are so many "geometry experts" out there who claim Colnagos won't fit them, or the vast majority of riders if you listen to them. Seems unlikely that this company would survive so long and be so successful making bikes with wierdo geometry. I have two other 56 cm bikes. All three of them have 11 cm stems and they all fit fine. If I were to go with a shorter stem on any of them, it'd probably be the C-40.
thanks; here's howET
Apr 3, 2001 10:46 AM
You don't really have to do the top tube; I've found them always to be accurate. Yes, they measure center to center through the center.

Measure the seat tube from center of BB to where (inside) center of top tube intersects center of seat tube, as measured along the (inside) center of seat tube (I know you can't go inside, but it will be fine outside as well). So it's just center of everything. This is c-c. Also measure from center of BB to top of top tube where it intersects the seat tube, again measured along the center line. This one is tricky, because it's hard to see exactly where seat tube ends and top tube beins, all while it's sloping away, but do your best. Also measure to top of whatever makes it come out to match the published c-t, so we know how they are sizoing and how much more it is than the standard c-t of top tube. Also measure BBH (center of BB to floor), as well as center of BB straight up to top of top tube (and as a check, standover, which should be the sum of the two). Thanks.

BTW, do you post under a diferent alias on Velonews? I might have been the one (also posting under a different alias) asking how you could take a longer stem on the Colnago than on the others when the effective top tube would probably be shorter.

RE: what percentage of the population can ride Colnagos, I think it depends on the size. At the lower sizes, the seat tube angles are rather steep, so many will have to push their seats back, effectively lengthening the top tube, so it's longer for those needing slacker angles, but short by comparison for those needing steep angles. At the larger sizes, the angle comes down somewhat and the top tube is still short, so it then is short by most people's standards.
Yep, Unclesampmf
Apr 3, 2001 11:13 AM
I don't know why I chose that handle except that I work for the US Govt. Once you choose, you're stuck on the Velonews board. Personally I like that though. No one can post anonymously.

I tell you, the bike feels the same as my LS Ultimate or my Kestrel 200. I can't explain it. The seat is not pushed back. In fact, I feel more stretched out on the C-40 than I do on the Kestrel. I bet Sloan will tell you the same thing.
Awright ET, ya dweeb, here's what I got for measurementspmf
Apr 3, 2001 5:07 PM
My wife is out with friends tonight, so I figured I should do it now so she won't find out what a dork I am. She'd tease me for weeks if she found out I measured my bikes and then scurried up to the PC to post the results. I gotta admit, I feel a bit silly too.

I measured the C-40 and my 1999 LS Ultimate (56 cm frame). I took 2 measurements and averaged them. This is far from an exact science due to judging just were the center of the tubes really are. The first number is C-40, the second LS

Stand-over: 80.7 --- 80.0 (note LS claims SO=80.7 on this bike)
top of TT to floor)

Stand-over: 77.5 --- 76.2
bottom of TT to floor)

Seat tube (C-C) 55.6 --- 54.6

Top tube (inside) 50.6 --- 51.1

Top tube (C-C) 55.9 --- 56.1 (LS claims this is 56.0)

BB to TT (C-C) 52.5 --- 52.1

Some general observations on the bikes:
1. LS stem (TTT Forgie) has more rise than the C-40 stem (ITM millenium). They are both the same length.
2. When I line the bikes up side by side with the rear wheels touching the wall, the LS is slightly longer (maybe 1-1.5 cm).
3. LS saddle is a tad further back and a tad higher

I'm sure you and others will analyze these numbers and declare that no normal sized human being can ride the C-40. All I can say is that it fits me fine and despite its shorter TT, I still feel a bit more stretched out than I do on the LS. Perhaps the angles and stem make up for this. I was measured for the bike in an Italian shop where members of Mapeii also go (there were signed posters from Bettini there (or however his name is spelled)). Same place that Andy Hampsten (the tour guide) uses and lives near. My Italian is not very good, but I had faith in the guy running the shop. You can check them out on the net ( Pretty much your traditional mom and pop (and son and grandson) shop.

I'm happy with the bike. Its pure indulgence. Not something I really need, but something that's fun to have. There's nothing magical about it, you still have to pedal it. Bikes costing half as much are darn near as nice. I can't afford a Ferrari, a 4000 sf house or a trophy wife, but I was able to swing this.

Maybe you can get Sloan to measure his too (I secretly suspect that he does have the Ferrari, 4000 sf house and trophy wife ... the dog).

Personally, I don't weigh components and before this, have never measured a bike frame. I've owned a fair number of nice bikes and they've all fit me fine. Guess I'm just an off-the-shelf kinds guy. Personally, one cm here or there isn't that big of a deal in my opinion.

Not being an engineer (just a dumb economist), I'd be interested to hear your conclusions.
Apr 4, 2001 6:42 AM
I really appreciate your taking the time to measure things.

I am not saying that no normal human being can ride a C-40; I am saying your measurements must be off! (Note: this does not detract from my appreciation.)

It looks like you didn't measure seat tube c-t of top tube as asked, which would've helped. But here's the deal:

You got a C-40 standover of 80.7. But 80.7 - 52.5 = 28.2, the highest BBH in the world, and much higher than Colnago's posted 26.5 for all sizes. To look at it another way, using the 52.5 and Colnago's posted STA of 73 degs, 52 mins, gives a ST c-ttt of 54.65, less than the c-c measurement, which is impossible! Similarly, with LS, 80 – 52.1 = 27.9, much higher than the 26.6 it's supposed to be. Using LS's 80.7 makes the 52.1 even worse. I could go on, but I won't. To be honest, the first time I measured I wasn't that close either. For example, with standover, one has a tendency to come out short because they don't get up to the very top of the cylindrical top tube.

Is that 56 LS a custom since it's an even size? How much extra did custom cost, and can you change the STA? Also, what gov't agency do you work for? MD or DC?

It looks like some of this would need to be re-measured to be of use. Um, can I ask when is the next girls' night out? Thanks, though!
Apr 4, 2001 8:06 AM
The C-40 was supposedly custom built. I'm not sure whether I believe it since custom may mean "you get the paint job you want". I was led to believe, through one of the guides translating, that it would be custom built (as was my wife's). The measurements he took were extensive.

I included the LS Ultimate measurements as a point of reference on how good, or bad I am at measuring bikes. It is a stock 56 cm frame. The Ultimate came in one cm increments in 1999, and I believe it still does. The 2000/2001 geometry is the same. Only exception is that the 1999 had a bent seat tube which was UCI illegal in 2000. The 2000+ frames have a straight seat tube. So when I race in Europe, I have to take a different bike. Frame + Look HSC2 fork was $1600 -- what a bargain.

As far as finding the center of the BB, its not easy. I guessed it at the center of the crank, but perhaps that is not right. It would be vastly easier to do this to an unbuilt frame.

Perhaps you could calculate constants of error based on my and published LS Ultimate geometry and then apply them to my Colnago measurements. I did each bike the same way (using a piece of string, measuring it and then converting inches to cm). The errors should be approximately equal in proportion.

I work in downtown DC near Dupont Circle for a highly secretive govt agency.
They have little incentive?TJeanloz
Apr 3, 2001 9:25 AM
It would seem to me that the LBS has the most incentive in getting the numbers right. Who would want to sell a bike that they weren't sure was going to fit, and then not have a satisfied customer? Unless of course, you have developed a reputation for pumping your LBS for information, and then buying your bike from the cheapest online, offshore seller. In which case you're right; they have no incentive to give you the right information and even a mild disincentive to do so.
Support you Local LBS? ...Breck
Apr 3, 2001 10:44 AM
My only real complaint, if there is one, is the high turn-over rate of so called LBS personnel, management, etc. If you have lived in an area long enuff you will see your favorite sales person come and go. The new guy/ gal won't tell you where they went, and does not know you from Adam. Same with the new store manager ... "'we don't know and can not give out personnel info", etc., is their stock reply. The original Schwinn store in Lake Forest, Ca. has changed hands numerous times since 1976; Bicycles Etc. with Hank the mgr. being it's best re-incarnation. Hank then started EdgeCycles for a more tri-athlete specialty store in Laguna Hills, and Bikes, Etc. is a "new" store with new management, sales-persons, stock, etc., now in that specific location.

Otherwise I prefer to deal with a live person and see first hand the goodies. If they treat me right with no BS, will pay a bit more for my habit. Same with any other consumer purchase ... prefer to deal "face-to-face" when practical.

You are right about the "pumping". My buddy John Loeschhorn started the first Running Store in Costa Mesa, Calif. back in 1972. He branched out to the Mission Viejo, Calif. (where the 1984 Bike Oly's road race was held) and was doing OK till Chick's went in across the Fwy. in 1978. Then "they", the running public, would pump John's sales-person for the best shoe ($45 items in those days), get fitted, etc., then go across the Fwy. and save a two dollars.

I meant except for you, of course :-)ET
Apr 3, 2001 11:09 AM
I disagree. First of all, even the serious bike shops want to clear inventory. You walk in wanting a size 57 and they very often will try to sell you the 55 simply because they have that in house. You could even argue that it's not a terrible fit, just not the best one. And you could argue that no serious LBS would do that, and as a general rule, I would disagree. Sorry; it's based on first- and secondhand experience.

Second, most of them are not as clued in as to the niceties of frame sizing and angles. How many really concentrate on the fact that c-t can mean a million things? Or if they're a Trek dealer, that the 56 OCLV is really a 54? They usually just look up the measurements in the catalog. Even the certified Serotta fit guy who gave me 3 hours on that fit cycle did not really adjust his figures to tell me what it would do to my top tube if I went to a different seat tube angle; he measured me for a 73 (Serotta's) and said don't go above that angle. So I figured it out myself. In fact, I figured out exactly where my seat would end up and what stem I'd need on a 57 c-ttt Litespeed as compared to my 57 c-c Lemond without ever getting on the bike. That way, I know exactly what I'm getting and what I'm getting into. I just don't expect that from an LBS. Sure, they want you to be a happy customer, but they're not mathematicians, and for the most part and in general, they're just not that exact. And then there's that gray area, e.g. the bike works, you like it, but your seat is pushed almost all the way back on its rails and you have a shorter stem than ideal.

Concerning pumping, it's interesting that you're an economics major, because if money is driving everything (Adam Smith?!), pumping is exactly what you'd expect. My own morals are higher than that, and while I don't like paying high prices, figuring it out myself is as far as possible away from pumping. I try and support my LBS when I can. Lucky for them, I don't know enough to ruin my own steerer; I just bring it in. But I'm sure tempted to take a maintenance course and save money in the long run; I still have to pay my bills.
I meant except for you, of course :-)TJeanloz
Apr 3, 2001 5:06 PM
I'd definitely be fired if I intentionally sold a bike that was the wrong size. 'Clearing stock' is the sorriest excuse I've ever heard a retailer give. What that means is: the person who buys the shop's supply was so ignorant that he (or she) was unable to asses what would sell and what wouldn't. The most annoying call I ever get is somebody who calls in July of 2000 and wants a 17" 1999 model (mountain bike). How dumb do they think I am? Do they think that I ordered so many of the most common size that I was unable to sell them before the 2000's came out? I know, some bike shops do this, but they rotate ownership annually. End of that rant.

A 56 OCLV isn't really a 54- it has a 56.1 top tube; more or less in line with most 56's. I understand that the c-c measures around a 54; but it really fits like a 56; top tube length being the most important measurement, in my opinion. I'm pretty familiar with the 56- I own one that I wish somebody would buy. We actually have a tool that we (read: my boss) invented that will duplicate positions from bike to bike. We then keep the data on file; so if you said: "I want a Litespeed that fits exactly like my LeMond." We'd say: "O.K.; that will be $5,000 please, and it will be ready in about a week." If only all Litespeed sales were that easy. Most customers have different needs, and I'd say the measurement/fit procedure takes about 5 hours of time, usually spread over about 4 visits.

On the economics of pumping, I see things a little bit differently. My view is that information is a good, and you need to pay for it. We are anally (is that a word) secretive about information. It's a devious game we play, but we almost never give away information. For instance, we guarantee that when you buy a bike it will fit you to your satisfaction. But we don't actually tell you what size you're getting until we have money. We'll do measurements and work with you for hours; but all of that information is OURS until you buy the bike. Expertise is not free; it's not even cheap, and I try not to give it away.

As for rotating ownership/employees, it's another story. Pay in the industry isn't great, I work more than 40 hours a week, year round, and my W2 said something pathetic like $19,500. It can be fun, but I can't afford to do this much longer (actually, I'm done at the end of the month.) Could any of you afford to do it? As for owners, I can only speak from experience, and my boss owns the same shop he started more than 20 years ago.
I meant except for you, of course :-)observer
Apr 3, 2001 7:57 PM
Do you really make that much? You must be from CA. You could flip burgers for more $$$ than that, and not have to answer as to your "worth" as a person. This kind of stuff really gets me hot. You can't even talk to a worthy tech in any other field for less than $50 office call. I can't believe you bike guru types put up with this. If you never hear this again, Thank You for your dedication to my favorite sport! Guys like you deserve more respect and $$$ than you get. Thanks again.
no beef with youET
Apr 4, 2001 6:53 AM
No complaints about your secreting information either. Wish you were my LBS guy also. No, the money isn't that good, and it seems you are hinting you must leave. No need to get annoyed at customers asking for bargains, even if their requests are unreasonable; that's just part of business. People are different, so they don't all behave as you think they should. I'm sure you've seen all types.

Disagree about Trek. Yeah, sure, top tube is more important than seat tube, but everyone sizes by seat tube (although unstandardized as to what their measuring), not top tube. Trek should be calling their 56 a 54 which just so happens to have a rather long top tube (56) for its seat tube. That way, those that don't have phenomenal reach will avoid that bike instead of having to come up with wacky ways to raise up their handlebars. To take it to an extreme, put that 56 TT on a 50 c-ttt ST and you still find nothing wrong with calling that a 56?
Yep, I'd call it a 56...TJeanloz
Apr 4, 2001 8:09 AM
A bike with a 56 Top tube and a 50 cm seat tube sounds an awful lot like a compact frame to me. And it wouldn't be fair to call that a 50, would it? If I were Giant I'd call it a Large (I think- I don't sell Giants), if I were Bianchi or Specialized, I'd call it a 56. Size has so much more to do with all of the numbers than with the seat tube number. Other factors also come into play- take the Specialized Allez bikes (pre 2001); they measured c-c, but because their tubes were so oversized, the bikes were a lot bigger than they measured. For that reason, even if we could get everybody to measure the same way, two bikes with the same numbers may not be exactly the same size.

I agree that the particular information about each bike needs to be known by somebody to ensure that you get the right size. But as I have alluded to in the past, I guarantee all of my customers that they will be happy with the fit of their bike- what the numbers say is not half as important as their satisfaction.
then let's do away with seat tube sizingET
Apr 4, 2001 9:22 AM
I would be happy to accept (possibly effective) top tube length *and* standover (for traditional geometry, at least) in lieu of seat tube. But they don't size that way.

I disagree with you and am surprised. What Trek does is misrepresentation of sizing as far as I'm concerned. According to you, there is no such thing as a company which sizes its top tubes long (e.g. Trek, Lemond) or short (e.g. Colnago); just follow the top tube, is all. Along, necessarily, with the steep-angled stem and ill-advised stacker.

And Ted, you seem almost defensive about yourself and LBS's. I've no axe to grind with you, nor even LBS's in general.