|Colnago vs. Merckx||NBrown|
Jan 2, 2002 9:13 AM
|I am looking to buy a steel bike, and am considering the Colnago Master X Light or the Merckx MX Leader. Does anybody have any advice on how to choose between the two?|
|Ernesto was Eddy's mechanic...||Jack S|
Jan 2, 2002 9:20 AM
|pick the one with the geometry right for you... they are very different|
|re: Colnago vs. Merckx||gtx|
Jan 2, 2002 9:55 AM
|Merckx frames have slacker seat tube angles and longer c-stays. I think the bb may be a bit lower, too and perhaps the effective cockpit length may be just a tad shorter, though it is hard to make a direct comparison because Merckx measures c-c while Colnago measures c-t. I feel that I can fit quite well on both. To overgeneralize, the Merckx is perhpas better suited to riders who prefer their saddle back somewhat and like to do long rides, the Colnago better for shorter, faster rides for people who prefer a more neutral saddle position. Also keep in mind that the MX Leader is super sturdy. The Master X light might compare more closely to the Corsa.|
|Merckx MX Leader, Colnago Master X Light||Tig|
Jan 2, 2002 11:58 AM
|The MX Leader '02 model has changed tubing from '01's Columbus Max MXL to Columbus Nivacom and might come with a CF fork. It has a reputation for being a good large rider's frame. It weighs in at about 4.4 lbs for the frame only
The Master X Light has been advertised to be a big guy's frame also. It is built with Columbus DT 15 V tubing. I don't know the difference between these tube sets other than the Colnago's custom shaped profile such as the octogonal top tube. It weighs in at about 3.9 lbs for frame only. As stated above, the obvious difference between these 2 frames will be geometry. I'm not questioning Colnago's quality, but I have yet to hear of a problem with Merckx.
|Merckx MX Leader, Colnago Master X Light||CT1|
Jan 3, 2002 3:53 PM
|FWIW, I thought my MXL was TOOOO stiff for my 148# weight.
My brother liked his though.... and he weighs in at around 185#.