|Trek OCLV vs. Colnago C-40||dmoulton|
Aug 23, 2002 9:24 AM
|Currently riding OCLV. Never had the opportunity to ride the C-40, have lusted from afar. Curious of differences that would be noticed. I'm 6' 4" so I ride a larger frame.
|re: Trek OCLV vs. Colnago C-40||Quack|
Aug 23, 2002 9:52 AM
|I would assume that the Colnago would feel a little more race oriented than the Trek. I switched from an OCLV to a Dream Plus and it is a much different bike. The Colnago has a steeper seat tube and shorter top tube than the Trek which makes it handle differently. Seems better to me anyway. I required an offset seatpost and longer stem to get the same fit as the Trek. All things considered, if I were racing, I'd take the Colnago any day, especially for crits. If I were doing 100+ miles, I'd stick with the Trek. But you will probably have similar comfort to the OCLV with a C40 over the long haul. Aluminum just plain doesn't work for me past the 100 mile mark.|
|re: Trek OCLV vs. Colnago C-40||RayBan|
Aug 23, 2002 10:36 AM
|Probably the geometry is different. They both are carbon so they both will have that comfortable carbon ride. The colnagos paint job will be flashier with all the airbrushing. then theres that $$ of the C40....|
|re: Trek OCLV vs. Colnago C-40||outofthesaddle|
Aug 23, 2002 12:24 PM
|I have been shopping for the last month or so and have narrowed my selection down to OCLV (5500 or 5900) and C40. The C40 frame weighs 20 grams more than the 5900. The Star fork weighs 2 grams more than the Trek 110 fork. In riding the C40 I noticed that it has a more muted ride than my current OCLV a (5200) which and absorbs more of the road vibration than my Trek. It was a very nice ride! The C40 has a shorter top tube as compared to the Trek so on a larger size you might have to get creative on stem length and set up. Now that Trek has dropped the price of the OCLV -- my local LBS has the '03 for 5500 $2750 & the '03 5900 for $3800 -- the $$ difference for the C40 is getting hard to justify for me. Bottom line, you need to see/feel a difference that YOU are willing to part with the extra $$ for.
Here is a URL [sorry -- you'll have to cut and paste] for the same discussion on the Bicycling Forum that I started a couple of weeks ago. Some good insights. http://forums.bicycling.com/bic/thread.jsp?forum=6&thread=11339&message=98756&redirect=true&hilite=true&q=
|re: Trek OCLV vs. Colnago C-40||CT5|
Aug 23, 2002 1:02 PM
|The Colnago has a lower head tube angle. Not only does this make the top tube shorter, but it also gives the bike more "trail" in the fork. That makes it less twitchy and more stable on descents, particularly when combined with the C-40's low bottom bracket. If you get a chance to try a C-40, be sure to take it on a twisty downhill. I can't compare it to an OCLV (never ridden one), but it's a pretty big difference from my old Kestrel which I don't even want to ride downhill anymore.|| |