'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 )

Colnago fit(18 posts)

Colnago fitMutual
Dec 9, 2002 1:05 PM
A of mine offered me a great deal on a C40, but I am not sure if it would fit(he is racing in Europe right now and got a new sponsor). It is a 60 cm, I currently ride a medium Giant TCR which fits just right. I am about 5'11 with a 33.5 cm inseam. I have a feeling that it would a touch large... Any thoughts?

It'll be closeColnagoFE
Dec 9, 2002 1:09 PM
For comparison--I have about a 36" inseam, am 6'2" and ride a 62cm Colnago.
It'll be closeBruno S
Dec 9, 2002 3:48 PM
Colnagos don't seem to be too expensive if you buy them in Europe. I would like one but buying a bike without a test ride sounds risky. I am 6'2.5" with a 36.5" inseam. How sure are you about the measurements you posted? Should I order that C-40 HP based on your post? My current bike is a 60cm with a 58.5 TT. The TT is fine but too much seat post is exposed.
Measure your current ride . . .Look381i
Dec 9, 2002 1:17 PM
bb to saddle (or to intersection with virtual tt) and virtual top tube. Compare to Colnago specs, allowing reasonable seatpost length and see whether it's comparable.

As you probably know, Colnago's run "small" in that they measure seat tube c-t of clamp and tend to have tt that are more suited to the seat tube c-c measurement. I ride a 54x54 or 55 frame. My 56 Colnago is right on.
Might be too bigmass_biker
Dec 9, 2002 1:24 PM
In getting fitted for my Masterlight a year or so ago, I was borderline between the 59 and the 58. The 58 is perfect. I am 5'11" also, with a 32/33ish inseam. I used to ride a large TCR (which felt too big for me) and the 58 'Nago was spot on.

It sounds too largepmf1
Dec 9, 2002 1:35 PM
I'm 5'10" and have a 33 inseam. I ride a 56 cm C-40. A 60 sounds too big for you. Do you fit on other 60 cm bikes? I ask because I have two other 56 cm bikes (a Kestrel 200 Sci and a Litespeed Ultimate). All have 11 cm stems and all fit about the same. Counter to what many folks claim about the C-40 (short top tube), I feel most stretched out on it compared to the other two.

Try to find a 60 cm bike from a shop or friend and try it. If its too big, so will the C-40 be too big. A good deal on a bike that doesn't fit is not a good deal. You can still get close-out 2002 frames pretty cheap. I think the new HP stay is silly looking.
I'm 6'3 and ride a 62cm MXL, I have a 34in inseam...nmchopper
Dec 9, 2002 2:20 PM
I'm 6',35.25 bike inseam,ride 58cm MLRusty Coggs
Dec 9, 2002 2:49 PM
Everyones different.
way too big...C-40
Dec 9, 2002 2:37 PM
You have an 85cm inseam. Subtract 28 to 29cm to get the proper vertical frame size. You need either a 56 or 57cm.
A 60 C-T Colnago has a 57.7 TT...DINOSAUR
Dec 9, 2002 2:52 PM
That should be the important measurement. The larger sized Colnagos have short TT lengths as old man Colnago believes that a short TT makes the bike more stable. He increases the TT by slapping on a longer stem.

I'm 6-0, have a 34.25 or 34.50 inseam (depending on which measurement I want to go with) and ride a 59 Colnago with a 56.9 TT. I have the saddle raised up high and I would fit on a 60, but a 58 would mean I'd have to raise the saddle up real high and my bar to saddle drop would too much for me to handle (now it's about 10cm). You need to know what effective TT length you need. That's what put me on a 59.
Either get fitted by someone who is familiar with Colnagos or ride the bike (if that's possible). You don't want to get stuck with a bike that doesn't fit, we are all different and it's hard to say. A lot of it has to do about how you like to set up your bike. I also ride a 61 Klein, but I'm more spread out, but I can ride it. The Colnago fits me better and I can feel it on long guess is that it sounds too large, you would probably fit on a 58 Nago....
re: Colnago fitrdbkr
Dec 9, 2002 3:11 PM
Here's an interesting article concerning Colnago bike fit:

It's a bit lengthy, but essentially it says to size Colnagos on the small side. Ostensibly, they were designed to be used with the saddle set back and slightly longer than normal stems for proper weight bias and handling.

So according to that article, the C40 frame might be a bit large. All depends on how you're distributed along the top tube. Probably best to find a Colnago that size and give it a test ride.
Big disagreementdave woof
Dec 9, 2002 3:26 PM
from the previous web link -

" When you fit a bike perfectly there is no need for headset spacers."

That's just not true. Almost every pro uses spacers - that means they don't know how to properly fit a bike? Don't think so.

Dave Woof
The magical Colnago fitpmf1
Dec 10, 2002 5:07 AM
Along the same vein that carbon bikes are more fragile than bikes made of other materials is the legend that Colnago bikes have this unique geometry that differs from all other bikes. Does it make sense that a large mfg of bikes for almost 50 years makes bikes with a unique geometry that only fits a few riders? I can tell you from experiance, there is no big difference between the fit of my Colnago, Litespeed and Kestrel.
terrible article...C-40
Dec 10, 2002 3:38 PM
This article has so many mistakes and miconceptions that it should be ignored entirely.
re: Colnago fitMutual
Dec 9, 2002 6:02 PM
Thanks everybody, I think I am gonna pass for now. Not worth it to ship a frame back from Europe it might not fit.

Too Bigspc15
Dec 9, 2002 6:39 PM
I am 6'1 and ride a 59cm CT1. You could lower the seat, but then the top tube length would be too long. The bike would feel too may not be able to get enough leverage on it.

In addition to the fit issues, if your friend is a professional racer and this was his ride last year how many miles would the frame have on it? 15-20k miles?

absolutely too big.......... not a deal at any price.JohnG
Dec 10, 2002 7:49 AM
You would fit a Colnago 57-58cm pretty well.

FWIW, my brother has a 58cm Nago (fits perfect) and he has the exact same dimensions as you.

way too large. You would need a 57 c-t. nmMXL02
Dec 10, 2002 7:57 AM