|Colnago frame sizing question||TUT2222|
Sep 30, 2003 8:57 AM
|How close would a 52 steel framed Colnago track frame be to my 54 Waterford road bike? I believe they are measured differently. My fitting I had done came up with a reach of around 660mm(I'm at work, so the sheet isn't in front of me to be positve of that)Would the Colnago be too small, or is it close enough to make up the difference with stem and seatpost adjustments? Thanks|
|re: Colnago frame sizing question||dave woof|
Sep 30, 2003 9:15 AM
|Be careful about Colnago sizing. I had to work it out between three different web sites and talking to dealers. How they measure depends on who you talk to.
I think Trialtir had the correct sizing...
|re: Colnago frame sizing question||tarwheel|
Sep 30, 2003 10:29 AM
|Here's a link to the frame size/geometry charts for Colnagos posted in the trialtir web site: |
Compare these figures with the ones posted on the waterford site. Be careful to account for seat tube angles and to compare seat tube measurements consistently (eg, center-center or center-top). Top tube length is probably the most important measurement, but comparisons depend a lot on seat tube angles.
|re: Colnago frame sizing question||russw19|
Sep 30, 2003 11:43 AM
|The simple rule of thumb is to check out the top tube measurement. And from there, most people would ride a Colnago 2 sizes bigger than what they think. For example, I ride a 56 cm Cannondale, a 55 cm LeMond, a 56 cm Pinarello, and I ride a 58 cm Colnago. They measure center to top of the top tube which adds about 2 cm to the size of any company that measures center to center. But most of the bikes I ride have between a 55 and 56 cm top tube. A 58 cm Colnago has a 56 cm top tube so that's what I picked. I do ride a slightly smaller stem on it than say my Pinarello, but my Pinarello is also slightly smaller when you put them side to side. It's about a cm shorter to the ground and top tube.
Hope all that confusion makes sense...but the simple rule of thumb is that a Colnago will be 2 cm larger than say what you would ride on a Trek or Cannondale for example. I have no experience with Waterfords, but I had a Paramount once... it was a 56cm. I am guessing that if you are looking at a Colnago that is smaller than your Waterford, it will be too small.
Sep 30, 2003 1:14 PM
|I think Colnago measures to top of seat tube lug, regrettably the most uninformative measure, and one that could vary even within the same company, depending on model.|
Sep 30, 2003 3:06 PM
|From what I recall the COlnago (factory) measurement was center of BB to top of seat post clamp. DO not ask me why.
Sep 30, 2003 1:57 PM
|I can't say for all Colnagos but I'm sure that the C-40 is measured c-t top tube. And to compare it to a Trek, which is almost impossible to begin with, I ride a 56 5500 Trek but I would need a 55 in a Colnago for comparable stand over height or head tube height, but for a comparable top tube length I would need a 57 in a C-40. Actually the 55 Colnago C-40 would fit me better than my 56 Trek.|
|holy cow....||Rusty Coggs|
Sep 30, 2003 4:43 PM
|tarwheel posted the link to a diagram and chart. Why don't ya'll go look at it. print it out and compare to the charts from the other stuff you are tossing around.|
Oct 1, 2003 4:41 AM
|Geometry charts must be tough for a lot of folks. The charts at www.trialtir-usa.com are accurate.
The charts lists both the Colnago "frame size" and the actual c-c measurement, so both are easily read. The c-c size is usually 2cm less than the "frame size". For all practical purposes the frame size is a center to top measurement. The larger sizes are "Freuler" type frames, which have a lowered top tube (not just an extended seat tube as often advertised). Whoever described the Frueler type frame as an extended seat tube failed to notice that the head tube length also increases, so it's really the top tube that is lowered, "extending" both the seat tube and head tube.
Although the TT length is always an important consideration, it is no more important than the head tube length or the c-c seat tube dimension,IMO. Make a mistake on either one and you'll end up with a stupid looking setup.
The generalization that a larger frame size is needed with Colnago is not accurate. Colnagos have relatively long TT lengths in sizes up to about 56, where the length begins to become a bit shorter than some other brands. When comparing TT lengths, the effect of the (sometimes)steeper seat tube angle must be accounted for (about1.2cm per degree).
It's actually quite simple to compare a Colnago to a Trek or any other brand, IF you have a complete and accurate geometry chart for comparison. Unfortunately, many brands, like Trek, fail to list the head tube length in their charts, so a visit to a dealer with a tape measure may be necessary to get an accurate comparison.
|yes, but center to top of what?||ET|
Oct 1, 2003 7:35 AM
|That is the question. The difference between center to top of top tube and center to top of seat tube lug is enough to swing a frame from supposedly having a longish top tube to one having a rather shorter one using consistent sizing methods.
Disagree about the top tube being no more important than head tube length or even seat tube length; top tube is still the most important. It's just that some completely ignore seat tube length (or its proxy, standover) at their peril. While this is a greater risk for a few companies (e.g. Trek), it is in general far less likely to mess up big time on the other things if top tube is ballpark.
|Let me try this again||TUT2222|
Oct 1, 2003 2:41 PM
|My Waterford is a 54 measured C-T. I am looking at a Colnago on Ebay that the seller says 52 C-C. I would think that it would be the same as a 54 CT, but if he put down the wrong measuring system and it is a 52 C-T as Colnago's website shows, would this frame be too small for me, or could I make it work? It's a track frame, so I know the geometry is different. And not that it matters that much, my Waterford standover is 31", and the Colnago is said to be 30.5 inches. Thanks|| |