# orca vs. opal vs. pinarello for smaller rider



## mlretina (Aug 22, 2006)

i am 5.5', 120, female. my favorite local shop let me take out the colnago dream for 2 days which was an amazing ride compared to my previous Fuji team aluminum. the fitter also changed me from 52 to 48 in-- feels much better. but i realize that the dream is only carbon rear triangle and i would llike full carbon.

then i tried the pinarello fc:14. 48cm.. feel big and clunky, heavy. but the shop was going to work with me to fit it better, etc.

happened to stop by another shop and tried the opal- it was 51, felt slightly large, but it was a dream to ride. guess they also make womens spec. frames, although i think the Orbeas already have a narrower and smaller profile compared to pinarello. would like to try to orca too but they dont have it in my size and i am not sure how nice the shop is about helping me fit like the previous shop. would love to try a 48 orca and opal.

sorry i am rambling on, would love anyone's opinion re: true sizing of the Opal, comfort with long rides-- 300 miles a week or so, 

also anyone have compared with Pinarello Paris carbon or Colnago c50?

thanks much


----------



## dave99ag (Jul 26, 2005)

Might want to wait a bit and see how the Diva, female version of the Orca, would do for you as well.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

You should wait to try the Orbea Diva version, but you might still want to keep in mind the Colnago C-50, a lugged frame, and the Colnago Cristallo, a monocoque frame, if the Colnago Dream HP fit you that well and felt that good to ride. I believe all three frames use the same geometry, and if the previous shop was that good about fitting you then they will probably have no problem letting you test ride either of the Colnago full carbon fiber frames. I just ordered the Cristallo and am waiting for it to arrive. Next summer, I will probably get the C-50 or the Colnago time trial frame.

From what I have heard, both the Colnagos and the Orbeas are sweet rides, but I didn't have the opportunity to ride either of them before buying the Cristallo. I almost bought an Orbea, but couldn't resist the pull of the Colnago since I currently ride an Italian frame. One big difference is that the Orbeas are only offered in increments of 3 cm in sloping frames. The Colnagos are offered in 2 cm increments in sloping frames and 1 cm increments in traditional frames.


----------



## rollinrob (Dec 8, 2002)

Orbea's have a great geometry for the smaller rider. The size you are looking at has a 73.7 seattube angle which is virtually unheard of for a small frame. Most frame makers use a 74.5-75.5 sta. A steeper Seat tube angle will increase your reach to the hanldebars in relation to KOPS. I have had two of the bikes you are looking at. The Orca was to flexy for me. I weigh about 175 and now ride an Opal. The ride is awesome and the fit is perfect. Since you wiegh only 120 I would assume that this years Orca would be perfect for you.


----------



## pantag (Jul 21, 2006)

We have the same height. I rode on a 51cm Opal and it was too big. 48'' is your size on Orbea bikes.


----------



## Alex_C (Aug 21, 2006)

*Opal and Orca vs F4:13*

I rode all three last weekend back to back. Went into a LBS really set on an Opal or the Orca. I rode each bike about 5 miles or so on flats and then fairly steep 1/2 mile hill up and down.

First the Opal - on sale for $3400. It was equipped with Ultegra, felt lively and communicated everything on the road. This is not the best if you intend on long rides. Great frame - no flex (that I could create/feel anyway). Seemed to have quick reflexes too.

Orca with Dura Ace was next - priced at $3600 with Ksyrium SLs (rode both Orbeas with this wheelset). Felt more "absorbing" of the road, not quite as alive. It didn't seem to accelerate as well as the Opal, but would be more comfortable on long rides.

Then the F4:13 with Dura Ace. This was in the window - hadn't even considered it because I thought it was 6k. Turns out it was my size and a demo bike with about 150 miles on it for almost the same price as the Orca. Before I reached the hill I had made my decision. It accelerated better than either of the other two, but did have a lighter wheelset (ES Ksyriums). The bike in total was heavier by a pound - 17 lbs, but it just seemed to glide over the pavement. In my mind it seemed more responsive but also damped the bumps. I thought maybe the tires were underinflated, but they read 100psi when I got back. For me the choice was the F4:13 hands down. 

Finding your size and a shop that will take the time swapping stems, heights, wheels and sizes will help your decision. I'm guessing the clunky feeling was likely the wheelset. Good luck with your persuit.


----------



## mlretina (Aug 22, 2006)

thanks everyone for the great advice.

i took out the opal 51cm for a 20 mile or so ride with a 7 mile climb-- and i have never felt so good climbing- i was in love..

the descending was a little bumpy, and it was raining so maybe it was not fair. i felt the best descending with the colnago dream HP. but climbing is what i love the most so maybe it is worth the compromise??

the opal was about $4300-- perhaps because of the great mavic wheelset and sram force groupo?? not sure where you found the opal and orca for under $4000?

thanks again.


----------



## Alex_C (Aug 21, 2006)

*Price on Orca / Opal*

The prices for the Orca and Opal were 20% off at the LBS here in Castro Valley, CA. The Opal with Ultegra and Shimano wheelset was $3180. With Ksyrium SSLs it was $3400.


----------

