# Which aluminun frame is better: Colnago Dream or Pinarello Prince



## TryingNotToGetDropped (Jan 2, 2003)

Which is a better aluminum frame, the Colnago Dream HP or the Pinarello Prince SL? The most important characteristics to me are: acceleration, quickness, and handling (specifically descending)? Which would you buy? Why?


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Because of the Dream's ultra-relaxed head tube angle, chances are the Pinarello would be the quicker handling beast. Acceleration and quickness-wise, the prize would probably go to the frame that's built up with the least poundage.


These opinions, by the way, come from a thoroughly satisfied owner of an all-aluminum Colnago Dream, vintage 2000. (For pics of my Dream, go to the Colnago Forum.)


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*check the geometry...*

I've found that Colnago's geometry isn't the best for a technical descent. The slack head tube angle and resulting large amount of steering trail make the bike want to go straight, even when you want to turn. Colnago's have just about the slowest turning resposnse of any stock frame, but they are very stable on a long straight descent.

Pinarello doesn't list the head tube angle on their website, as far as I could see. If the frame has a steeper HTA, then it would be my choice.

As for "quickness and acceleration" that's up to the rider, IMO.

I switched to LOOK frames this year (from Colnago & Fondriest). Their geometry creates a great balance between stability and responsiveness. Great for mountain descents, where gusty winds are often a factor.


----------



## TryingNotToGetDropped (Jan 2, 2003)

*Specialized S-Works?*

What about Specialized S-Works frames with respect to their descending abilities?


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

TryingNotToGetDropped said:


> Which is a better aluminum frame, the Colnago Dream HP or the Pinarello Prince SL? The most important characteristics to me are: acceleration, quickness, and handling (specifically descending)? Which would you buy? Why?



I have had or at least ridden both the bikes you list, plus a couple other models by both manufacturers. I used to have a 2000 Dream, a 2001 Ovalmaster, a 2002 Prince, and I currently have an older 1998 Paris. On top of that, I have ridden the new Dream Plus HP and the Dream B-stay (non HP.) 

Of all of them, I like the Paris the best, which is why it is the only one I still have. Next I liked the Ovalmaster, the Dream (all aluminium stays), then the Prince, Dream HP, and Dream B stay the least of the bunch. Now, I will first say that I have a very strong preference towards ultra stiff bikes. To me, the best riding bike was the Paris, which is basically a full aluminium Prince. The difference between the Prince and the Paris was the Prince used the carbon rear end. It is slightly lighter, but I didn't like the ride as much. One area the Prince did improve on the Paris was with a slightly stiffer 1 1/8th head tube. It's not actually the frame that is any stiffer, but the fork is because the steerer is larger. If they made a Paris with the oversize headtube, that would be my next bike. 

My next favorite was the Ovalmaster. It was a 6/4 Ti bike and I loved it. It was slightly heavy, but rode like a very nice plush but solid steel bike. I have a Merckx bike that is made out of Columbus Genius tubing.. my Ovalmaster rode very similar. Again, like the Paris, it's big drawback was the 1 inch headtube. 

Then there was the first generation Dream. Sweet bike, all aluminium. Light and responsive just like I like, but not quite as agile as my Paris. Others hit it right on the head.. headtube angle. The Colnago is more relaxed and not as agile feeling. It was a super comfy all day bike, but I just don't spend all day on my bikes like when I used to race. This bike, like the two above also had a 1 inch headtube. 

Then came the Prince which I already covered. What I really didn't like was how the rear end tracked thru corners. It felt to me like there was lateral flex in the carbon rear end. I feel the same way about older (pre-2000) Trek OCLV's as well. Maybe it's my fat a$$, but I don't like the feel of the carbon rear. It seemed to track a lazy line thru a corner, then whip back into place once you cleared the turn.

That was exactly the same thing I felt with the Dream B stay. The HP seems slightly stiffer, but I think it is only because I was told how much stiffer it was and how much improved the ride was going to be before I rode it by a Colnago rep. So if how I felt about it is really how it is, or just how I was expecting it to be, I don't really know for sure. That was the only time I rode one, so I haven't been back on one since. 

I hope that is somewhat helpful for you. I would agree with what was said before about the headtube angles... the Colnago is more relaxed and it won't jump into turns quite like the Pinarello, but it is a great all day bike, and that is exactly what Colnago designs their bikes to be.

Russ


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*Pinarello Head Tube Angles*

Listed in this order: seattube c/c, toptube c/c, headtube angle
48, 51.5, 74.3
49, 52, 74.3
50, 52.5 74.3
51, 53, 74
52, 53.7, 74
53, 54.3, 74
54, 54.7, 73.45
55, 55, 73.45
56, 56, 73.3
57, 56.5, 73.3
58, 57, 73
59, 57.5, 73
60, 58, 73
61, 58.5, 73
62, 59, 73
Fork rake is 43 in all cases.
These geometries are for Prince models, Marvel, Opera, Gallileo, Surprise, Angliru, and Crono. From 2002 catalog


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*STA not HTA !!*

Those angles don't make sense. Usually small frames have steeper seat tube angles (STA) like those you've posted and slack head tube angles.

Here's the correct geometry chart:

http://www.chicagolandbicycle.com/pinarello_specs.htm


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

merckxman said:


> Listed in this order: seattube c/c, toptube c/c, headtube angle
> 48, 51.5, 74.3
> 49, 52, 74.3
> 50, 52.5 74.3
> ...


those are sta... i know a 54 pinarello used to have (in steel fork days) a 73 15º(that's minutes) head angle.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

russw19 said:


> I have had or at least ridden both the bikes you list, plus a couple other models by both manufacturers. I used to have a 2000 Dream, a 2001 Ovalmaster, a 2002 Prince, and I currently have an older 1998 Paris. On top of that, I have ridden the new Dream Plus HP and the Dream B-stay (non HP.)
> 
> Of all of them, I like the Paris the best, which is why it is the only one I still have. Next I liked the Ovalmaster, the Dream (all aluminium stays), then the Prince, Dream HP, and Dream B stay the least of the bunch. Now, I will first say that I have a very strong preference towards ultra stiff bikes. To me, the best riding bike was the Paris, which is basically a full aluminium Prince. The difference between the Prince and the Paris was the Prince used the carbon rear end. It is slightly lighter, but I didn't like the ride as much. One area the Prince did improve on the Paris was with a slightly stiffer 1 1/8th head tube. It's not actually the frame that is any stiffer, but the fork is because the steerer is larger. If they made a Paris with the oversize headtube, that would be my next bike.
> 
> ...


russ, since you rode both designs, tell me: when i corner on my bike(old pinarello), there's a slight initial resistance, then a slight tendency to oversteer and keep turning towards the inside of the corner. it demands atention and freaks me a bit when i'm riding w/ speed and corners are tight. where on the corner and how does a colnago acts different?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*quick geometry..*

The specialized frames have the quicker steering geometry that I prefer. The E5 looks very stiff. If you're a lightweight, it might be uncomfortable. The Tarmac has very limited sizes, so getting a good fit would be pure luck. I wouldn't spend that much on a specialized frame unless the fit was nearly perfect.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*Apologies..you're right*

It was too early in the a.m. ....


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

colker1 said:


> russ, since you rode both designs, tell me: when i corner on my bike(old pinarello), there's a slight initial resistance, then a slight tendency to oversteer and keep turning towards the inside of the corner. it demands atention and freaks me a bit when i'm riding w/ speed and corners are tight. where on the corner and how does a colnago acts different?


Colnagos are very stable descenders compared to the Pinarellos that can feel twitchy like you mention. Pinarello. Good for crits and people that like a fast-responding bike. Colnago. Good for stage races and those that like a more stable bike. Personally I think the Colnagos handle plenty quick. If I needed quicker steering I should probably slow down anyway.


----------



## Dream Plus (Feb 4, 2004)

*In defense of the Dream's handling.*



TryingNotToGetDropped said:


> Which is a better aluminum frame, the Colnago Dream HP or the Pinarello Prince SL? The most important characteristics to me are: acceleration, quickness, and handling (specifically descending)? Which would you buy? Why?


My ( now retired ) Dream Plus with Colnago fork was a capable descender. Long mountain descents were a pleasure, and required a lot less attention from me than my current ride. I rode the bike in crits and technical road races. The handling always seemed to inspire confidence. My new frame, a Fort RoSLC with Ouzo Pro fork, requires a lot more attention. It handles well, goes where I want it to but I don't let my mind wander much. I guess that means it's "quicker"? As far as acceleration, I don't notice a difference between the compact geometry Aluminum Fort with carbon stays, and the all Aluminum Colnago. Both bikes climb equally well. I have never ridden a Prince, but have always admired them.


----------

