# Colnago fit question



## waterford (Sep 30, 2004)

Maybe someone here who is a Colnago fit expert can help me with a fit question.

I have been riding a Merckx with my saddle nose 10 cms behind the BB. My reach on this machine is 60.6 cms from saddle nose to bar center with a 120 mm stem.. The bar drop is 8.7 cms. The fit is great and I like the amount of setback.

I just got a Colnago and I set it up with the same reach and bar drop with a 120 mm stem. However, my setback is 9 cms on the Colnago with an Easton EC70 seatpost and the saddle pushed all the way back. This shorter setback is no surprise as I knew that the Colnago had a steaper seat angle, but I thought that I could live with a little less setback. Now my question: I can achieve the desired 10 cm of setback on the Colnago with a FSA K Force Lite seatpost and use a 110 mm stem to keep the reach the same, but will there be too much weight on the rear end? The Colnago handles really well as it is currently set 
up so I don't want to create a Frankenstein just to get the setback that I want. Anyone have any idea if a 110 mm stem and a saddle set way back on a 62cm Colnago will work? Thank you so much for your advise.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*Reminds me of an old story from like about 2000 years ago*

A guy measured his old shoes before going shoe shopping. When he went all the way into town and to the shoe store, he realized he had left the measuring tape at home. He was like, "oh sh*t I gotta go back home to get that tape". The shoe salesman was pretty perplexed.

I guess the question to you is, if "the Colnago handles really well" when YOU ride the bike, why bother sticking to an old measurement? Don't forget the numbers have to serve you, not the other way around.


----------



## waterford (Sep 30, 2004)

elviento said:


> A guy measured his old shoes before going shoe shopping. When he went all the way into town and to the shoe store, he realized he had left the measuring tape at home. He was like, "oh sh*t I gotta go back home to get that tape". The shoe salesman was pretty perplexed.
> 
> I guess the question to you is, if "the Colnago handles really well" when YOU ride the bike, why bother sticking to an old measurement? Don't forget the numbers have to serve you, not the other way around.



I think that you misunderstood my inquiry. I do like the way the machine handles now, but I don't like being 1 cm forward from my position on the Merckx. My question is; if I monkey around with the Colnago to get the setback that I want, will my weight distribution be centered too far back and thus effect the fabulous handling that I experience now? Thanks for your imput. It is appreciated.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Is it the thought that your position is 1cm forward compared to the merckx that bothers you, or is it that your body FEELS a little forwrd on the bike that bothers you? If the former, you don't need to do anything. If the latter, I suggest you start with the KOPS test, and if your knee position is right, don't do anything. If your feel you do need to move the torso back 1cm, then get the 110 stem. As far as handling goes, 1cm difference in stem length is noticeable, but I believe the torso position is more important than handling in this context. Besides, 110mm is among the most common sizes and you shouldn't go too wrong.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Don't fret. Don't fuss. Enjoy the difference between the two bikes. I personally dig the fact that all my various bikes put me in slightly different positions.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

waterford said:


> Now my question: I can achieve the desired 10 cm of setback on the Colnago with a FSA K Force Lite seatpost and use a 110 mm stem to keep the reach the same, but will there be too much weight on the rear end?


Your best bet is to weigh your front and rear wheels while positioned in the drops. You'll need a 2nd party to read the scale, so you don't screw the reading by shifting your torso. It may turn out that the change you contemplate may be for better or for worse, or that you have some room to play.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*typical actually*

most guys who 'fit'on Merckx's don't 'fit' on Nags. Nags tend to have shorter TT's and/or different ST angles taht change rider position. Nags are more 'Italian Fit' (long leg/short torso) while Merckx's are more Flandrian (shorter legs, longer torso). so if fit more naturally on a Merckx you may not have a "Nag Build". It's fun to watch guys force fit Nags when the don't have proper body type. I've never seen more 130 stems (or 140's) on 55-57 C bikes in my life


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> most guys who 'fit'on Merckx's don't 'fit' on Nags. Nags tend to have shorter TT's and/or different ST angles taht change rider position. Nags are more 'Italian Fit' (long leg/short torso) while Merckx's are more Flandrian (shorter legs, longer torso). so if fit more naturally on a Merckx you may not have a "Nag Build". It's fun to watch guys force fit Nags when the don't have proper body type. I've never seen more 130 stems (or 140's) on 55-57 C bikes in my life


what he said. I ride a 62cm Colnago and use a standard AC seatpost and 110 stem and it fits nearly perfectly. I am 6'2" and have a 36" inseam so--long legs, shorter torso. I bought the Colnago after getting fit on a Serotta size cycle so I pretty much knew how it would fit before it arrived. I also have a Bianchi 60cm that I don't like nearly as well but has about the same length TT.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Interesting theory -- any credible evidence it's intended by Ernesto? 

It's curious because most pros use fairly long stems. I wonder if they are all forcing the fit, even when they can have custom made frames.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*most pros I've seen ride who have custom or well fit frames*

120's. this stem length is usually the best compromise between twitchiness and high speed stability.Crit racers tend to like shorter stems for the quickness in handling. when bikes are 'forced fit' which is far more common amongst new compact frames
you see more longer stems making up the difference. It's not just Ernesto, all Italian Bikes have shorter 'reaches' all have TT's shorter than the ST's. 
if you look back to the erasof custom built frames for the pros you'll notice most stems in the 120 zone


----------



## waterford (Sep 30, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> 120's. this stem length is usually the best compromise between twitchiness and high speed stability.Crit racers tend to like shorter stems for the quickness in handling. when bikes are 'forced fit' which is far more common amongst new compact frames
> you see more longer stems making up the difference. It's not just Ernesto, all Italian Bikes have shorter 'reaches' all have TT's shorter than the ST's.
> if you look back to the erasof custom built frames for the pros you'll notice most stems in the 120 zone


Let's say you ride a 60 cm (c-c) Merckx with a 72 deg. seat angle and your saddle is 10 cms behind the BB. The top tube on this machine is 58.3 cms and you use a 120mm stem. Your reach to the bars is 60.5 cms with a bar drop of 8.7 cms. 

Now, say you move to a 62 cm (c-t) Colnago with a 73 deg. seat angle and you keep your saddle a 10 cms behind the BB. The top tube on this machine is 58.5 cms, and to keep the reach the same as the Merckx (60.5 cms), you must use a 110 mm stem with the same bar drop. 

This is because given the same saddle setback on these same sized machines, the Colnago with a steeper seat tube angle will have a longer reach. This is contrary to what is most often assumed about Colnago fit. This is because you have to move the saddle back further on the Colnago to get the desired setback and thus it increases the reach to the bars. This was the entire point of why I began the thread. I was just wondering if the Colnago would handle well with a shorter (110 mm) stem on a 62 cm frame. I like having the 10 cms of setback and want to work the Colnago to achieve this. Maybe a Merckx rider cannot become a Colnago rider as previously stated. I'll tell you something, the Colnago MXL rides like nobody's business. It would be tough to give that up.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

So you are saying Italians have longer legs than Belgians? You gotta understand it's one thing for a frame to have the effect of fitting a long legged rider, but it's another thing to say it's built with the purpose to fit such a rider. How do you know it's not because Ernesto is sticking to traditional geometries, and while riders are going to smaller frames, they end up with shorter toptubes as well? I am not saying that that is true, but certainly not impossible.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*setback*

I can't seem to get same kneecap to axle ratio and reach 'feel' on Nags (don't get me wrong, I like these bikes,I built my wife a sweet tecnos). I think it may do with thigh length to upperbody. I don't know the exact reason but I've found I just don't get the same feel (too bad as I'd love a Nag MXL) of balance over the wheels and such.


----------

