# My babies



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

C50HP in PR11 with Dura Ace 10v and Lightweight wheelset.  

C40HP in NL4 with Dura Ace 9v and K's.


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*Are you a stock broker or something??*

. . .Wow. Nice. A lot of money. .


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Ce Cinquanta said:


> C50HP in PR11 with Dura Ace 10v and Lightweight wheelset.
> 
> C40HP in NL4 with Dura Ace 9v and K's.



very nice.


----------



## flyingscot (Jul 17, 2004)

congratulations 
you have 2 stunning bikes  
it is amazing the difference deep section carbon rims make to a race bike!


I have a set of LW's on order
I would be very grateful for your comments on the diff characteristics of the 2 bikes ; c50 vs 40 and how much stiffer/lighter the LWs feel

enjoy !


----------



## SPINDAWG (Aug 24, 2003)

It's beyond me how anyone could throw Shimano on Italian steeds of that magnitude.Oh well,you definately made up for it in the wheel selection. You must be very proud of your stable.Thanks for sharing.


----------



## htb (Jan 4, 2005)

just an interesting note- I picked up a new colnago just this afternoon and noticed that the seatclamp was "backward". On your bikes, one has the bolt behind the seatpost, and the newer frame has it in front- is one more "correct"?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

They're both the 'wrong way round' now (ie bolt on the forward facing side). Theory is that this spreads stresses on the seatpost and frame material a bit more evenly - particularly important for a carbon frame perhaps.

The Lightweights are fantastic. I have raced (and, er, crashed) on them and it's not so much the aerodynamics (they're not as aero as, say, Cosmic Carbones) - it's the combination of the lightness and the stiffness. They accelerate, sprint and climb like no other wheel. 

And no, I'm not a stockbroker. I live in a tiny one bedroom flat and don't drive...  

CC


----------



## iyeoh (Jan 6, 2005)

Nice bikes! Are those 20 spoke fronts on your Lightweights? Or are those 16 spokes. Is there a reason why you chose those over the 12 spoke fronts? They all seem so strong, not that I have ridden them. If I were to build a carbon bike, it would be between these wheels and the Boras. BTW, the standard Lightweights are $3,700 in the U.S. and the Obermayers are over $5,000. That's some serious money on wheels.


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

Ce Cinquanta said:


> They're both the 'wrong way round' now (ie bolt on the forward facing side). Theory is that this spreads stresses on the seatpost and frame material a bit more evenly - particularly important for a carbon frame perhaps.
> 
> The Lightweights are fantastic. I have raced (and, er, crashed) on them and it's not so much the aerodynamics (they're not as aero as, say, Cosmic Carbones) - it's the combination of the lightness and the stiffness. They accelerate, sprint and climb like no other wheel.
> 
> ...


Yes, but....why all that Shitmano?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

It's a bit depressing that people still trade playground cracks about 'ShimaNo', 'Shitmano', 'Shamano', etc. Both these bikes are raced and the C40 has put in 600 miles in crap weather in the past month alone. Dura Ace is good stuff, it works for me and it's never let me down.

Ian - They are 20 spokes, although I'm a skinny climber. I chose them for stiffness, rather than lightness reasons. Also, it was a bit hard to get used to the idea of spokes that look like they're made of straw, so I asked for as many as possible  

CC


----------



## flyingscot (Jul 17, 2004)

CC
Don’t worry about it
I agree it is bad manners to criticise a bike that someone has been kind enough to share pics of
Esp something as stupid as Shimano vs Campag 

On my Time VXR I have full campag and a DA 10 crank
Oh the disgrace !!

The bikes look aggressive and race ready
The way they are meant to

That is a hint to some of you
Note: race bikes are meant to have a reasonable drop !


PS There is a far more positive spin on yours bike on WW
Your BUDDY


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*Standard geometry??*

Just curious. . Any reason you chose standard over the sloping geometry?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Hmm good question. I bought the '40 a couple of years ago after quite involved discussions with my LBS about fit. It fitted me perfectly, so I just went for the same size with the 50 (they're both 53s).

And I do admit to a slight preference for the standard geometry on a Nag. This is just a personal preference and I don't criticise anyone who prefers a compact...

CC


----------



## boneman (Nov 26, 2001)

*Hey Ce*

Nice bikes. I've seen the C50 up close but I think you were riding the new Shimano wheels then. Already missing riding in Richmond park and surrounds. All the best.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*Hey boneman*

Thanks boney. The Richmond Park Colnago Club will miss you. 

PS if you ever want to sell...say...a Tecnos on Ebay, please PM me.  

CC


----------

