# President and C-50 comparison



## sneekerpete (Mar 2, 2005)

I am wondering if someone could break down the differences between the two models. Clearly Monocoque Vs Lugs and Tubes, but detailed differences like, how many frame sizes share the same lugs on C-50's?(head tube lengths?) or are there different tube qualities for different frame sizes.

It seems that pros are using C-50's, is this due to more sizes available or ride quality or both?

What then is the purpose of the President if C-50's are preferred race bikes?

By the way, I'm likely not able to afford either, a friend rides a CT-1, loves it, and actually his frame size is in the neighborhood of what i'd be ordering and a good starting point for test rides. Really just curious as I started looking at their website etc and didn't get a whole lot of info in these regards.

Cheers


----------



## smokva (Jul 21, 2004)

> It seems that pros are using C-50's, is this due to more sizes available or ride quality or both? What then is the purpose of the President if C-50's are preferred race bikes?


I was wandering the same  I guess they made it to say: "Look what can we do"
I think that C-50 is lighter (not sure about this) and easier to produce which is very important when you sponsor 5-6 top teams as Colnago does. Some may say that lugged C-50 has superior riding characteristics but I doubt that. I also think that C-50 is what they intend to produce and sell, president is kind of a special bike, for doctors and layers...they dont plan to make many of those. So there is no real reason why should they put pros on presodents, C-50 is what they want you to see on the TV.


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

smokva said:


> I was wandering the same  I guess they made it to say: "Look what can we do"
> I think that C-50 is lighter (not sure about this) and easier to produce which is very important when you sponsor 5-6 top teams as Colnago does. Some may say that lugged C-50 has superior riding characteristics but I doubt that. I also think that C-50 is what they intend to produce and sell, president is kind of a special bike, for doctors and layers...they dont plan to make many of those. So there is no real reason why should they put pros on presodents, C-50 is what they want you to see on the TV.



Anybody who races will tell you that it is impossible to race at top level and not crash. A C-50 can be repaired unlike virtually any monocoque frame. The C-50 is also made in over 20 different sizes which means that you can fit virtually any physique in the world.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

At the top level they don't repair frames. They throw them away when damaged or used up. They get new frames a couple of times in a season.


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

divve said:


> At the top level they don't repair frames. They throw them away when damaged or used up. They get new frames a couple of times in a season.


I own a few former team bikes and know many framebuilders who have built hundreds of team bikes between them. I have seen pro team bikes being repaired at Pinarello and De Rosa. Others do the same too. When frames were still steel they were virtually always repaired. The whole throw away attitude arrived with aluminum and titanium, because it was almost not possible to fix any damaged frame. 

Today, thrown away carbon bikes like the Scott CR1, Ridley, Giant and Trek are indeed simply junked and replaced with new ones, the lugged Colnago C50 bikes are however repaired. Ask any member of the Navigators Insurance team and they will confirm this to you. As for the idea that the riders get new frames a couple of times in a season, this is total nonsense. The only riders who are afforded such luxury are the true marquee riders. Your average pro gets two bikes at the beginning of the year with a few time trial bikes being allotted on an annual basis to each team. Depending on the team, the bikes then get reused the next year as spares (time trial bikes are often used for a number of years in a row), returned to the supplier at year's end or are sold off to subsidize the team. I bought the bike used by an Italian pro in his top 20 placing in the 2000 Tour de France in December of that year directly from De Rosa. I have purchased other bikes from teams directly.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

You stated top level. To me that means Pro Tour team in Europe. Not some guy racing in the US.

There's also no technical reason why aluminum or Ti can't be repaired. It's just a matter of repair versus replacement costs.


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*That's what he said. .*



divve said:


> You stated top level. To me that means Pro Tour team in Europe. Not some guy racing in the US.


Top Level is racing in Europe.


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

KATZRKOL said:


> Top Level is racing in Europe.


 It just so happens that the Navigators team does race in Europe and they also have what I believe are three national champions among their ranks. http://www.navpro.com/news/pr_062605.asp

That is not that shabby by my books. 

As far as repairing titanium and aluminum, there is simply no economic justification to do so as the repair, where possible will cost as much as building a new frame.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

dnalsaam said:


> As far as repairing titanium and aluminum, there is simply no economic justification to do so as the repair, where possible will cost as much as building a new frame.


Sure there is, but it depends on the extent of the damage. A co-worker recently had his head tube replaced on his Ti Serotta (by Serotta) at substantially less than the cost of a new frame.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

dnalsaam said:


> Anybody who races will tell you that it is impossible to race at top level and not crash. A C-50 can be repaired unlike virtually any monocoque frame. The C-50 is also made in over 20 different sizes which means that you can fit virtually any physique in the world.


any weekend warrior who races a bike as expensive as a C-50 either has too much disposable income or is nuts.


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> any weekend warrior who races a bike as expensive as a C-50 either has too much disposable income or is nuts.


Anybody who makes such statements has never ridden a C-50 or is nuts.

I have had a number of chances to ride c-40's and c-50's and can honestly say that they are the nicest riding bikes that I have ever experienced, bar none. I would love to have one, but cannot afford the expense. I would however never begrudge anybody who does spend money on such a classy bike. Besides, if you are a weekend warrior, such a bike could readily last you the rest of your life. As a means of comparison, a C-50 costs less than the first two years of depreciation on your average new car. If I had the money, I would prefer a three year old car and a brand new C-50 than a new car and any lesser bike.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

More likely less than the depreciation of any new car, no matter how cheap, as soon as you drive it out the parking lot. A C50 frameset is $2750 in my neck of the woods (Europe).


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*I agree. .Kind of. .*



Bocephus Jones II said:


> any weekend warrior who races a bike as expensive as a C-50 either has too much disposable income or is nuts.


I make enough to race and crash a C50, but I don't race anymore, and an amateur looks stupid IMO racing a C50. If your not getting them for free, it's insane.


----------



## fcube (Feb 5, 2006)

Picking up on this old thread, the original question was what is the difference between the C-50 and the President and presumably why would anyone pay $500 or so more for the President that weighs about a half pound more than the C-50. I too am interested in the answer as I am also considering both bikes. The local Colnago dealer says that the Pres has a stiffer bottom bracket and might ride a little better, especially for a heavier rider. He says it is a great gran fondo bike and that a half pound matters not.

My sense is that for an avid recreational rider, as opposed to a racer, that the President might make sense, especially if the appearance sets his heart aflutter and he can afford to indulge himself in a piece of art that may also be a collector's item. If the Pres is more of a Lexus and the C-50 more of a Porsche, the Pres might make sense for some older, larger, more afluent cyclists.

Would love to hear from someone with experience with both bikes.


----------



## smokva (Jul 21, 2004)

I didn't ride the President, but I would sy C50 is Ferrari and President is Aston Martin


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## fcube (Feb 5, 2006)

Thanks easyrider. Thats about what I thought but nice to have the confirmation. BTW your new C50 looks good the way you've brought the little bit of red on the frame out with the tires, seat and cages. I'm not a big fan of the current C50 paint schemes but yours looks very nice.


----------



## edmundjaques (Dec 29, 2005)

EasyRider47 said:


> Since you asked....Since I have both the C-50 (Xmas present to myself) and the 50th Anniversary Edition (proto-type for the President), I guess I can offer a few comments.
> 
> As far as the comparison to cars (and I have had experience with these as well), the Anniversary/President has the feel of a powerful Mercedes or larger BMW - great handling, incredibly smooth, incredibly sure-footed, stable any just about any speed. The C-50 has the feel of a Porsche - power to burn, responsive as hell, incredible handling, nimble.
> 
> ...


I thought I was pretty spoilt with choosing between the (what I thought were fairly subtle) differences between my MXL and 50 Anniversary but your choices are just sublime. I'm just now beginning to get an itch for a C50 - Six Colnagos and still counting.


----------

