# Colnago C50 Handling Characteristics?



## KennyG (Mar 6, 2007)

I am in the market for a new high end carbon frame, and have narrowed my search to the following: Colnago C50, Pinarello Paris Carbon. I have been researching these bikes for a few months, but have not ridden either of them. The most commonly proclaimed distinction between these two frames that I have come across in threads, reviews, etc. is that the C50 is more neutral steering and the Paris Carbon is a more quick handling machine. I guess I am looking for a little more detail in this matter. 

What exactly is meant by "neutral bike" and isn't that a relative term? I see lots of pros racing on the C50 and doing well. I can't imagine that would be the case if the C50 was slower in the corners than other pro level bikes. Is the C50 a slow handling bike? If not, what about the feel makes it more "neutral"? Also, I like a frame that has a stiff, lively feel - not dull or muted like some carbon I have ridden. Does the C50 have a lively feel or is it more on the muted side of the spectrum? Any comments are welcome, but I would especially like to hear from riders who have ridden both frames and can make a more objective comparison. Thanks!


----------



## wasfast (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't own, nor have ridden, but the comments I've read from owners all seem to indicate that the C50 is more relaxed geometry. This appears to be the result of the head tube angle is not quite as steep as more quick steering bikes and possible more trail on the fork. Take a look at the geometry charts for both bikes and note the differences.

When you have something specific in mind, it seems worthwhile to test ride the bikes. To me, this is alot of money and I wouldn't want to be disappointed.


----------



## fuzzalow (Mar 13, 2007)

Don't know from your post what you ride now or how long you've been riding or what type of riding you plan to do, so what is siad here could be off the mark for you. Here goes anyway.

Neutral bike as a bike catalog attribute usually refers to how the front end geometry is designed, that is the combination of head tube angle and fork rake. C50 and Paris are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as how the front geometries are laid out.

In real life the numbers in the catalog have less to do with how a bike handles than how the rider is positioned on the bike and how the weight is distributed along the wheelbase. How a bike fits is the most important aspect and being off or on by a centimeter or less makes a real difference. For this reason, IMO test rides are a waste of time both for the rider and the shop - even if a rider knows to the mm what the set-up is it may not translate exactly to the test bikes geometry for best handling. Precision takes time and that's not good for the shop.

Can't comment on feel, too subjective. Other than Trek OCLV being the poster child for dull, wooden feel, I'd guess anything else is an improvement. The stiffer you think you want a frame to be, the more you kill the lively-ness of the feel. So a C50 is stiffer than a C40 and to me rides with a less lively feel. Both still far more bike than I could ever exceed for my wattage and uses

C50 or Paris, either is great if you dial in the fit.


----------



## KennyG (Mar 6, 2007)

To give a little more info, I am currently riding a 2002 Klein Quantum. The head angle on my Klein is 72.8, fork rake of 41. I see that the head angle of the C50 is 71.5, and the Paris carbon is 72.3 (based on the frame sizes I would get). Looks like my Klein head angle is actually steeper than the Paris Carbon, which is considered to be the "faster" steering bike. Does that mean that on paper my Klein should be an even "faster" steering bike than the Paris Carbon? To be honest, I have never really paid much attention to head angles on frames and how that may affect the ride characteristics (though they may).

I have been riding on the road and MTB for over 10 years, and although I don't do much organized racing anymore, I like to ride fast and hard. I usually ride about 6-8 hours per week. Lost of steep climbing in my area (East Tennessee), and I love to climb. I switched from a litespeed (ti frame) to the Klein a few years ago and much prefer the Klein due to the stiffer frame and more precise cornering/descending.

I would agree with the previous responder on the "wooden" feel of the Trek OCLV. After riding one of those a few years ago, I thought I would never like carbon. I understand now, however, that not all carbon feels the same.

Hope this helps to give you more background.


----------



## gun2head (Sep 3, 2006)

Kenny, I own a C-50 in a 59 cm. I have not ridden a Paris. However, I suggest you go to the following link for C-50 info: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=88772

I'm a taller rider at 6'2". I'm a retired pro and in my day (80's), loved twitchy frames...no more now. Stability and precision for me. This is my review from the above link: 

"I've ridden tons of different bikes and materials throughout the years at all levels of competition and for mere sport. For me, the C-50 has been by far the most integrated ride I have experienced. I was suprised at how organic and comfortable the bike was and is. I was so used to dead carbon feel that the C-50 blew me away. I can't get off the damn thing. All of my prior bikes I got for free. But, when it came time to actually buy something (i retired from racing) for mere enjoyment, the C-50 won big-time. I'd race it any day (IF I got it free)."

I rode early carbon and know of the dead sensation. Not so here. The bike is very lively like my steel beasts. It also handles like its on rails when descending and climbs wonderfully. I won't buy another bike for years...oh by the way, Fuzzalow is spot on about fitment...and if you truly have been riding ten years plus, you'd better have a real good idea on the fit.

Good Luck bro


----------



## fuzzalow (Mar 13, 2007)

Your post where you run down some of the front end geometry numbers seems like you're trying to differentiate between a C50 and Paris and infer handling characteristics from these numbers. The front geos on these bikes are indeed very different and can be called along the lines of the C50 as being the long(er) front-center bike and Paris as the short(er) front-center bike. Assuming equivalent set ups for both these bikes, the handling differences for either will simplistically come down to the difference in front-centers. Don't know what the front-center specs are on the Litespeed or Klein, but whatever they are go for the opposite if you want to try something new.

The differences will be subtle, no top tier bike handles grossly different than another top tier bike unless it's set up wrong. The only way to know if this is good for you is to ride the bike.

I own a C50 and certainly wouldn't mind owning a Paris (dang sexy in Iles Belears colors) but IMO go the C50 and start at the top. Revered by both the Starbuckers and real riders alike for very good reasons - Earnesto has forgotten more about bikes than some of the marketing-driven brands will ever know (sorry for the cliche).

Whichever you decide, set it up right and enjoy the ride.


----------



## colnago 4 me (Feb 11, 2007)

Have a look at a review done by someone in the review section on The Paris comparing it to a C50today .I have a C50 and i certainly find the ride great .It feels very responsive quick to change direction descend and corner.As an aside one of my ride colleagues had 3 pinarellos which all developed speed wobbles and one cracked .


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

KennyG said:


> I am in the market for a new high end carbon frame, and have narrowed my search to the following: Colnago C50, Pinarello Paris Carbon. I have been researching these bikes for a few months, but have not ridden either of them. The most commonly proclaimed distinction between these two frames that I have come across in threads, reviews, etc. is that the C50 is more neutral steering and the Paris Carbon is a more quick handling machine. I guess I am looking for a little more detail in this matter.
> 
> What exactly is meant by "neutral bike" and isn't that a relative term? I see lots of pros racing on the C50 and doing well. I can't imagine that would be the case if the C50 was slower in the corners than other pro level bikes. Is the C50 a slow handling bike? If not, what about the feel makes it more "neutral"? Also, I like a frame that has a stiff, lively feel - not dull or muted like some carbon I have ridden. Does the C50 have a lively feel or is it more on the muted side of the spectrum? Any comments are welcome, but I would especially like to hear from riders who have ridden both frames and can make a more objective comparison. Thanks!


you may want to check out competitivecyclist. the 2006 C50 is for sale.


----------

