# Cristallo or older c50



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Hi,

I have a chance to get a used, but in great condition, 2004 C50. This is the first model and not the HM. The price is reasonable. I also could possibly get a brand new Cristallo at a good price too. The difference is about $800 (2004 C50 being the cheaper one).

I am not sure what to choose. I rather spend less money, but I also know now that the Cristallo is probably 300 grams lighter than the original C50. 

Opinions welcomed. Thanks.

AC


----------



## ballmon (Mar 23, 2005)

andre2p said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a chance to get a used, but in great condition, 2004 C50. This is the first model and not the HM. The price is reasonable. I also could possibly get a brand new Cristallo at a good price too. The difference is about $800 (2004 C50 being the cheaper one).
> 
> ...


Get the C50 no matter the vintage. I've got a '04 and a '05 HM. Both are freakn' awesome rides. You won't regret the purchase.


----------



## cvanwink (Aug 31, 2005)

*C50*

I just cant see the cristallo over the C50. I dont like the sloping top tube - and the seat stays - better braking? Please. I liked the 04 C50 paint jobs much better than this year also. 
CVW


----------



## apexgeezer (Feb 9, 2005)

andre2p said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a chance to get a used, but in great condition, 2004 C50. This is the first model and not the HM. The price is reasonable. I also could possibly get a brand new Cristallo at a good price too. The difference is about $800 (2004 C50 being the cheaper one).
> 
> ...


If you are certain of the history of the C 50, then definitely the C 50. I have a 2004 (bought new early 05) and have not regretted it. You might also note that the c50 may be more "repairable" if it ever came to it with its lugged vs mono construction.


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*What?*



andre2p said:


> Hi,
> The difference is about $800 (2004 C50 being the cheaper one).
> AC


Nothing to think about. The C50.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*Thanks*

Thanks for you help. I bought the used C50. 

AC


----------



## solorider (Aug 16, 2004)

*Andre2p NOT GOOD ENOUGH*

OK so now you bought it, you owe us some photos and a ride report. 


Congrats on the purchase.

I know you will not regret it.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

solorider said:


> OK so now you bought it, you owe us some photos and a ride report.
> 
> 
> Congrats on the purchase.
> ...


Well, photos will have to wait ... 

Frame looks great. I am glad I got the used C50. Thanks for the recommendations. The problem is that it didn't come with the longer brake recessed nuts. I tried 2 local shops and their longer nuts didn't work. I ordered two 30mm nuts and hope those works when they come in. I may have to cut one to fit the rear brake. I am guessing it needs to be around 25mm. The longer ones I found here were around 20mm. Too short. Does anybody know the exact length specs? Thanks.

AC


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*Finally done!*



solorider said:


> OK so now you bought it, you owe us some photos and a ride report.
> 
> 
> Congrats on the purchase.
> ...


As promised, a photo of the "newused" C50. Used some older Record and Chorus mixed components. No regrets; wonderful bike. Thanks to all that helped me decide.

AC

No flash ...









With flash ...


----------



## live2bike (Dec 21, 2005)

*Why is the C50 better?*

This thread seems unanimous for the C50 because it is a great bike. But can someone offer details about exactly why it is better than the Cristallo? Is the Cristallo any less great, or just unproven? What are the key differences (other than the obvious sloping top tube, monocoque and fewer size options)? What would I notice if I rode them?


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

live2bike said:


> This thread seems unanimous for the C50 because it is a great bike. But can someone offer details about exactly why it is better than the Cristallo? Is the Cristallo any less great, or just unproven? What are the key differences (other than the obvious sloping top tube, monocoque and fewer size options)? What would I notice if I rode them?


Both are very good frames. The HP stays on the C50 make for a more comfortable ride. The C50 would also have a stiffer front end and perhaps better tracking in descents. The C50's lugged construction makes for the possibility of repairing everything in the event that you crash badly. The extra sizes ensure that you can get a perfectly sized frame (if you have somebody who truly does know how to size you correctly! Don't try and size a bike by phone or by email!). Esthetically, I find the traditional frame to be much more appealing. The Cristallo is however no slouch. You should realize that the Colnago CF4 Ferrari is built up using a Cristallo frame. Neither Ferrari or Colnago would allow a second class frame to carry the Ferrari name. Just go with the one that floats your boat.


----------



## Fast_C50 (Dec 8, 2005)

uhhhhhhhh...nice car?


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

dnalsaam said:


> Both are very good frames. The HP stays on the C50 make for a more comfortable ride. The C50 would also have a stiffer front end and perhaps better tracking in descents.


 No, the cristallo is designed to have a stiffer front end. It should be overall stiffer than the C50. The C50 is the all-around performer, maybe smoother ride, and certainly a great climber. I think some of the original posters were referring to the fact that the used C50 was $800 cheaper made the C50 a clear choice, but judging by the car in the background, maybe price wasn't so important! 
I'm debating between the C50 and a Cristallo. I held a Cristallo frame in my hands yesterday, and I must say it is a beautiful frame. I like the look, very modern. I currently have a CT1 and Dreamplus, both BStay models, so the Cristallo is something new. The finish is superb, no comparison to other monocoques like the Orbea Orca or Trek Madone. 
Both the Milram (petacchi and zabel) and Landboewkredit teams have been supplied C50 and Cristallo. It will be interesting to see which they choose to ride most often.


----------



## cvanwink (Aug 31, 2005)

*Yeah, it would have been easier*

on us if you had leaned it up against a VW beetle. Beautifull bike, and a great build. What size is the frame? 
Chris VW


----------



## whafe (Dec 5, 2005)

It seems that the CRISTALLO has been judged a little against the C50, has there been many CHRISTALLO's ridden yet.

I was faced with making a choice between the CRISTALLO and the PRESIDENT. I went with the PRESIDENT, am waiting for it to arrive to New Zealand. 

Some people I spoke to mentioned that the sloping rare stays on the CHRISALLO were un proven, but am not thinking that Colnago would release a bad model.

Cant wait for the devinci PRESIDENT to arrive.

By the way, nice make of car, I would prefer my 911 to a Boxster myself, just my opinion


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*rush to judgement?*



cvanwink said:



> on us if you had leaned it up against a VW beetle. Beautifull bike, and a great build. What size is the frame?
> Chris VW


Thanks for the comments about the car and the frame. The reason I need to save on the frame is because the car left me broke ...  

I really like the C50 and have no regrets, but I am sure the Cristallo will be equally great. This is a 48 sloping. The 48 sloping has a top tube similar to a 52 regular. As you can see I do not have any spacers. It works OK for me that way. The next size smaller (45s) would have had a top tube that was too short. I didn't want a 130 stem on a little frame. Just my taste. This one has a 110 stem and enough drop from the saddle to the bars if I left all spacers out. I cannot think of any reason why no spacers is a bad thing. Too late now anyway ...

AC


----------

