# C50 sloping vs standard?



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

Has anyone had a chance to compare a sloping C50 with a traditional one? Would one expect the two to fit and ride exactly the same? or would the shorter b-stay and triangle give off a harsher ride?
Also, what do most prefer for a Colnago when it comes to looks?
Thanks


----------



## 6was9 (Jan 28, 2004)

*If...*



ipaul said:


> Has anyone had a chance to compare a sloping C50 with a traditional one? Would one expect the two to fit and ride exactly the same? or would the shorter b-stay and triangle give off a harsher ride?
> Also, what do most prefer for a Colnago when it comes to looks?
> Thanks


If you want "the Colnago" look, then get the traditional as sloping ones are rather new. I ride a sloping C50 but have not compared with a traditional C50 so I couldn't tell ya ( I've ridden traditional C40s) but although C50 is stiffer than C40 mine is far from too stiff or harsh. But I would think you are right in that the sloping frame is stiffer. I also have a traditional steel Master X light and although they feel different (MXL being much more springy steel ride) my sloping C50 is not harsh, compared to MXL, if that's what you are concerned, just different... good...perfect  .

As I have longish torso I bought the sloping geometry frame thinking that i'd get better stand over ht & be able to have more seatpost showing besides giving me longer TT but in the end, it gave me little bit of what I was expecting but not by much, compared to my traditional geometry MXL... I could easily have gone with a traditional geometry. 

One thing the sloping geometry gave me, in my case, is a slightly taller head tube thus less spacers (C50s have taller headtube than MXL to begin with)...no I am definately no zero spacer guy and now I could get away with none but I just have one now.


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not really sure which way to go, but most likely would lean towards standard. I've ridden sloping frames and just seem to feel different to me. I do like the look though, a bit more modern. I don't really need the stiffness. Comparing the sloping chart vs tranditional, the headtube is the same for a 56/52S, so there is not advantage there for me. In fact all the dimensions are similar.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

ipaul said:


> I don't really need the stiffness. Comparing the sloping chart vs tranditional, the headtube is the same for a 56/52S, so there is not advantage there for me. In fact all the dimensions are similar.


Actually, the geometry chart I looked at shows the 52S as having a 15.5cm HT and the 56 with a 15cm HT. Pretty minor difference, unless your fit is all the way at one of the the 56 or the other. Probably get that much difference riding a new seat and wearing new bibs vs. a year old seat and year old short. Or after two pints of Ben & Jerry's.

I'm facing the same decision. I currently ride a 56 Colnago Classic and am ordering a C50. After going back and forth, I think it'll be traditional geometry for two reasons:
1: a compact frame will be stiffer, and I want a little more compliance to be kind to my lower back and
2: I'm ordering an older paint scheme and think it would look strange with compact geometry. Of course, if I follow this to the logical extreme, I shouldn't go with a C-50, but attempt to get a C-40, but let's not get carried away.... Gotta have the latest and greatest, after all.


----------

