# The Colnago fit



## KennyG

Are Colnago frames designed to fit a little smaller than other makers, designed to be made up for by more post & more post offset and a longer stem? I am currently riding a 54cm (traditional) C-50. I am using a 110 stem and a 21 cm offset post with about 5 inches of post extended above the top of seat post collar (6.5 inches from the collar top to the top of my saddle). I have two 5mm spacers below my stem and two above it. All of this gives me my 20.5 inches from bar center to saddle nose tip and 28.5 inches from the BB center to the top of my saddle (measured along the seat tube). I also have about 1.5 – 2 inches of setback from the BB center to my saddle nose tip, and about 1.5 - 2 inches of drop between my saddle height and my bar height.

Considering all of these measurements, should I instead be on a 53cm with a 120 stem and more spacers under the stem and more post exposed with a little more post setback? Some promote this smaller frame approach to fitting Colnagos (and they think everyone else is wrong). I have a new 54cm EP that I am about to start building up, but I want to make sure my frame size is correct according to Colonago’s fit philosophy before I start building it up. 

So, what is Colnago's fit philosophy? Should Colnago frames fit a little small and be made up for by a longer stem and more post than other makers frames would require?


----------



## Morison

*Been there*

There is certainly validity to the approach that you mentioned. Here is my favorite account of an experienced cyclist and fitter "discovering" what many refer to as the right way to fit a Colnago; http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml

To provide an opinion, looking at the dimesnions that you provided I don't feel as though the 54 is a bad fit. I've certainly seen worse. Going to a 53 would change a few things but the changes with the most obvious effect would be the top tube length and head tube length. The top tube is only 5mm shorter on the 53cm traditional, so with a 120mm stem your reach would actually increase 5mm. The head tube is 9mm shorter, so you would have to account for that using additional spacers to mimic your current fit or accept that you would be lower in all hand positions. Can you handle going longer and lower?


----------



## KennyG

Wow. That article seems to support the smaller frame idea for a Colnago fit. If that is correct, and Colnagos are designed to fit a little differently than other brands, it sounds like a 53 may be better for me than my 54. The TT lenght difference is not that much, my main concearn would be in using three to four 5mm spacers under my stem instead of just two.


----------



## gibson00

I've spent a lot of time asking similar questions....
Really, it boils down to which you like the look of.....more seatpost with more spacers under the stem, or less seatpost with less spacers under the stem.
It is easy enough to get your fit on either size, and both will likely handle the same, IMHO.
I ride with a saddle height about 8mm higher than yours, and I take a '54' Colnago.

You would also fit perfectly on a sloping '50' colnago, which has the same virtual measurements as the '54' standard, but you get to have more post showing.


----------



## KennyG

To be honest, I like the look of my current set-up better than I would like the look of 20mm of spacers under my stem. I know I don't like the look of the sloping frames as much as traditional frames...

If your saddle height is about the same as mine (72.5cm), and you are on a 54, I assume your set-up looks similar to mine. That being said, the article above seems to be saying that this is not just a visual difference - but that the Colnago will not handle as intended if one does not adhere to the smaller frame/longer stem & post. If it is really just about looks, then I will go on and not give it another thought. If there is an actual handling improvement to be gained, however, that would be worth me going through the hassle of exchanging my 54 for a 53.

Has anyone out there tried a Colnago built with both of these different approaches and noticed a difference in hadling (like the guy in the article claimes to have experienced)?


----------



## gibson00

For the record, others believe the Bikesport article means nothing. Read the following topic from 2005 at the serotta board. Read the 6th post down from 'jerk'. He is probably one of the more knowledgeable people in the US when it comes to Colnagos:

http://serotta.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6180

To summarize, they basically all believe the article is full of sh*t, and it is written by a triahtlete store to boot, not exactly the authority on high end italian road frames..


----------



## Morison

*Everyone is entitled their opinion...*

Of course there are people that believe the Bikesport article means nothing. But to disregard it because Tom sells a lot of tri bikes is unfortunate. If you look at the article, at the very top of all of his reviews, he asks you to read this; http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/bikes/productrev.shtml

In his own clarification about his reviews, he states that the views expressed are his opinion. If you look a little further into his qualifications, you'll find that he has an incredible amount of experience riding, racing, and fitting road bikes as well as tri bikes; http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/wheels/resume.shtml 

I did not offer up that article as the bible regarding Colnago fit, but from my own experience I can tell you that following that advice to a degree will ensure that your Colnago will perform as best as possible and the way it was designed.


----------



## haydos

If you were coming from another brand of bike it would be a bigger issue as colnago's typically have a bigger bottom bkt drop than others and the crown on the fork is bigger than many too.

Just something to chip in with.

I went from a 51 pro machine - 540eff TT, 140 HT, no spacers with a 110 stem and with a zero setback post to a 52 trad EPS - 530 TT, 125 HT. I'm running a record setback post on the nago to allow for the different angles of ST. I've also gone with a 10mm longer stem on the nago, but i'm unsure on spacers yet as I actually dont have the frame yet.


----------



## fabsroman

If you could wait about a month, I'd be able to tell you what you need to know. I'm building up my 53cm C50 right now, but probably won't have it built and ridden until the end of March because of work. All my other Colnago road frames are 50 sloping, which is the equivalent of 54 traditional and is supposed to handle the same as 54 traditional. Honestly, those 50 sloping frames handle so well that I will fall over, not literally of course, if the 53cm traditional C50 actually handles better than the 50 sloping frames.


----------



## ciclisto

*C-50 Fit*

i usually use a 58 traditional frame. When fitted to the Colnago the fitter in LA who was doing a lot of Colnagos had both a 58 and a 57 in stock,same price, so no putting the round object in the square hole. But I did have to go to a 130mm stem instead of my 120mm and then the bike handled and descended much better. would a 58 work out, probably but I really like the Ferrari like quality of this set up.... E Colnago fitted some folks in LA at this same store and I remember some allusion to the smaller frame, longer stem arrangement, can't recall where I read that though. Call Wrench Science in Berkeley Ca and they will help as they have experience with this situation, they are very helpful over the phone even if you are not buying and they have a fit program on their site.


----------



## KennyG

Here is a pic of my current set-up for a visual. Sorry for the bad pic, but I took it from my phone. What does everyone think? One size smaller - or spot on as is???


----------



## haydos

Those bars have a massive throw. WOW!

I'd stick with the same size. Saddle looks about right height (in proportion), and stem is in good position.

Is the reason the bars are high because you struggle in the drops? If so, i'd look at buying a short reach / shallow bar and getting a longer stem to allow. Something like Deda Zero 100 bar and stem.


----------



## fabsroman

Here is a pic of my Bianchi FG Lite and another of my Cristallo. The Bianchi is still the same, but the wheels are Zipp 303's now. The Cristallo is the same but the saddle has been changed to a Fizik Arione, it has been lowered slightly, and moved back slightly.


----------



## KennyG

haydos said:


> Those bars have a massive throw. WOW!
> 
> I'd stick with the same size. Saddle looks about right height (in proportion), and stem is in good position.
> 
> Is the reason the bars are high because you struggle in the drops? If so, i'd look at buying a short reach / shallow bar and getting a longer stem to allow. Something like Deda Zero 100 bar and stem.


Does "throw" refer to the rotational angle of my entire bar arrangement as it is clamped in the stem, or is it the position of my hoods on the bar? What is the standard regarding this?


----------



## odeum

your setup would indicate you have long torso and arms and relatively shorter leg factors,
needing to use a stem that long on a frame that size. typically, the longer stems are proportionate for large frames. if you really have an ideal fit with that long of a "throw" (what is ultimately measured here is the saddle to bars distance) the only way 'round this is to have a longer top tube, as in custom bike.






KennyG said:


> Does "throw" refer to the rotational angle of my entire bar arrangement as it is clamped in the stem, or is it the position of my hoods on the bar? What is the standard regarding this?


----------



## haydos

I like the look of a long stem on a nago.

It also just seems to handle better IMO

The way you have the bars angled has increased the reach substantially of what the bars should normally be.

as asked before, do you struggle in the drops?


----------



## fabsroman

I had always wondered why people had the bars rotated up so that the bar ends weren't parallel with the ground. I never thought about the extended reach. I guess it might make the reach to the hoods a little shorter by rotating the bars that way.


----------



## KennyG

haydos said:


> I like the look of a long stem on a nago.
> 
> It also just seems to handle better IMO
> 
> The way you have the bars angled has increased the reach substantially of what the bars should normally be.
> 
> as asked before, do you struggle in the drops?


I don't have any problems in the drops when I use them. I did try to rotate my bars down last night, and that does have the affect of increasing the effective reach and drop to the hoods. I had never realy noticed that my bars were rotated up more than normal. I guess my saddle nose to bar center of 20.5 really needs to be decreased so that I can comfortably run the bars in the more horizontal position. Really, I probably need to just break down and have a live professional fit done. That should help me to determine exactly what size frame I need. Right now, it seems that I need a size 53 with the headtube size of a 54. That would seem to solve all of my issues.


----------



## fabsroman

Or a 54 frame with a shorter stem. There are a lot of frame sizes that people can ride, the question is which one is optimal. There are also a lot of stem sizes out there for a reason. Trying to stick with an exact stem length and frame size you are set on just doesn't make sense if it is not optimal. On my TT bike I went from 9cm to 6cm to 7cm stems before I finally decided that the 7cm stem was the right one. I went with the 53 traditional frame because I think that 1/2cm shorter top tube is exactly what I need. A 10cm stem is too short for me on these frames and an 11cm stem makes the brakes hoods feel like a little bit of a reach. So, that 1/2 cm should be just perfect.


----------



## haydos

kennyg,

my suggestion was to also move the sti's higher up on the bars after you tilted them down.

that should reduce the reach to them probably 2cm


----------



## rodist

I always heard you should point the bar end at the rear brake mount.
This gives a nice nuetral angle for your wrist when in the drops.


----------



## fabsroman

I agree with pointing the bar end toward the rear brake, or at least making the bar ends (i.e., the ends of the drops) horizontal with the ground. However, I have seen a lot of people with the bars turned up to a degree. I'm assuming that they don't actually put their hands in the curves in the drops, but instead rest their hands on the flat parts of the drops at the very bottom of the bars and that is the reason for the bars being turned up. Me, I don't have any choice with my Ram bars, but even my Cinelli bars from back in the day are set up with the ends pointing to the rear brake.


----------



## KennyG

In looking at the Colnago geo numbers, the EPS has about a 10mm longer headtube for each size throughout the range vs the C-50 or EP. Since everything with a 53 seems better for me except for the headtube size (borderline too small), a 53cm EPS may be my best bet. A 53cm EPS actually ha a longer headtube than my 54cm C-50, on which I am only using 20mm of spacers. 

The only downside is that I would have to return my EP and wait 10+ weeks for an EPS! The AMOO color is growing on me a little...


----------



## gibson00

KennyG said:


> In looking at the Colnago geo numbers, the EPS has about a 10mm longer headtube for each size throughout the range vs the C-50 or EP. Since everything with a 53 seems better for me except for the headtube size (borderline too small), a 53cm EPS may be my best bet. A 53cm EPS actually ha a longer headtube than my 54cm C-50, on which I am only using 20mm of spacers.
> 
> The only downside is that I would have to return my EP and wait 10+ weeks for an EPS! The AMOO color is growing on me a little...



The reason the EPS has a longer head tube is because it uses an integrated headset, and thus does not get the extra height from the traditional headset like your C50 does. Don't be fooled.

When you first posted your question, I didn't realize your stem was popped up like that. I definitely wouldn't go to a shorter frame. I would suggest you stick with 54, and for aesthetics, I might suggest you:
Get a stem that is closer to level, put an extra spacer under it to make up for height(looks like there is room on your steerer), and get a shallow drop bar, like an EC90 SLX3.
Good luck!


----------



## KennyG

gibson00 said:


> The reason the EPS has a longer head tube is because it uses an integrated headset, and thus does not get the extra height from the traditional headset like your C50 does. Don't be fooled.
> 
> When you first posted your question, I didn't realize your stem was popped up like that. I definitely wouldn't go to a shorter frame. I would suggest you stick with 54, and for aesthetics, I might suggest you:
> Get a stem that is closer to level, put an extra spacer under it to make up for height(looks like there is room on your steerer), and get a shallow drop bar, like an EC90 SLX3.
> Good luck!


It appears that the top portion of the integrated headset on the EPS extends above the headtube at least as high or higher than the top of my King headset on my C-50. That is what leads me to belive that the 53 EPS with a 133mm headtube will give me about the same position up front as my 54cm C-50 with a 130mm headtube. Look at the EPS photos in the "C EPS with S R 11" thread - headset height above the headtube is pretty substantial. I figure that plus 20mm of spacers will get me to about the same position that I currently have on my 54 cmC-50 up front. 
I have actually already done what you suggested with my C-50. Here is a new pic. it does look better now and has my bar in almost the exact same position.


----------



## fabsroman

That picture looks a lot better. Personally, I think you need to go with the larger frame and a shorter stem if headtube length is an issue, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## gibson00

KennyG said:


> It appears that the top portion of the integrated headset on the EPS extends above the headtube at least as high or higher than the top of my King headset on my C-50. That is what leads me to belive that the 53 EPS with a 133mm headtube will give me about the same position up front as my 54cm C-50 with a 130mm headtube. Look at the EPS photos in the "C EPS with S R 11" thread - headset height above the headtube is pretty substantial. I figure that plus 20mm of spacers will get me to about the same position that I currently have on my 54 cmC-50 up front.
> I have actually already done what you suggested with my C-50. Here is a new pic. it does look better now and has my bar in almost the exact same position.



Depends how you think about it....
Keep in mind, the CK headset has a stack height of 30-35mm. And part of that is under the head tube, part over (ie. the two cups).
On an integrated headset, like on the EPS, you just have a top cap. You can get these top caps in different heights, from almost zero height, to 30mm. But all that height will only be on top of the head tube, not nicely distributed like your CK headset.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, think of the top cap as a 'spacer', not a headset, because its -not- a headset.
Your current 54 has a head tube of 13.2cm. Add the CK headset, and you have a total height of about 16.5cm. Then add your spacers, which looks to be 2.5 - 3cm?
So about 19cm total height from the bottom of the bottom CK cup to the bottom of your stem?

So if you get an EPS with a 13.3cm HT, then you're going to have a total stack of 5cm+ on top of the head tube (top cone and spacers) to get your height. You might not be happy with that!!
These things can be easy to over-think.... 
My opinion is that regardless of which model colnago you go with, stick with the '54' size. It'll work. a 55 would work too and give less spacers, but less post showing too.
Just don't get a '53'. The head tube will be too short regardless of the model.


----------



## KennyG

gibson00 said:


> Depends how you think about it....
> Keep in mind, the CK headset has a stack height of 30-35mm. And part of that is under the head tube, part over (ie. the two cups).
> On an integrated headset, like on the EPS, you just have a top cap. You can get these top caps in different heights, from almost zero height, to 30mm. But all that height will only be on top of the head tube, not nicely distributed like your CK headset.
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, think of the top cap as a 'spacer', not a headset, because its -not- a headset.
> Your current 54 has a head tube of 13.2cm. Add the CK headset, and you have a total height of about 16.5cm. Then add your spacers, which looks to be 2.5 - 3cm?
> So about 19cm total height from the bottom of the bottom CK cup to the bottom of your stem?
> 
> So if you get an EPS with a 13.3cm HT, then you're going to have a total stack of 5cm+ on top of the head tube (top cone and spacers) to get your height. You might not be happy with that!!
> These things can be easy to over-think....
> My opinion is that regardless of which model colnago you go with, stick with the '54' size. It'll work. a 55 would work too and give less spacers, but less post showing too.
> Just don't get a '53'. The head tube will be too short regardless of the model.


I follow what you are saying and it makes good sense. I know a 53 will get me to the limit for my preferred bar drop, and will not allow me to go any higher without using more spacers than recommended. Intrestingly, I emailed my current bike measurements to Colnago, and they recommended a sloping 50 for me - which is essentially the same as my 54, but with the sloping TT. I don't think I will go this way, however, because I really prefer the look of a traditional geo frame.


----------



## gibson00

KennyG said:


> I follow what you are saying and it makes good sense. I know a 53 will get me to the limit for my preferred bar drop, and will not allow me to go any higher without using more spacers than recommended. Intrestingly, I emailed my current bike measurements to Colnago, and they recommended a sloping 50 for me - which is essentially the same as my 54, but with the sloping TT. I don't think I will go this way, however, because I really prefer the look of a traditional geo frame.


Yup, I agree with the Colnago guys, a sloping 50 would work great too. Even a sloping 52 could work.
But I agree with you, I prefer the level top tube. 
Be sure to post pics of whatever you end up getting!


----------

