# first test ride of C-50 is eye opener!!



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

having made up my mind to get the C-50 and having sold my :Litespeed Tuscany friday for very little loss, I was determined to ride a C-50. I drove up to Pasadena 2.5hrs. and saw probably 50 Colnagos none built up. The owner there used my litespeed to measure me for the colgnago using the step over method and "could I still see the front hub? I thought this was bogus. Then I used wrench science system and they swear it works and came up with a 57 frame size c-t. so I had a 6 mile ride on the 57 c-50. I must say this is the most different feeling bike I have ever ridden, it seemed very quick handling , i was surprised also felt it was of short wheelbase like a Ducati compared to a Harley. I questioned the size the dealer had on it so I measured my self, and this 57 c-t measured 54cm bb c-c (seat tube) and 54.5 top tube. I do not think this was a 57 maybe a 56. who is wrong here? I really was ready to order tomorrow now confused. Also he let me ride a Serotta ottrott very nice but night and day to the colnago, like a Lotus vs. Mercedes. My question is I am doubting my like for the c-50 or was it the too small frame. Can some one with a 57 measure on their own top tube c-c and the seat tube c-c this is getting impossible with no 58 to test ride. I felt the C-50 lacked the jump my litespeed had, do not want to talk myself into a C-50 if it is an ill fit for me. I usually ride a 56.5 top tube.
any help appreciated..


----------



## wasfast (Feb 3, 2004)

You don't say what the dimensions were on the Litespeed you just had. That should be a starting point. You can't just say you ride XXcm and compare all manufacturers. Some are measured c-c, others c-t. In the case of the Colnagos, they have a fair amount of tube above the top tube. What you want to do is compare apples to apples. The numbers are on every chart, they just may give you a different "size" for that manufacturer. Top tube length is much more important than seat tube length. 

If you're going to spend the sort of money that a Colnago runs, it's easily worth spending $100 or so for a fit to get your numbers long before you order. The dealer's "bar blocking the hub" and standover method might be good enough for a test ride but I'd NEVER order a frame on those generalizations.

Many here have had great success with ordering their Colnagos from Maestro in the UK. You may want to investigate that option.


----------



## odeum (May 9, 2005)

a 58 colnago size will have a 56.3 ctc top tube, with the preferred stem is a 13 for most.

do not ever depend on a dealer for anything if you can help it, you must be self sufficient in ascertaining your own size.

the 58 may work well for you, but you better take your current stem length and saddle set back into consideration.

weird danger signs re fit transfer to colnago:
if you have a shorter than 12 stem now
if you have a seatpost with no setback
if your saddle is positioned oddly forward

over to you...






ciclisto said:


> had, do not want to talk myself into a C-50 if it is an ill fit for me. I usually ride a 56.5 top tube.
> any help appreciated..


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

Thanks for the replies, I am comparing apples to apples . I use only c-c seat tube measurements even if it is a Colnago, I ascertained this from Colnago charts. As for the litespeed it was called a "57" but measured 55.3 seat tube(c-c) and a 56.5 cm top tube(consistent with thier charts). My custom frame Holland steel is 56.5 c-c seat and 56.5 top tube. Both work for me with a 120mm stem that is flat.(FSA). I have emailed Mike in uk and his advice is to multiply 75.67 X your seat height. that gets a 58 for me. wrench science formula = 57, the difference in a 57-58 top tube is 1/4". But I guess it matters. I will wait till next weekend going to the Tour of California conclusion in L.A., supposedly the Colnago booth may help and a dealer in L.A. says he has built up nags. I went to a shop to get fitted and offered to pay and the guy a Colnago dealer just said lets measure the Holland and then went to the charts, these guys are hopeless . The dealer in North L.A. had a Serotta fit system he says he never uses it, drove 2.5 hrs and he has me stand on my bike. perhaps the 58 is it. I think the 57 I tried today was mis-marked as to size even the guy in the store had doubts. Waiting is alright with me. BTW i am 5''11" INSEAM 85CM, SEAT HEIGHT 76.4CM 
I appreciate the dialogue, 
john


----------



## 2wheelsport (Sep 23, 2005)

ciclisto said:


> Thanks for the replies, I am comparing apples to apples . I use only c-c seat tube measurements even if it is a Colnago, I ascertained this from Colnago charts. As for the litespeed it was called a "57" but measured 55.3 seat tube(c-c) and a 56.5 cm top tube(consistent with thier charts). My custom frame Holland steel is 56.5 c-c seat and 56.5 top tube. Both work for me with a 120mm stem that is flat.(FSA). I have emailed Mike in uk and his advice is to multiply 75.67 X your seat height. that gets a 58 for me. wrench science formula = 57, the difference in a 57-58 top tube is 1/4". But I guess it matters. I will wait till next weekend going to the Tour of California conclusion in L.A., supposedly the Colnago booth may help and a dealer in L.A. says he has built up nags. I went to a shop to get fitted and offered to pay and the guy a Colnago dealer just said lets measure the Holland and then went to the charts, these guys are hopeless . The dealer in North L.A. had a Serotta fit system he says he never uses it, drove 2.5 hrs and he has me stand on my bike. perhaps the 58 is it. I think the 57 I tried today was mis-marked as to size even the guy in the store had doubts. Waiting is alright with me. BTW i am 5''11" INSEAM 85CM, SEAT HEIGHT 76.4CM
> I appreciate the dialogue,
> john


I'm 6ft and my seat height is 77.4cm. I ride a 58cm(c-t) C50 w/135mm stem. I ride with approx. 8-10cm of setback depending on the saddle. 

What kind of reach do you have on your current bikes? Assuming the same saddle, what's the measurement from the tip of your saddle to the center of the bar? This will give you a better idea if the 57 is right for you. After dialing in the saddle to bar reach that's comfortable to you, the saddle should be centered on the rails or slightly back. Have them get the bike on a trainer and get your seat height and fore/aft set. Now if you are comfortable and you have a 120-130mm stem, then it should be just about right. You can also fine tune the reach with a different handlebar. There's a 30-40mm spread in reach between all the different bars. That easily makes up the difference between the two sizes. 

2wheelsport


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

My data points.

I have 3 Colnagos, two 57s and one 58. The measured dimensions on those bikes are precisely what is found in any Colnago geometry chart found on-line. The bike you described was not a 57.

I'm 5'11", my inseam is 85.34 and I ride with my saddle at 755mm from the center of the BB. I run my saddle 78mm behind the BB and the reach I strive for on my bikes is 57cm. On most frames, I shoot for a 57cm top tube. For some oddball reason, my 57cm MxL gets a 57cm reach with a 120 stem while my 57cm Dream needs a 130. The 58cm C50 gets a 57cm reach with a 120, as you might expect.

My semi-educated advice - you could probably be happy on a 57, 58 or 59.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

2wheelsport, thanks! the info helped, and terry b you are correct I think the problem was they mislabeled the size, it was too small for a 57, i rechecked. your inseam etc are close to mine and i do believe probably a 58 is correct, but i thought a 57 would be close and a real 57 might be, I was trying to force the issue with the 57 because I found a 57 PRO2 my favorite color now discontinued. but the fit is more important and if needed I will order a PRO1-58 from Maestro and wait.


----------



## odeum (May 9, 2005)

www.gvhbikes.com 
has great colnago prices and i highly reccomend

www.eurobikeparts.com 
talk to dom he has the best price on campy, ect!

sounds like you will love a 58. per their sizing, colnagos are a bit "tall" but the 57 would come up short in the tt compared to your current rides...






ciclisto said:


> 2wheelsport, thanks! the info helped, and terry b you are correct I think the problem was they mislabeled the size, it was too small for a 57, i rechecked. your inseam etc are close to mine and i do believe probably a 58 is correct, but i thought a 57 would be close and a real 57 might be, I was trying to force the issue with the 57 because I found a 57 PRO2 my favorite color now discontinued. but the fit is more important and if needed I will order a PRO1-58 from Maestro and wait.


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*Something's wrong. .*



ciclisto said:


> . .it seemed very quick handling , i was surprised also felt it was of short wheelbase like a Ducati compared to a Harley.



You need to get fitted right. C50 and quick handling don't go hand in hand. This is one of the reasons I bought one. I want a bike for 80-100 rides with relaxed all day geometry. If one wants a "crit" bike look elsewhere.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

Katzrkol, et al you are all correct; went back to store to talk to "fit Guy" he said he was aware of my test ride yesterday and said they made a mistake it was a "55" not a "57" and then said he could make it fit and not to worry about the numbers well I bid him a good day, and remeasured myself with help and will detemine this weekend if it is a 57 or 58 but I am not getting a 55 and making it fit , this is not a huffynago, where one makes do. I knew I wasn't crazy. will be at the tour final day a redondo beach and will visit the old bike shop a colnago dealer for fit. then order.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

*The Old Bike Shop*



ciclisto said:


> Katzrkol, et al you are all correct; went back to store to talk to "fit Guy" he said he was aware of my test ride yesterday and said they made a mistake it was a "55" not a "57" and then said he could make it fit and not to worry about the numbers well I bid him a good day, and remeasured myself with help and will detemine this weekend if it is a 57 or 58 but I am not getting a 55 and making it fit , this is not a huffynago, where one makes do. I knew I wasn't crazy. will be at the tour final day a redondo beach and will visit the old bike shop a colnago dealer for fit. then order.


Mohammed is a great guy and he has GREAT prices on Colnagos. His prices are in line with GVH and Maestro when you factor in import taxes. Plus, they do excellent work.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

thanks for the endorsement, looking forward to it.
out now.!


----------



## jnwarner0 (Oct 4, 2005)

*C-50 size*

I recently, 2 weeks ago, purchased my c-50. I was in the same position as you. I used the guides and came up with a really small frame. I found a dealer with a 57 and it was just too small. I stood over the 59 which could have worked but seemed a little large. I ended up with the 58. I am 5'11 3/4 . I was riding a bike with a t-t of 57.2 and the 58 has a t-t of 56.3. I now use a 120 stem instead of the 110 I was using, which makes up the difference. The bike does fit a little different but I am happy with it. As another person stated I could have been fine with a 58 or a 59, even a 57 but that just felt a little too small to me. By the way I love the bike. I opted for a new 2004 as I prefer the paint schemes a little better, plus I could get a new one for 3,000 including star forkes. but I could have bought a new one for 3550.00 It was out of Chicago. Great to deal with, Great bike and great price built up. I love it!! Let me know if you want more info on my experince or where I made my purchas. (out of state saved me almost 500 in tax)


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

thanks for the info , my problem was trying like i said a 55 and being told it was a 57 threw me off, and bad first impression. I would like your info re purchase etc.
thanks,


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

A 57 Colnago should be just about 3-4mm smaller than a 57 Litespeed, a difference generally small enough for most people. However, Colnago does make a 57 and a 58. If the LS was a dead on fit for you, then you should go w/ a 57. If you could use slightly larger frame (say 5mm larger), then a 58 Colnago might be your best bet. 




ciclisto said:


> thanks for the info , my problem was trying like i said a 55 and being told it was a 57 threw me off, and bad first impression. I would like your info re purchase etc.
> thanks,


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

the 57 litespeed had a 55.3cm seat c-c and a 56.5 tt c-c which is 9mm longer than a 57 colnago tt and 2mm longer than a 58 colnago tt which is 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch not much


----------

