# 2006 Cristallo vs C50 Purchase Advice Wanted



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, I have changed my mind a bit and am real close to ordering either a Cristallo or a sloping C50. I like the more traditional look of the Cristallo chainstays and I think the bowed mono seatstay looks sweet.

Aesthetics aside, has anyone ridden a Cristallo or can anyone provide some perspective comparing the Cristallo with the sloping C50 model for 2006.

I currently race as a CAT III and hope to be back to CAT II status this year racing primarily in CA, NV, and CO. Am 5 11, 160 lbs with a 34 inch inseam and a short torso. The 54 sloping model with the 56.3 TT and 16.5 HT looks right in my wheelhouse.

Would like any comments on how these two frames ride versus each other, etc.. Want a great climber and solid descender obviously. Will these two frames likely ride the same or very close to the same?


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

Troy16 said:


> Well, I have changed my mind a bit and am real close to ordering either a Cristallo or a sloping C50. I like the more traditional look of the Cristallo chainstays and I think the bowed mono seatstay looks sweet.
> 
> Aesthetics aside, has anyone ridden a Cristallo or can anyone provide some perspective comparing the Cristallo with the sloping C50 model for 2006.
> 
> ...


If you are going to be spending that many $, try a Specialized Tarmac SL. I don't think you'll go back to the Colnago stuff.


----------



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

if your looking for a climber/descender, you really can't beat the C50. Most colnago sponsored pro teams will use C50 in climbing stages/races and have the option of the cristallo for flat races, if that is an indicator of the attributes of either frame. I held a cristallo and a C50 in my hands last week, and I must say the cristallo looks spectacular, the pictures don't do it justice. I'm also considering a C50 or cristallo, but race in the Midwest so climbing is not my main requirement.


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Fignon's Barber said:


> if your looking for a climber/descender, you really can't beat the C50. Most colnago sponsored pro teams will use C50 in climbing stages/races and have the option of the cristallo for flat races, if that is an indicator of the attributes of either frame. I held a cristallo and a C50 in my hands last week, and I must say the cristallo looks spectacular, the pictures don't do it justice. I'm also considering a C50 or cristallo, but race in the Midwest so climbing is not my main requirement.


I'll admit my attraction to the Cristallo is more aesthetic than anything at this point as I just like the way it looks. I'm not really sure how or why the C50 would be a better climbing/descending bike because I think the Cristallo weighs the same as the C50 and has a stiffer bottom bracket which would seem a plus for climbing. On descents I don't see anything to indicate in the frame or fork that it wouldn't handle as well as a C50. Has the Cristallo been out long enough to really say that pros chose it for the flats and the C50 for climbing?


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Troy16 said:


> I'll admit my attraction to the Cristallo is more aesthetic than anything at this point as I just like the way it looks. I'm not really sure how or why the C50 would be a better climbing/descending bike because I think the Cristallo weighs the same as the C50 and has a stiffer bottom bracket which would seem a plus for climbing. On descents I don't see anything to indicate in the frame or fork that it wouldn't handle as well as a C50. Has the Cristallo been out long enough to really say that pros chose it for the flats and the C50 for climbing?


I got an email from Mike at Maestro yesterday. He said at the moment there is no feedback availble on the Cristallo but that he would not expect it to ride much different from a C50 based upon his experience with Colnagos. I must say, this guy responds to email questions well and seems very professional in his replies and their timeliness.


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

Would you or anyone happen to know the seatpost diameter for the Cristallo ? Is it a 28.0 or 27.2? 

Thanks


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

Nevermind. I seem to have found it. What I found odd is the Japan site shows the 2006 E1 as post size of 28.0? Thought the frames were similar. Go figure.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

ipaul said:


> Nevermind. I seem to have found it. What I found odd is the Japan site shows the 2006 E1 as post size of 28.0? Thought the frames were similar. Go figure.



I assume you have found the size to be 27.2. As for the 2006 E1 of 28.0, is there even a 2006 E1? I have the 2006 US dealer book in front of me and there is no E1. What is the Japanese site?


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

critchie said:


> I assume you have found the size to be 27.2. As for the 2006 E1 of 28.0, is there even a 2006 E1? I have the 2006 US dealer book in front of me and there is no E1. What is the Japanese site?


http://www.colnago.co.jp/products/road/e1/index.html

Not sure about the US listing of a 2006 E1 however the 2006 Colnago catalog does show the E1 being availabe. Also, the E1 on the japan site has the seatpost diameter listed as 28.0 as opposed to the previous years 27.2.


----------



## amygdala (Dec 28, 2005)

ipaul said:


> Would you or anyone happen to know the seatpost diameter for the Cristallo ? Is it a 28.0 or 27.2?
> 
> Thanks



competitivecyclist.com has all this info


----------

