# New to Colnago : Sizing Opinions on EPQ



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm 6'2.5" with a 33 inseam and am 190lbs during race season. I'll be using the EPQ for crits and road races as well as 50 mile training rides here and there.

I'm coming off of a BMC which also had pretty wacky sizing (57 with 58.5 ett).

Rep I spoke with quickly said a 56s would work with it's 58 ett. I'm more incline to stand over a few before I pull the trigger but wanted to see what others here were riding with their height/frame ratio.

I have the opportunity to piece up a 2010 EPS in a 58 but I'm not sure if it is a sloping.

I'm also not sure I want a sloping model just yet.

Opinions between:

56 sloping
58 non sloping
Another size?

I originally wanted a M10 in MTBK but am told they are no more.
I actually wanted a EPS before that, but now that there is an EPQ I get the best of everything I suppose, carbon lugs, made in Italy, matte finish and internal routing.

Just need to get the size right.

The BMC forum has been very helpful in the past and I'm hoping I can expect the same here.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers.


----------



## Jbartmc (Sep 14, 2007)

Chech R&A Cycles for a deal on an EPS.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

Jbartmc said:


> Chech R&A Cycles for a deal on an EPS.


Thanks but I am looking for real world opinions on sizing.


----------



## Jbartmc (Sep 14, 2007)

I am 6'1" and rode a 59 cm EPS, but I am not a racer so I have a more relaxed drop and extended reach.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

I'd measure your BMC's top tube and head tube lengths, and then compare to the Colnago geometry charts. Going off the seattube dimensions is worthless. And it really doesn't matter whether the frame is compact or standard.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

First, you might look at a Colnago sizing chart to see wht is being measured for the quoted sizing. They are center to top of sp extension effectively. 

I'm 6'0" and use a 58 traditional C-50. It would be very small for you, but perhaps not impossible.

As a larger person, the sloping models will have several advantages. They are more stiff tortionally and will weigh less. A 56 sloping would probably be my best guess for you as well.


----------



## savechief (Apr 16, 2009)

This thread might be helpful for sizing:
Weight Weenies • View topic - Colnago EPQ - 'tailor made'?


----------



## Raymond8Pistons (Jun 24, 2002)

I am 6 feet tall with a 32 inch inseam. I ride a 58 traditional EPQ. I also recently purchased an EPS in a 57 traditional. When comparing the dimensions of Colnago frames versus my Cervelo R 3 aagainst the dimensions suggested after a comprehensive fit analysis, a frame between the Colnago 57 and Colnago 58 would be the ideal choice. The actual differences are quite small and easily adjusted for with seat and stem positioning. The EPQ is the best bicycle I have ever ridden.


----------



## maxxevv (Jan 18, 2009)

carbonLORD said:


> I'm 6'2.5" with a 33 inseam and am 190lbs during race season. I'll be using the EPQ for crits and road races as well as 50 mile training rides here and there.
> 
> I'm coming off of a BMC which also had pretty wacky sizing (57 with 58.5 ett).
> 
> ...


I'm a fair bit shorter but an almost identical inseam at 84cm. And I ride a 50S EPS. Looks like you've got a longer torso proportionately. 

I would say the 56S to be as high as you would want to go on the seat-tube though. As for ETT, depends on your arm length and flexibility too. As per normal 'proportions, based on your inseam and torso proportions, ya, I would hazard a 54S or a size 57 traditional suggestion instead. 

Note that compared to BMC, Colnago has pretty slack seatube angles, which would set you further back on the bike position for equivalent saddle height. A full degree difference, which would translate to approximately 13mmm difference in setback for say a 745mm seat height. 

Something to consider too as in my opinion, bike fit is about balance rather than just about body proportions. Hence my suggestions of a 54S or 57 instead. 

Hope its of help.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

carbonLORD said:


> I'm 6'2.5" with a 33 inseam and am 190lbs during race season. I'll be using the EPQ for crits and road races as well as 50 mile training rides here and there.
> 
> I'm coming off of a BMC which also had pretty wacky sizing (57 with 58.5 ett).
> 
> ...


You and I are about the same size. I'm 6'3" with a 33" inseam and I weigh 190. I also have an EPQ - I posted pics of it, but PM me with your email if you want other versions. I have the 58 sloping.

I would think given your size you are between a 56 & 58 sloping and a 59 or 60 traditional. I run a 120mm stem on my 58 sloping and show decent post. I could have gone 56 sloping and ran a 130mm.

I am going to do a fit kit and get everything checked out even though I've been riding the frame for six months.

I can tell you this - the EPQ is the BEST bike I have ever owned and I have been riding and racing for 20 years - it's incredible and I don't regret it one bit.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

Looks like my inseam is more in line with 34-34.5 and not 33 as I originally stated. Technically I am 6 foot 2 1/2 inches tall.

I quickly tossed on some wheels without rubber on a 58 traditional EPS and it was too small. After looking at the geometry specs indeed, the TT and HT were smaller then my BMC but I'm now leaning towards a sloping model now anyway.

Seems like I am between sizes on the 56s and 58s but I've always gone with the smaller size when having a choice between the two.

So, I just need some reassurance that going with the 56 sloping EPQ and running a 120-130mm stem is the right move for me.

Thanks so much for the advice thus far.

Looking forward to owning a Colnago soon!

cL


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

A 56 sloping is inline with a 60cm non sloping - so I think you will be fine with either a 120 or 130.

As another poster mentioned the angle of the seat tube will increase your reach to the bars. My winter bike is a Merckx Team SC with a 59.5 tt and my EPQ is 59tt. Each have a 120mm stem, but the EPQ is about 1.5cm longer reach.

I think you will really dig having a colnago.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

ronderman said:


> A 56 sloping is inline with a 60cm non sloping - so I think you will be fine with either a 120 or 130.
> 
> As another poster mentioned the angle of the seat tube will increase your reach to the bars. My winter bike is a Merckx Team SC with a 59.5 tt and my EPQ is 59tt. Each have a 120mm stem, but the EPQ is about 1.5cm longer reach.
> 
> I think you will really dig having a colnago.


So based on your information before and being that my inseam is 34 without shoes, I really could be riding either the 58s or 60t?

I'm really torn between a traditional and sloping model. Do you have any pictures of yours so I can get a better visualization?

Thanks again for your help.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Yea, here is a thread on my EPQ

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/co...aint-not-same-listed-colnago-site-252262.html

check all two pages and you will see the build come together. That's a 130mm stem on the bike, which I thought I needed, I now ride a 120mm - i also lowered the bars about a cm or 2 - I have 3.5" of drop and to get that I need maybe 7cm of spacers. 

I would say you are a 56sloping or 60cm traditional (same TT) or a 58 sloping - you could do the 62cm tradtional, but I think don't think you're want that.

FYI, here is my winter older merckx in 60cm traditional - this bike has since been totaled in a car wreck, you can see how much post I show if that helps

SLAM THAT STEM, Patrick sends in his Domo Merckx, haunting the...


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

ronderman said:


> Yea, here is a thread on my EPQ
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/co...aint-not-same-listed-colnago-site-252262.html
> 
> ...


Sweet!

So the sloping on a larger frame really isn't all that "sloping". I see what you mean about the 58. Seems like you would want to "slam that stem" to get the race fit but the 56s would allow me to run 5-10mm in spacers if I wanted to fine tune and I'd get the right amount of seat post there. Thanks for easing my concerns.

I'm going to go with the 56s. Thank you for all of your help Ron!


----------



## fick (Jul 30, 2007)

Hi Sabin,
I'm an old customer of yours from Switz. Make sure you post some pictures of your new rig when it's built up!


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

fick said:


> Hi Sabin,
> I'm an old customer of yours from Switz. Make sure you post some pictures of your new rig when it's built up!


Love your handle, lol.

I'll definitely be posting pics. Dealer said the frame will be ready mid Jan- mid Feb.

Picked up a new set of Zero Gravity Gravitas "SL" calipers for it yesterday and will be doing Zipp 404 Firecrest Beyond Black carbon clincher wheels with an otherwise full 2012 Super Record 11 build.

I cant wait!

Anyone have suggestions for a "shallow drop" carbon bar and stem? Was thinking Colnago to match the build (I already have my bars, stem, cranks and post on the BMC and wanted to switch it up a little) but not too sure about an aluminum (carbon wrapped) stem.

Cheers!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

shallow ? get a set of Rotundos like a real man !


----------



## Comer (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm 6 ft with a 34" inseam. My M10 is a 54S with a 100mm stem.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

I changed my mind, and my order and decided to go with a MTBK 60cm Traditional C59 instead of the sloping EPQ.

I did not realize until after I placed the original order that the EPQ did not have an internally routed top tube and I actually like the look of the C59 tubes and traditional geometry a lot more.

2 months, cant wait!


----------



## jaydg (Nov 14, 2007)

I am almost 6'2 and from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle I have 32.5 inches . I have 3 bikes all traditional sizing 58 Oval Titan ,59 EP and a 60 or 61 Master . Am ok with the different sizes , the 59 EP feeling on the longer side just because of a longer stem than the other two . But all of em give me my enjoyment. I dont think I personally would like to go smaller than a 58 . Since you are slightly taller and a longer inseam I think maybe a 59 -61 traditional sized frame would fit you.


----------



## duz10s (Aug 5, 2011)

im 6ft and ride a 54 sloping


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

carbonLORD said:


> I changed my mind, and my order and decided to go with a MTBK 60cm Traditional C59 instead of the sloping EPQ.
> 
> I did not realize until after I placed the original order that the EPQ did not have an internally routed top tube and I actually like the look of the C59 tubes and traditional geometry a lot more.
> 
> 2 months, cant wait!


Quite a gutsy move! What size stem do you think you will need? Have you found out what is the HT angle?


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> Quite a gutsy move! What size stem do you think you will need? Have you found out what is the HT angle?


Not sure. I'd like to do a 3T ARX LTD but wish is came in a 17°± offering instead of just 6.

3T Shows the ARX Team is available in "Stealth" black now, (You hear that guys, no more acetone removal necessary).

The bigger question, Rotundo's or Ergosum?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Rotundos look great with a traditional frame, and give you more hand positions.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

carbonLORD said:


> Not sure. I'd like to do a 3T ARX LTD but wish is came in a 17°± offering instead of just 6.
> 
> 3T Shows the ARX Team is available in "Stealth" black now, (You hear that guys, no more acetone removal necessary).
> 
> The bigger question, Rotundo's or Ergosum?


I am assuming when you say 17 you mean -17 deg. Have you actually tried this arrangement on a bike with the same HT length and angle as the C59 or you expect you will be needing such a stem rise? You must be very flexible setting up a 60 cm C59 with a -17 stem to do Fondos.

The LTD is a lightweight stem, possibly not suitable for larger riders like yourself specially if you like to sprint standing up. The Team is sturdier and it comes at -17. My choice would have been the Colnago stem with the shims.

Between the Rotundo and the Ergosum I prefer the Ergosum because I have big hands (the Rotundo is not comfortable for palm widths wider than 85mm), because the angle on the hoods works better with my wrists and because it allows me to stretch a bit more when i need to. They are relatively inexpensive in the aluminum offering so you may decide to get both and try them out. 
Another one to consider is the Deda Newton, it only comes in aluminum which in my opinion is preferable over carbon for bars or stems for big riders for a variety of reasons. If you do decide to go with a carbon stem, have a look at the Deda as its design allows for a sturdier connection to the bar and to the steerer tube.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

dcgriz said:


> I am assuming when you say 17 you mean -17 deg.


Correct.



> Have you actually tried this arrangement on a bike with the same HT length and angle as the C59


Yes.



> or you expect you will be needing such a stem rise?


No, I plan on slamming the stem and runing a 2mm spacer with the low Colnago headset stack.



> You must be very flexible setting up a 60 cm C59 with a -17 stem to do Fondos.


I am pretty flexible and can palm the ground without arching my back or rolling my hips. My SLT01 with almost identical measurements is my crit bike. The C59 will be my road racing/century rig.



> The LTD is a lightweight stem, possibly not suitable for larger riders like yourself specially if you like to sprint standing up. The Team is sturdier and it comes at -17. My choice would have been the Colnago stem with the shims.


I agree based on measurements. I may do the Team Stealth. I could very well just run one of my own carbonLORD bars and carbon stems, but wanted to try something different for this build, we'll see.



> Between the Rotundo and the Ergosum I prefer the Ergosum because I have big hands (the Rotundo is not comfortable for palm widths wider than 85mm), because the angle on the hoods works better with my wrists and because it allows me to stretch a bit more when i need to. They are relatively inexpensive in the aluminum offering so you may decide to get both and try them out. Another one to consider is the Deda Newton, it only comes in aluminum which in my opinion is preferable over carbon for bars or stems for big riders for a variety of reasons. If you do decide to go with a carbon stem, have a look at the Deda as its design allows for a sturdier connection to the bar and to the steerer tube.


I think the alloy stem and carbon bar will suit my riding style best.

Ive been eying the Ergosum LTD lately, but will ultimately decide once the frame arrives in 2 more weeks. Not sure if I want to run a 110 or 120 and 42 or 44 wide bars, it's what I'm used to.

Thanks for the advice/suggestions.


----------

