# Colnago frames - ride quality question



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

I have a simple question. At least the question is simple, I am expecting the answers won't as simple, or free of emotion so before I ask my question please I don't want to start a war or have this thread go into thread flame infamy; I just want to understand something about Colnago frames.

I am looking at buying a C59, but I hear people talk about lugged frames appearing to be outdated and that has caused me to think about the two different types of frames. So the question is - what are the differences between a lugged frame and a monocoque frame? Is there a difference in ride quality? A difference is durability? As a mere mortal, are there differences that are tangible and noticeable to me?

I understand that the C59 is built in Italy and the monocoque frames (i.e. M10) are built in China. That actually isn't a concern of mine. Specs, Treks (except for the Madone 6.X), Pinarellos and many more all have frames built in China so that's not an issue. 

I was going to post this in the Bikes, Frames and Forks forum but I wanted to hear from Colnago owners. I also did a search and didn’t find a thread that matched my question. If I missed “the” thread on this subject please accept my apologies and send me the link so I can read it.

I just want to understand the real differences between the two types of frames. Thoughts are welcome but, if we can, please "just the facts, ma’am!”

Thanks!


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

> I have a simple question. At least the question is simple, I am expecting the answers won't as simple, or free of emotion so before I ask my question please I don't want to start a war or have this thread go into thread flame infamy; I just want to understand something about Colnago frames.


One nice thing about Colnago owners is that they're typically more knowledgeable and less hysterical than other brands. :thumbsup:



> I am looking at buying a C59, but I hear people talk about lugged frames appearing to be outdated and that has caused me to think about the two different types of frames. So the question is - what are the differences between a lugged frame and a monocoque frame? Is there a difference in ride quality? A difference is durability? As a mere mortal, are there differences that are tangible and noticeable to me?


Ride quality? I would say yes to some extent. As the owner of both types, the lugged frames tend to feel more "traditional" in their flex characteristics. A monocoque feels more damp and more of a "single unit", though that's not fully descriptive.

Durability? Lugged tubes can be replaced.
Other stuff? Colnago lugged frames are normally made in much finer sizing increments than monocoque, since there is no mold cost.



> I understand that the C59 is built in Italy and the monocoque frames (i.e. M10) are built in China. That actually isn't a concern of mine. Specs, Treks (except for the Madone 6.X), Pinarellos and many more all have frames built in China so that's not an issue.


The C59 is "constructed" in Italy from Toray (Asian) tubing. The last fully Italian Colnago was the C50, though the C75 fork was already Asian.
http://www.colnago.com/c59-italia/



> I just want to understand the real differences between the two types of frames. Thoughts are welcome but, if we can, please "just the facts, ma’am!”


In this year's TDF, both C59s and M10s were available and both were used extensively.
Given the choice, I'd pick the C59, but it would be for its uniqueness, not being just another cookie-cutter mold frame, as an expectation of increased performance in any meaningful regard.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Lugged bikes have IMHO ( not so technical more as an appreciation opition ) :

1. Nicer "classic" look
2. Allows the builder to offer a wider range of sizes and even custom options ( you can still custom order from Cambiago for an extra cost)
3. have more "give" than a monocoque so you get a more comfortable ride.

Now, a lugged bike doesn't equate to lack of stiffness. I have an EP a C-50 and a C-40 ( as a reference I have riden a lugged Bianchi 928L, Monocoque Bianchi 928SL, monocoque Ridley Damocles and monocoque OCLV Trek 5500 and Madone 5.5 )

the C-40 is indeed more comfortable than the C-50, the C-50 has exactly the same geometry and construction but it is made with higher modulus carbon ( lighter ) but the tubes are the same shape but larger on diameter. you can feel the C-50 is stiffer but still very comfortable.

The EP is definetly stiffer, larger round tubes with internal reinforcing and you can indeed feel it and appreciate it. it is much responsive when climbing ( it is an sloping so that could also be the reason ) specially off the saddle, faster overall. I wouldn't put it much behind the 928SL on that but it is indeed less hard on yourself. The comfort is there.

Now, the newer models improved that even more, the EPS ( now EPQ ) has a biger integrated head tube with 1 1/8 - 1 1/2 headset ( just like the Damocles, BTW the damocles was the stiffer and less forgiving of the ones I tried ), larger conical tubes, so it should be even stiffer when off the saddle. the C-59 continues the C-50 tradition with the stiffer front end, reinforced tubes and seatstays.

I would say, it depends on you, I think if you are a recreational rider, - even an strong one- or a racer, you will be very well served ( read, your expectations will be greatly exceeded ) by a C-59.

If you are a young, high level athlete that need every infinitesimal competitive advantage to win races and tours, maybe you would benefit of an stiffer monocoque/oversized BB/super stiff front bike, but then you would need a body that can take the fatigue and recover faster.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

Thanks guys for the responses.

I'm looking at the C59 for several reasons:

- I grew up wanting a Colnago. Salivating over one for the past 40 years hasn't been fun and now I have the ability to own one. Thanks to some serious negotiations with my wife.

- The frame I'm looking at supports a cause that I'm very close to (the fireflies tour),

- I love the look of an old-school(ish) frame but still having modern technology built in.

I'm a "older" recreational rider who is putting in a fair amount of miles a week. I want a stiff yet comfortable frame. I live in Central Florida where we have some hills and most are short yet they can be steep, so a frame needs to get me up the hill.

Now the purpose for my question was really to find out the differences between, say, a M10 and the C59. I wanted to get this groups input without flaming (i.e., builder bias). I know both frames are used by the pro teams so I know they are both top flight frames, but I wasn't sure what are the characteristics of the two frame types.

Again thanks!


----------



## GStevenson (Jul 10, 2011)

When I was in the market for a C59 (which I ended up buying) one dealer told me that the M10 was based on the design of the CX-1 and was intended to be an advancement thereof. He described the M10 as being better suited for short races and thought that the C59 would be a more comfortable ride for me as a recreational rider as it was intended to be a little more compliant. Both are incredible bikes.


----------



## Jbartmc (Sep 14, 2007)

I have a C59. It is the best carbon bike I have ridden. It surpasses the Extreme Power and the EPS. It outperforms the C50, and is ALMOST as comfortable. When I bought the C59, I sold my EPS and Extreme Power. Buy it and enjoy.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

joep721 said:


> Thanks guys for the responses.
> 
> I'm looking at the C59 for several reasons:
> 
> ...


You and I shared the same issue. Me, I only had to lust after a Colnago for 21 years. I really loved the Saronni back in 1985, but could not afford it. I was 14. Got my first Colnago, a Cristallo made in Italy supposedly, in 2006. I road that frame for 2 years, along with an Arte and Oval Krono, before I finally decided to buy a C50 in 2008. The Cristallo is a really stiff bike. I don't notice any flex in it whatsoever. However, I could not ride it for over 3 hours without really feeling some discomfort. The C50 is a lot better in that regard. I haven't noticed any issue with the stiffness in the C50, but I am 150 lbs. on a 53 cm traditional frame. Around where I live there is a ton of climbing. To give you and idea, I did 3,200 feet in 40 miles the last time I was out last weekend. I've ridden in the Tampa suburbs (i.e., Clearwater) and can tell you that the climbing there is nothing compared to here in Maryland.

If I had to pick one frame, I would pick the C50 lugged frame. If I were in your shoes and had to pick between the C59 and M10, I would pick the C59. If I was rich and was planning on racing a carbon frame in crits, I would pick a M10. However, since I am not rich, I use aluminum Artes for crit racing. I can throw them in the dumpster without crying or breaking the wallet. If you are just out for a recreational ride, the C59 would be my first choice. Isn't there another choice in lugged frames, the EPQ or something. Granted, it doesn't come with the Fireflies scheme.

On another note, I will be getting the Master X-Light in PR82 next month barring a complete disaster. Finally, after 26 years, I get a Colnago in Saronni.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

fabs has been annoucing that his Master Saroni will arrive next month for the last 2 years 

post pics when you get it ! 

I am on the market for a Master 56cm on a nice AD paintjob ( AD10, AD11 or AD22 ) with quill stem but no luck yet.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Salsa_Lover said:


> fabs has been annoucing that his Master Saroni will arrive next month for the last 2 years
> 
> post pics when you get it !
> 
> I am on the market for a Master 56cm on a nice AD paintjob ( AD10, AD11 or AD22 ) with quill stem but no luck yet.


It did arrive last summer. I bought it off of e-bay. Problem was that it was supposedly NEW but it came with some chips in the paint, no hardware like the barrel adjuster on the downtube, and wheel marks in the dropouts. The seller and I got into it for about 2 weeks and he finally accepted the return. That was in September I believe. Then, we found this house in December and that, work, and the kids has pretty much been all I have been dealing with until now. Just went through a refi that got our interest rate down to 4.375% and I couldn't make any big purchases on the credit card while we were waiting for that to go through. Just bought a new wood burning/natural gas backup furnace 4 days after settlement on the refi and I am getting ready to buy the Master XL. Oh yeah, just spent a bunch on two new chain saws too and cut a cord of wood on Saturday. The in-laws just finished a 10 day visit. I haven't ridden my bike in 10 days. Just finished unpacking all my cycling gear and found some mold on my winter gear. However, I am finally starting to get caught up with things on this house and work. Don't think I will ever get caught up with the kids, but eventually they will be able to do chores. Cut a guy some slack here.

LOL

Edit to add: I had it in my hands in June 2010. I remember being elated with the frame when I first pulled it out of the box and showed it to my wife. Then, as I looked it over I remember getting pretty mad.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=217368


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

> - I grew up wanting a Colnago. Salivating over one for the past 40 years hasn't been fun and now I have the ability to own one. Thanks to some serious negotiations with my wife.


That's a fairly typical scenario. In that case, IMO the C-59 is the last frame that has any significant tie to the previous generations of Colnago. The CX-1, M10, and other mold frames are fine, and say Colnago on them, but...


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

I'll weigh in with the Other Opinion, that which seems to be less popular here on RBR.

Ignoring the place of build..The monocoque frames take full advantage of carbon as a frame material. Lugs and tubes, carry-overs from the past, do not. Colnago and a few other hold-outs who still reproduce metal tubing shapes in carbon fiber and then them put them together with lugs, they do get excellent bikes, outstanding even, but why limit your bike design to emulating metal shapes, metal connection copies?

I've owned and extensively ridden both types of carbon frames..I admit, not a lot of lugged Colnagos, just an EP and a C-50 (ridden not owned). Also I owned a lugged Look that was a very good frame... I currently ride a CX-1, quite happily and will probably not want another frame till I break or crash this one really hard...

A frame is meant to perform as a unit. I am no engineer, but I do know composites from plenty of hands on experience as a boat builder, a sailor, a race-car fabricator and driver etc etc. It makes no sense to me, other than "because it's always been done like that" to reproduce tubes and lugs in carbon fiber when you can lay the reinforcements and fabric into a shape you want, infinitely vary the load carrying characteristics, run continuous load bearing fibers around 'corners' and through frame 'junctions' . In a lug/tube construction....there are 'end points' for the stresses, the flex patterns are concentrated at the lugs. Yes, Colnago and Look, they seem to have worked around this problem, pretty much, by making tapered tubes and thicker and thinner internal ribs, blah blah blah...What for? Why bother? It is like building a modern fighter jet from carbon fiber panels, then riveting it together. Or making a modern racing yacht by first building carbon fiber 'planks' and carbon fiber 'frames' then gluing and screwing them together, piece by piece, just like an old wooden boat...The material can be better utilized without emulating the past building methods that were dictated by by-gone materials.

Do lugged Colnagos ride better? Personal preference I guess. I have friends who are now racing molded Colnagos happily, who used to race/ride on lugged ones. Good racers, stage racers, Ultra racers. I do Ultras on my own CX-1 without too much undue pain...or without any bike-caused pain at least.

It also doesn't hurt that I didn't pay extra much for my race bike, like for a top of the line lug/tube so called 'real Colnago'

There is the other side opinion, FWIW.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

Gnarly 928 said:


> I'll weigh in with the Other Opinion, that which seems to be less popular here on RBR.
> 
> Ignoring the place of build..The monocoque frames take full advantage of carbon as a frame material. Lugs and tubes, carry-overs from the past, do not. Colnago and a few other hold-outs who still reproduce metal tubing shapes in carbon fiber and then them put them together with lugs, they do get excellent bikes, outstanding even, but why limit your bike design to emulating metal shapes, metal connection copies?
> 
> ...


Gnarly, thanks for your input. You make sense and similar thoughts have been bouncing around my mind since I started looking at this frame. But is the C59 less durable and more compliant than say the M10 (and I use that because it's Colnago's high end monocoque frame)? Does Colnago know something we don't? Could it be possible that the way the tubes and lugs are bonded together makes the entire frame extremely strong? I'm not doubting you at all and I don't know the answers - that's why I'm asking. Thanks.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

There is a lot of bunk on here 

1st off, bikes are not the only carbon fiber product to use lugs. To say they are is false. Plenty of other carbon products are laid together with lugs. It is NOT a relic from the past - again, simply false. Also, it's not back and white - it's not lug or monocoque - you seen a trek? It's two molded parts glue together with a . . . you guessed it, lug. 

Now, is a lugged colnago any less technical than a monocoque frame? This is a stupid question. If you want to play the weight game then stop right now and go monocoque and get the new dale. If you are asking a real question and consider ride quality and micro fit - then colnago lugged very much holds it's own - without question. I would say parlee is in there too.

Me - I wanted a colnago, I wanted their artisan and their history. I have ridden for 20 years, I still race and I hold my own just fine on a group ride. I have had a super six, a trek both newer and older OCLV, and a few other carbons. No question, no hesitation the ride quality of the my new EPQ is better. My super six just feel brittle, not like it's going to break, but in comparison it feels, well, brittle. It's a fine bike, served me well for 2 years and did it's job. I have no doubt, none at all, that my EPQ will serve me well for 10 years easy. They say colnagos are over made - I agree, they are well done, well made, well riding frames with proven geometry - so is a super six, a madone and a SL3, but they aren't the same.

To sum, lugged frames are JUST fine!


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

ronderman said:


> There is a lot of bunk on here
> 
> 1st off, bikes are not the only carbon fiber product to use lugs. To say they are is false. Plenty of other carbon products are laid together with lugs. It is NOT a relic from the past - again, simply false. Also, it's not back and white - it's not lug or monocoque - you seen a trek? It's two molded parts glue together with a . . . you guessed it, lug.
> 
> ...


 I agree with lots of what Ronderman says, but he's refuted a few things that I didn't actually say, so to set things straight, here

I didn't say Colnago bikes are the only carbon structure using lugs... I didn't say lugs or monocoque were the only method of building carbon bike frames, either.. I think they are the only way Colnago does build bike right now...and in fact, my CX-1 is actually a combo of the two techniques, with the rear being lugged onto the front main frame.

I 100% agree that Colnagos how ever they are built are done right and their ride quality is well and noticeably above other frames I have ridden...with perhaps the exception of my Look, which was very similar, but too soft for my weight at 165lbs on crits and climbing. I hate frames that are hollow feeling, fragile seeming, frames that take constant careful attention to keep the bearings adjusted and have breakable parts when a few more ozs would have made them bombproof. My Scott CR-1 was one of those ...tube to tube mitered and wrapped frames...really light and pretty stiff, but squirly and fragile feeling.

I don't agree that weight is a stupid question. Why add unfunctional and unneeded weight with a building method that was totally suitable for brazing together steel or alloy tubes, but somewhat silly to emulate with a matrix of materials like carbon fiber and resin? 

Many Colnago owners are quite firm in their idea of what a Colnago should be. These fans love things to stay like they always were, they deride any change......It wasn't too long ago that the Purists were "hating on" integrated headsets. Sloped frames...Integrated posts for the saddle....Wait...I made that last one up...I don't like those much either, though I had a Ridley Noah that was pretty nice... So in another 20 years, maybe much less, Colnago will have made their last Lug and Tube frame and everybody can go on the Retro forum and talk about their cool C-59s...


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So in another 20 years, maybe much less, Colnago will have made their last Lug and Tube frame and everybody can go on the Retro forum and talk about their cool C-59s...


probably not me, I guess I would still be on my retro full italian made C-50


----------



## Karbon Kev (Sep 7, 2009)

The C59 is THE best frame I have ever ridden, and I've ridden a lot ........


----------



## atmas (Jul 12, 2011)

I have ridden neither a lugged nor a monocoque frame, but I have been riding a welded titanium Colnago for 17 years and there is a lot to be said for the sizing increments that a lugged (i.e. non-monocoque) frame can afford. There used to be a term to express this, which was "signature custom." I've seen articles that suggest that full on custom bikes don't possess the ride quality of a signature custom because buying a bike with tubes cut to match your dimensions, the wisdom goes, leaves out the art and technique the framebuilder has developed over the past 59 years. 

I am going to be upgrading my bike very soon. I'm a serious cyslist (by which I mean I don't ride with the same intensity every year, but over the past 17 years my intensity level has been pretty high), and will very likely be riding the new frame for another 20 or so years. I've heard it stated that many Pro Tour riders insist on continuing to ride their C50s evene after transferring to teams not riding Colnago. I went to great lengths to find a C50, but I'm about a year late as even places with closeouts have just about run out of them. 

So the natural choice is the C59. Higher modulus carbon, seems to be the biggest difference. Washingmachinepost raves about it, though they raved about the EPS and CX1 as well. I know we are very far from talking about anything approaching anything similar to Masi's decline in the 80s, but the C59 still suggests a closer connection to Ernesto, while still being ridiculously cutting edge in material and design.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

Thanks guys... My mind has been made - I want a C59 but now I'm having trouble getting in touch with my contact for the bike. It's strange but I'm hoping he is extremely busy or away on holiday and will get back with me regarding the frame . I haven't heard back from him after my last two emails and that's concerning. We'll see.


----------



## joep721 (May 4, 2009)

*Thank you!!!! But one more silly question.*

Thank you for helping me out. I've decided to get the C59. I'm working with the shop to make sure everything is what I want (as my wife tells me this is my last bike for a long time  :blush2: ).

But I was asked if I want a tradtional or sloping frame. From what I can tell a sloping frame is a more relaxed frame (like a Specialized Roubaix) while a traditional frame is just that a traditional frame (like a Specialized Tarmac). Am I correct in my thinking (and yeah I've been to the Colnago site to look at the charts). Are there any other benefits to the sloping frame that make it more desirable?


----------



## Evil Laugh (Oct 9, 2009)

The headtube sizes for the corresponding slopers and trads are the same i think. Eg 52s and 56 trad. So no it's not amroubaix/Tarmac type setup. 

Saddle height could play a part if you've got short legs for eg. There's more sizes going in trads obviously so you can get a more accurate fit and everyone knows they look better than slopers. 

You'd want to be fairly sure you know what you're after before dumping that much cash. Bear in mind the colours change slightly on the 1 sept so if you want a pr99, Mtbk or glbk for eg you'd need to order soon. 

Personally i went for a 56 trad, could have fitted a 55 or 57 but I felt a 56 with 20mm spacer and 110 stem was the best choice as I think I could get l


----------



## Evil Laugh (Oct 9, 2009)

The headtube sizes for the corresponding slopers and trads are the same i think. Eg 52s and 56 trad. So no it's not a roubaix/Tarmac type setup. 

Saddle height could play a part if you've got short legs for eg. There's more sizes going in trads obviously so you can get a more accurate fit and everyone knows they look better than slopers. 

You'd want to be fairly sure you know what you're after before dumping that much cash I guess. Bear in mind the colours change slightly on the 1 sept so if you want a pr99, Mtbk or glbk for eg you'd need to order soon. 

Personally i went for a 56 trad, could have fitted a 55 or 57 but I felt a 56 with 20mm conical spacer and 110 stem was the best choice as I think I could get longer and lower as my flexibility improves and it gives me a nice room for play. It also puts my saddle 20cm above the collar which is a nice height. 

Try and work your position out if you know your setup or get a good fitting on ordering to make the most of the near custom size options.


----------



## bon vivant (Jan 23, 2005)

I have raced Cerevlo S2's for 3 years and it is a great bike, but...my kidneys were asking for the Colnago on all longer races (over 100km).
Quality of ride on my C59 doesn't even come in the same ball park with a Monocoque frame like S2.
It's 100% better.
Now if you ride short 1hr or less, fast, crit style rides, I would recommend you look at Monocoque frame, but if you're are 20 or more years experience at 20 years old, I would say get the lugged frame for it's comfort and quality of ride.
Also, fit is very important with age and having increments of 1cm frame size choices can be of great help.
Stay away from frames that sell like sox: S, M, L and XL.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

get a traditional, and size it right

I have a 54cm C40 (13 cm stem), 55cm ExtremeC and a 56cm C50 ( 12cm stem), all are setup the same, the C50 feels, handles and rides best of the 3 for me

my EP is an sloping 52s and is setup exactly the same as the C50, the feel is very different ( has 50mm carbon wheels and Cinelli Rams though ) short and fast rides are great on it, otherwise I take the C50.

I will be selling the C40 and Extreme C when next season starts. maybe I will get a 56cm C40


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

pics for reference, both are setup identically.


----------



## under1630 (Feb 22, 2011)

My advice would be to get fit with someone who uses Retul. It would assure that you get the proper size frame, stem and handlebars. For me, the cost of the fit session was the best money I ever spent in cycling.


----------



## colnajoe (Oct 24, 2008)

I just read an articlethat even with all the technology in frame building, the lugged frame is still stronger. I have a Conic '94, master light and a c-50....the Conic is not lugged, and I can feel the flex even with the fancy conic tubing......LOVE the lugged frame!


----------



## tmluk (Sep 19, 2005)

Just curious where did you read that?


----------

