# Colnago C40 or Master Light



## technocolor (Oct 14, 2013)

If you had to decide, which one would you rather keep or ride.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

C40. And this comes from a guy who rides and loves his Master.


----------



## technocolor (Oct 14, 2013)

Mapei said:


> C40. And this comes from a guy who rides and loves his Master.



care to explain why you choose the C40? riding experience between the both?


----------



## ridesmasterx (Aug 3, 2013)

Since there was no explanation from Mapei,.........Master from a guy that loves his Master X and no longer rides non-ferrous. I love the ride quality and have had carbon, aluminum and the combinations of!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Both


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

technocolo -- Sorry for not keeping tabs on this thread. I've test-ridden two or maybe three C40's in my long, distinguished consumer career. And I can say that the C40 was a better bicycle in every performance parameter than the Master, even the Master I own and ride all the time.

First and foremost -- put down weight-weenie dom all you want, but my legs and the rest of my body have never failed to respond to lighter weight bicycles. And the C40 (what is it, about 17 or 18 lbs?) is a good three pounds lighter than a Master.

Second -- as excellently as the Master rides, my visits to the C40 Republic have always reminded me that, realness and steelness notwithstanding, the C40 is smoother and quieter over the road. A bit plastic-y yes, but that's something that just doesn't bother me that much.

To be sure, the Master always will be a better looking bicycle than the C40, and chances are it'll last longer, but the legs, the lungs and the butt are always the final arbiters in the matter. 

BTW, I've recently resurrected by year 2000 Colnago Dream Aluminum bicycle from the rafters of my garage, and I have to report that I enjoy it more than the damn Master. It's lighter on its feet. It handles just a bit more quickly and precisely, while never coming close to being tiggly. 

Yes, it rides more stiffly, but I have yet to take it on any ride long enough to make this a pressing concern.

Of course, this report inevitably raises the question as to why I even bother to own and ride a Master. My answer -- I don't know why and I don't care why, either.

BTW -- this is my 6000th post. Thanks technicolo for making it a sincere one, not a snarky one.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I agree with Mapei 

The Master is a beautiful bike, the one to have if your preferred choice is steel.

But the C40 is lighter, smoother, comfort for long rides, gives the fabled "magic carpet" ride in spades.

The choice is yours.

I still pick the "both" option


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mapei again."


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

First and foremost -- put down weight-weenie dom all you want, but my legs and the rest of my body have never failed to respond to lighter weight bicycles. And the C40 (what is it, about 17 or 18 lbs?) is a good three pounds lighter than a Master.

OOPS, BS meter is going off. Well maybe not. I guess with a steel fork the weight difference might hit 3 lbs. If you just compare the frame weight wouldnt it be closer to 1.5 lbs.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

jtompilot -- What can I tell ya? I once tried to stuff a C40 and then a Master into a Mettler Balance but the wheels kept hanging outside the glass. Actually, I haven't touched a C40 in years....though I did take my wife's fifteen and a fraction pound C59 around the block about a week or two, ago. And oh yes, it's important to always have a steel fork on your carbon fiber frame, and an all carbon fork on your steel one. 

In other words, perhaps it's best not to over-think this issue. Perhaps it's best to just get a sampling of unwashed opinion. Then, if the choice still drives you nuts, try to test ride 'em.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Mapei the method is :

-Go on the scale , note your weight 
-Go back on the scale holding the bike, note the weight
-Subtract 
-Post and brag about the weights here and at WeightWeenies



PS: the early C40 on a precisa steel fork makes a wonderful bike, comfort on the seat, resonant stiffness on the hands, I like it a lot


----------



## quikrick1 (Sep 28, 2011)

Mapei said:


> BTW, I've recently resurrected by year 2000 Colnago Dream Aluminum bicycle from the rafters of my garage, and I have to report that I enjoy it more than the damn Master. It's lighter on its feet. It handles just a bit more quickly and precisely, while never coming close to being tiggly.
> 
> Yes, it rides more stiffly, but I have yet to take it on any ride long enough to make this a pressing concern.


^^ When I read this I had to chuckle, I have the same feelings about my aluminum Dream. Mine is a later model with B-Stay and carbon chain stays. I agree with you that it is definitely more nimble. My three Colnagos:
1. C50 is the best riding in every way (No C40 to compare)
2. Dream is a little heavier but still great
3. Master, well... she is pretty old, she also weighs quite a bit. But she wins in coolness.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

technocolor said:


> If you had to decide, which one would you rather keep or ride.


Think it depends if you want to ride Carbon or Steel. The Master is arguably as good as it gets in classic steel, while the C-40 is Colnago's first attempt at carbon. The C-40 is a good bike, and personally while I like the looks, most riders will say the C-50 clearly excels by wide margin, and the c-59 even more(biggest leap being C-40 to C-50). These are very different bikes, you need to decide what kind of bike you want.


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

Mapei said:


> And oh yes, it's important to always have a steel fork on your carbon fiber frame, and an all carbon fork on your steel one.


This is the first time I've read of this concept. Is this notion widely believed/practiced? It seems all bikes I've seen sold in stores have carbon forks with carbon frames.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

armstrong said:


> This is the first time I've read of this concept. Is this notion widely believed/practiced? It seems all bikes I've seen sold in stores have carbon forks with carbon frames.


Face Ti Ous.


----------



## GonaSovereign (Sep 16, 2005)

Trek_5200 said:


> , while the C-40 is Colnago's first attempt at carbon.


 Actually, the second. The Carbitubo (ridden to wins at LBL and other races) preceded it. Then there were four distinct versions of the C40 before a couple versions of teh C50.


----------



## Jonr55 (Sep 22, 2010)

The poor old Tecnos is always overlooked when talking about the Steel Colnagos, While there is a dispute about weigth limits, it has a lighter frame over the MXL while still giving the Steel ride quality. It was the next generation of Steel race bikes destined to replace the MXL for pro riders before Carbon (C-40) took over the bike scene. They are hard to come by, though should be on the list when someone is looking for a classic steel Colnago.


----------



## Raider (Jun 14, 2014)

I've had three serious bikes, two Master Olympics (the first was stolen out of my garage, the second I lost on the freeway because I forgot to fasten the rubber bands on my rack) and a C40. Every time I rode my Masters I thought to myself, "this is perfection, there can't be a better bike." But then I got my C40. It's not new--pre-B-stay, with a steel fork-- and I built it up with a late 90's vintage Chorus gruppo and mavic open sup rims, but it's the sweetest ride I can imagine. I think it's a little laterally stiffer than the Masters with an even glassier ride. Not super light at all--20 lbs for my 61cm (c-t-t) but the Maters were about 2 lbs heavier. I loved my Masters and they were gorgeous but I love the C40 more and it's even prettier. Something about the carbon fiber yields a deeper, more lustrous, shinier finish. If you have a Master, keep it. If you can get a C40, grab it.


----------



## technocolor (Oct 14, 2013)

[


Thanks is for the input. I ended up owning both bikes. I've been riding the master light with 9 speed campy records. Mavic reflex wheels with campy rec hubs. The ride is very smooth & fluid. It's a good bike to train for endurance. 
The C40 rides like a formula 1 car. Light, nimble & responsive. Great bike for climbs & switchbacks.


----------



## lml999 (Apr 22, 2005)

quikrick1 said:


> ^^ When I read this I had to chuckle, I have the same feelings about my aluminum Dream. Mine is a later model with B-Stay and carbon chain stays. I agree with you that it is definitely more nimble. My three Colnagos:
> 1. C50 is the best riding in every way (No C40 to compare)
> 2. Dream is a little heavier but still great
> 3. Master, well... she is pretty old, she also weighs quite a bit. But she wins in coolness.


Agreed. C50 hands down. The C40 is not a climber...the bottom bracket feels kinda "wooden" when climbing, in comparison to the newer bike. I have not ridden my C40 much since I picked up the C50. 

The Dream is pretty agile as well, and I do not find it at all uncomfortable or harsh for long distances. It's my race and travel bike.

I haven't ridden a Master (except for my Master CX), but I have put many miles on my 1989 Spiral Conic SLX. I'd *guess* that the ride qualities are similar.

Frankly, I'd take a Master over the C40. Just can't beat steel. (Don't tell my C50 I said that!)

Would I take a Master over my C50? Nope. Would I take a Master *with* my C50? Sure. 

The Gilco tubed Master is one of those bikes on my list.  Fortunately, for my budget, not many show up in my size (52.5-53cm top tube).


----------

