# colnagos with setback seatpost?



## samh (May 5, 2004)

I read Colnagos are supposed to be used with no setback post and long stem.
Has anyone tried with a setback/standard seatpost?


----------



## Kemmelberg (Dec 27, 2005)

*Does not seem right*

I bought a Colnago this fall and a Colnago carbon fiber seat post to go with it. The seat post has normal set back, i.e., about like a Campy post. In fact, because the seat angles on Colnago's are relatively steep, I would think most people would need set back on the seat post. I have heard, however, that you should size a Colnago so that you're using a long stem.


----------



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

Not familiar with the idea that you should use non-setback seatpost. I've got 2 colnagos, and I've always use campagnolo posts. The long stem idea "stems" from the theory that colnagos have a slack head tube angle, ie. the head tube is angled more toward the rider than other geometries thus shortening it horizontally. Hence the need for a longer stem.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I did a lot of reading before recently buying my Colnago. According to the experts, buying a Colnago frame that is one or two centimeters larger than your ideal size (i.e., with a longer top tube than you need) can really hurt handling. The reason is that Colnagos are built so that the majority of the rider's weight is over the rear wheel and the front wheel. Hence, the need for a long stem and a setback on the seatpost. I am using a 110 stem on my Colnago whereas I use a 90 on my old bike.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

fabsroman said:


> I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I did a lot of reading before recently buying my Colnago. According to the experts, buying a Colnago frame that is one or two centimeters larger than your ideal size (i.e., with a longer top tube than you need) can really hurt handling. The reason is that Colnagos are built so that the majority of the rider's weight is over the rear wheel and the front wheel. Hence, the need for a long stem and a setback on the seatpost. I am using a 110 stem on my Colnago whereas I use a 90 on my old bike.


FWIW I use an American Classic with a bit of setback, but not a ton and a 110 stem. Rides like a dream.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

samh said:


> I read Colnagos are supposed to be used with no setback post and long stem.
> Has anyone tried with a setback/standard seatpost?


Doesn't that info come from a (Michigan) triathlon oriented site where the writer says he is one of the top Colnago fitter's in the U.S., or something to that effect? If so, most agree that the info is not very relavent to road riders.


----------



## em3 (Dec 25, 2005)

Where are you guys digging up this erroneous information?! Colnagos don’t have head angles that are unusually different than most other bikes. I ride a 58 cm CT-1 with a 73 degree head angle…this is really no different than most modern racing frames. Also seatpost setback is simply a question of the correct fit over your BB and pedals. Colnagos don’t have unusually slack seat tubes either so requiring a zero setback seat post to move closer over the BB is not required unless you have unusually short femurs. Lastly, the best way to fit Colnagos is by top tube length. For example a 58 cm Colnago (per Colnago specs) is essentially a 56 cm frame measured center-to-center, with a 56.3 top tube. 
EM


----------



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

em3 said:


> Where are you guys digging up this erroneous information?! Colnagos don’t have head angles that are unusually different than most other bikes. I ride a 58 cm CT-1 with a 73 degree head angle.......
> EM


 I'm holding in my hands the 2003 official colnago catalogue, in english and italian, printed in cambiago. My CT1 is a colnago size 56 ( in my language, I call it a 54x55). Colnago states the head tube angle to be 71.5. Seat tube angle is 73.3. The bike I had before this was a 73/73 st and ht. When I set the saddle-BB and bar height identically on the CT1, the colnago reach was about 3/4 cm shorter. Thus the need for longer stems.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Are you sure it was 75mm shorter in reach because that is 7.5 cm and it would take one heck of a stem to make up that difference.

I looked at my 2006 catalog printout and the 2007 Colnago website and it doesn't appear as though they provide the head tube angle. They provide the seat tube angle, and even have the head tube angle marked on the diagram, but they don't provide a value in the chart for the head tube angle. Kind of weird.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

Fignon's Barber said:


> I'm holding in my hands the 2003 official colnago catalogue, in english and italian, printed in cambiago. My CT1 is a colnago size 56 ( in my language, I call it a 54x55). Colnago states the head tube angle to be 71.5. Seat tube angle is 73.3. The bike I had before this was a 73/73 st and ht. When I set the saddle-BB and bar height identically on the CT1, the colnago reach was about 75mm shorter. Thus the need for longer stems.


I'm on the phone with Ernesto Colnago, the 2006 owner of the company and he is talking to me in english and italian, and he says...

Just messing with you FB 

Some one was asking about HT angles listings, some info can be found here http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BRAND_GEOMETRY&BRAND.ID=10

Thanks,
Tshirt


----------



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

fabsroman said:


> Are you sure it was 75mm shorter in reach because that is 7.5 cm and it would take one heck of a stem to make up that difference.
> 
> I looked at my 2006 catalog printout and the 2007 Colnago website and it doesn't appear as though they provide the head tube angle. They provide the seat tube angle, and even have the head tube angle marked on the diagram, but they don't provide a value in the chart for the head tube angle. Kind of weird.


OOPS! My bad. I originally typed ".75cm", but didn't want someone with challenged eye site to read it as "75cm", so I changed it to mm and forgot the decimal. I'll edit for posterity. 

Regarding the HT angles, yes its odd. I have a small collection of the colnago catalogues lying around, and it looks like they stopped publishing HT angles after 2003. Maybe to enhance the ........mystery of the brand.


----------



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

T-shirt said:


> I'm on the phone with Ernesto Colnago, the 2006 owner of the company and he is talking to me in english and italian, and he says...
> 
> Just messing with you FB
> 
> ...






Thanks TS. I was beginning to think I would have to turn my 2003 colnago catalogue in to mr. fabsroman, our resident lawyer, as exhibit A, evidence in the case of people with stem discrepencies v Ernesto.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*del*

deddd


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

Zampano said:


> Doesn't that info come from a (Michigan) triathlon oriented site where the writer says he is one of the top Colnago fitter's in the U.S., or something to that effect? If so, most agree that the info is not very relavent to road riders.


Here is the quote:

"Colnagos are designed to use an offset seatpost and a long stem that hangs the rider's weight over the wheels, not over the frame, which results in a short wheelbase and fast handling. The bike is planted. They just handle, like a Ferrari. The weight bias is perfect. That is how Ernesto Colnago intended them to be ridden."


----------

