# 2005 C50 - the truth?



## flyingscot (Jul 17, 2004)

Exhibit 1

Taken from the competitive cyclist website:

You'll see two noteworthy changes in Colnago for 2005. First is in the composition of the carbon fiber itself. ATR is now supplying Colnago with its highest-ever modulus carbon. Its strength characteristics are so advanced over the carbon of the past that Colnago can now manufacture tubing with less material than ever before while maintaining the same standards of durability and stiffness. Less material per tube means lighter tubing without any sacrifice in ride quality. And the strength of this new high modulus carbon is so great, in fact, that the tubes require less overlap with their lugs. This allows Colnago to use shorter lugs, which further decreases the weight of the frame. The net effect of these factors -- less material to the tubes, shorter lugs -- is that the 2005 C50 HP will weigh in at roughly 200g lighter than the 2004 version. The C50 you'll be buying in 2005 is the "superlight" C50 field-tested by Team Rabobank in the 2004 Tour de France, and ridden by Oscar Friere to his World Championship Road Race victory in Verona the weekend before Interbike.

Exhibit 2

Phone conversation with Mike Perry – who knows a thing or two about Colnago !
He says there is NO difference in frame tubing, weight etc for 05
Bikes can be lighter as there are some plainer paint jobs (or no paint). This can save up to 200gms
But there is no Superlight version of the C50 and for those of you who bought in 04 – you are safe !



Have you guys heard anything that would give support to either argument?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

flyingscot - 

Would be nice to have some clarity wouldn't it? I was under the impression that as well as the 'new, lighter' 05 C50, the actual superlite climbing C50 (the one with the non-HP stays ridden by Rasmussen and Leipheimer in TdF) would also be available in very limited numbers. I'm now told (by my LBS) that this is not actually going to happen...

(PS you don't ride an NL4 C50 do you?)

CC


----------



## flyingscot (Jul 17, 2004)

I know - it is very confusing
It seems the more I research the less certain I am !

In answer to your question – NO - but I am seriously considering a C50 in a nude carbon finish
One is on the maestro website – very nice

I am also looking at a Parlee Z1- which is a lot rarer in the UK than Colnagos are
The benefit of going custom is that I can increase the HT height
I am 6 2 but that is mostly in the legs
So I need a proportionately shorter TT – which comes with a lower HT !
I don’t want to blow a lot of cash on a bike and needs loads of spacers

The problem is that a Z1 would be a lot more in the UK than a C50 from Mike and does not have the pedigree (though both are great bikes)

Did any of you owners going through the same dilema

Decisions ….


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

The carbon fiber layup will have a different appearance and the lugs are shorter. This can be seen on some of the early photo's that are floating around. This opens the possibility that the weight could have been decreased. Less paint will help too.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

I'd go w/Mike Perry's explanation. Just look at what Competitive Cyclist had to say about the 2004 C50: 
"New for 2004, too, is the bi-conic profile of the tubes - the familiar clover cross-section many are accustomed to seeing on the Master X-Light - which enhances lateral stiffness. "

Umm, that's just wrong. If I'm not mistaken, C40's and 50's have always had the ribbed tubing. And bi-conic would seem to refer to a tube that is vertically elongated at the head tube and horizontally elongated at the bottom bracket. If Colnago does use 'biconic' to refer to the ribbing, it certainly isn't new to the C40/50 line.

They also have a line belittling other brands that "specify obscure seatpost sizes." Hmm, last time I checked the C50 takes a 28mm post - and only Colnago makes those.

CC does have a very nice website full of bike porn, but Maestro seems to have a clearer picture of what actually is going on. Or at least he's not as sloppy with the marketing mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

*compare the lugs*

Take a look at these two photos (not sure if this worked). The seat and BB lugs of the new PR00 is noticeably shorter than last years model. To me that's more than just a paint change.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

Not gonna argue with that evidence!

FWIW, when I emailed Mike Perry about what the 04 v. 05 difference was he said something along the lines of 'minor changes to the rear end, and less paint,' going on to explain that the old-school, flashy Colnago paint jobs can add 200 grams to a frame.

Personally, that 200 gm doesn't mean diddly to me - I don't ride a Colnago because it's the lightest bike out there, just because I like it best. I'll choose crazy airbrush work, overspray and all, over a nude carbon frame any day. But that's just me. ;-)


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

I agree there are better reasons to ride a colnago than for its weight alone.


----------



## dpower (Jul 24, 2004)

I recently sent Mike Perry a check (to take advantage of the extra $-discount he offers.) He has my new 2004 C50 (Oscar Friere WC color-scheme) sitting in his shop waiting to send me...when my check clears, I presume. Fair enough, even if the final wait (in addition to all the other waits before this) is killing me!

I, too, inquired about the 04 vs 05 models. Mike's explanation at this point (2-3 weeks ago):

"Its all a bit complex but I think is correct With regard to the new model, it is 100grms lighter, and has a different weave shape, but will not be available for a long time, they are talking about Easter at least, otherwise exactly the same, with the frere world champ you will not see the weave at all, they have had some problems fitting the front gear bosses, tried it with a clamp, but have now decided to go back to brase on, so as usual, they have shown a prototype that is not ready for sale to the public, typical of them, they can be very irritating if you dont stay calm with them"​
Clearly Mike is learning about things as the rest of us are. 

Me, I don't care because '07 will be dift than '06 which will be dift than '05 and so on and so on. My guess is by '10, frames will be essentially weightless anyway. Until this weightlessness is perfected, though, I'm not letting it bother me. Heck, I chose the all-white scheme. A few less grams of paint will not make a hill of bean difference as I drag my slow butt all over the countryside.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

This is one of the earliest '05 C50 HM (high modulus) bikes. I ordered it from competitivecyclist.com (great outfit!) in the August/Sept timeframe and it arrived a few weeks ago. It is indeed lighter than the '04 C50 HP and due to the poor exchange rate with the Euro, retail prices in the US are now around $4400. It's a one-of-a-kind OOF paint scheme which isn't available as a stock color. In this configuration, with empty bottle and no seat pack, it's right at the UCI weight limit. I rode Mt. Hamilton yesterday and the bike descended beautifully. It's much more relaxed handling than the Pinarellos (which handle very well, but are much quicker handling - or twitchy if you don't like quick handling).


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*nice!*

Very nice ride, and I bet it's a featherweight - what's the frame size? 50?
As for OOF being 'one of a kind,' sorry, but that's probably one of the most common Colnago paintjobs out there. But you're right in that it will be unusual to see a sloping C50 in that scheme. And it still looks great! Give us another ride report after you've broken it in, please.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

peterpen said:


> Very nice ride, and I bet it's a featherweight - what's the frame size? 50?
> As for OOF being 'one of a kind,' sorry, but that's probably one of the most common Colnago paintjobs out there. But you're right in that it will be unusual to see a sloping C50 in that scheme. And it still looks great! Give us another ride report after you've broken it in, please.


It's the smallest sloping size, effective size is the same as Colnago's 49-cm size in the non-sloping geometry. I know OOF is common, but it's no longer offered with the introduction of the '05 HM model so you won't likely see another '05 HM in this livery. People who pre-ordered were able to get non-standard paint schemes. The bike is right at the UCI weight limit with clinchers, so there's another pound to be had in switching to lightweight CF tubular wheels (which would then require stuffing weights into the seatpost to get back to legal).


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Number9 said:


> This is one of the earliest '05 C50 HM (high modulus) bikes. I ordered it from competitivecyclist.com (great outfit!) in the August/Sept timeframe and it arrived a few weeks ago. It is indeed lighter than the '04 C50 HP and due to the poor exchange rate with the Euro, retail prices in the US are now around $4400. It's a one-of-a-kind OOF paint scheme which isn't available as a stock color. In this configuration, with empty bottle and no seat pack, it's right at the UCI weight limit. I rode Mt. Hamilton yesterday and the bike descended beautifully. It's much more relaxed handling than the Pinarellos (which handle very well, but are much quicker handling - or twitchy if you don't like quick handling).


Cool bike. It looks really small. What size? Probably light too. I assume it has a similar geom of all Colnagos. My MXL is super stable on descents. Good stage race bike. Not probably the best choice for crits, but who in their right mind would ride crits with that bike!


----------



## crashjames (Jan 14, 2003)

*What Kind of Bars are on this?*

I like the shape of them - thanks.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

The bars are CF Easton EC90 Equipe bars. The bend is typical of current "ergo" bars. Easton also makes a CF Equipe Pro bar which maintains the classic old school bend. I have the latter on my Pinarellos.


----------



## Stefano (Jul 6, 2004)

NUMBER9:

You affirm that the c50 2005 is lighter then that produced in 2004. Have you compared the two frames in the same size or are you simply repeating what Colnago says?

Ciao
Stefano


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

I deduced the weight conclusion using the transitivity of inequality. I have a C40 and a C50HM, but not a C50HP. The C50HP is spec'ed as heavier than the C40. My C50HM is measurably lighter than my C40. Q.E.D.


----------



## Stefano (Jul 6, 2004)

.....remember that size matters in weight....
Your new C50 is a sloping one; even if it is in the same (virtual) size of your old C40, it is certainly smaller given its sloping geometry (given that the c40 connt be sloping). This could explain the _measurably_ (but not reported.....) difference in weight.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

Stefano said:


> .....remember that size matters in weight....
> Your new C50 is a sloping one; even if it is in the same (virtual) size of your old C40, it is certainly smaller given its sloping geometry (given that the c40 connt be sloping). This could explain the _measurably_ (but not reported.....) difference in weight.


All true but not inconsistent with the C50HM being lighter than the C50HP. Ultimately, the difference doesn't matter because either bike can be built to the UCI weight limit with standard campy carbon & lightweight tubular wheels. If the quantitative difference is of concern to you, why don't you just call one of the major Colnago dealers and have them measure '04 vs. '05 in the same size and report back...


----------



## Stefano (Jul 6, 2004)

Number9 said:


> All true but not inconsistent with the C50HM being lighter than the C50HP. Ultimately, the difference doesn't matter because either bike can be built to the UCI weight limit with standard campy carbon & lightweight tubular wheels. If the quantitative difference is of concern to you, why don't you just call one of the major Colnago dealers and have them measure '04 vs. '05 in the same size and report back...


OK, based on your answer the conclusion is:
1) your demonstration through the "transitivity of inequality" is a joke;
2) You don't know whether C50 '05 is REALLY lighter then C50 '04.

About calling one of the major dealer, please don't misunderstand me!!
Chatting about Colnago's frames weight is funny, calling a dealer to know the real difference in weight between two almost identical frames would be ridicoluos!!! 
However, many compliments for your new C50: very nice and light too!
Ciao
Stefano


----------



## ddesmonts (Nov 17, 2004)

*HM or HP?*

I have a new C-50. Is it a HM or "older" HP. I can't seem to tell by the lug length.
The diamonds are assymetrical. The non drive one is larger. This Normal?

Lastly, cranks for it:
Truvativ carbon Rouleur,
FSA K-Force Mega Exo
or
FSA SLK Mega Exo?


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

Probably a C50 HP. The HM's have shorter lugs than those pictured and a C50 logo on the top tube where the Nike swoosh is in the colors of the italian flag. See the picture of the same color C50 HM at competivecyclist.com for comparison. http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1249


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

This does appear to be the case if comparing the lugs. Is Colnago offering both an HM and HP version this year, or are the HP's older models with the newer paint schemes? I requested and paid for the HM version so I sure hope thats what I get.


----------



## Jed Peters (Feb 4, 2004)

ddesmonts said:


> Lastly, cranks for it:
> Truvativ carbon Rouleur,
> FSA K-Force Mega Exo
> or
> FSA SLK Mega Exo?


ACK!

Campy record! don't put any taiwan on that thing!


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

ddesmonts said:


> I have a new C-50. Is it a HM or "older" HP. I can't seem to tell by the lug length.
> The diamonds are assymetrical. The non drive one is larger. This Normal?
> 
> Lastly, cranks for it:
> ...


Desmonts, this frame is a 2004 C50-HP with 2005 PR-01 paint. Did the seller of this frame lead you to believe that it was a 2005 C50-HM?

Both frames are equally excellent by the way.


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

Oh, and one more thing, you've come this far - so just go all the way and go with the Campy carbon cranks - they are so beautiful I can't take it.


----------



## ddesmonts (Nov 17, 2004)

The seller did NOT lead me to believe it was an HM.
I was just curious. I know either will be fantastic.

Sorry, I can't do Record cranks. I can't bring myself to spend that amount of money for what i think is old technology (square-BB).
Of course that is my opinion and it's also my bike so it'll be Truvativ Carbon rouleur. (The silver/chrome will also match well w/ my brakes, pedals and derailleurs.
Thanks


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

ddesmonts said:


> Sorry, I can't do Record cranks. I can't bring myself to spend that amount of money for what i think is old technology (square-BB).
> Thanks


I agree - the squre taper is not the most up-to-date design out there. But Record Carbon cranks are by far, the sexiest bike components available. They look like marble sculpture. And the square taper is satisfactory.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

ddesmonts said:


> The seller did NOT lead me to believe it was an HM.
> I was just curious. I know either will be fantastic.
> 
> Sorry, I can't do Record cranks. I can't bring myself to spend that amount of money for what i think is old technology (square-BB).
> ...


The square taper BB spindle is old school, but what is the functional problem with it that you find objectionable?


----------



## ddesmonts (Nov 17, 2004)

no functionable problem. But loooking at the cost, if I can get a crank that i love the looks of, that is cheaper, stiffer and I think even lighter for far less is that not the sensible purchase?


----------



## yzfrr11 (Dec 31, 2001)

ddesmonts said:


> no functionable problem. But loooking at the cost, if I can get a crank that i love the looks of, that is cheaper, stiffer and I think even lighter for far less is that not the sensible purchase?


The purchase of any carbon crank is not sensible. It is an irrational emotional decision. There is no perfomance advantage in any way. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding himself.

So if you must go with your emotions (also very important) go all the way.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

yzfrr11 said:


> The purchase of any carbon crank is not sensible. It is an irrational emotional decision. There is no perfomance advantage in any way. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding himself.
> 
> So if you must go with your emotions (also very important) go all the way.


While probably any purchase related to a $4000+ bicycle is probably an 'irrational, emotional decision,' I'd say there was a performance advantage between the 630gm Record alloy crank and the 500gm FSA Superlight. Whether it is noticeable, or functional is another question. 
The Record carbon is just absurdly over-priced for a crank that is heavier but less stiff than the FSA according to Velonews crank stiffness tests last year. 
It sure is nice looking, though.  And it's better than the Colnago crankset, which is heavier, less stiff, more than twice the price of the FSA, and considerably uglier.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

peterpen said:


> While probably any purchase related to a $4000+ bicycle is probably an 'irrational, emotional decision,'


Mostly agreed - definitely emotional, though not necessarily irrational (what else does one do with a christmas bonus?), just not high on the bang-for-buck metric. It's probably closer to a >= $7K bike built with campy carbon.

Regarding the original topic, per competitivecyclist.com: "the C50 HM is nearly a half-pound lighter than the C50 HP. We conducted our own WBA-like weigh-in here at Competitive Cyclist, and found the following to be the case: A 57cm C50 HM frame weighed in at 2.5lbs (1135g) on our scale. A 57cm C50 HP frame weighed in at 2.9lbs (1317g)." Q.E.D.


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

Ok, I am now completely confused on what a 2005 C50 HM frame should look like. I've seen the photo's, pictures at competetive cyclist, as well as folks telling me its in the weave not the lugs. Anyone own one that they are sure is a HM model? Things seem to come out in all different shapes and sizes from italy and I'm not sure what is being manufatured today (and what people actually own) match what the original website write ups and photo's depict. 
After doing some investigating, I'm starting to sing a different tune in regards to what truely makes an HM frame. It just may be the tubes are HM but the lugs are similar to last years. My understanding is if it has a Zig Zag type of weave its the HM as last years was more like a checker board. I've also heard that even on the 2005 models, the lugs use the previous style of wrapping.
Anyone know any new information?


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

Mine is definitely an HM. The lugs are visibly shorter, though you may not be able to tell from the picture I posted above. It becomes quite apparent when comparing the actual bike against detailed lug photos of a C50 HP.

The most simple "tell" is to look at the drive side top tube "C50" logo. The 05 HM has a C50 logo graphic which includes a nike swoosh in green, white, & red.


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

From what I can tell, the seat lugs on your frame do appear to be smaller, however your headtube lugs are noticeably longer than the frame I just looked at. So, maybe they just reach down in a box and use what ever they feel like? ISO huh? what a joke. As for the sweeping italian logo, Oscar's bike didn't have it but I would assume he has a HM.  Its sure a shame that for that kinda of money, a consumer really can't be sure they got what they were looking for.


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Friere didn't use a HM - as a sprinter he probably wants the stiffest bike possible, not the lightest. Seem to remember him taking a long time to switch to the 04 bike for the same reason. Think he still had a C40 as late as Milan San Remo last year.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

The differences in length at the seat cluster lug and bottom bracket lug are the most pronounced. The lug at the head tube on my bike appears to similar in length to the corresponding lug on the C50 HM pictured at competitivecyclist.com (see attached). As for Oscar, the pros have sponsors to contend with so their livery is not going to be the same as the consumer bikes - they need to use space for ads. For example, the Rabobank team replica has a Rabobank logo where the C50 swoosh logo would be. Since you've already ordered the bloody thing, why don't you wait till you see what they ship you before you take them to task...


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

The fact of the matter is I have seen one that was sent to a shop and it doesn't have the short bb lugs but does have the so called HM different weave pattern. If the shop tells me its an HM but the lugs are different, how do I know what is correct? I guess, I'm gonna just pass and wait till I see one that comes in looking like the pictures.


----------



## 690MBCOMMANDO (Jul 28, 2004)

Number9 said:


> This is one of the earliest '05 C50 HM (high modulus) bikes. I ordered it from competitivecyclist.com (great outfit!) in the August/Sept timeframe and it arrived a few weeks ago. It is indeed lighter than the '04 C50 HP and due to the poor exchange rate with the Euro, retail prices in the US are now around $4400. It's a one-of-a-kind OOF paint scheme which isn't available as a stock color. In this configuration, with empty bottle and no seat pack, it's right at the UCI weight limit. I rode Mt. Hamilton yesterday and the bike descended beautifully. It's much more relaxed handling than the Pinarellos (which handle very well, but are much quicker handling - or twitchy if you don't like quick handling).


.

Nice bike - Congrats! Love the color scheme especially


----------



## caxton (Aug 2, 2005)

*question*

I read that you ordered your bike from competitivecyclist.com. How was your experience with them in terms of price and service? Did the bike arrive in good shape? Their price seems reasonable as compare to other dealers. Thanks for your response. If you can give me any detailed information regarding the whole ordering process, I would really appreicate it.


----------



## Number9 (Nov 28, 2004)

caxton said:


> I read that you ordered your bike from competitivecyclist.com. How was your experience with them in terms of price and service? Did the bike arrive in good shape? Their price seems reasonable as compare to other dealers. Thanks for your response. If you can give me any detailed information regarding the whole ordering process, I would really appreicate it.


CC is an excellent vendor and does a great job overall. Pricing isn't always the best, but the service always is. If you check their website for specials, you can't go wrong. (Disclaimer: I bought two high-end bikes from them, a Pinarello Prince with full carbon Campy and a Colnago C50-HM with full carbon Campy (at a great discount)). YMMV.


----------

