# Why is C50 better?



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

I would like to get some answers about that frame.

What is the real weight of frame? It is really heavier than C40?
Why is this frame better than Trek5900 or Scott - carbo? They are both much lighter, and cheaper too ?...? 

What is on C50, that it is worth an extra price?

Thanks for answers.


----------



## Rogue (Mar 20, 2004)

Maybe this will help: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=1862


----------



## C50 (Feb 8, 2004)

*Try it*

Try it !!! or any Colnago -- the geometry is different, the ride, handling, all the dynamics are different. A Colnago, when properly fitted and outfitted, is a "one piece" bike. By that I mean that it feels like it's one piece of equipment, and one with you. It's hard to describe... I have ridden )recently) Giant, Serotta, Pinnarello, Lightspeed and Merckx -- all top frames, near my setup, with top line equipment. None compared to my C-50, or even an older C40.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Don't get too hung up on weight. By the time you've built them up, most of these bikes are pretty much the same. Colnago have a reputation (which is one of the reasons why pros like them so much) for not sacrificing reliability on the altar of weight.

I traded in a very, very light bike (a Principia RS6e Pro) for a C40HP which on paper weighed (gasp!) 150g more. But the Colnago climbs much better and descends much, much much better. This is to do with geometry and construction experience of the builder - not the lightness of the frame.

Now my new C50 (I'm lucky enough to own both a '40 and a '50) with DA10v is noticeably lighter than the 40. I estimate the complete 50 bike weighs in around 7.1kg, while the 40 (with DA9v) is more like 7.5kg. 

The C50 is also noticeably stiffer - especially at the front. This makes it a better race bike (very good for powering up climbs or sprinting), but it doesn't seem to 'flow' quite like a '40 does.

I ave test ridden a Trek 5900, and it's fairly light (although I suspect the 50 is a lighter frame). But it just feels dead in comparison to a 40 or a 50. The Scott is a very trendy frame - but I wouldn't like to do a 60mph descent on one. A C40 or 50 will outlast and outrace either.

CC


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

Regardless of ride quality, the Trek 5900 SL is handsdown a lighter frame than the C-50....over 250 grams lighter.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

divve said:


> Regardless of ride quality, the Trek 5900 SL is handsdown a lighter frame than the C-50....over 250 grams lighter.


Don't know about this 'SL' frame, but a standard 5900 certainly isn't. I've ridden both and picked both up in my LBS. Have you? Or is this the usual 'I read it on a different website' kind of thing?  

CC


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

The standard 5900 is still around 150 grams lighter than a comparable size C-50 and the C-40 hp is slightly lighter than the C-50. Picking up means nothing, neither does a complete bike build. To make a direct comparison you need a scale and a bare frame.

Like you said, don't get too hung up on the weight of a bike. Colnago is known not to make the lightest but you get something in return that doesn't ride like a piece of wood.

......am I not just reading what you type on the internet as well?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Thanks for all your answers. It will help me.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

divve said:


> Picking up means nothing, neither does a complete bike build. To make a direct comparison you need a scale and a bare frame.
> 
> Uh, right, so the fact the C50 as a whole bike - something which will actually be ridden up and down hills, etc - is lighter than a 5900 means 'nothing'? And the fact that I own both a C40HP and a C50 and know damn well which is lighter (the 50) means nothing compared to your command of (clearly innacurate) weight weenie websites?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

*Weight of DA 10 vs. DA 9 among other things...*



Ce Cinquanta said:


> divve said:
> 
> 
> > Picking up means nothing, neither does a complete bike build. To make a direct comparison you need a scale and a bare frame.
> ...


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

Ce Cinquanta said:


> divve said:
> 
> 
> > Picking up means nothing, neither does a complete bike build. To make a direct comparison you need a scale and a bare frame.
> ...


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

divve said:


> I guess you buy complete assembled factory stock bikes? My mistake to assume that someone with such exquisite knowledge and experience as yourself would custom pick his own parts build. In that respect it would indeed be rather pointless to compare just frame weights.


You're clearly irked by someone challenging your advice, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything other than many, many hours spent sitting at your computer. I note you haven't answered my question about whether you own or have tested either a C50 or a 5900. On what do you base the advice you seem to hand out so freely?

And my question is a genuine one; what's the point of a debate about which frame weighs less according to the claims of this or that website, when actually it's the bike (remember them?) that you ride up the hill - not just the frame...

CC


----------



## C50 (Feb 8, 2004)

*Weight*

My C50 frame was 110 grams lighter than the same size C40HP on the same scale at the same time................


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

C50 said:


> My C50 frame was 110 grams lighter than the same size C40HP on the same scale at the same time................


Thanks for that answer. And what was the weight / which size? It was bare frame, or anything on? THX!


----------



## C50 (Feb 8, 2004)

1310 gr, with cage bolts, seat collar, bb cable guide for a 57cvm (Colnago sizing) C-50 frame


----------



## Rogue (Mar 20, 2004)

My C50 frame was 110 grams lighter than the same size C40HP on the same scale at the same time................

That's the same thing I was told by a guy I know who has both a C-40 and a C-50. He also said that the C-50 seems to climb much better.

I don't have any experience with the C-50 yet but I'll let you know the weight as soon as my frame arrives.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

Ce Cinquanta said:


> You're clearly irked by someone challenging your advice, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything other than many, many hours spent sitting at your computer. I note you haven't answered my question about whether you own or have tested either a C50 or a 5900. On what do you base the advice you seem to hand out so freely?
> CC


This is becoming ridiculous. My LBS is one of the largest Colnago specialists in the country. Do some research for yourself or call Colnago. 

Regarding being irked....just a wild guess....perhaps it's the tone you display in your replies to me starting from the beginning. Some random highlights:

"You should try getting out of the house a bit more mate  "

"I've ridden both and picked both up in my LBS. Have you? Or is this the usual 'I read it on a different website' kind of thing?  "

You honestly expect someone to reply to such innuendo?



Ce Cinquanta said:


> And my question is a genuine one; what's the point of a debate about which frame weighs less according to the claims of this or that website, when actually it's the bike (remember them?) that you ride up the hill - not just the frame...


I'll try to answer your question even though you we're obviously unable refrain yourself yet again.....

In order to make a valid comparison of weights one requires comparable products, i.e., frame to frame, wheels to wheels, apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Comparing the weights of complete built-up bikes with a plethora of unknown build options leaves one with almost limitless possibilities to skew the results. I could for instance stick a pair of Cosmic Carbone wheels in a C-50, build it up with Shimano 105, steel seatpost and handlebars and claim it's a very heavy bike compared to a Master-X with Record, carbon everything, including a pair of Hyperon wheels. It would be similar to claiming BMW is faster than Mercedes...yeah what model, what engine, etc???


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Wow - so many words and you managed again to avoid answering my question. Why does living near a big Colnago dealer (I did laugh out loud at that...) make you an authority on the relative merits of a 5900, a C50 and a C40HP?

My 'research' involves riding bikes - not looking at this claim or that claim. Your 'research' led you to believe A C50 was heavier than a C40HP. You were wrong. I think a lot of your other 'research' is probably wrong too.

CC


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

I answered your last weight related question and there's nothing wrong with that answers. Further, I've also found out  that larger Colnago sizes shoot up in weight compared to the smaller ones. That might explain our weight related disagreements. 

Now, I didn't want to do this but since you don't appear to want to quit your nasty attitude I'll make it easy for you to understand what you're about.

For arguments sake let's assume everything I said was incorrect or even an outright lie. That leaves us with just the "facts" (yours). Let's take a look at those facts.



> Don't get too hung up on weight. By the time you've built them up, most of these bikes are pretty much the same. Colnago have a reputation (which is one of the reasons why pros like them so much) for not sacrificing reliability on the altar of weight.


After making that statement it sure turned out that you're more concerned about weight than anything.



> Now my new C50 (I'm lucky enough to own both a '40 and a '50) with DA10v is noticeably lighter than the 40. I estimate the complete 50 bike weighs in around 7.1kg, while the 40 (with DA9v) is more like 7.5kg.


You must have a very special ability to estimate the weight of a bike up to 1/10th of a kilogram just by picking it up.



> The C50 is also noticeably stiffer - especially at the front. This makes it a better race bike (very good for powering up climbs or sprinting), but it doesn't seem to 'flow' quite like a '40 does.


Why does it make it a better race bike or do you just assume it does? Got any objective numbers to back that up?



> I ave test ridden a Trek 5900, and it's fairly light (although I suspect the 50 is a lighter frame). But it just feels dead in comparison to a 40 or a 50. The Scott is a very trendy frame - but I wouldn't like to do a 60mph descent on one. A C40 or 50 will outlast and outrace either.


Wasn't your whole point that frame weight didn't matter but the complete bike? You did 60mph descents on the Scott? If not how do you know it won't handle them well? Why do you think the C40 or C50 will outlast and out race either? Have you tested all frames until failure? Got any race data proving the C40 and C50 to make a rider faster compared to a Trek 5900 or Scott CR1?



> My 'research' involves riding bikes - not looking at this claim or that claim. Your 'research' led you to believe A C50 was heavier than a C40HP. You were wrong.


Hey didn't I just say I lied about everything? You know something? I've never even ridden a bike or own one for that matter.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Shall I take that as a 'no' then?

CC


----------

