# 2013 C59 Disc



## AnthonyL88 (Oct 9, 2007)

Here's a picture of the 2013 C59 Disc which you can order now.


----------



## bottecchia_eja (Jul 18, 2010)

Unless you routinely do bat-out-of-hell descents, do you really need disc brakes on a road bike?

Just wondering....


----------



## mando54 (Jun 6, 2012)

Damn, that looks nice.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

bottecchia_eja said:


> Unless you routinely do bat-out-of-hell descents, do you really need disc brakes on a road bike?
> 
> Just wondering....


They would help for those of us who ride tubulars.


----------



## bottecchia_eja (Jul 18, 2010)

il sogno said:


> They would help for those of us who ride tubulars.


Could you explain how? No one in my group rides tubulars so I am not "seeing" how the disc brakes help. Thanks.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

some people are afraid that sustained braking during a descent would melt the glue and then risk to roll out a tubular.

I rode tubulars exclusively during 2 years with lots of climbing and descending, and have never seen this as a problem.

Disk brakes are good for motorcycles, Downhill specific MTBs and probably city commuters. on road bikes I don't see the need.


----------



## bottecchia_eja (Jul 18, 2010)

Salsa_Lover said:


> some people are afraid that sustained braking during a descent would melt the glue and then risk to roll out a tubular.
> 
> I rode tubulars exclusively during 2 years with lots of climbing and descending, and have never seen this as a problem.
> 
> Disk brakes are good for motorcycles, Downhill specific MTBs and probably city commuters. on road bikes I don't see the need.


OK , thanks for the explanation. The heat issue makes sense, I had never thought about melting glue. 

I have disc brakes on my mountain bike. To be honest, I miss the old Shimano V-brakes. They worked well, were easy to maintain and did not squeal!

But if Maestro Colnago thinks they are necessary, who am I to argue with the Maestro? 

BTW, my new C59 with the PR99 color scheme may be ready for Father's Day. YAY


----------



## mando54 (Jun 6, 2012)

They'd be even better for people that want to run carbon clinchers.


----------



## bottecchia_eja (Jul 18, 2010)

mando54 said:


> They'd be even better for people that want to run carbon clinchers.



That makes sense too. There was an article, on the July 2012 edition of Road Bike Action magazine about some carbon rims overheating in long descents and "exploding."

EGADS!!!


----------



## wheel-addict (Apr 12, 2012)

When the time comes to upgrade from my current CLX, I will serious consider the C59 Disc. Hydraulic disc brakes are standard on every single wheeled vehicle imaginable (even unicycles now!), except for road bikes. They are more reliable (esp in rain and dirt), have better modulation, and will allow for even lighter rims than currently possible. I think it's awesome that Colnago is leading the industry by example!


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

IMO it's a good concept for several reasons. It will cost a fortune at least initially since the entire bike and wheel set have to be designed around the brakes.

As a business move though, it strikes me as incredibly unwise. One or more people will lock their brakes and wreck, probably in the rain. If they're injured badly enough, they'll sue Colnago and easily win. When that happens Colnago could be in a bad place financially, have bad press, and likely have to abandon the design, again at great cost.

I wouldn't be surprised that Colnago had been approached by the brake manufacturer, who hadn't been able to find one of the major OEM's to support the design. IMO in order to be safe, they'll need to have some sort of force limiting or anti-lock design.


----------



## wheel-addict (Apr 12, 2012)

icsloppl, I understand your concern, but my guess is that you aren't a mountain biker and have limited experience with hydraulic brakes on a bike? I have Shimano Saint Disc brakes with 203mm rotors on my DH bike. I can easily lock up both wheels when flying downhill at 40mph. However, I've never had a problem with locking up my wheels. Hydraulic brakes give you an incredible ability to modulate your power. I bet that if you had a chance to do even one descent on the C59 Disc, you would become a believer. I'm sure Colnago and Formula has done their homework and there won't be a problem with brakes failing. From my experience, it's easier to lock up road rim brakes than a good set of hydraulics.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

Sorry to disagree, but the results and consequences of passing the limits of traction on mountain bikes in the dirt with knobby tires and a road bike with slicks on a wet surface are completely different, don't you think?

I agree completely that disc brakes are inherently better in almost every way. The killer here though is that in wet conditions, the very thing that makes discs better also will make them inherently dangerous in this application. With rim brakes, your braking force is limited by the rims and pads also being wet. That gives you much less power, which in extreme case turns out to be a good thing, as it's essentially built-in anti-lock.
When the theoretical injured person comes along, all they'll have to do is prove that the wheel would have had substantially less chance of locking with a conventional brake design, which will be trivial to accomplish.


----------



## wheel-addict (Apr 12, 2012)

Perhaps foolishly, I have a bit more faith in the legal system. On a mountain bike it is currently quite easy to lock up the front wheel and go over the bars if one isn't careful. I lead group mountain bike rides with newer riders and see this happen all the time, yet I haven't seen or heard of a flood of lawsuits.

Just as on mountain bikes, it will be easy for Colnago/Formula to engineer the system so that it isn't overly powerful: they can do this by changing the leverage ratio at the levers and by choosing disc and piston sizes wisely. If you look at the latest Shimano XT/XRT brakes, you'll see that the levers are intentionally very short to encourage one finger braking and thus limit stopping power.

Personally, I would rather have consistent braking power in the rain and use common sense about not braking as quickly when the road is wet. I think most people already have this sense, and it will just take them a couple of rides to get used to having more power.


----------



## exmime (Aug 18, 2007)

Disc brakes get it done, so easy to adjust and if you ride hills make you stop. You can brake later and go faster. Can't wait to see what they come up with.


----------



## austke (Jan 14, 2012)

Bring on the discs, Cant wait. Road bikes with discs rock!!!


----------



## Karbon Kev (Sep 7, 2009)

These 2013 colours are lovely, but they've still got the grey colourscheme in the range, quite dull I think. I have no problem with using discs, and knowing Colnago, these will be good ones on this.


----------



## boarder1995 (May 9, 2006)

When it's wet, you just don't apply as much braking force! At least the discs are more consistent versus wet rims that have virtually NO stopping power when went, but then can grab when dried off after a rotation or two. The too much braking argument is so misleading. I don't hope my car brake discs are extra wet so they don't bite too quickly when it's wet out (old car, pre-anti-lock brakes) - I just use less initial force.

Are road discs absolutely necessary? No, expecially here in Houston. But when I've recently ridden wet dirt, sand and gravel roads, I'd much preferred to have had discs than rim brakes.

BTW, I see tha wrenchscience has the 2013 Colnago C59 Disc frames listed and showing the new potential colors! I personally love the NATO GREEN!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

exmime said:


> Disc brakes get it done, so easy to adjust and if you ride hills make you stop. You can brake later and go faster. Can't wait to see what they come up with.


braking later won't make you go faster


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> braking later won't make you go faster


Spending less time braking over the course of a race means more times at speed. Overall avg. speed increases, ergo you go faster. You could even argue that your max speed could increase if you were able to maintain acceleration for longer before a turn, say, at the bottom of a hill. 

So yes, later braking can make you go faster.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

xjbaylor said:


> Spending less time braking over the course of a race means more times at speed. Overall avg. speed increases, ergo you go faster. You could even argue that your max speed could increase if you were able to maintain acceleration for longer before a turn, say, at the bottom of a hill.
> 
> So yes, later braking can make you go faster.


The issue is not time on the brake, but speed modulation. If you spend less time of the brake because you're late braking, then it also means that you need to use your legs to pedal harder coming out of corners in order to make up for the loss of speed. In effect, you are yo-yo'ing around the coners.

You want to go fast? Then the key is speed modulation and carrying as much corner speed as possible. Save you a lot of energy from having to pedal to make up for the loss of speed.

Have you ever raced motorcycle or bmx? Late braking is and always has been considered a tool for overtaking an opponent at a crucial part of a race. Late braking is not the best way to make the best time. This is common knowledge in Superbike and GP racing. And in moto racing (regardless if it's 2 wheel or 4 wheel), the guys who makes the best times are usually the guys carrying the highest corner speed. Pretty much common knowledge in almost all form of motorsport racing. Corner speed is even more crucial in cycling because you don't have the instant power of a motorcycle engine on a bicycle.

Another use of late braking is to prevent someone from passing you. Basically you're trying to block him all the time. But in doing this, both your time and the opponent's time will suck, not to mention you are also killing your tires. But even then, this is not a sustainable technique throughout a race. Sometimes it makes more sense to let a faster guy pass you and you can just tail him. Saves every, tires, and brakes, and both of you guys' lap time will be better.

And I have not mentioned the hazards of late braking either. When you late brake on the road, you pretty much have to work with a narrower margin of error. Should something unexpected arise, let's say a pothold or sand or another rider getting into your braking line, you have much less margin to react now. Boom!

Late braking has limited uses during crucial part of a race, but as a strategy to go fast? Not going to happen and definitely not recommending it to the weekend warriors who's got a wife and kids to feed.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> The issue is not time on the brake, but speed modulation. If you spend less time of the brake because you're late braking, then it also means that you need to use your legs to pedal harder coming out of corners in order to make up for the loss of speed. In effect, you are yo-yo'ing around the coners.
> 
> You want to go fast? Then the key is speed modulation and carrying as much corner speed as possible. Save you a lot of energy from having to pedal to make up for the loss of speed.
> 
> ...


Braking later does not necessarily equal "late braking." If it takes me 5 seconds to scrub off enough speed to make a corner with bike "A", but I can decrease my speed by an identical amount in 3 seconds on bike "B" I will have maintained a higher speed for longer on bike "B". By my math, I would therefore be faster over the same course, feel free to correct me if that is wrong.

In no way does being able to spend less time on the brakes _require_ you to corner slower and therefore expend more energy to accelerate out of the corner.

I have tracked both bikes and cars. I have never been in a situation in which I would have been faster had my brakes been less capable. As long as the modulation capability is the same, more power is better in my opinion.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

xjbaylor said:


> Braking later does not necessarily equal "late braking." If it takes me 5 seconds to scrub off enough speed to make a corner with bike "A", but I can decrease my speed by an identical amount in 3 seconds on bike "B" I will have maintained a higher speed for longer on bike "B". By my math, I would therefore be faster over the same course, feel free to correct me if that is wrong.
> 
> In no way does being able to spend less time on the brakes _require_ you to corner slower and therefore expend more energy to accelerate out of the corner.
> 
> I have tracked both bikes and cars. I have never been in a situation in which I would have been faster had my brakes been less capable. As long as the modulation capability is the same, more power is better in my opinion.


I feel like we're jabbing semantics about "braking late" and "late braking". The end result is the same.

Let's consider a few points:

1) With either disc or rim brakes, you can already lock up the tires. Disc does not give you anymore USABLE power than rim brakes. The reason for this is that the limit of friction (the stopping power) here is neither the rim nor disc brakes themselves, but the skinny tire contact patch. That is where the limits lie. I will argue that whatever you can do on disc, I can do on rim brakes. Guys have been descending mountain stages at 60 mph for decades now, and brakes is not where their limitation is.

2) In your example, bike A takes 5 seconds to brake, bike B takes 3 seconds to brake. All this means is that bike A is able to beat bike B into the corner, it does not mean that bike is will be coming out of the corner faster than bike B, no? In real world racin, bike A by coming in slower will have more time to setup his line and carry the speed, while bike bike B will be at the limit of traction (due to the skinny tire) and he pretty much can't accerlate (peddal) while bike A may be already pedaling just past his apex.

3) Let's take a look at the pinnacle of motorcycle racing right now, moto GP. They saying here is "easy in, hard out". Easy and smooth into a corner, and gun it on the way out. Trying to go hard into a corner will end up costing you time. This is not me theorizing, not me discussing a hypothetical situation. This is the pros talking, based on lap time. Some of the faster riders are also some of the weaker brakers on the circuit, and some of the "brake demons" are also some of the slowest.

And on the real road, I don't understand why anyone would use late braking (or braking late, as you calll it). Surely 99% of the bikes sold with disc will not be raced? There are good uses of disc, but the reason for braking late to gain a second or two on a weekend or group ride has got to be way at the bottom, not to mention that it's debatable if you'd even gain the time. Wouldn't want a weekend warrior dad to think that he can ride faster now pretend he's a pro attacking a corner.. while his wife and kids are oblivious to his foolishness, would we.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

This is getting ridiculous. We are arguing in circles, you are misrepresenting what I am saying, and I am certain I am doing the same to you. In the end, I felt like you picked apart what someone said as a matter of petty semantic argument. It appears that you didn't. 

I agree with almost all of your points, but have seen from personal experience that, within the limits of the tires adhesion, changing brakes or braking surfaces can make a huge difference in my ability to brake quickly and my confidence in attacking corners. Solid, confidence inspiring braking can without a doubt improve _my_ speed around the same course, and even increase my exit speed in certain circumstances because I will spend more energy locating the bike than worrying about my brake application.

I am done with this one, as I don't see us getting anywhere.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Given a choice between braking late and braking early, 10 times out of 10 professional racers will want to brake early. The main reason why pro racers brake late is to prevent the other guys from passing. But the advantages to scrubbing off speed early are many. For one, by slowly scrubbing off speed early, one does not upset the balance and handling of the vehicle by the abrupt weigh transfer as one gets in braking late. And because the vehicle is under control more of the time, one has more opportunity to correct one's lines to aim for that apex, consistently. No drama.

Braking late means you need to scrub off speed faster, in a shorter distance. This tend upset the suspension of a vehicle, or in the case of a bicycle without much suspension, it puts tremendous pressure on the tires. In the end, less time may be spent on the brakes, but the time that is spent on the brake put the vehicle on the edge. Friction has a cost, and that cost come from the tire living on the edge, vehicle handling on the edge.

Solid confidence braking does not mean braking late all the time. The goal is and should not even be braking, but rather speed modulation, and speed modulation does not mean slamming into a corner every time one come about it.

This is not my personal experience. This is the experience of pros and their engineers after gather data from telemetry.

And having "confidence" in a brake (or any equipment) is also partly subjective. Look in moto GP, some riders will ride with last year's equipment (frame) or brakes because they say it gives them more confidence then the supposedly newer and better stuff. Look at the Tech3 Yamaha team for example. They have 2 riders. When one rider got the supposed "better" brake upgrade, the other rider was complaining something to the effect "how come the other guy get good brakes while I don't". Soon later, the complaining rider got his wish and got upgraded brakes. Result? He now goes even slower, lap times have dropped, and now he's complaining about how the new grabby brakes is upsetting his bike setup and handling. Go figure.

I should also point out that if 2 vehicles are making a turn at the exact same point (eg, a corner) at the SAME SPEED, with the difference being that one vehicle stops in a much shorter period of time as he enters the corner (because he was braking later), then the 2 vehicles DO NOT have the same momentum as they are making the turn and as they exit the turn. So same speed do not means same momentum.

I don't doubt your personal experience. I don't doubt your faster lap time, But personal experience and lap time also depends on many many factor, and without an exhaustive analysis of you experience, it's anyone's guess whether it's 100% valid, 50% valid, or even completely valid at all. Perhaps it was due to suspension behavior. Perhaps it was due to tire choice. Maybe it was just down to your skills and a bit of luck. I mean unless you're in a GP or Formula1 team, I don't see you having a team of engineers collecting telemetry data and more importantly the ability to analyze them.

Anyway I'd say 90% of winning a bicycle race comes from the engine (the heart pump) and rider's handling skill. Very little time is spent on apply the brakes.

You don't want to debate, then I won't debate with you. Not hard for me to do


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

You are making your own points, attributing them to me, and then winning the point. It isn't argument at all. 



> Given a choice between braking late and braking early, 10 times out of 10 professional racers will want to brake early.


This is not true. I am NOT talking about "late braking", only spending less time overall braking. According to your argument a rider could start braking a mile before the corner...it is earlier. The rider is going to brake as late as possible without upsetting the bike, sacrificing the line or sacrificing exit speed. Any other conclusion is inane.



> The main reason why pro racers brake late is to prevent the other guys from passing. But the advantages to scrubbing off speed early are many. For one, by slowly scrubbing off speed early, one does not upset the balance and handling of the vehicle by the abrupt weigh transfer as one gets in braking late. And because the vehicle is under control more of the time, one has more opportunity to correct one's lines to aim for that apex, consistently. No drama.
> 
> Braking late means you need to scrub off speed faster, in a shorter distance. This tend upset the suspension of a vehicle, or in the case of a bicycle without much suspension, it puts tremendous pressure on the tires. In the end, less time may be spent on the brakes, but the time that is spent on the brake put the vehicle on the edge. Friction has a cost, and that cost come from the tire living on the edge, vehicle handling on the edge.


Agreed, but I never argued otherwise. Again, you will brake as late as possible without upsetting the bike, missing your line or sacrificing exit speed. This is NOT the same as late braking as far as racing strategy is concerned. This is no small difference.



> Solid confidence braking does not mean braking late all the time.


No one said it did, especially not me. Having the ability to do something does not necessitate that you do it at every occasion. 



> Look at the Tech3 Yamaha team for example. They have 2 riders. When one rider got the supposed "better" brake upgrade, the other rider was complaining something to the effect "how come the other guy get good brakes while I don't". Soon later, the complaining rider got his wish and got upgraded brakes. Result? He now goes even slower, lap times have dropped, and now he's complaining about how the new grabby brakes is upsetting his bike setup and handling. Go figure.


He was upset because his brakes didn't modulate as well, not because they were more powerful.



> I should also point out that if 2 vehicles are making a turn at the exact same point (eg, a corner) at the SAME SPEED, with the difference being that one vehicle stops in a much shorter period of time as he enters the corner (because he was braking later), then the 2 vehicles DO NOT have the same momentum as they are making the turn and as they exit the turn. So same speed do not means same momentum.


This is a misrepresentation of the science here. If two bikes let off the brakes at the same time, at the same speed it will not matter how long it took them to achieve that speed. I understand where you are going with this, but if you start braking 20 miles out or 20 yards, the only difference will be how long it took you to cover the last 20 miles. 

And yes, I realize that the idea of braking 20 miles out is ridiculous, as is your implication that braking later automatically equals threshold late braking. 



> Anyway I'd say 90% of winning a bicycle race comes from the engine (the heart pump) and rider's handling skill. Very little time is spent on apply the brakes.


No one said it was the key to going faster, only that it was an improvement. However marginal, faster is faster. I agree, and spend next to no time worrying about my braking. However, I can tell you that the difference between Tektro R580 brakes and Dura Ace brakes is vast. The ability to, say, make it to the bottom of a descent before I have to start dragging the brakes DOES make a difference. Consistently. The same with crappy pads on carbon rims. If I am spending time freewheeling while applying the brakes, instead of accelerating by applying pressure to the pedals I am doing it wrong.

Most everything you say is correct, but you are GREATLY misrepresenting what it means to brake early. *In MotoGP you see riders going from FULL throttle to very hard braking as late as possible. Not just to block other riders, but because they want to maintain speed as long as possible.* This is my point. NOT that threshold late braking should be applied on a consistent basis.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

xjbaylor said:


> *In MotoGP you see riders going from FULL throttle to very hard braking as late as possible. Not just to block other riders, but because they want to maintain speed as long as possible.* This is my point. NOT that threshold late braking should be applied on a consistent basis.


As I have said, you may maintain greater speed braking later, but your time of maintaining such speed is only momentarily and short lived, and you will most likely lose out on the exit. There is always a trade off. You can't maintain both fast entry speed, expect to make the apex, and have fast exit speed. Just not happening, because the limitations is always gonna be the rubber. Corner speed is even more crucial for cycling because if you were to keep yo-yo'ing with hard braking and then attempt to make up for the loss of speed by hard pedaling out of the corner, yer wasting energy not conserving energy, and gonna burn out more over the course of a race.

During the 2 stroke era, a racer would be either on full throttle or full brake, that is how it was. There was no coasting. This strategy was partly used due to how the 2 stroke power band worked. However, with the 4 stroke, and engine braking that comes with 4 stroke, guys are not mad on the brakes at every corner, because they've found that by letting the engine do the stopping a bit, they can rely a little less on the brakes, therefore not upset the bike as much, so allowing them more options to possibly fancy a mid corner attack, or carry more corner speed for a fast exit. Don't get me wrong, these guys still use their brakes hard, this is still no coasting, but it exemplifies that by slowing down a bit earlier (using to engine braking), and not upsetting the bike so much, they are able to carry the corner speed and exit faster. Of course this is done in qualifying, where you don't fight for position or try to block guys. So what does this have to do with disc on a road bike? Well it is my opinion that one can modulate speed just as well using rim brakes on a road bike as they can with disc, because during modulation, the end goal is scrub off just enough speed to make the corner and not upset the bike, and to this end, what can disc do that rim brakes can't possibly do? 

The braking as late as possible is done in a race because of the need to fight for position, and more often then not you (and your opponent) will lose time, but keep your position. But if you're the leader with clear air ahead of you and a gap behind you, then you don't use this technique at all. The race at this points becomes a qualifying session for you, go fast, but go easy on the brake, easy corner entry, fast on the exit. Save your tires, and let the rest of the field fight for position and watch the attrition.

I'll bet that if you had a team of engineers with telemetry equipment to analyze your track performance, you'd be to even go faster than you think possible. As an individual, we get 1 or 2 good/positive personal experience or result and we tend to stop the progress there thinking that is all there is to it. But a team of engineers will break that data down, compare it, and have you try different stuff, and boom, you go faster than you thought possible.

Getting back to cycling, I will say that disc is good for many things in cycling, and in my opinion from higest to lowest:

1) wet weather performance
2) dirty road
3) good for carbon wheels, if you're into carbon wheels stuff (not me though)

but I am going to say that disc on a road bicycle will not make you go faster during a course of most road race. And my contention so far is limited to this. The only situation that I've ever wish for disc on the road is when the condition is wet or dirty, or if you're 180lbs or heavier. I've know a guy who are about 175 and he's a demon on the down, and the only thing slowing him down is the tires, not his brakes. Just today, I was talking with another dude who lack handling skill, eg, I would take a particular sweeper at 35 mph, and he would tip toe around maybe 25 mph, yet he was telling me that his next bike will be disc equipped so that he can descend with more confidence. I thought to myself, his problem is not his brake, but his lack of skill. I get this vibe that there are many roadies who think like him, and I see this in all discussion involving disc brake. But ok whatever, if it makes them feel better go ahead and get disc and hope that'll make up for the skill deficiency. I can understand that most people do not want to hear some internet Joe Schmoe tell them that they lack skill. Boy these folks are gonna get a smack of cold reality when they go too hot into a turn only to panic and slam the rear brake (wouldn't want to touch the front brake now would we as we can endo, [sarcasm]) and end up in a ditch.

But to be honest with you, I'm hoping that EVERYONE will rush out and upgrade to a disc bike, get that C59 disc, or Tarmac disc, or Madone disc. I'll be looking keeping an eye out for a good deal for a used rim brake frame as guys go for the latest fad.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> But to be honest with you, I'm hoping that EVERYONE will rush out and upgrade to a disc bike, get that C59 disc, or Tarmac disc, or Madone disc. I'll be looking keeping an eye out for a good deal for a used rim brake frame as guys go for the latest fad.


At least we can agree on that. I am not against disc equipped road bikes, but I am certainly in no hurry to jump to a new standard.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

xjbaylor said:


> At least we can agree on that. I am not against disc equipped road bikes, but I am certainly in no hurry to jump to a new standard.


One thing may be interesting to see is how many "road frankenstein" bikes are we going to see? Rear hub spacing for disc is said to be 135mm, which is what many mtb hubs are (although more and more mtb hubs are now moving toward 142mm wide). Already I can see a group of guys putting their rear mtb wheels the road! Go gheeeetto or go home? lol


----------



## kgg (Apr 28, 2003)

I suspect the main advantage of discs is that it frees carbon rim designers from having to worry about a brake track.


----------

