Colnago Sizing question

[Snake]

I"m looking at a used Colnago Dream (not sure the year). It is listed as a
size 53. I ride a 54cm Cannondale r1000 from 1998. Is the 53 big enough
(like a Lemond 53 which has a long top tube) or too small? I cannot go look
at the bike (an internet deal). I read a review that stated that Colnagos
are built to use a long stem and laid-back seatpost. I am 5'8" with about
a 29.5 inseam and I don't mind feeling "stretched out" a little on my bike.
THANKS,
Snake

--
Snake
Louisville, KY
(please remoove the dashes in my email address:
[email protected])

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Snake wrote:
> I"m looking at a used Colnago Dream (not sure the year). It is listed as a
> size 53. I ride a 54cm Cannondale r1000 from 1998. Is the 53 big enough
> (like a Lemond 53 which has a long top tube) or too small? I cannot go look
> at the bike (an internet deal). I read a review that stated that Colnagos
> are built to use a long stem and laid-back seatpost. I am 5'8" with about
> a 29.5 inseam and I don't mind feeling "stretched out" a little on my bike.
> THANKS,
> Snake
>
> --
> Snake
> Louisville, KY
> (please remoove the dashes in my email address:
> [email protected])

Look at the top tube length and seat tube angle of the Colnago and
compare it with your current ride(assuming the C-dale fits you).
'Size', as measured by the length of the seat tube, means mostly nada.
If the top tube length and seat tube angle are correct, the standover
takes care of itself.

 

[Derk]

Snake wrote:

> I"m looking at a used Colnago Dream (not sure the year). It is listed as
> a size 53.
You should ask if it's a Colnago size 53, since Colnago measuresd from the
centre of the BB to the bottom of the seat collar. Then you can look the
rest up in a Colnago geometry chart.

So ask if the seller measured this himeself (53 CM center-center or 53 CM
center-top, or if it's a Colnago 53 CM size).

Greetings, Derk

 

[Derk]

Sorry for the typo's:

measuresd=measures
himeself=himself.

Greets, Derk

 

[[email protected]]

Snake wrote:
> I"m looking at a used Colnago Dream (not sure the year). It is listed as a
> size 53. I ride a 54cm Cannondale r1000 from 1998. Is the 53 big enough
> (like a Lemond 53 which has a long top tube) or too small?

I've never understood why people continue to repeat the myth that
LeMond bicycles have long top tubes. I guess people think if they
repeat it enough, it will become true.

Lets look at the bikes you mention. LeMond 53 cm Reno (Reno picked
because its aluminum like the Dream) in size 53 center to center size
has 54.5 cm top tube. Colnago Dream 53 cm center to top has a 53.5 cm
top tube.

These bikes are not equivalent in size for comparing top tubes because
they use a different measuring system.

The LeMond 53 c-c is roughly a 55 c-t for Colnago. The Colnago 55 c-t
has a 54.3 cm top tube. So Colnago has roughly the same length top
tube as the LeMond. Its 2 millimeters shorter than the LeMond.

The Colnago 53 c-t is roughly equivalent to a LeMond 51 c-c. The
LeMond 51 c-c has a 53.2 cm top tube. Pretty close to the Colnago.
Actually 3 millimeters shorter.

Seems to me the LeMond and Colnago frames have the same length top
tubes at the sizes you are referring to. At the larger end of the
frame sizes the top tubes may be different between LeMond and Colnago.
But the statement that LeMond frames have a long top tube is wrong at
the small end of the frame sizes. Unless you also want to say Colnago
frames have a long top tube too.

 

[Sir Topham Hatt]

But its s true statement that "classic" Lemond fit dictates a very shallow seat
tube.

[email protected] wrote:

>Snake wrote:
>> I"m looking at a used Colnago Dream (not sure the year). It is listed as a
>> size 53. I ride a 54cm Cannondale r1000 from 1998. Is the 53 big enough
>> (like a Lemond 53 which has a long top tube) or too small?
>
>I've never understood why people continue to repeat the myth that
>LeMond bicycles have long top tubes. I guess people think if they
>repeat it enough, it will become true.
>
>Lets look at the bikes you mention. LeMond 53 cm Reno (Reno picked
>because its aluminum like the Dream) in size 53 center to center size
>has 54.5 cm top tube. Colnago Dream 53 cm center to top has a 53.5 cm
>top tube.
>
>These bikes are not equivalent in size for comparing top tubes because
>they use a different measuring system.
>
>The LeMond 53 c-c is roughly a 55 c-t for Colnago. The Colnago 55 c-t
>has a 54.3 cm top tube. So Colnago has roughly the same length top
>tube as the LeMond. Its 2 millimeters shorter than the LeMond.
>
>The Colnago 53 c-t is roughly equivalent to a LeMond 51 c-c. The
>LeMond 51 c-c has a 53.2 cm top tube. Pretty close to the Colnago.
>Actually 3 millimeters shorter.
>
>Seems to me the LeMond and Colnago frames have the same length top
>tubes at the sizes you are referring to. At the larger end of the
>frame sizes the top tubes may be different between LeMond and Colnago.
>But the statement that LeMond frames have a long top tube is wrong at
>the small end of the frame sizes. Unless you also want to say Colnago
>frames have a long top tube too.

 

[cyclintom]

Most of the high performance bicycles are so close in measurements that most of the statements I've seen are silly. If you take absolutely comparative measurements you'll find differences but so slight as to be immaterial compared to the huge differences in people's torso/leg/arm differences. The real question lies in how do you discover these comparative measurements. And to tell you the truth the only way I've found is to see them in person and take measurements.

One of the major problems I've had is finding out what sizes are actually available anymore. Since I'm tall I got a C40 in a 63. Actually this was a 59 with LONG head and seat tubes extended past the frame connections. It rides perfectly and I don't have any complaints but it could look a bit better. My Look Tour Replica is a 62 and rides every bit as good for a great deal less money. Too bad they don't have the spectacular paint jobs you can get with the Colnago.

I've been trying to find out what sizes are available in the Dream (not that ugly bent seat stay HX model) but haven't been able to find anything. Does anyone have a reference?

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by cyclintom .

Most of the high performance bicycles are so close in measurements that most of the statements I've seen are silly. If you take absolutely comparative measurements you'll find differences but so slight as to be immaterial compared to the huge differences in people's torso/leg/arm differences. The real question lies in how do you discover these comparative measurements. And to tell you the truth the only way I've found is to see them in person and take measurements.

One of the major problems I've had is finding out what sizes are actually available anymore. Since I'm tall I got a C40 in a 63. Actually this was a 59 with LONG head and seat tubes extended past the frame connections. It rides perfectly and I don't have any complaints but it could look a bit better. My Look Tour Replica is a 62 and rides every bit as good for a great deal less money. Too bad they don't have the spectacular paint jobs you can get with the Colnago.

I've been trying to find out what sizes are available in the Dream (not that ugly bent seat stay HX model) but haven't been able to find anything. Does anyone have a reference?

AFAIK, Colnago only differentiates between their "standard" frames which have horizontal top tubes & "compact" frames which have sloping top tubes ...

So, if things haven't changed then a steel, CF, or aluminum Colnago will probably be spec'd the same as in the recent past ...

Here is an old (2009) Colnago sizing chart:

​

​

 

[cyclintom]

That's exactly what I've been looking for and couldn't find. Thanks a million.

 

[oldbobcat]

Originally Posted by [email protected] .

I've never understood why people continue to repeat the myth that
LeMond bicycles have long top tubes. I guess people think if they
repeat it enough, it will become true.

LeMonds had slack seat tubes and longer top tubes until about the time that he partnered with Trek. Another source of ambiguity was LeMond's measuring of nominal size, center of bottom bracket to center of horizontal drawn from the intersection of the top tube with the head tube. Treks and nearly everybody else's bikes are measured center-to-top. The net result was cockpit with similar proportions to a Trek but slightly larger for the given size.

 

[cyclintom]

If you look at Greg himself you'd see someone with shorter legs than normal and a longer torso. These aren't obvious unless you're looking for them. It also isn't obvious that Colnago has a slightly lower bottom bracket than most other bikes. This effectively gives you a lower center of gravity and improved cornering. Unless you're a pro-level racer that's absolutely useless. Buy it does change the way the ride feels. My Look is the best but the newer one's look to me like they're made in China. If you design bikes for shorter people and then try to geometrically increase the sizes the measurements are slightly less than optimal for your size. For large bikes it's hard to beat Eddy Merckx because he was a pretty large guy to begin with.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Long and low. Even if he is hauling around those boat anchor Delta brakes!

Greg had great position on the bike.

 

[oldbobcat]

Greg had great position on the bike.

I concur. Watching the Tour this month, I noticed that a lot of pros appear to be returning to a more balanced but still streamlined posture.

Regarding Greg's proportions, they are pretty average, neither stumpy nor rangy.

Sitting behind KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) was a feature of coach Cyrille Guimard's fitting style, and it has been blamed for the knee problems experienced by all three of Guimard's top stars, Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond. My guess is it's more because of the bigger gears, longer cranks, and lower cadences that were also part of the program.