DaveN
new member
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 33
|
|
Perhaps 'size does matter' after all.
One of the trends of late has been movement to larger headtube size and tubing in general. Dario Pegoretti, who has staunchly resisted going to using carbon stays or 'funny' shaped tubing on his bikes, staying with round tubes and no carbon add-ons, has gone to very large tubing and beefier headtubes to get a stiff, responsive, yet not a punishing ride. That is exemplified by the Fina Estampa, an aluminum frame that many say rides like a very light steel frame. His GGM took the existing Marcelo and added an oversized headtube and integrated headset. The Big Leg Emma has done that 'in spades' and features HUGE chainstays, beefy, reinforced main tubes and a big, big head tube. The bike is surprisingly light and incredibly responsive and pleasing to ride.
Colnago has always taken a slightly different approach with the Master X-light, which uses la arge diameter but 'clover leaf' shaped Columbus tubeset that results in a steel frame that I love and which has been a longtime best seller for them, again without the need for a carbon rear triangle or seat stays.
But the 2004 Colnago line has gone 'fat' in a big way. The long-running C-40 has been complimented by and clearly about to be replaced by the C-50, which features a 1 1/8" headtube and much larger tubing. Tried one out, and you really can feel that difference between that and its younger brother. Colnago has also started to feature sloping or semi-compact geom to go with the larger diam HT and main tubes. I tried out a CT-1, liked it, but found a CT-2 in the 52cm sloping geom fit me better and responded with a touch more 'oomph' and with a bit more responsiveness than the CT-1.
Why? Perhaps the answer is the larger headtube and more 'aggressive' geometry. The C-50 and the CT-2s now both are offered in the sloping sizes, and the US importer has had trouble getting enough of those to supply to keep up with the demand.
So, while the CT-1 is a a great ride. I found the newer CT-2 in a sloping geom a bit better, and when my dealer offered me the CT-2 at almost the same price, and that price was low enough to be the 'offer you can't refuse', it just followed me home.
I will post pictures in the Production Bikes section of the Image Gallery. The larger headtube and sloping TT on the CT-2 are shown clearly in one of the photos. Dave N.
--------------------
Time Wounds All Heels
|
1centaur
journeyman
Reged: 12/24/03
Posts: 126
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
I wonder why a bigger HT would give a bike more "oomph." Any engineers out there?
Dave - have you read the C-50/C-40 comparison on pezcyclingnews? He does not seem to think the C-50 brings much more (if anything) to the table. Given his record of wild enthusiasm (Argon 18; Kuota Khan), his tepid response to the C-50's improvements is the worst review I have seen.
--------------------
"You never make a gift of Ventoux"
Eddie Merckx to Lance Armstrong
|
DaveN
new member
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 33
|
|
Could be a couple of reasaons: I believe the tubing itself is a bit larger diam on the CT-2 vs CT-1. The larger HT I believe will stiffen the front of the bike a bit, and the sloping geom has a small impact as well. The CT-2 seemed to fit me better. The 'oomph' I refered to was the out of saddle response, when I was up and hauling on the bars, so the larger HT may have had some impact on my impressions.
I read the review. Don't know why he feels that way. I do know the C-50 that one sold recently from the shop where I buy went to a former C-40 owner, who thought the larger tubing and HT did offer an improvement. Purely in his head? Perhaps, but since I haven't tried one, can't say. Dave
--------------------
Time Wounds All Heels
|
DaveN
new member
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 33
|
|
Read that review again. I don't think he was down on the C-50 as much as it seems he REALLY likes his C-40. Dave
--------------------
Time Wounds All Heels
|
1centaur
journeyman
Reged: 12/24/03
Posts: 126
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
He seems like a guy that is overly eager to drool over what he is given to test, and he clearly loves the maker, so that is why I found his strain to suggest the C-50 is better instructive. Kind of like Car & Driver saying a BMW is okay rather than the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Reading his review, it sounds like the best reason to pick the C-50 over the C-40 is looks and the psychology of thoretical improvement. Translation - The C-40 is a relative bargain. Now maybe if the hole in the HP stays was clover shaped... 
--------------------
"You never make a gift of Ventoux"
Eddie Merckx to Lance Armstrong
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
New Trends for Colnago in 2004
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
Re: New Trends for Colnago in 2004