Colnago Geometry over the years

[Lugger]

Hi folks! Newbie here, posting for the first time. Hoping I'm doing it in the right place and in the right way. Anyone out there have any idea of how Colnago geometry may have changed over the years. In particular, I'm looking at a used 55cm 2000 Master X Light. The current specs for that model would fit me to a T, but wondering how much (if any) the geometry could have changed over 13 years.

Thx!

[Grant McLean]

Here is a scan of the geo chart from the 2001 catalog.

You might need to look at a set-back chart to figure out the seat tube
angle, since Colnago wasn't always keen of printing that, or the head angle.
It's really the horizontal measurement that matters anyway.

-g

[Lugger]

Thx Grant! That's way more information than I thought I'd ever find. Looks liek the bike will fit me fine (if its really the size noted in the description).
jim

[roydyates]

Grant,

Your chart is really helpful. It resolves for me that my Master is the AxB=590x569 size.

So when people sell largish Colnagos, maybe the sizing confusion comes quoting the size as the yellow column D size for the ctc ST. Since this isn't unique to each frame, it would explain why colnago sizing is often unreliable.

[wallymann]

plus the fact that colnago geometry *changed* across the board in like 2007 or thereabouts. there's a whole 'nuther geo chart depending on the date of manufacture.

Grant,

Your chart is really helpful. It resolves for me that my Master is the AxB=590x569 size.

when people sell largish Colnagos, maybe the sizing confusion comes quoting the size as the yellow column D size for the ctc ST. Since this isn't unique to each frame, it would explain why colnago sizing is often unreliable.

[Grant McLean]

plus the fact that colnago geometry *changed* across the board in like 2007 or thereabouts. there's a whole 'nuther geo chart depending on the date of manufacture.

It really depends on which model whether or not there has been changes.
The Master geometry in 2013 is within a couple of mm's as what it's been
in each size since least the 90s, when they all came with the same straight
fork.

master 2013 geo attached -

[wallymann]

It really depends on which model whether or not there has been changes.

exactly.

the variability of geometry is more an issue with the carbon bikes. you need to know what model you've got and when it was built to know the exact geometry for sure, and even then if it's a C50 or Extreme carbon from the mid '00s when the changeover happened it can get pretty fuzzy as to what exactly you've got -- in those cases it helps to have a tape measure handy!

this chart combines the 2 sets of geometry, but there are examples of bikes that dont fit either set of specs!

http://brown-snout.com/cycling/tech/_ColnagoGeometryReference.pdf

i have a 2004 C40HP in 61cm and it's specs line up with the "old" geometry perfectly. i also have a 2005 C50 in 61cm and parts of it's geometry fall in neither side!

for the C50, the head-tube is longer and the chainstays are alot shorter but the seat-tube angle is comparable.

it boggles the mind why colnago would change their tried-and-true and much-loved geometry in the first place!

[oliver1850]

Here's the 1996 geo. The C40 evidently had the same geo as the steel frames at that point. I recall the 1998 geo as being the same as in 1996, but could be mistaken.

"D" is the seat tube angle. HTA was secret.