Colnago C59 = slower handling?

[grnrcr]

I understand C59s are highly regarded as great handling bikes. I just built one up and although I enjoy every other aspect of the ride, I find the bike quite “stubborn” in corners. I also have a Neil Pryde Bura SL which reacts to my every little steering correction/body movement in corners. The C59, in comparison, understeers quite dramatically and doesn’t want to react to my corrections mid corner. I find myself having to brake mid-corner more to yank the bike to the line I want.

Going down the descends I know like the back of my hand, if I am super diligent about picking the right line into the corner, the C59 corners fine, but even just the slightest mistake (a touch hot on speed or late lean into the corner) means the bike tracks outside and doesn’t want to turn in. I’ve ridden a ton of bikes and never experienced a bike like this.

I’m not talking about going balls out down descends where any little mistake is magnified. Even just going at a brisk but comfortable speed, I find the C59 needing a ton more attention in corners.

Anyone else with similar experience?

[texbike]

I'm not sure what size C59 you're riding, but Colnagos are known to have slack head angles. My C50/40s definitely have slower steering than a couple of my other bikes with steeper head angles. What size stem are you running on it? That could have an effect as well...

Texbike

[OtayBW]

And the fork rake as well. High trail could make it harder to drop into a curve at high speed. That said, I like high trail geometry and find the benefits to my liking.

[Dave]

Colnago doesn't list the HTA, so you can't calculate trail, but they do tend to have more trail than other brands. I had two C40 models and rode mountain descents on the last one. I thought it steered just fine. Changing back and forth between the C59 and other brands might be a pain.

Keep in mind that more trail means that it requires a bit more effort to initiate a turn and the bike will have a greater tendency to keep going straight, than a bike with less trail.

I learned a lot about steering a bike from taking a motorcycle training course. The most important thing was to push on the right side of the bars to turn right and push on the left side to turn left. If you quit pushing, the bike will straighten itself. With a bicycle, the amount of counter steering force needed is so small that this is not always obvious to the rider.

[soulspinner]

Had a Colnago that turned in slowly. Just their geo. If you search you can find the head tube angle and trail.

[rallizes]

Do you have a drive side photo of your colnago?

[OtayBW]

Keep in mind that more trail means that it requires a bit more effort to initiate a turn and the bike will have a greater tendency to keep going straight, than a bike with less trail.That's what I had in mind (above). Been a while (?). Nice to see you post here, Dave.

[m4rk540]

OP, did you buy your C59 from an authorized, brick and mortar Colnago dealer?

[Avispa]

A few years back I had two Colnago C59s. I felt I was riding a size too big for me because of the reasons you stated in the opening post.

For general steady riding and long rides the bikes felt great, very comfortable and compliant. But they never felt quite right when sprinting or doing short interval workouts. I felt as if I had to pull the bike from under me to advance... one thing I realized was that the head tube on Colnagos (then and now) tend to be larger than other brands of the same size and kind.

Rather than getting a smaller size Colnago, I went with another brand. But I do believe Colnago is a great brand and now they have different models for different specialties of riding.

[glepore]

You should try an older Ducati. Same deal. Slow turn in.

The plus is that once on line it is VERY difficult to knock it off line. If you got the line right in the first place, its super stable and confidence inspiring.

[grnrcr]

Good to hear I’m not crazy. The Ducati analogy is right on. If I choose the right line at turn in, the bike tracks amazingly well. This is fine on descends I know well. Not as much on unfamiliar roads. [emoji53]

Bike is a 54S running a 120mm stem. Got the frameset from another Paceliner.

[David Kirk]

My wild-assed-guess is that they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail.....which in turn gives the odd handling.

This is super common on mass produced bikes where they want to use the same fork on every size bike in the range.

dave

[Climb01742]

OP, You might be describing what lots of us like about how 'Nagos handle. One rider's 'slow' is another's 'stable'. On long, solo rides, I really appreciate the predictable, steady way a 'Nago rides. Like an old Benz S-Class. They just eat up the miles. YMMV.;)

[paredown]

My wild-assed-guess is that they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail.....which in turn gives the odd handling.

This is super common on mass produced bikes where they want to use the same fork on every size bike in the range.

dave

I think you are correct--and I believe that the stock fork angle on Colnagos is 43deg.

I'm another person who finds the handling just fine, although I agree with the description of the slower turn in. But I'm also riding 54s/ 58-59 in Colnago sizing so that puts me in the middle of the size range where I think the combination of HT angles and rake are fairly neutral, but not quick...

[glepore]

Yes, mine are smallish sizes. I don't find the handling "odd" so much as "not twitchy". Its very relaxing, actually.

[cmg]

"they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail..
'

so the solution is to use a fork with more rake like 50mm, reduce trail. i had an ebay Serotta with bontrager fork, thing was slow as a truck, wanted to ride straight. did some research the Bontrager fork was a 40mm rake and the Serotta geometry called for 52mm rake, so swapped a 50mm from another bike and the Serotta rode great. buy another fork.

[OtayBW]

My wild-assed-guess is that they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail.....which in turn gives the odd handling.

This is super common on mass produced bikes where they want to use the same fork on every size bike in the range.

dave
Dave - what do you consider to be too much trail for any given size you'd like to address. I've got a 90's DeRosa and as far as the published specs tell me (hard to verify this), my 54 c-c has a 65 mm trail which I really like. What do you consider to be too much?

[Johnnysmooth]

Find Collages I've owned to be more steady holding a turn well, but not terribly responsive to rapid corrections. Same holds true for my 96' DeRosa Primato - just the way they are designed.

Bought a far more responsive frame - Look595 awhile back when racing here in New England to have a more responsive, twitchy frame for the tight circuit and crits we commonly race.

[mcteague]

Find Collages I've owned to be more steady holding a turn well, but not terribly responsive to rapid corrections. Same holds true for my 96' DeRosa Primato - just the way they are designed.

Bought a far more responsive frame - Look595 awhile back when racing here in New England to have a more responsive, twitchy frame for the tight circuit and crits we commonly race.

Ha, ha...another victim of auto spell correct! :D

Tim

[David Kirk]

Dave - what do you consider to be too much trail for any given size you'd like to address. I've got a 90's DeRosa and as far as the published specs tell me (hard to verify this), my 54 c-c has a 65 mm trail which I really like. What do you consider to be too much?

It would be silly to say that Xmm of trail is fine and that X+1mm is too much. But in my mind anything over 60 mm is pushing it and 65 mm is too much. One challenge can be determining how much trail you really have. One needs an accurate head angle number as well as the actual fork rake. My experience in comparing the numbers in catalogs and the actual real-life numbers tell me that they are seldom the same and often way the hell off.

If your bike actually has 65 mm of trail I'll bet you could find a fork with more rake to bring the trail into the mid to upper 50's you'd like it a good bit more.

I've seen some large brands that put the same rake on every fork (some "reputable" small builders do the same thing!) but they have really slack head angles on the smallest bikes in the line and they end up with a trail in the low to mid 70's. This is so bad. It's usually women who end up with this junk and they can't figure out why the bike flops back and forth while out of the saddle or why it's so hard to stand and sprint. Typically well meaning guys give them advice on how to stop doing that but it's super hard to hold a line with a bike that has so much trail. Cannonade's small bikes had 75 mm of trail a few years back. That is a crime.

I typically design my road bikes to have 55-57 mm FWIW.

dave

[grnrcr]

My wild-assed-guess is that they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail.....which in turn gives the odd handling.



This is super common on mass produced bikes where they want to use the same fork on every size bike in the range.



dave



Yep, the C59 is one of the rare bikes where my toes clear the front wheel with room to spare. I’ve always had toe overlap issues on other frames. Some worse than others.

I’m still in love with the ride overall but just can’t quite get used to the feeling of a Cadillac in corners yet.

I just switched the 120mm Superleggera stem to a Syntace in the same length which helps liven up the turn in just a tiny bit. I may give a fat carbon stem a try to see if that helps even more, but they are just so ugly on this bike though.

This is how the bike looks with the Deda stem.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180729/8a7f828cad97f20e7681c0ecd19ed60a.jpg

[Dave]

Here's a link to the geometry for current LOOK frames. They actually list every important dimension, including trail.


https://www.lookcycle.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/06/GEOMETRY-BIKES-2018.pdf

[Dave]

Yep, the C59 is one of the rare bikes where my toes clear the front wheel with room to spare. I’ve always had toe overlap issues on other frames. Some worse than others.

I’m still in love with the ride overall but just can’t quite get used to the feeling of a Cadillac in corners yet.

I just switched the 120mm Superleggera stem to a Syntace in the same length which helps liven up the turn in just a tiny bit. I may give a fat carbon stem a try to see if that helps even more, but they are just so ugly on this bike though.

This is how the bike looks with the Deda stem.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180729/8a7f828cad97f20e7681c0ecd19ed60a.jpg

How's a same length stem liven up the steering?

[adub]

How's a same length stem liven up the steering?

Thinking the same?

[grnrcr]

Could totally be in my head but the Syntace is a bit beefier/stiffer which I think helps with steering input.

[El Chaba]

Whatever it is that Colnago does with their geometry should be widely copied by others as my Extreme -C is one of the best handling and descending bikes that I have ever ridden. Stable, yes, but not extra effort. As a matter of fact its stability eases the effort in trickier situations...

[l0n3rider]

mostly bike design depends a lot on where the designer lives .. italian bikes normally good at descending due to the hilly environment .. some said belgian bikes have less trail due to the famous cobbles .. some bikes good at sometjing and some bikes good at others .. some bikes are designed with neutral handling (trail most likely around 58-60, or whatever neutral trail which the designer believes) ..

bikes designed characteristics with riders skills and styles .. finding the match made in heaven could be a lifelong journey 😂😂

[LegendRider]

Someone has taken a stab at calculating trail figures for the C60 in this Weight Weenies thread. I believe C40, C50 and C59 geo is the same.

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133867

I own a C50 which definitely feels slower steering than my Time VXRS (other road bike) but I'm perfectly happy with it.

[Johnnysmooth]

Ha, ha...another victim of auto spell correct! :D

Tim
Sadly, embarrassingly, yes:crap:

[Keith A]

My wild-assed-guess is that they used a shallow head angle to limit toe overlap but retained a fork with a small amount of rake (40-43) which gives way too much trail.....which in turn gives the odd handling.

This is super common on mass produced bikes where they want to use the same fork on every size bike in the range.

daveAgree with Dave. When I rode my C-50 for the first time, I was pretty surprised at how it handled -- especially given all the hoopla about Colnago's. Frankly, I didn't like it very much. Over time, I have adjusted to how this handles, and I'm okay with this now -- but I still prefer the feel of my Time VXR over the C-50.

[m4rk540]

This is how the bike looks with the Deda stem.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180729/8a7f828cad97f20e7681c0ecd19ed60a.jpg

I was not expecting that set up. Figured the bars would be above the saddle and there would be an inline post. Nice bike!

[rallizes]

Can you post a similar photo of the Neil Pryde?

[David Kirk]

Agree with Dave. When I rode my C-50 for the first time, I was pretty surprised at how it handled -- especially given all the hoopla about Colnago's. Frankly, I didn't like it very much. Over time, I have adjusted to how this handles, and I'm okay with this now -- but I still prefer the feel of my Time VXR over the C-50.

The internet is interesting (understatement) for sure. People talk about brand X bike and some will say it handles well and others feel just the opposite.

Of course some of this is due to personal preference but much of it is due to either the size of the bike being ridden or the set up of the bikes in question.

One of the issues is that many makers use the same rake fork on every size they make regardless of the head angle and this gives a wide range of trails. The large size with the steep head angle and 43 mm of rake rides great and his owner is happy and touts the ride of the bike. The owner of the smaller bike, with a shallow head angle and the same (and in this case wrong) fork will think the bike handles poorly....it flops on steep climbs and drives into turns at low speeds and can't be made to turn at medium to high speeds. Same brand and model....much different bikes.

The other factor is set up. It's not as common today as it was a few years back before "endurance" geometry became popular but back in the bad ol' days guys would go with a larger size to get the bars higher and then fit a short stem, angled up, to keep the reach within reason. Then they'd take the bike out and declare that it handles poorly and say that brand X is not good. Now the bike might suck and it might not but if the 8 cm stem is angled up at 10° and it's got 4 cm of spacers below it it will almost certainly ride poorly. It was not designed to have so little weight on the front wheel and the handling will indeed suffer.

These things are always in the back of my mind when one guy says cannondales/treks/s-bikes rock and the other says they suck. This feedback, while interesting, isn't worth very much without looking at the bigger picture.

I personally think everyone should buy custom made-to-measure bikes but that will never happen so......my advice would be to always look at the trail on the bike you are considering. If you ride a smaller size you should look for the rare company that offers different fork rakes to get the proper amount of trail. If the bike you are looking at doesn't have that go onto the next company. Life it too short to polish bikes that look better than they ride.

dave

[l0n3rider]

totally agree with Dave ..

my height is only 165cm. used to ride colnago EPS size 45s. when i ordered my custom made Legend HT7.5 .. i asked a lot of questions on the trail especially, since i love climbing but i descend poorly ..

but at that time .. i do not really understand how to ride a true racing bike correctly. i read a lot on bike design .. not so much on skills of a rider.

now .. i'm a better rider (i think so LOL) .. the more i enjoy my Legend

so at the end .. in my opinion .. we need to have the right skills to truly enjoy the high end bikes .. both the rider and the bike are equally important ..

[OtayBW]

......my advice would be to always look at the trail on the bike you are considering. Great points. This is something that I've been thinking about alot lately in terms of the handling of my 4 bikes. But what is interesting is that I think not too many people buy a bike, or even spec a bike, based on trail which really affects the handling and performance so much. It's impotent!

[wallymann]

i've owned both. with those short chainstays, the VXRS was a handful in heavy side-winds while riding deep-section rims. in benign conditions it was a glorious bike. i ride in all conditions, probably more *****ty than anything else, sold the VXRS...still have a C40 + C50 + ExPower in the arsenal.

colnago handling isnt slow, but it's not high-strung either -- perfect for maintaining your chosen line without alot of fuss after multiple sections of cobblestones and ~200K in your legs or tackling an alpine descent after 2 weeks of racing with another week yet to go!

I own a C50 which definitely feels slower steering than my Time VXRS (other road bike) but I'm perfectly happy with it.



i find the opposite to be true. my colnagos take a line and keep it, no extra attention needed whatsoever. they gladly change a line too, just give it proper steering inputs. no fuss.

...I find the C59 needing a ton more attention in corners. ...

[grnrcr]

Can you post a similar photo of the Neil Pryde?



This bike (56) has a 10mm lower stack than C59. Same reach.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180731/50e081ac2a288294f3817972423ee312.jpg

[Climb01742]

grnrcr, you have good taste in rides.;)

[rallizes]

I wonder if sizing down to a 52s Colnago would be beneficial.

The NP looks more ‘right’ to me somehow.

Just my opinion of course...

[Keith A]

...
i find the opposite to be true. my colnagos take a line and keep it, no extra attention needed whatsoever. they gladly change a line too, just give it proper steering inputs. no fuss.As others have mentioned, this could be due to the frame size. Based on the pictures of your bikes, it looks like you ride about a 58cm top tube and I would suspect that the larger Colnagos handle better than the smaller ones due to having a steeper HTA on the bigger frames. I'm on a 52s, which translates to a 54ish top tube, and this has a pretty slack HTA with a 43mm offset fork.

[FlashUNC]

One man's nervous is another man's lively.

One man's stable and predictable is another man's sluggish and unresponsive.

YMMV.

[m4rk540]

You're sitting in the Colnago and above the NP. Unless the differences are exaggerated by the photos, you're not in the same position at the "central movement" on both bikes. Your bottom bracket to saddle length appears significantly greater on the NP and as a result the saddle seems to be angled down. In effect, you're riding two bikes with different seat tube angles and thus different weight distributions. Do you get any wrist pain on the NP?

[David Kirk]

One man's nervous is another man's lively.

One man's stable and predictable is another man's sluggish and unresponsive.

YMMV.

Yes and no......some might find 62 mm or trail feels good to them and some might not. But one one finds 73 mm of trail on a road bike to be good. It's outside the acceptable range by so much that it will feel like crap to everyone that rides it.

The complication is that the riders that get stuck with the poor handling bikes are typically those who ride small sizes where a slack head angle and a one-size-fits-all fork conspire to give way too much trail and crappy handling. The thing is that many of these riders will never ever ride a bike that doesn't feel like that. They think that is how bikes ride. They will never get on a 58 and marvel at how much better and more intuitive it feels. Only those in the know that seek out a bike with appropriate trail (whether is be a custom or the all too rare stock bike) will have ridden a bike that handles as it could and should.

dave

[FlashUNC]

Yes and no......some might find 62 mm or trail feels good to them and some might not. But one one finds 73 mm of trail on a road bike to be good. It's outside the acceptable range by so much that it will feel like crap to everyone that rides it.

The complication is that the riders that get stuck with the poor handling bikes are typically those who ride small sizes where a slack head angle and a one-size-fits-all fork conspire to give way too much trail and crappy handling. The thing is that many of these riders will never ever ride a bike that doesn't feel like that. They think that is how bikes ride. They will never get on a 58 and marvel at how much better and more intuitive it feels. Only those in the know that seek out a bike with appropriate trail (whether is be a custom or the all too rare stock bike) will have ridden a bike that handles as it could and should.

dave

Totally agreed. Mine was admittedly a hyperbolic remark about the range of personal preference that seems to play into this, given the range of fit that most would consider acceptable. But you're right that outside that range, the bike's just going to ride like garbage.

[Keith A]

Dave certainly knows way more about this issue than I do, but I can say that even a slight change in the fork offset can make a noticeable difference in the handling. I bought a frameset a while back ago, and it has a steepish HTA and it came with a 43mm offset fork. When I built this up, I didn't like the way it handled and so I swapped out the fork for one with a 40mm offset and this transformed the ride.

I've often thought about putting a fork with a 45mm offset on my C-50 and see if this improved the handling. Has anyone tried this on a Colnago?

[Mark McM]

The complication is that the riders that get stuck with the poor handling bikes are typically those who ride small sizes where a slack head angle and a one-size-fits-all fork conspire to give way too much trail and crappy handling. The thing is that many of these riders will never ever ride a bike that doesn't feel like that. They think that is how bikes ride. They will never get on a 58 and marvel at how much better and more intuitive it feels. Only those in the know that seek out a bike with appropriate trail (whether is be a custom or the all too rare stock bike) will have ridden a bike that handles as it could and should.

Agree on all of this. I just happen to be at a height (168 cm) where bikes sized for me start to transition to using shallower head angles to limit wheel overlap. Bikes in my range with longer reach dimensions can have reasonably steep head angles and shorter trails, but bikes with shorter reach dimensions have to use shallower head angles to meet CPSC toe overlap regulations. So I've ridden (road) bikes with trail dimensions from 51mm to 68mm. The longer trail bikes definitely have slower, more ponderous handling. While they are certainly rideable, they don't respond as spritely as the shorter trail bikes I prefer. I feel sorry for riders shorter than me, who often have no choice but to ride bikes with even longer trail dimensions (if they can only ride production bikes).

A lot of shorter riders would be better served with bikes built around smaller wheels. This would allow shorter reaches, steeper head angles (and shorter trails) for better handling, and lower stacks, and still meet the regulations on toe overlap. Sadly, there is little momentum to manufacture components for these bikes (particularly wheels and tires).

[grnrcr]

You're sitting in the Colnago and above the NP. Unless the differences are exaggerated by the photos, you're not in the same position at the "central movement" on both bikes. Your bottom bracket to saddle length appears significantly greater on the NP and as a result the saddle seems to be angled down. In effect, you're riding two bikes with different seat tube angles and thus different weight distributions. Do you get any wrist pain on the NP?



Good eye. The photo of the NP is a bit old. I recently had a follow-up fit done on the NP and was moved back on the saddle slightly which was then copied over to the Colnago.

I liked the geo of the 54S Colnago on paper since it gives me a little more headtube and less spacers, but I do start to wonder if a 52S is a better fit for better agility. [emoji848]

[grnrcr]

grnrcr, you have good taste in rides.;)



Thank you. I like looking at them as much as riding them.

[wallymann]

yep, i think we're onto something...

As others have mentioned, this could be due to the frame size. Based on the pictures of your bikes, it looks like you ride about a 58cm top tube and I would suspect that the larger Colnagos handle better than the smaller ones due to having a steeper HTA on the bigger frames. I'm on a 52s, which translates to a 54ish top tube, and this has a pretty slack HTA with a 43mm offset fork.

[David Kirk]

Agree on all of this. I just happen to be at a height (168 cm) where bikes sized for me start to transition to using shallower head angles to limit wheel overlap. Bikes in my range with longer reach dimensions can have reasonably steep head angles and shorter trails, but bikes with shorter reach dimensions have to use shallower head angles to meet CPSC toe overlap regulations. So I've ridden (road) bikes with trail dimensions from 51mm to 68mm. The longer trail bikes definitely have slower, more ponderous handling. While they are certainly rideable, they don't respond as spritely as the shorter trail bikes I prefer. I feel sorry for riders shorter than me, who often have no choice but to ride bikes with even longer trail dimensions (if they can only ride production bikes).

A lot of shorter riders would be better served with bikes built around smaller wheels. This would allow shorter reaches, steeper head angles (and shorter trails) for better handling, and lower stacks, and still meet the regulations on toe overlap. Sadly, there is little momentum to manufacture components for these bikes (particularly wheels and tires).

I hear you.

In the end it boils down to making money. The bike makers know that sizes at the ends of the bell curve will not sell many units and they are reluctant to spend money on tooling for those sizes. They want to make money so they use the same fork that would go on the big bikes and then let the shorter riders just deal with it.

One could of course put a fork with more rake on these smaller bikes and life would be good. Adding rake buys toe clearance as well as decreases trail so it will handle as it should. I true win-win for sure. But instead they just hope no one complains and they pocket the money.

When a custom bike is built this need not be a problem. I can say that I build forks that have rakes ranging from 40 mm to 55 mm and the amount of rake is chosen to give the proper trail and toe clearance. If I can do it one would think that Colnago and the others could do it too.

dave

[muz]

Strangely, back in the old days, Colnago had the reputation of riding well in smaller sizes, compared to DeRosa or Masi. How the times have changed...

[merckx]

When steel was the only choice, did Colnago et. al. offer a range of fork rakes for all size frames? I raced on an SL Colnago in the early eighties, but don't recall the geo charts (if they were available) at that time.

[l0n3rider]

i strongly believe .. at the end of the day .. both are important: rider and the bike.

even for small size bike which resulted in larger trail (due to the fork rake) .. it could be raced .. IF the rider has the skill and setup the bike appropriately. for example .. by having long stem and the center of gravity of the rider is fairly forward .. the front wheel is fairly weighted .. the bike should be easier to turn during fast descend than suggested by the trail ..

just my opinion. could be right could be wrong. i'm not a frame builder .. not even a racer .. but from my experience .. more skill full you are .. the more you can make things work ..

[Keith A]

For some reason, Colnago didn't publish the HTA for most of their frames, but I did track down one for the C-60. From what I understand, the C-50 and C-59 are pretty close to the C-60.

As this chart shows, the HTA are indeed on the slack side...
https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/328/32009145795_dba4bd0ab6_c.jpg

[grnrcr]

Thank you for finding this. Helpful info.

[jtbadge]

For some reason, Colnago didn't publish the HTA for most of their frames, but I did track down one for the C-60. From what I understand, the C-50 and C-59 are pretty close to the C-60.

As this chart shows, the HTA are indeed on the slack side...

It's interesting that they usually didn't publish their HTA, and also I've heard claims that Merckx once considered their HTA "proprietary" as an explanation for that spec not being included on most of their geo charts until well into the 21st century.

[dddd]

I'm not sure what size C59 you're riding, but Colnagos are known to have slack head angles. My C50/40s definitely have slower steering than a couple of my other bikes with steeper head angles. What size stem are you running on it? That could have an effect as well...

Texbike

I found this post interesting, in that it was one of the first, yet was seemingly the only one to conflate stem length with handling character.

I'm a long-leg 5'9" and bought a 52s CX-Zero witgh a 72.5-degree headtube and 55.5cm toptube. The bike came with a 10cm stem and immediately impressed me with it's ultra-effortless cornering prowess while riding within a tight pack of riders. I later changed the stem to 11cm and moved the saddle forward a small amount, and the bike's handling became much more normal or average in terms of effort needed to initiate an aggressive cornering attitude.
Ideally I would use a 10.5cm stem, but the current bars have a 35mm clamping diameter, so are looking ripe for change.

Here it is with the stock 10cm stem:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4430/35548774213_e3f321f070_c.jpg

[cmg]

For some reason, Colnago didn't publish the HTA for most of their frames, but I did track down one for the C-60. From what I understand, the C-50 and C-59 are pretty close to the C-60.

As this chart shows, the HTA are indeed on the slack side...
https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/328/32009145795_dba4bd0ab6_c.jpg

After owning a lot of frames including a Colnago Master x-light and a Mix I came to the conclusion anything with a reach more than 360mm (Cervelo RS or R3) would not work. I'm short, 5'-6" with apparently a short torso and the 376-380+ mm reach on a Colnago with a 9cm stem would stretch me out and be uncomfortable.

[paredown]

When steel was the only choice, did Colnago et. al. offer a range of fork rakes for all size frames? I raced on an SL Colnago in the early eighties, but don't recall the geo charts (if they were available) at that time.
IME, the Precisa forks are all 43 deg., so at least from that time forward they were using a standard rake. Not sure about the earlier steel frames though..

[Mark McM]

I found this post interesting, in that it was one of the first, yet was seemingly the only one to conflate stem length with handling character.

I'm a long-leg 5'9" and bought a 52s CX-Zero witgh a 72.5-degree headtube and 55.5cm toptube. The bike came with a 10cm stem and immediately impressed me with it's ultra-effortless cornering prowess while riding within a tight pack of riders. I later changed the stem to 11cm and moved the saddle forward a small amount, and the bike's handling became much more normal or average in terms of effort needed to initiate an aggressive cornering attitude.

Another factor to consider is the stability created by the trail is also influenced by the weight on the front wheel. The more weight on the front wheel, the more the trail acts to stabilize steering. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of short trail touring bikes - the extra weight of the front panniers acts to increase the stability, so the short trail touring bike can still be quite stable. As you also moved the saddle forward when you increased stem length, I wonder how much of the increased in stability was due to the moment arm length of the stem, and how much was due to the increased weight on the front wheel.

And speaking of stem length - the distance of the hands from the steerer is a combination of stem length plus the handlebar reach. Many modern compact handlebars have short reaches, so a traditional drop bar with an 10 cm stem may have the same "tiller length" as a compact drop bar with a 13 cm stem.

[Mark McM]

IME, the Precisa forks are all 43 deg., so at least from that time forward they were using a standard rake. Not sure about the earlier steel frames though..

I had wondered about that. For straight blade forks, the offset has to be built into the crown (by varying the angle of the blades), whereas as for curved blade forks, the blades can simply change the bend of the blades. So the Precisa fork would need different crown castings specific to different offsets, whereas the curved forks could just be bent in a standard fork bending jig to any variety of offsets. I appears that straight blade steel forks, and now molded carbon forks, have limited the fork offsets available, to detriment of tailoring the handling of different sized bikes.

[merckx]

I had wondered about that. For straight blade forks, the offset has to be built into the crown (by varying the angle of the blades), whereas as for curved blade forks, the blades can simply change the bend of the blades. So the Precisa fork would need different crown castings specific to different offsets, whereas the curved forks could just be bent in a standard fork bending jig to any variety of offsets. I appears that straight blade steel forks, and now molded carbon forks, have limited the fork offsets available, to detriment of tailoring the handling of different sized bikes.

Agree, all of the Precisas I've handled were 43mm, but I'm reaching further than that.

[Herder]

I know this an old thread but trying to find hta on a master frame sizes 57 and 58? I'm guessing all colnagos have a slack hta. And standover height if possible.

Why doesn't colnago publish this stuff?

[zmalwo]

a bike's handling is 99.999% determined by the headtube angle and fork trail. material plays a very insignificant role.. perhaps switching out different forks and see which trail amount you like the most?

[djdj]

If you have the data Colnago publishes and fork rake, you can determine the trail and HT angle. See bikegeocalc.com

[benb]

I'd start making fit changes first since it was mentioned the Colnago has a 10cm taller head tube than the other bike. (That's massive!)... obviously this thread is ancient and the OP might have just sold the bike.

I thought the Ducati references were funny having rode some of them.

You don't start worrying about the trail & HTA on your motorcycle when it handles like a truck.

You check the weight distribution & make sure you have the sag set up correctly since those bikes have suspension, not that different from a MTB.

The geometry of the bike is not 99% of the handling if the riders contact points are not set up identically on the 2 bikes being compared since the rider weighs something like 7-10x more than the bike does for a road bike. That's even highly relevant on a motorcycle where the motorcycle weighs 3x what the rider does.

[mtechnica]

Your other bike handles better because the bars are lower.