Colnago C64 - Inside and Out

[Calnago]

@Devastazione: Yes, there were those early on in the thread but then I revisited the cable routing and went into much more detail. I just added a link to that post in my response above. Check it out.

[Devastazione]

@Devastazione: Yes, there were those early on in the thread but then I revisited the cable routing and went into much more detail. I just added a link to that post in my response above. Check it out.

Yeah just read that aswell. I can’t believe people back here are absolutely positive about zero shifting issues when routed in the “ugly “ way,Colnago engineers included. Now,I have to admit tho that crossing cables leaves a lot of housing wide open,spoiling the bike’s look somehow. Tough decision indeed, I really want to avoid di2 on this build..

[Calnago]

Well, in fairness there probably aren't any real shifting issues routed the other way either; I'm sure they shift just fine... but intuitively, when you look at the lines the housing is taking... which alternative looks smoother to you and which do you think results in less friction for the cables running through it? That should answer any questions about which routing, at least theoretically, should provide the better shifting. And one man's "ugly" is another man's "beautiful". I go to great pains to make sure my mechanical routings are as smooth and friction free as possible. The only thing is, as you mention, is that the housing loops around a bit as opposed to staying close to the headtube (because it's forced to jam right into it with those S-bends). Just make sure the loop is as small as possible (test by rotating the bars all the way to each side of the top tube). The cable length should allow the bars to barely touch the top tube without pulling the cable housings from their stops. If you run into a situation where the bike is so small, relative to the rider, I suppose you could encounter a situation where his/her knees are jamming into the loop. That would be highly annoying. Kind of like when someone is on way too small of a bike and they're trying to stand while climbing up a steep grade and their knees keep hitting the handelbars.

For me it's a no brainer. The cable runs are smoother, there is less friction, and there is no cable rub anywhere on the frame itself. And I think it looks better too.

But let's take a quick look at how things have changed, that in light of, may warrant a change in thinking about the way they cabled their review bikes. Quick trip down memory lane here... not too far back at all... just C50ish era. With the C50, crossing cables underneath the downtube was impossible due to the downtube getting in the way. And internal routing in the downtube wasn't a "thing" yet. But go back a few years (ok, like 25 or so) and crossing cables under the downtube (with skinny steel tubes), was an effective way to ease the sharp bends that cable housings on small bikes had to make. But as tubes got fatter, that routing became impossible for a while. And Colnago's placement of the derailleur stops on the downtube was superb compared to others of the day, which I highlighted earlier in the thread. As a reminder, here's my C50, with "traditional" cable routing up front. Nice and close to the headtube, tight bends not really an issue (mostly because of my larger frame... 62cm), and note that the cables don't touch the headtube at all. Very nice...


But things were changing. Internal cable routing became more the norm. And the ever increasing number of cogs at the back meant that cables needed to be free to move unhindered in ever decreasing increments. A sloppy setup meant sloppy shifting. It wasn't until I got my EPQ that I thought I'd try the internal crossing of cables through the downtube as a way of making the lines smoother with less internal friction in hopes of achieving incrementally better shifting. You've seen my bikes. You've seen the care I take and the tubing I use under the BB. Meticulous setup pays off. So, why didn't I do that before with the C59 you might ask. Good question, and the answer lies in what I knew about the tubes’ construction, and also what I didn't know. I always knew the C59 had a single sheet of carbon running internally down the center of the downtube, kind of creating two halves, and providing reinforcement kind of like the I-Beam construction of steel supports. So, I just assumed that would prevent any crossing of cables internally and never really thought about it any more than that. My EPQ on the other hand, which shared the same downtube as the EPS, did not have this vertical plane of carbon running down the middle. Instead, it has three ribs which reinforce the tubes but would not obstruct the cable crossings. It worked beautifully for internal routing and crossing of cables. Then one day while working on my C59 I thought, wait a minute... how can that vertical plane of of carbon be running down the center of the downtube without interfering with water bottle bosses, or more to the point, vice versa. I figured out that vertical plane does not extend all the way down the length of the top tube, but just a bit up by the headtube lug. So I could cross the cables after all I thought. And I did, and it's been that way ever since.

But back to the C64... Now that they've put the derailleur cable port dead center in the top of the downtube, there is no possible way to run the cable housings for a mechanical drive train the “traditional” way such that they will not rub, and rub significantly, on the sides of the headtube. Hence on every picture you saw of the review bikes, they were also adorned with those ugly "sleeves" around the housing that was prone to touching the headtube. And as I also mentioned earlier in the thread, it's beyond me how those sleeves do any "protecting". Instead of the cable housing rubbing dirt into the headtube, that job is simply now taken over by the sleeves. Problem solved?... No. So... maybe it's time to break with tradition and route the cables in the alternative manner by looping around and crossing them internally. I see absolutely no downside to it, and so much upside from performance, frame saving, and aesthetic points of view. Just do it. I wish I had one to build up completely just to show it off. I know from my little experimenting that I've done over the last week it would work perfectly.

[Devastazione]

Thanks again Calnago,keep us posted.

I've got a pm from a forum member asking me from wich dealer I've bought my C64 but the system does not allow me to answer me somehow,maybe I don't have enough posts ?
Either way it's a bike shop here in Italy,if you live across the ocean I don't know if that may be of any help

[Calnago]

@Devastazione... I'm curious as to how the C64 is being inititally received in Italy? Sometimes it's funny when a well known and respected brand is in your own back yard, it can sometimes lose some of it's charm. I presume the forums you are on over there where Davide Fumagalli is participating are all in Italian, correct? Oh I wish I spoke the language. What isn't beautiful about Italy.

[Calnago]

Ok... on this 2nd week anniversary of the C64 product launch, I never realized what this thread might evolve into. But I'm about to wrap it up soon, at least as far as new content from myself goes, but certainly hope it remains alive for comments, questions and discussion on any points I've raised. Still more to come, along with my final thoughts overall, but I've just decided to change the title of this thread to "Colnago C64 - Inside and Out". When I started the thread, I just thought "The Naked Build" was kind of fun and descriptive since I wasn't actaully building it up. Anyway, I'll have at lesat a couple more posts today before I'm done.

[guyc]

Saw a blue Art Decor in the flesh today.

Stunning. Just stunning.

[Devastazione]

@Devastazione... I'm curious as to how the C64 is being inititally received in Italy? Sometimes it's funny when a well known and respected brand is in your own back yard, it can sometimes lose some of it's charm. I presume the forums you are on over there where Davide Fumagalli is participating are all in Italian, correct? Oh I wish I spoke the language. What isn't beautiful about Italy.

As you may imagine Specialized,Trek,Cannondale etc take the lead back in here,especially among the 20 and 30 something riders. I’ve been a die hard Specialized fan for many years,my riding buddies made jokes out of me
Colnago is trying to catch back on the youngish market with the V2 and the Concept and you start to see some kids ride their all black Concepts here and there. Lugged Colnagos are for the 40 and 50 something crowd that have been buying Colnago for many years.
At first a lot of people said “i’m gonna keep my c60/i’m gonna order a c60 before they ran out of frames “, but I would say more and more people are starting to warm up on the new C64. Last week a forumer swore about keeping its beloved C60 but he actually received yesterday his C64.
Yes,Davide speaks in Italian on our forum. He sounds like a cool guy always ready to answer any question.

[Calnago]

Ok... so before I start wrapping things up, I want to do one more post on the "Crown Jewel" of the C64. That would be the bottom bracket lug and the Threadfit solution that Colnago has implemented, beginning with the C60. In reading some of the magazine reviews... calling out the Bike Radar article in particular, I came away with the perception that some of these reviewers really didn't understand what was going on down there, and were mostly just trying to regurgitate what they were told at the briefings in order to meet their review deadlines.

So, if you were confused by some of what they were writing, let me try to make it a bit clearer, and far more accurate...
First of all... Threadfit 82.5 is not a brand new BB "standard" at all, as the article was implying. It's just Colnago's answer to the Pressfit BB solutions which have been become so prevalent today. Colnago has always tried to build bikes which last. Pressfit Bottom Brackets pressed into raw carbon shells are about as contrary to that philosophy as you can get. If they aren't a perfect pressfit, they can move around within the shell tiny amounts, causing that annoying creaking that has become all too common these days and futhermore, that movement also causes wear on the shell. If it wears enough, you've got a nice throwaway frame. Realizing that... Colnago decided to bond in a threaded alloy sleeve into the BB shell of the C60. That sleeve is permanent and part of the BB lug, exactly the same as a threaded BSA bb would be. But, at the time of the C60 launch, there were no threaded solutions to just screw in there in order to accommodate the pressfit bb's that did exist (I'll talk about Wishbone and Ceramic Speed momentarily). So they developed their own Threadfit 82.5 cups that threads into the bonded sleeve. The threadfit cups conform to the BB86 standard (hence not a "brand new" standard) of 41mm inner diameter and an 86.5mm wide shell. Shimano and Campy spindles/cranks fit nicely into this standard. So, with the Threadfit cups now threaded into the BB shell sleeve, you are ready to install whatever Pressfit solution you want to go with. I'm a Campy guy so I use their 86.5 x 41mm cups, same as most of the review bikes that were installed with Campagnolo cranks had. With me so far?... I'm seeing some glazed over eyes out there. Oh well, I will press on.

Let's have a quick look at the C60... it's the same as the C64 with one exception which I'll get to...

My C60, as it came from the factory, Threadfit cups installed... note the alloy sleeve going all the way through...



Here's the Threadfit cups which I removed from my C60 during building just to have a look at the details of the BB...



And the shell with the bonded threaded sleeve, but Threadfit cups removed...

Ok, with me so far? Good. Now we have the C64. The only difference is that instead of a once piece bonded sleeve going all the way through the BB shell, they now have two pieces bonded in separate collars, threaded, and thus the middle part of that alloy shell has been eliminated. Nicely molded cable guides have taken it's place. But operationaly, it is EXACTLY the same as the C60. In fact, the later C60's were incorporating the two collars instead of the single sleeve already. So, nothing "new" as far as that goes for the C64.

Below is the C64... as it comes from the factory. Same 86.5mm shell. Same threaded portions for the Threadfit cups. And same, exact Threadfit cups get threaded in. But the middle section of the bonded in sleeve is now gone... Here's the C64 BB shell... focusing on the inner portion of the non drive side Threadfit cups (and bonded in collar)...



And a little closer... you can't really see the edges of the bonded in collar becasue of the overspray from paint and likely some of the bonding agent oozing around the edges. The threadfit cups get screwed in afterwards, once all the appropraite cleanup and facing of the outer shell is done...



And one more drilldown to the lower edge...

I was going to show you the same stuff as I showed of my C60, with the Threadfit cups removed, so you could see that it is all exactly the same as my C60, but once I showed up for our date with large tools in hand... that's when the parents got involved, and said... "Whoa... unless you're going to marry our daughter... you're not going to violate her with those things!". So... you'll just have to to take my word for it that it's the same, with the exception of two threaded collars instead of a continuous sleeve, threaded at each end. I suppose I could have told the parents not to worry, that I've done all this before... but what parent really wants to hear that either.

So, I just kept the tools below to myself... and sulked away slowly...


Ok... so now that you've got some visual context for it all... there's nothing really new over the C60 except that the one piece sleeve is now two pieces, and even that had already been incorporated into the latest C60 production. So, what is the Bike Radar article blathering on about... got me. They ponder why Colnago didn't adopt the "pre-existing" T47 "standard". Well, for one thing, the T47 standard wasn't out when Colnago went with their own Threadfit solution in the C60. T47 is no better than Threadfit; it's actually trying to do the same thing. So for manufacturers that haven't taken the initiative to do something better, then that might be a way to go (to date there hasn’t been much success getting manufacturers on board). But Colnago took that initiative before T47 was even introduced, with the C60. Aaach... anyway, it was pretty clear to me that the Bike Radar article really did not convey a good grasp on what they were even talking about, and seemed to confuse a lot of people in the process.

The Colnago bottom bracket lug is good. Very good. Leave it at that.

So, enter Ceramic Speed, which kind of confused the issue even more, and it shouldn't have. All Ceramic Speed have done is produce a BB that replaces the Threadfit cups and screws directly into the bonded in sleeves, just like the Threadfit cups do. It alleviates the need to press in whichever bb you were going to use afterwards, eliminating the go between if you will. But wait, what Ceramic Speed is doing has already been done, by a company called Wishbone. So... no big deal... it's not some huge "Oh no, another bb standard" moment at all. And if you're using Campagnolo, then the Ceramic Speed option, at least for the Ultratorque cranks, would probably just consist of some threaded cups, which accept the CULT bearings which are pressed onto the Utlratorque cranks.

Currently with my C60 and a Campy install, and this is still the case with the C64 if you prefer, you would just press in two Campy cups to the Threadfit cups. Then install the crank with it's awesome CULT bearings. I happen to think Campy's CULT bearings are second to none and I wouldn't use any others. But if you're using another crankset, perhpas you would like to have a look at Ceramic Speed's offerings, but it's not necessary. It's just another option. The threadfit cups plus whatever BB works with your cranks is just fine as well.

So, where does that leave us... the same as before really, and it's a good place to be. Why? Because unlike with almost all other carbon frame manufacturers, if in the event your BB shell wears (and in Colnago's case that would be the alloy Threadfit cups), then all you have to do is simply replace the Threadfit cups... a super simple 5 minute job. Versus a worn and chewed up carbon shell from a bad fitting BB... well good luck with that. Oh, and those Threadfit cups are made of finely machined alloy, nice and smooth and concentric and round, which is more or less a crapshoot when dealing with raw carbon bb shells these days.

I hope that maybe clears up a bit of confusion caused by journalists with a deadline and some vague recollection of what they were told at a briefing surrounding the "new" bottom bracket. It's not that different, but I do like the molded in cable guides... a lot. It really is a Crown Jewel among bottom brackets.

[c60rider]

Here's a link to that new Campagnolo variant of the ceramic speed bottom bracket

http://www.windwave.co.uk/Products.aspx ... D=74736755

The only question it raises for me is are those ceramic speed bearings identical dimensions to the cult ones or are you required to replace the cult ones?
Personally it looks great though a little expensive compared to cost of the current Colnago cups and Campag press fit ones. Now mine are in I can't imagine needing to remove them but it's another option which can only be a good thing.

[Calnago]

That pic in the Windwave site does raise some questions. Ultratorque cranks have their bearings pressed onto the spindle. Then the crank just slides into the cups which are slipfit. In that pic, the bearings are in the cup itself, which would be the case if it were a Shimano install for example. For a Campagnolo install I would still prefer using just the Campy cups pressed into the Threadfit cups. The cost for Campagnolo crank includes the CULT bearings (Super Record), which are part of the crankset, not part of the cups. The Campy cups themselves are only about $30.
I suspect those Ceramic speed bearings are just in the pic for display, but are supposed to replace the existing bearings on the Ultratorque crank, meaning you’d remove the old bearings, press the new ones onto the spindle then install in the normal manner. That might be an upgrade for say, the Chorus version, maybe even the Record version, but I doubt it’s an upgrade to the CULT bearings of Super Record. I guess I'd rather just continue to leave the factory installed Threadfit cups in the frame and use the appropriate pressfit cups for your crank. Only when/if the Threadfit cups became worn would I consider removing/replacing them. The threads are quite fine, and I would prefer to not be removing the cups any more than necessary. But that's really a moot point in practice, because even if you remove the Threadfit cups to install the Ceramic Speed option, it's not like you would be removing the Ceramic speed BB on a regular basis by any means. Hopefully those bearings would last as long as the Campy CULT bearings... which from my experience, seems like forever.

[Geoff]

Ok, that's nice. One day maybe I'll get to build-up a bike like that for myself

[Calnago]

@Geoff... Just sell your fancy espresso machine and march right down to the bike shop and get one.

[Devastazione]

This is completely off topic and I apologize for that. My lbs asked me 1800 euro for a DA 9100 mechanical group for my c64 and honestly that is quite a rip off. I’m considering some USA online dealers to buy the group and have it delivered at my parents hotel in NYC when they will visit in April. Online prices in Europe are around 1400 euro,but maybe I can score a better deal with the Euro/Dollar exchange rate.

Also,an honest opinion from you Colango’s veterans : is an Ultegra 8000 group on a C64 a blasphemy? I may consider that aswell in order to splurge serious cash for wheels.

[tomatoe]

Build it however you are happy with the results. Let the haters hate!
I own a C40 mapei with 1x11 etap, just to piss people off >:)

Oh yeah, support LBS!