Colnago C64 - Inside and Out

[glepore]

I don't care for shrouded dropouts either for the reason above, but a local rider here has a carbon Colnago (EPS ? I don't recall exactly) that had a drivetrain issue of unknown origin while at speed and it not only destroyed the SR rear mech but also cracked the seatstay just above the dropout. It was repairable, but the repair interferes with some 11's. Anyway, the extra beef in that area is probably going to add a bit of strength, sort of like why ti builders claim to like the shrouded Paragon's.

Its a nicely detailed bike. I like pretty much all of it except for the bottle cage recess, maybe they're going to make a proprietary cage?

[dgasmd]

And underneath you can see the molding for the cables...

So, in both mechanical and electronic, does the cable/wire exit out the back through that hole by the hanger? That would mean both travel internally all the way out from the entry port in the down tube to the derailleur?

[Calnago]

A new day... and as I re read this thread to get back into the flow of things, I realize "oh yeah, I meant to say this or that right there, but forgot".... so rather than edit those posts, aside from some glaring grammatical errors or typos that I usually have to correct, I thought I'd just continue posting, so those that have already read the prior stuff don't have to wonder what other material I've added via edits.

But first, I guess I should talk about what this thing actually weighs. Geez... if I cared about weight as much as you guys, well... I'd probably be skinny. Hmmmm....

Ok then... Had to do some reconciliations but that's not too hard since a lot of the "extraneous" parts I've already got actual weights for from completely dismantling my C60... I'm going to just include this chart that I created when I built the Koppenberg. It's a good way to do some meaningful comparisons to determine how much your bike will really weigh when comparing apples to apples. Thus I took a lowest common denominator approach. I included the C64 right alongside the C60 that I built. Now, the sizes are quite different, with my C60 being a 59T and the C64 being a 52S, but I still think it's a pretty good comparison...




And here is what Colnago's chart says re weight and stiffness. By the way, those stiffness numbers mean absolutely nothing to me. Let me ride the thing, and then I'll tell you if I like it or not...


In comparing what I got with the chart... their numbers don't seem too unreasonable. I get 993 grams for the painted frame, and they're showing about 100 grams less (obviously unpainted). So, not too far off I guess. What you have to keep in mind, is comparing the weight of the things that get added back on in real life is a factor as well when thinking about the final built result. For instance, the headset cups and bearings come pressed in from the factory. That's 70 grams right there and I only know that because I took them out on my C60 to face the headtube. Other manufacturers probably only have to add back just the weight of some bearings at around 45 grams or so, because they don't use pressed in alloy headset cups. Anyway, you get the point I'm sure.

I think the main takeaway from this is in answering the question "Will my C64 build up to be around Colango's claimed 200 grams less than my C60, all else being equal?".

And I believe the answer to that is "Yes, it will", or close enough that I think their claims in weight savings over the previous frames are pretty fair. By today's standards, that still doesn't amount to anywhere close to a superlight bike. But Colnago has never been about that. And neither have I, especially being on the larger side of what constitutes the ideal cycling body. What I want is a bike that is as light as possible for my size and the type of riding I do. I have been known to dig deep in sprints. I have taken turns a little too hot. I have crashed. I have hurt myself. I have cried (no, I did not cry!). I want something stable and assuringly safe, as least as safe as it can be considering what I'm trying to make it do. Look at the Trek Koppenberg in my comparison chart. It's a tank as well. But doesn't feel like one. I could have gone out and gotten the latest Emonda SLR a lot easier. But I didn't want that. I wanted the Koppenberg. I have zero regrets. It's got very similar geometry to my Colnagos with the exception of the front end, and while having a similar trail number, it gets there in a different way. It uses a steeper headtube angle and a smaller fork offset. This results in a "quicker" handling bike up front than the Colnago is. I like it, but not more. It's different. I need to maintain my focus a little bit more on the Trek. But, both bikes are very similar in weight and in how solid they feel when getting into a bit of trouble. That's what's kind of special. I'm sure you've all seen the Emonda broken into two pieces lying in the middle of the road from The Herald Sun Tour last week. Now I'm not trying to jump and down saying "See, see, I told you so, light stuff breaks", because any bike will break under the right circumstances. But for any two items made out of essentially the same material, there's probably a good chance that the one made with 50% more of that material just may be able to hold up better when things go wrong. I believe that. This is a dramatic photo I'm about to show for sure, and for the record Trek and Colnago are absolutely my two favorite bike companies. I think they both are very responsible and test things and produce really great products. One's huge and forging ahead with the latest technologies, the other is very stable, small and introduces new technologies when the time is right and they believe in it. But when I pressed my thumb in on the top tube of the latest super light Emonda SLR and watched it visibly sink... I just thought... how can this thing possibly have a 275lb weight limit (it does). Would I recommend it for someone that weighed 275lbs. Absof'inglutely not. But if I wanted to try a super light road bike myself... this is the one I would want to try... can't they put Humpty back together again?... I guess I question just how light is light enough sometimes.

This had to hurt...


Now, I can get back to talking about more important stuff... actually, what I just said is really pretty important now that I think about it.

[Calnago]

So, in both mechanical and electronic, does the cable/wire exit out the back through that hole by the hanger? That would mean both travel internally all the way out from the entry port in the down tube to the derailleur?

No, only the electronic comes out of that hole by the derailleur and is all internal up to that point. On mechanical, the derailleur cable would exit out of BB hole and wrap around the underside of the BB up to the front derailleur like on the C60 or most other bikes... you can see the tubing I was using to see just how that would work...


It comes down internally through the downtube... then exits out of the hole you can see here, inside, with that same piece of tubing showing through internally. I'm still scratching my head wondering how in the world I'm going to thread the derailleur cable into that hole... there's no big "slot" or anything like on the C59 or C60... just those two holes you see. I think I'll be able to do that ok when there's no BB cups installed, but if I have to do it with cups installed, I'd want to make sure that there's a guide in there at all times I think.

[dgasmd]

So, in both mechanical and electronic, does the cable/wire exit out the back through that hole by the hanger? That would mean both travel internally all the way out from the entry port in the down tube to the derailleur?

No, only the electronic comes out of that hole by the derailleur and is all internal up to that point. On mechanical, the derailleur cable would exit out of BB hole and wrap around the underside of the BB up to the front derailleur like on the C60 or most other bikes... you can see the tubing I was using to see just how that would work...

I was referring to the REAR derailleur. Didn't see the cable stops under the chain stay, but see the hole in the back only. Should have been clearer. Meant rear derailleur hanger and cable/wire port.

[glepore]

Hemostats are your friend...

[Calnago]

So, in both mechanical and electronic, does the cable/wire exit out the back through that hole by the hanger? That would mean both travel internally all the way out from the entry port in the down tube to the derailleur?

No, only the electronic comes out of that hole by the derailleur and is all internal up to that point. On mechanical, the derailleur cable would exit out of BB hole and wrap around the underside of the BB up to the front derailleur like on the C60 or most other bikes... you can see the tubing I was using to see just how that would work...

I was referring to the REAR derailleur. Didn't see the cable stops under the chain stay, but see the hole in the back only. Should have been clearer. Meant rear derailleur hanger and cable/wire port.

Ah... ok... then yes... both electronic and mechanical options get routed through the chainstay to the rear derailleur. No more rear derailleur stop under the chainstay, even for mechanical. Pretty nice... as I could achieve essentially a completely sealed mechanical drive train. Oh, but the electronic version would not have to exit "outside" the BB and along the groove. It would just go directly into the chainstay from the BB.

[Calnago]

Hemostats are your friend...

Had to look up what a "hemostat" was, but yes... looks like i might have to invest in some for the guiding the cable through the small holes... I presume that's what your're referring to.

[dgasmd]

I was referring to the REAR derailleur. Didn't see the cable stops under the chain stay, but see the hole in the back only. Should have been clearer. Meant rear derailleur hanger and cable/wire port.

Ah... ok... then yes... both electronic and mechanical options get routed through the chainstay to the rear derailleur. No more rear derailleur stop under the chainstay, even for mechanical. Pretty nice... as I could achieve essentially a completely sealed mechanical drive train. Oh, but the electronic version would not have to exit "outside" the BB and along the groove. It would just go directly into the chainstay from the BB.

Great. Much cleaner looking too, but also can see how that will make it a bit more difficult to route the cables. Then again, the clean looking profile I get it every time I look at it while the PITA routing is a one time operation

[Calnago]

Nice Cal and as always, very immaculate in trying not to overlook any small details.

As an owner of of a C60 myself, there are several things that I like and don't like.. Of course my "Meh's" may be another's "Wow" so I'll try not to flare things up prematurely.

I do like the pressed in "Ace of Club" logo right above the rear bridge. Certainly adds a bit more detail to the frame whereas the C60 simply had what I thought to be an "unnecessary" decal. But you know what, I think that's all I really like, at least so far from what I've seen and read thus far.

Lets go to some of the meh's. As you pointed out, the cable entry ports in the downtube kind of remind me of how my Cento10 came. At least Wilier were smart enough to make several iterations of the port that stemmed from mechanical, all the way through Di2 and then just a plate for Etap users. In this case, the port doesn't look "removable" so Etap users will likely have to grab a stick of "Sugru" a really old copy of the movie Ghost and put their molding skills to good use as any rain (or anything else) may easily find its way dripping into the port holes. I'm pretty neutral on the proprietary seatpost. It looks pretty cool and goes with the recent trends over the "faux" ISP look. However the true enthusiasts will likely fret on something that can't be replaced for anything "lighter" like say, a Deda or even an AX seatpost. Finally, my final niggle is the rear dropout. I never really liked how it was recessed granted there were several times when my quick releases would dig into them when I tried to close them. Let alone, if you used any released that had flat levers, you could never get a clean closure without having them point towards the 4 o'clock direction right below the chainstays.

If the frame is meant to be "lightened", then it should come close to the ride qualities of an old C60 that was right on the dot of making the 6kg mark, ala Imaking's old c60 as well as my ST01? At 5.98kg, my C60 is sprightly as heck but that's not without severe damage to the wallet. If the C64 can get there with a stock build and some carbon tubulars, then we have a seriously good frame and would convince the current C60 owners to jump for the "next best thing".

I await the final verdict with abated breath!

I saw your post, and thought... ok... there's so much more to talk about here. Thanks for reminding me.

Redundancy of holes in the frame... Unfortunately, with several versions of electric groupsets out there along with many who still prefer a mechanical drivetrain, I guess choosing which system to give “looks” the priority and trying to decide "who do we want to make the most happy", I think the nod to port entries in the middle of the downtube is more a nod to the electrical crowd than the mechanical crowd. Maybe they figure a hole where they’ve just put it in the downtube is just aesthetically less ugly than an unused mechanical derailleur cable hole in the side of the downtube or lug. Hard to say, but yes... there's going to be some redundancy no matter which drivetrain you go with, but it's not going to be quite as nice as it could have been in my opinion if you choose mechanical. I did notice an assortment of little "plugs" in the box of goodies that I opened, but didn't look at them in detail to see how they might mitigate this aspect of things.
[edit: Since my initial writing I have changed my mind on the middle port for mechanical cable routing. As long as you do the internal crossing of cables in the downtube, I think I actully prefer the port in the middle of the downtube. After some mocking up, I'm certain I could build one of these babies up with a mechanical drive train and have super nice, symmetrical cable routing.]

The seatpost arrangement. I can appreciate what you're saying about the "true enthusiast" might want to swap out for something lighter (this seatpost is 210g which is fine by me). And it's not an Integrated Seat Post (isp) by any means... I really hate those, especially for traveling. The thing is however, that in designs like this, the seatpost becomes such an integral part of the entire bicycle’s intended design and ride characteristics that it's impossible to separate the two. And I like the fact that the seatcluster lug is part of the seat tube. It allows them to "tune" the ride characteristics a bit more. Trek would call it their "Ride Tuned" seatmast. Versus my bikes with their traditional horizontal top tube, and a long uncut seatpost shoved half way down the seat tube... it's hard to imagine that tube is doing much flexing at all. Not that it should in that design. But in a different design, it could very well be a planned and intended part of everything. Like I said earlier, when I had the opportunity to test ride that GIANT with the similar type of seatpost it was pretty dramatic. I'm not really fond of the look of skinny seat posts jutting out from massive frame tubes, but I think Colnago has done a pretty good job here in the regard. It all seems to flow nicely. It certainly doesn't look as skinny as a 27.2mm seatpost nor as beefy as today’s standard 31.6mm seatpost. It's ok. But they don't have my ideal offset, which is 20mm. That is Trek's standard, and the Deda Superzero seatposts I use on my Colnago's are also 21mm. I guess I'd have to go for their 15mm offset, the basic one, and the offset that’s come standard on Colnago seatposts for a long time now. Seatposts will be available (if they aren't already), in 30mm and zero offsets in addition to the standard 15mm.

And your last point, the "3D" style dropouts. I hear everything you're saying. Way back when I got my first custom steel bike, it had these style of dropouts where I couldn't fit it into a normal trainer, couldn't close my skewers the way I like, etc. The new Shimano DuraAce skewers don't like these style of dropouts for sure as they want to sit very flat, so you end up having to turn them in very unappealing positions. But Campagnolo skewers are perfectly designed in my opinion and have this wonderfully elegant curve that just goes nicely around all the but the most obnoxious 3D dropouts. So at least with Campy skewers it’s certainly not a problem with the C60 dropouts and I can't foresee an issue with C64's either.

[Calnago]

Whew!... think I'm almost caught up with posting most of the stuff I wanted to post and answering the questions so far. I guess the only remaining thing to talk about or answer is... "So Cal, would you get one, or would you trade your C60 for the C64?"

Well, Yes, I would get one. Will I? That is a whole 'nother question these days. Would I trade my C60 for it... No, but only because my C60 has such a special paint job. I suppose if I didn't have a Colnago already, or several, and wanted to get one, then absolutely I'd go for the C64, and on balance, over the C60. My biggest nitpick is probably the Italian Swimming Pool they created for your waterbottles which won't fit. But the frame is really nicely made. And with the significantly greater clearance for tires, you should be good for a long time to come, regardless of where you want to ride it. For me personally, straddling between a 61 Traditional and a 59 Traditional, a 56 sloping would fit nicely right dab smack in the middle of those two sizes, so getting a geometry that works for me is a no brainer. A 56 sloping would be a nice topper to my current collection, and at this point it is a collection. I have plenty of nice bikes to ride. A bit ridiculous actually. But, if the right paint comes along... C64 in PR99... I know I know...haven't I got enough of those already you ask. Can't help it, it's my favorite paint job they've ever done.

Ernesto... my birthday is coming up. Oh, and Happy Birthday to you!!

Ciao!

[wheelbuilder]

Great work Calnago. I'm certain much appreciated by the members here, and all Colnago fans. Couple questions for you, as considering the demographic and history of my customers, I am likely to be building or servicing these in the future.

1) Mechanical cable routing......am I reading your assessment correctly that there is no "slot area" to fish the cables out of the downtube in preparation to transition them through the BB cable guides and out the chainstay or up the back of the seatube? There are small round holes that have to be negotiated from the downtube side? My follow up question to that would be (depending on your answer ), am I right in assuming that cranks and bottom bracket will need to be removed in order to re-cable this bike? Again, according to your answer, I agree that running a sealed Gore Ride On, or Jagwire Elite sealed system will be helpful in this regard, but not everyone is going to build with this. Seems to me without being able to cable one to confirm, that it appears to be a huge pain in regards to new cables and housing.

2) Again in regards to mechanical.......The integrated BB cable channels......is some sort of a Delrin guide provided, or is the cable expected to run right up against the carbon? Again a call for a fully sealed shifter cable seems in order here. Is Campy providing a sealed kit with frame purchase?

Thanks.

[glepore]

Had to look up what a "hemostat" was, but yes... looks like i might have to invest in some for the guiding the cable through the small holes... I presume that's what your're referring to.

Yup. Used for clamping during surgery, but also great for clamping onto cable ends to manipulate in tight spaces. Those of a certain age may also remember they were used as roach clips.

[defride]

Great effort Calnago, much appreciated and I'd hazard a guess not just by me.

Phew... weights are finally up! (:

Interesting, looks like they're there or about based on the published charts. There could easily be 100g of paint on those beautiful lugs. Surprised to see your larger traditional coming out so close particularly in that beautiful paint job

Ultimately like you say weight isn't the be all. At this level it's usually nuance for the most part.

Having had a 2014 Evo Hi-mod and swapping the same parts onto 2015 Evo Black with the Nano resin it was interesting to note different characteristics. The Hi-mod was great, very solid on the flat, much like any bike then coming to a sprint or hill it came to life feeling as though every ounce I could put in was being converted to forward motion, it was like it willed me to keep trying a bit harder! The Nano on the other hand 60-70g lighter iirc does feel subtly different. It fairly floats over rough roads by comparison. Then in terms of acceleration again it feels lighter, lighter than the physical weight difference would account for, kinda as though you don't need to put in quiet the same effort. Handling wise, very similar as you'd expect, same geometry. I reiterate, the differences are subtle but it seemed pretty clear to me, possibly not everyone would notice and some might prefer the more solid stable feel of the Hi-mod, depends how you ride I guess.

What I'm getting at, the changes Colnago have made may have a quiet noticeable effect on the way the new bike feels. Will the C64 have that more urgent, light, lively, floaty quality of the Nano compared to the previous gen Hi-mod while retaining everything that Colnago is renowned for in the handling dept? I hope so and look forward to hearing how the lucky new owners get on.

[liam7020]

If I'm reading this correctly, the frame weight is pretty disappointing - frame 993 + bb cups 27 + hangers 25 + clamp 10 = 1055g. I'm assuming the frame featured in this thread is a PKRD which is only partially painted which suggests a fully painted Art Decor would yet again hit the 1100g mark. Am I alone in thinking that, at this price point and especially with the alleged input from Giant, Colnago should now be able to produce a sub 1kg frame whilst retaining their renowned ride characteristics? Let's be honest it's not a lot different to the C-60 and they haven't made the effort to completely re-designed the frame like Specialized have done with the Tarmac or Scott when they re-vamped the Foil. It's really a bit similar to Pinarello when they made a few tweaks to the F8 to produce the F10. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my senility!