COLNAGO "NUOVO MEXICO" 1986

As far as I am aware, Nuovo Mexicos were only made between 1983 -1986 and in comparatively small numbers. I don't think the tubing was changed during this time - always "Columbus SL Record" profiled ( ie crimped) The crimping was 2 along the top tube, 4 along the down tube. ( symmetrical of course - 1 and 2 each side respectively).
It may be of some interest to note that my bike was purchased from Italy ( yes I know, they all are but mine was actually bought from an Italian owner) and it might just differ in some respects , although not tubing I would have thought , from an "export" model.
I don't have much literature on Colnagos. What I have is of little use for the older ones. I gave away a lot of posters for the plastic era to the chap who bought my C50 Anniversary. I have a couple of posters stored somewhere that relate to the transitional period but really they are of little use.
I attach some pics of what I have ( or at least can put my hand to.)
If you need a much better archive go to 2Velo.com.
There is a Colnago catalogue specific to a Colnago Ferrari, one model only, currently for sale @ £350.00 (!!!)

[quote="colnagophiliac"]As far as I am aware, Nuovo Mexicos were only made between 1983 -1986 and in comparatively small numbers. I don't think the tubing was changed during this time - always "Columbus SL Record" profiled (i.e. crimped) The crimping was 2 along the top tube, 4 along the down tube. ( symmetrical of course - 1 and 2 each side respectively).
It may be of some interest to note that my bike was purchased from Italy ( yes I know, they all are but mine was actually bought from an Italian owner) and it might just differ in some respects , although not tubing I would have thought , from an "export" model.[/quote]

The Nuovo Mexico was first manufactured in 1982 (limited to teams/pro racers only?; possibly made even as early as late '81). Saronni raced one to victory at the World Championship in Sept. '82; I believe it was still being called a Mexico at the time in '82 (being called a Mexico again in '86 catalog). It did not appear in a catalog until '83 (to my knowledge, I have not been able to reference an '82 catalog). Saronni's winning bike frame only had a "Profil" top tube (from photo evidence) similar to the Super "Profil", but used "Record" tubing instead "SL" for the rest of the frame; unknown as to fork tubing. The "2nd generation" Nuovo Mexico is the only frame (to my knowledge) with the "Profil" 2 groove top and 4 groove down tubes.

My Nuovo frame was sourced from Italy.

As you mentioned, and I think that everyone who has owned and done much research realizes that Colnagos as well as other frames did not follow a "cookie cutter" approach for a specific model year (primarily '70s-'80s); nevermind custom ordered bikes.

I attach some links that seem particularly useful - and which thoroughly add to the confusion.

I bought my Mexico in 83 or 84. From what I remember, it had a down tube with two crimps (one each side), I don't remember the top tube being crimped - none of the photos I have left from back then are good enough to show the crimps. Fork crown & top of the seat stays were engraved 'COLNAGO' and so (I think) were both chain stays - although I may be wrong about the latter.
Fully chrome forks, chrome head lugs, rear drop out faces and rh chain stay.

[quote="colnagophiliac"]I attach some links that seem particularly useful - and which thoroughly add to the confusion.[/quote]

Yes, added confusion. I only go to Ray's site to look at the splash tape horror. SARF is limited, and many of the identifier guides contradict one another, and/or agree, but for model different years. Not to mention that they only show limited views of their representative model year examples (each example should be shown in full as well as with every frame detail). If I show a bike, I try to give photos of all of the unique frame identifiers to provide reference to the next individual doing research. Just showing a built up bike from the drive side and a headbadge shot does not always help. To me frame details are much more important than parts photos unless you know they are original to the bike and again provide an accurate reference to others.
I just saw a Colnago Super being advertised as a '90s model. The seller had no idea, but only knew what they wanted to get for the sale. I had to inform them that it was an early to mid '70s model (nutted brake mounting, no stay cap panto, fork crown "flower" only). Makes me wonder how they determined a value on something that they had no knowledge about other than the brand name (probably used ebay as a reference!).

I agree with all of that. I have at least discovered why my "International" was such a pig to ride. There were apparently 2 versions ( of course) and mine was the later one - built with CRO-MO tubing. It's incredible just how bad it was.

I would not have minded if my fork was chromed, but with the retinato paint scheme it looks good with the frame; chromed head lugs, although nice, would not have been missed if painted to match the frame. I do like my fully painted Super, it flies under the radar somewhat when gathered amongst it's siblings which are all shiny somewhere.

unfortunately, this is where I enter the thread and go all negative.

I had a mexico, bought I think around 86. It had crimped top and down tubes, but I cant remember how many crimps on each of the tubes. It was a ruby red (Saronni?) colour, but not with white panels, just white transfers. Full chrome fork, headlugs and rear stays.

First time on it, I just couldn't abide the handling, mainly due to the fork. The fork was advertised as being super strong with some "anti-vibration" technology incorporated into it. The fork seemed to have a massive rake and made the far-out-in-front wheel feel like I was steering a barge. What I did next was to replace the forks with some from a Chesini, with a shorter rake which made the handling a million times better. I rode that bike like that (forks were repainted to match, but obviously didn't have the correct panto) for a couple of years.

What happened next surprised me. I bought an off the peg Raleigh 531 (531C Luxe) for average money as a second bike and that Raleigh felt so much better than the colnago. It was lighter, climbed and handled better, and seeing I raced at the time, I sold the Colnago and never had another colnago since.

Sorry to spoil the party folks, but my feelings, based on that bike seem to be style over substance. Maybe I just had a bad one ??

Sounds like my International - see post elsewhere. It was an awful ride. Didn't have the crimping though.
I did a lot of miles on my Mexico and found it very responsive ( like a Super really) as is the Nuovo Mexico, and my MXL - Master series - was pretty much faultless - took it up ( and down!) Alpe D'Huez. My C50 was exemplary but of course that's carbon and into the modern era.
Sorry to hear you had a poor experience.
One of the most comfortable bikes I owned was a Hetchins Italia - bottom of the range, bog standard 531, nothing fancy so it doesn't absolutely have to be Italian, but generally they are very good at "vitality"/responsiveness/kerb appeal.
I'd rather do 100 miles on my Merckx though - I'd go off "vitality" after 50 miles.

@pigman; not a problem in my opinion. I like to hear other's educated opinions; they do matter. I do not ride the Nuovo Mexico very much, mostly ride an older Super, or much newer Super Piu. I have one Colnago that has not been built up; I suspect a contract build on an odd "Saronni" variant with what appears to be straight gauge seamed tubing. I do not expect it to feel very good compared to other frames. I am now going to verify the rake of my N. Mexico compared to the Super just to see if there is a difference; early Mexicos had the same geometry as Supers, main difference was lighter "Record" tubing and some frame details. I have not been seriously racing since getting the Mexico so I may not notice the difference in handling as when I was riding more aggressively. I regularly ride a Reynolds 501 frameset and like it just fine, especially due to stiffness, yes heavy, but a good handling frame.