Mexico vs Master

Do you think a Colnago Mexico is more comfortable than a Master X-Light of present day? I am finding my MXL a bit harsh on longer rides for the old back. I can't remember what my Mexico was like years ago as it just got thrashed all the time but I seem to remember it being fairly comfortable.

Anybody still riding both?

Have a butchers at this week's Cycling weekly, there's some good articles about bike fitting. Convinced me to lower my stem 1/2" and an incredible difference!

Yep, I've experimented with that over the years, before and after a spinal op. Now I find the 'Italian fit' or more like 'French fit' much better even though it is more stretched out. I think the logic is that there is more weight on the hands/wrists and less vertical force on the spine.

However, thats not the issue - its more about the stiffness of the frame. Maybe I can't have super solid handling and super smooth rolling too? But I think I had it years ago. Concorde SLX was a bit flexy but very,very smooth - as was a Holdsworth Special 531.
This thing is very planted and sure footed but not so comfy.

Can't have it all I suppose! I just thought a Mexico might be the answer. Same fit, different ride.

I'm wondering if the Master X Lite uses slightly oversized tubing compared to the 20 years old Colnagos? Might do as stiffness seems to be the aim these days. Then again, may just be talking nonsense.

Any photos of the X Lite?

Aye, here it is here:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... ht=#384320