Any older Cannondale aficionados?

[dustyrider]

Craigslist find:

http://westslope.craigslist.org/bik/4054892914.html

The seller doesn't seem very forthcoming with any type of information other than it might fit me, based upon some loose measurements. I'm not all that close, but there should be some good riding up that way if it's something even worth looking at.

So, I'm Wondering if anyone here can tell what kind of Cannondale this is?
Any funky proprietary features I should be aware of? There are some features that seem to be unique to this bike, like the chainstays dimple in the middle. Dropouts seem a bit unique too, but I'm not well versed in Cannondale.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[thirdgenbird]

I'm not expert, but it looks like an older sr500 or sr400.

[gasman]

They are a very harsh ride. With a minimalist saddle it's like sitting on a brick-you feel every bump in the road. The dimple in the drive side chainstay should not be there. It was hit with something or crashed.
I test rode several Cannondales from that era and they sucked until you got to the Caad 9 when they became a responsive, reasonably priced race bike.
Just my opinion.

[SlackMan]

I rode only one Cannondale from that era, but as mentioned above, it was exceedingly harsh. If one could fit wide tires and run low pressure, they might be comfortable, but all the ones I remember seemed to have very tight tire fits which suggests they would not fit wide tires. This is all really too bad because I always thought they are very cool looking bikes.

[dustyrider]

hmm... it almost looks like the dimples are aligned. Could be a dent I suppose, just seems like it's too deliberate of a placement to be happen chance.

Thanks for the opinion and for the place to start. Are we certain it's an SR at least?

[witcombusa]

They are a very harsh ride. With a minimalist saddle it's like sitting on a brick-you feel every bump in the road. The dimple in the drive side chainstay should not be there. It was hit with something or crashed.
I test rode several Cannondales from that era and they sucked until you got to the Caad 9 when they became a responsive, reasonably priced race bike.
Just my opinion.

First, the "dimples" are on both of the chainstays and are there for crankarm clearance.

Second, I own a '94 'Cdale 2.8 Road, and don't find the ride to be at all harsh.(and I have many high end steel bikes to compare it to). I find it to be a great riding bike that sees lots of miles to this day.

[4Rings6Stars]

+1 that the "dimple" is supposed to be there.

+1 that it is a very stiff ride, but I would not consider it harsh. Maybe with an aluminum fork and 19mm tires...

I have had a few and they are rocket ships. If I wasn't such a snob, I would still be riding one today.

[bargainguy]

My first decent touring bike was an '86 ST500. Shimano 600 IIRC, total bike weight 21 lb. It was a bit of a revelation then. Stiff? Sure. Worth $200? I think so but depending on condition.

[rex]

I had a friend in college who rode that vintage of Cannonadale back in 88 ish. He loved it…..until he snapped the non-replaceable derailleur hanger. I think they actually sent him a new frame but I wouldn't swear to it. One of the reasons I became a life-long steel fan.

[dustyrider]

That sure is a pretty purple!

Should we call the concave features of the stays something else?
My limited search with the google and SR yielded many pictures showing the same "dimples"...:confused: no more. Except on what to call them!

Just found some old catalogs. Any guess as to date range? I was thinking 87-89 till I saw the 94 above.

Cable guide for the rear mech. is wonky, any of you guys that owned these, or rode them, recall if these bikes have other quirky items?

[gasman]

You guys are right about the dimples. Didn't notice them on both sides. Shows how lousy my memory is about how the bike looked. All I remember is the ride. Rather my butt remembers the ride.
I know some people loved them. I tried several over the years and even bought a couple but never kept them.

[pinkshogun]

ive had 3 of the early touring frames from the mid 1980's. the frame uses standard threading while the japanese forks had metric. not really quicky but worth relating

the tourers could be a bit twitchy up front with a handle bar bag and 4 panniers loaded down but otherwise a nice ride. i could fit a 700x32 Pasela and a fender as i converted from the stock 27" wheel size

[regularguy412]

Disclaimer: I didn't read all the posts.

Looks like my current trainer bike, 'cept mine's blue. The seat stays are attached TO the dropout. This points to a bike in the 1988-1990 era. Nitto stem , SR Laprade post, 'kinked' chainstays and a steel fork -- non-aero levers.

Likely a first-gen C-Dale. SUPER stiff. Rode my first century on one with a Turbo saddle. Couldn't bear to sit on the saddle for three days thereafter.

Prolly an OK bike, but I wouldn't call it an all day rider. They were designed for crits, mostly.

Oh. Almost forgot. It has a bit of 'weird' geometry. If you'll inspect the picture closely, you'll see that the seat tube does not intersect the BB directly in the middle. This makes the ST angle a bit slack if you measure the angle, but should not be considered the 'same' in the way we typically measure the ST angles on other bikes (since those usually bisect the BB with the centerline of the ST). For me , this made the Top Tube slightly lonnnnnnnger than my 56cm CSI,, even though both are considered '56cm' bikes. To make my C-Dale fit, I ended up with a 90mm stem and it STILL doesn't feel as comfy as the CSI.

MIke in AR:beer:

[cfox]

First, the "dimples" are on both of the chainstays and are there for crankarm clearance.

Second, I own a '94 'Cdale 2.8 Road, and don't find the ride to be at all harsh.(and I have many high end steel bikes to compare it to). I find it to be a great riding bike that sees lots of miles to this day.

your '94 is a pillow top mattress compared to that '80's model. I had one. The straight, oval seat stays were what pushed it over the edge in terms of stiffness. On smooth pavement, for it's time, it was incredibly light and responsive, but the smallest bump sent your a$$ into the air. Or, at least it sent my sixteen year old, very light a$$ into the air. If it fits, for $200 it would be a fun bike to own.

[oliver1850]

I believe that's a 1986 SR800, originally equipped with Superbe Pro.

I have a 1987 R600 with Shimano 6208. I've put around 12,000 miles on it over the years. Dealer told me when I bought it it would eventually crack near the FD tab. It hasn't yet. Pic shows C8 build, since returned to 6208. I think those Aeroheads have Splzd Armadillo 25s on them. I think I've run Continental 28s on the bike. You can download the 1986 catalog at vintagecannondale.com, or I can look up anything you want to know. I'll check 28s on it if you want to run them.

[BryanE]

A Cracknfail with Campy???

I had an 87 SR800 that was a bone shaker.
The alum fork was horrid.

[dustyrider]

Yes! Love the forum. thanks everyone. Been looking at the website, thanks Mark! Wouldn't have thought to look that far back. What's the top tube cable guides look like? are they seperate pieces or...?
I had noticed the BB union in the pic. another interesting piece of the puzzle that caught my eye.
I put in a email to the seller...who knows maybe someone that fits lives closer.
Thinking it would make a fun crit. bike build.

[bargainguy]

Don't have a pic, but the top tube cable guides are black plastic and press-fit with little clips that go into the frame. They are notorious for falling out, with people resorting to zipties if they can't find them.

[oliver1850]

I checked the Armadillos, they are 26s.

I think all the 1988 and older road forks were lugged steel Tange. The aluminum forks were introduced in 1989. I'd love to have a 1987 SR800, that was the Black Lightning with gold and black Suntour Sprint.

The cable guides are plastic as mentioned. They have a plastic drive pin that is pushed through an expanding plug that fits in a hole in the TT. Same principle as a drywall anchor that takes a screw. If they can't be found currently, there are probably aluminum ones that could be riveted on. I've never had any trouble with mine. I think when I repainted it, I pushed the pins through, into the TT, then rattled them out and reused them.

The early frames were designed for crits. In 1990 they introduced a slightly more road race oriented geometry as well. It had a slacker HT angle and longer chainstays.

[aosty]

That era truly earned the Crack'n'fail term.

---

Thread-hijack! :fight:

Did anyone else see the 2014 Cannondale "Black Inc" models... certainly descendants of the Black Lightning... check out the retro toptube decals! :banana:

http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/09/04/eb13-gorgeous-cannondale-synapse-hi-mod-disc-evo-expands-caad10-updated-more/

http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2014-Cannondale-SuperSix-Evo-Black-Inc-road-bike01.jpg

[texbike]

My first two road bikes were mid to late 80s era Cannondales. I'm not sure what model the first one was but it was aluminum with a steel fork. The 2nd one was a Criterium series with massive rear stays and a steel fork as well. I LOVED those bikes! The first one was stolen and I was heartbroken. The Criterium provided a large percentage of the cycling-related scars that I carry today. I'm not sure if it was the geometry of the bike, my bike handling skills at the time, or a combination of both, but there were several significant crashes on that thing.

The bikes never seemed terribly harsh. It wasn't until I picked up an early 80s Cinelli a couple of years later that I realized how smooth a bike could be. :) At the time I was running 19s or 21s pumped up to 130-140 on the Cannondales. That was probably the biggest issue. I bet a nice set of 25s with about 90 lbs of pressure in them would do wonders for their ride quality.

Texbike

[josephr]

I started out on steel and had a few buddies in college that had the first cannondales. I found them harsh/buzzy and turned me off on aluminum for a long, long time. Now I ride a new Cannondale Synapse aluminum alloy --- I think it rides better than carbon! Still love steel though.

I've had quite a few opportunities to own a few of the older cannondales and while I appreciate the technology of the time and appreciate what they mean to the history of the bike, I can't see bringing one into the stable nor wanting to ride it.
Joe

[BryanE]

My C-Dale phase is way over but I have to admit those Black Inc models are very very hot.

[alessandro]

My first decent touring bike was an '86 ST500. Shimano 600 IIRC, total bike weight 21 lb. It was a bit of a revelation then. Stiff? Sure. Worth $200? I think so but depending on condition.

That's my bike! I bought it for $50 at a friend's yard sale, and have put 2000-3000 miles a year on it for 4 years, until I got a new frame this year.

Dusty, what you have there looks to be from 1983-1985, because of the vintage of the crankset and rear der, and is an ST500-the touring model, because of the triple crank and the size of the freewheel. The SR500/whatever hundred was the racing model, and came with a double crank.

C-dale only started making bikes in 1983--before that they made packs, bags, stuff for the touring lifestyle. And a trailer. From the Wiki page: "One of the most successful products was the Bugger, a child trailer, although Cannondale's marketing department seemed unaware of the connotations of the name in British English (some were, nevertheless, exported to the UK)."

The Tange fork is springy, and with the 27x1.25 tires makes for a very nice ride. I've ridden mine on dirt and gravel, over rough Vermont pavement (sometimes the dirt roads are smoother), on a couple of centuries, and in some events that involved pinning on numbers. I've never had a problem with it being too stiff. I love this bike, and still commute on it.

Mine has Campy brake calipers, brake levers, and headset, Cinelli bars, a Nitto stem that I wish it still had, Suntour shifters, Shimano 600 rear der, and Shimano Biopace crankset that I did not like. (It also had half-step gearing: 50/44/28--that 6-tooth difference up front was intended to somehow provide more options to the rider, if you wanted to make two shifts per gear change. When it wore out I replaced it with round rings in more conventional sizes.)

If you go see this CL bike, look at the underside of the bottom bracket--the serial number should be stamped there, and will tell you what year the frame was made: http://www.vintagecannondale.com/info.html

Oliver, the top tube cable guides on my frame are alu or steel, not plastic.

[Tandem Rider]

It looks like an 85 to 88 road frame with a non-stock range of parts. All of the race models used the same frame and all that changed was the color and parts. It looks like it is pre-3.0 series which makes it several years older than the 2.8 models. The 2.8's were lighter and nicer riding than the 3.0's which were lighter and nicer than the one in the ad. I know the 2.8's had a cantilevered rear dropout and the 3.0's may have. It was state of the art for stiff and light in it's day.

[alessandro]

Hm. The 1986 catalog lists a couple of the road frames as coming in such colors as Coral or Rose. Of course, that frame could be fire engine red, depending the camera and my PC monitor.

It could be a road frame with a triple crank... I still think it's a touring frame. Mine has plenty of clearance for wide tires; I don't know how tight the road frames were. Another distinction is bottle bosses: Road frames had two, touring bikes had three, with the third on the underside of the downtube. :)

[wildboar]

That's my bike! I bought it for $50 at a friend's yard sale, and have put 2000-3000 miles a year on it for 4 years, until I got a new frame this year.

Dusty, what you have there looks to be from 1983-1985, because of the vintage of the crankset and rear der, and is an ST500-the touring model, because of the triple crank and the size of the freewheel. The SR500/whatever hundred was the racing model, and came with a double crank.




+1

Note the fender eyelets in the rear dropouts too.

[pinkshogun]

thats not an ST touring frame..note the absence of mid-fork rack braze on, lack of rear tire clearance to seat tube, no double eyelets on each fork leg. the early SR models had rear eyelets

[oliver1850]

I'm fairly certain the coral color pegs the frame as a 1986 SR800. Only year and model to have that color I think. The ad states that the owner built it up, so you can't go by the components. There were two Tange forks, one for the higher priced models, one for the cheaper ones. The SR800 had the better one. The plastic TT cable guides were introduced in 1987. I haven't seen an older bike up close, but assume they were aluminum. They were painted frame color on the older bikes, but were black plastic from 1987 - 1992. The MTB frames had used welded on split cable stops for some time before they made it to the road frames. Dropouts on the race frames were tapped for fenders.

Regarding Crack n Fail: Cannondale had a good warranty, 100% satisfaction to the original owner. Replacement frames could be had for $150 if you crashed it.

[redir]

When I was a kid I used to refuel the president of Cannondale's Cessna Cheyenne. He even took me for a few rides in it. I think if I remember correctly his name was Joe Montgomery. He used to fly to all his business meeting and ride to the airport on a C'Dale...Cool guy and great memories

So yeah I like the old C'Dales :D

[rccardr]

Definitely an SR frame, and it looks like the top tube cable guides are black plastic, which puts it in the 86-88 range. Frames in various colors (not always the same color offered in the current model lineup) were sometimes obtained directly from Cannondale and built up for the customer by their LBS, so pinpointing an exact model- especially after 25+ years of owner mods- can be very difficult.

Some people find the ride overly harsh, others not so much. Try and see for yourself. After restoring/refurbishing/upgrading/modernizing dozens of SR and ST models from 83 to 89, I can tell you that they aren't for everyone. But for those to whom they speak, it is a lasting relationship.

[dustyrider]

Ahh the keen eye of the forum! Based on serial number it must be an 86. Seller has another interested party, and I may not be able to make it up that way for a few weekends...we'll see. Certainly worthy of a test ride!

To all of you thanks for the great info. Opinions and Internet sources!

[RFC]

I have ridden a lot of classic bikes and, for me, my 87 SR500 and 90 ST600 are my favorite classic bikes to ride. Part of it is that the Cannondale geometry fits me well and part of it is that they are very stiff and responsive, more like modern bikes.

[fiataccompli]

Assuming the collective wisdom that this is not a touring frame (to my eye, spacing between seat tube and rear wheel is the #1 indicator), I would say with 25mm tires it would be a nice ride. The very early ones are interesting machines.

[carpediemracing]

The frames without labels (SR800 etc) were probably trade in frames. Based on the components I think that's probably what it was - $150 plus any frame got you a Cannondale. Frames that came as bikes had the model number on it.

Non-replaceable dropout. This is how I lost a couple of my frames, when the dropout broke. I believe that now there are some "saw off what's broken and install this piece" repair kits. In a pinch we've used the cheap steel derailleur mount (for a bike with no derailleur hanger) and put a screw through that and into the eyelet on the frame. Usually it meant unscrewing that screw and twisting the hanger down to take a wheel off but at least you could ride the thing.

Also some of the forks were recalled. There wasn't enough brazing material in the crown to hold the steerer tube or something like that. How do I know? When one of my teammates pulled the front brake off my bike the fork crown (and below) fell off the bike. Said teammate brazed the fork back together that night, painted it, and then we put pink tape around the (still wet) paint seam so the officials wouldn't notice at the race the next morning. The fork was good when I finally dumped it many years later.

Note pink tape around fork blades:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TbmplkIYLx8/S34Ii91srSI/AAAAAAAACto/yaWBelTj2_Y/s800/IMG_0010.jpg

Having ridden a number of Cannondales as well as other bikes I'll say that that bike will be extremely harsh compared to other bikes. It's good if you load it down or put as big a tire as possible on it. Those frames were strong enough to support someone standing on the rear dropout with the frame laid down, no wheel in the dropout. As a loaded touring bike they were the best.

As a crit bike they weren't great unless the frame fit you really nicely. I haven't bothered checking the specs but the head tube angle was pretty conservative, no higher BB, etc.

The aluminum forks helped a lot, the 2.8 was the best of the pre-CAAD frames, even compared to the 3.0 (and I had both the crit and road versions of the 3.0).

It seems that you may not get it anyway but all that's for future reference I guess.

[fiataccompli]

I have a touring bike of the same vintage that I use for commuting and I really love it...which is surprising to me as I'm not much of a fan of aluminum...but with a load it does its thing quite nicely. Interesting to hear a reference to the same perspective on the bikes (albeit a slightly different spec than the topic bike)

[oliver1850]

I don't think any of the road frames had model numbers on them prior to 1993. My 1988 SR800 is as pristine and original an example as you will find, and it has no model decal. I bought it from the original owner who only road it a handful of times.