Road Test/Bike Review (1983) CANNONDALE Touring Bike
 

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d9f3c4bfd2.jpg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ef03d2b451.jpg

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ba8cdf444d.jpg

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...33a648077d.jpg

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...db8cf7309e.jpg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f87a8c2462.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...712f705725.jpg

That SkidLid ad is hilarious. I don't think I'd expect that thing to protect a bowling ball, much less my skull.

Awesome to read that article! I still have my 83 St-500. All original, serial AA0297. Great ride although I never load it for touring. I love the “Sport” aspect of the bike.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...620bbd6bf.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d54f51c14.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...62eb9be9c.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...dca9bae75.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ff2a0c55a.jpeg

Wonderful! I wondered what the model number was and whether it was the first "ST".
Thanks for sharing the photos and confirming the model as well!

Prepare to have your mind blown. Those test riders found the Cannondale to provide better control on washboard surfaces and greater comfort than comparable steel-framed touring bikes, among other superior traits.

Using the inflation calculator at https://www.usinflationcalculator.com the 1983 price of $600 is about $1,500 in 2020 dollars.

I can verify that. It’s one of my most comfortable rides ( I also ride a Schwinn Tempo, Raleigh Supercourse, & two Bianchis). I’ve never felt the harsh ride some people report.
Here’s Cannondale’s 1983 catalog supplement.

Sounds right. I worked at the first Cannondale bike dealership in Maryland, and I remember being amazed at how many we sold, given that comparably equipped steel bikes were usually around $100 cheaper. And the retail price of the Cannondales represented a slightly lower profit margin, too.

On top of that, for the first couple of years, Cannondales were shipped completely disassembled, with the frame and fork in one box and the rest of the components in another, so the labor cost of assembling Cannondales was much higher.

But Treks had been shipped completely disassembled, too, for their first several years of selling to bike stores, so we'd gotten used to it to some extent. That's simply what it took to sell innovative American-built bikes in the early to mid-1980s.

Forgot to give heartfelt thanks to SpeedofLite for posting this terrific article. Those of us who sold and rode Kleins and Cannondales knew how great those bikes were, and it's great to be reminded that even people who'd already ridden high-end steel bikes for years appreciated them back then.

On the Vintage Trek website is a touring bike comparison of the 720 with a few others, one of which is a Cannondale ST500

http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...g720June83.pdf

Found an ad on the inside back cover of the same Bicycling Aug 1983 issue.
Better late than never.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2f047e075c.jpg

By the way, @SpeedofLite, I remember seeing a review of a SlingShot road bike in either Bicycling! or Bicycle Guide that praised it to the skies. Might be worth your while seeking that one out.

I have an '85 Cannondale ST 400. It's one of the best riding bikes I own.

It's all about the model. The STs are very nice riding bikes. The SRs are miserable. I've had both and can verify that claim 100%.

Yes, short-wheelbase racing bikes, whether steel or aluminum, can feel miserable, especially if you're looking for a sport-tourer-like ride.

If you can find one, try riding a Rigi some time. They weren't kidding when they came up with that name. They built sub-track-bike-wheelbase steel bikes with a split seat tube so that the rear wheel could poke through. Those were truly miserable, beyond even the steel '80s-era Italian criterium bikes and the Cannondale crit series bikes.

My hardest-riding bike ever was a Columbus SL/SP Bianchi Specialissima Supercorsa. My aluminum bikes, most of which have wheelbases around a cm longer than the Bianchi's, feel smooth compared to that bike.

I don’t even think it’s the stiffness of track and crit bikes, it’s the relationship of the rear tires contact patch to the saddle. The further forward the rear tire is placed, the impacts from road bumps send the saddle more directly up, into the rider. The longer the chain stays, the more bumps will rock the rider forward instead of directly upwards.

I have no credentials or proof, but I do have opinions and I’m on the internet. :roflmao2:

Agreed. Took me a long time to get there, but I eventually came to the same conclusion.

An additional important factor, I think, is that there's less of a time lag between front and rear wheel impacts with short-wheelbase bikes. Generally, everything happens faster on a short-wheelbase bike, including how quickly it responds to steering input, just as my vintage 1960 Plymouth Golden Fury handled very differently from my Volkwagen GTI.

shoota's post above gives a perfect example of the factors at work, since the frame tubing would have been the same between his ST and SR Cannondales and only the geometry would have been different.

SoL- thank you for posting this! What a great article from a technical perspective. So many details that just arent readily available when it comes to currently designed bikes.
I didnt know the history of how Cannondale got into bike building, so this was a neat peek into history.

Yeah, I liked the story of some guy wanting to build an aluminum bike and sending out letters to different companies. Had never heard that.

I remember when these came out. I was working after school at the LBS.

First impressions of everyone:

1) Why is a bike bag and backpack company making bicycles??

2) Isn't that just like a Klein?

3) These things are sure zippy!

Thanks for the heads-up! Oh yeah, I'm aware. :thumb:

I had always heard that aluminum bikes were harsher to ride than their steel counterparts. Did something change in Aluminum design that caused this? Some have mentioned shorter chainstays? Did manufacturers go nuts with the oversized tubing, making them uncomfortable?

Also, is this what the article is talking about https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/...195030961.html? or is this one of the SRs? Do I need an aluminum "sport touring" bike now? So many questions...

I sold Cannondale bikes in bike stores starting the first year that they were introduced (represented by the touring model reviewed in the article posted above). I've owned and ridden high-end steel, aluminum, and carbon bikes and know that they all ride essentially the same for a given wheelbase, the same way that cars with a given wheelbase ride similarly; e.g., sports cars are quicker-handling and have a firmer ride than SUVs and family sedans.

The "harsh" tag was originally applied to aluminum bikes because Cannondale was the first manufacturer to market large numbers of aluminum racing bikes with a very short wheelbase in the United States. A sizable proportion of the people buying those racing bikes were replacing sport touring bikes that had a significantly longer wheelbase and so were not used to the comparatively jarring ride of a true criterium-geometry bike. (The only other aluminum racing bikes generally available on the market were Alan and Vitus bikes; both companies used conventional tube diameters and so were more flexible than both the Cannondales and the comparable steel bikes.)

The Cannondale in the Craigslist ad is not a touring bike; note how close the rear tire is to the seat tube, for instance. A fit rider or racer would likely enjoy the ride of that bike.

You described my experience with the 1988 SR800 very well. After riding a Fuji S10-S for 10 years, the SR800 felt like a rocket ship from the second I pushed the pedals. However, it also abused me on rough Michigan roads during the latter part of rides exceeding 50 miles. Even though the 1989 catalog indicated cantilever dropouts were used to decrease weight and make it easier to access the quick release, I've long wondered if it was also meant to address the developing harsh ride reputation.
Do you know if the cantilever design introduced in 1989 made a difference in ride or handling quality in the Criterium Series frames even though the chainstay length and wheelbase did not change from 1988?

I've never ridden the touring frame, but the passion of BF members for this bike is infectious and I'm starting to think I'm missing out on something sweet.

I was told by our Cannondale rep back then that the cantilever dropout design was solely introduced as a workaround to circumvent one aspect of Gary Klein's absurdly broad patent claims.

Those Cannondale touring bikes were amazingly versatile. People would do loaded touring with them, enjoying the absence of the wallowing-down-the-road feel of loaded steel touring frames, and then race them successfully on weekends.