Ronno6

Great to see you, mtnbke !! It has been WAY too long..
I beg to differ with you on one point: you stated that there is NO difference among differing levels of ST frames.
In 1987 that was true, as well as all prior years thru 1989.
I own 2 different 27" frame ST bikes form 1990: an ST400 and an ST600.
Both have cantilever brakes, but the rear dropout spacing is different.
The ST400has 6 speeds, 126mm rear dropouts. Serial # begins with "6"
The ST600 has 7 speed freehub with 130mm dropout spacing. Serial number begins with "0"
I also own a 1992 T1000 that has 135mm spacing.
That one truly IS the Grail for "our" size!!

aluminummonster

if you're still looking for indexed 6 speed shifters, try ebay and look for Shimano 105 SL-1050 downtube shifters. I just sold a pair a month or so ago. They're solid shifters, and not outrageously pricey.

a3inverter

My (former) ST-500...

mtnbke

You're right, I wasn't being careful enough with my point. Now when Cannondale switched from the 126mm rear dropout spacing to the 128mm, yes that changed, but that changed for ALL the ST bikes regardless of whether it was an ST 400 or an ST800/1000 for that model year. Another point, is that the lower level ST series bikes didn't often have the third water bottle mount. If you're thirsty and you've drank your first two water bottles that matters, but in terms of which frame is "better" there was absolutely zero difference in terms of ride or performance. Unless we're going to claim that factory prepped bikes with water bottle bosses or threading affects frame performance, which I think we'll both agree is a reach.

There was no difference in terms of the frames for different models, functionally, other than paint, and some minor variations. I was talking about whether the frame on an ST400 was different front the top-of-the-line ST800 (or ST1000 for the few years those were available). There was no difference in terms of ride quality, weight, geometry, stiffness anything they were all the SAME frames. The ST # distinction essentially just represented the component/bike build and paint options. The frames themselves were functionally identical. Same tube sets, same welds, etc. The welders didn't know what ST model the frame would be when they were building them. Different batches could become different models at the paint booth, depending on caliper/cantilver brake mounts or the number of water bottle mounts. This frame might become a high end while that one might become an ST 400. That was my point.

My point would probably have been better stated, and more technically correct, had I said something like the frame quality was identical with only paint, components, and the number of water bottle mounts. Year-to-year when the rear dropout spacing changed they moved from 126mm to 128mm (splitting the difference) and finally the new 130mm standard.

Your T1000 isn't relevant as its not an ST frame. Totally different tube set and different "bike." For anyone who cares, the Cannondale tandems are/were based on the ST touring series (even the sizing). It was never available in the 27" (69cm c-c, 73cm c-t) size that the STs were, the largest captain's size is the Jumbo or 25". I've got two of these Cannondale tandems. I can't really ride either (too small), the bikes just look absurd when I build up the 25" cockpit to pretend its a 27". These use the tandem "standard" of 140/145mm rear dropout spacing. I wish Cannondale had been more forward thinking with their rear dropout spacing on the ST bikes.

Yes, a wider rear dropout spacing does affect chain line. This becomes more pronounced the more speeds you shove in there. Santana uses a 160mm chainline on their tandems, and its a huge compromise with finicky 10speed shifting, but probably well worth it in terms of the symmetrical wheel build. Tandem wheel strength is an issue. You could probably accomplish the "same" effect by limiting yourself to 7 speed hubs and sticking to 145mm spacing.

In my perfect Universe the ST series bikes would have come out in 1983 with 135mm rear spacing. If that had happened these ST frames would be selling for what they cost nearly new.

If you wanted to buy an aluminum all-purpose bike today, one you could race in a pinch. A bike you could sprint with on your group ride, or race to the local hill or summit with your "A" ride. A bike you could ride comfortably on a brevet or any long distance ride. A bike you could load down with racks for unsupported touring. A bike you could ride on dirt roads or non-technical single track. What would that bike be? how much would it cost?

Carbon? That would scare me to death. Touring and carbon don't mix. You don't want to be posting your broken carbon pics while on your once in a lifetime trip to New Zealand. Titanium? Not for touring. Too much like steel, just not stiff enough. Too much frame twisting and too inefficient while pedaling under load. So where can you find the best aluminum touring bike being made today?

In my mind the best high-end touring bike is still the craigslist Canndondale ST find. People who know me or who have seen my bike horde ask for bike recommendations always ignore me. They ask what bike to get. I tell them to avoid the junk in the LBS. I'll tell them what to look for on Craigslist when they want a mountain bike. I'll tell them look for a Klein Attitude (Race, Comp whatever). I'll even recommend the Bontrager Privateer and Race and Race Lite for very lightweight riders. I'll talk about looking for good kit (XT and above, thumb shifters, avoiding disc brakes). I've even sent people links of bikes in their communities with bikes in their size perfect for them. Never once has someone followed that advice.

They go and buy some crappy Trek or Specialized with plasticky low end components, essentially throw-away bikes no one will want when they are done. They'll have passed on some old Klein with a build that would have been a $2500 bike fifteen years ago. They'll spend $700 on a bike they couldn't sell for $350 on Craigslist the next day. The reason? The salesman said that more speeds and disc brakes were better. When they show me their new bike I always pick up the rear wheel and spin it. Disk brake on a low end mountain bike, you know what happens. It doesn't spin very long. I show them a bike with vintage cantilever or V-brakes and spin it, I like to do this with the bikes with Phil Wood or Mavic hubs…spin forever.

Same thing happens with touring bikes. I'm emphatic that you can't buy a better bike, let alone a touring dedicated bike today in an LBS than a Cannondale ST. Yet people will ask me, and then get sucked into some forum group where everyone is building up some Soma or Surly LHT. If its an LHT build I can be a jackass when they are done building it. I love it when some 5'7" guy ignores my advice and spends $2,000 building up a Long Haul Trucker with just crap. I could have literally given him better components than he built it with for free. We'll go for a ride.

The punchline here is I'm really FAT. I love bikes, but don't ride nearly enough. I've more than doubled my body weight since I stopped playing basketball. So some super fit runner that wants to try commuting and touring asked my advice. Doesn't buy the Cannondale ST I recommended he source. We go for a ride. I look like the girl that turns into the blueberry in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We're about to set out. I ask if I can check out his new build. I pick it up. I say, "hmm" while frowning. He says what's up? It's a really light LHT build (he's living for his build in Instagram and Facebook posts). His LHT online friends comment on his lightweight build. I have him pick up my Cannondale ST. With fenders, and racks and 205mm cranks that are heavier than any crank anyone has ever even heard of. I couldn't possibly be trying to make this bike heavier. It has steel Nashbar mustache bars on it. The difference is so remarkable, in terms of how "lightweight" my Cannondale (69cm) is compared to his Surly LHT (56cm) that's its laughable. Now remember, I'm fat. I can't ride twenty-five miles without a couple of work into it rides. I'm not fast, and I can't climb as well as your grandmother can. I'm well over 350lbs of person on my bike. He'll be like 150lbs dripping wet. Still, I'll just casually cruise on the bike path, and he can't keep up. I don't ride. Our ride is to get ME riding, after he's been commuting on his new all-purpose LHT. We're riding together to motivate me to ålose weight and ride more. He can't keep up. I'm not even spinning. I'm kind of pedaling a bit then just coasting. He can't possibly keep up. He thinks I'm being a jerk. I tell him to watch my cranks. He doesn't get it. Now my bike has Phil Wood hubs and I've got long legs, and long cranks that can put a lot of wattage on the road. I used to ride with an old mechanic/cylist who used to hate to ride with me. I wouldn't even be pedaling and he'd complain about riding with Miguel Indurain. On the flats. Hills are another matter, I hate climbing. However, with the LHT build we come to a hill that for me just might kill me. You might not even recognize it as a hill on your ride. I wait for him, let him pass me, then decide to stop leisurely mashing and pick up my cadence. I start spinning, I pass him. I wait for him at the top. I ask him, "how do you like that LHT now?"

He hasn't gone on any more rides to help me get out and ride since. Was I a jackass? Probably. However, my Cannondale ST with one of the fattest humans to ride a bike outperformed this LHT with a runner daily/commuter on it for our little climb and ride. I don't have 100 miles on ALL my bikes put together in any year for the past decade. I'm almost 400lbs. Trust me, its the bike. Cannondale ST series. You can race on them, and they are strong enough for me. This after I bent my original ST 800 fork backing the frame into the garage on the roof rack. Had the fork straightened. Frame's fine. I picked up that other '86 ST800 out of fear. I have two grail bikes. Why? I really should let the other one go. I have other 27" ST frames, and my original hasn't failed yet.

If a bike is that light, and that strong and supports my nearly 400lb frame and torque I put through the 205mm cranks, what other criterion do you need? Its lighter and faster and stiffer and stronger. It rides like a dream, stiff BB even with a square taper BB on long cranks (reveals a wiggly frame instantly), can be "raced" or used for unsupported touring.

If your race bike is my touring bike, and it can be upgraded or ridden with vintage & classic components, why is this not the perfect bike? If it said Colnago, they'd sell for thousands on Craigslist.

Ronno6

You are apparently ahead of me on the curve regarding the T1000 tubeset.
Tube appear to be the same size and shape as my earlier ones.
Different wall thicknesses??
They definitely didn't go the same way as the SR frames did............thank goodness.

mtnbke

Now I could be wrong, but wasn't the switch to from the ST series Sport Touring bikes to the T series, didn't that happen after Cannondale hired the materials engineer from Stanford to design the "next-gen" Carbon bikes, and he told them he could just make their aluminum bikes lighter, stiffer, faster, stronger than anything carbon? He talked them out of carbon (for that moment) and he designed the 3.0 series frames instead. I think the T series followed those changes to everything. Everything ST was prior to his changes. The tandem bikes I thought kept the ST format through at least '92, I think.

Anyone know this better than I do?

Ronno6

Absolutely incorrect!
I could not stand the 1989 3.0 series SR bikes with the skinny seat stays and the cantilevered dropouts.
I wish Bicycling Magazine had done a Tarantula stiffness comparison between the 63cm frames of old vs new design...
The ST series frames remained visually identical from '85 til about '96 with the intro of the CAAD2.
Same oval seatstays, no cantilever dropouts.
The catalog indicates unicrown forks, but mine had the cast sloping crown from earlier years.
Same thing with the other tall poster on your other thread who has the same 27" T1000.
Interesting to note that most geometry charts after 1990 do not show the 27" frame.
I have, at times, seen it mentioned in the body of text on other pages of the catalog.
But, I assure you, other than dropout spacing and cantilever stud locations (700 became standard in '91)
there is no external difference between the '86 ST and the '92 T1000.
OOPS..they also went to a replaceable seatpost clamp in '91 I believe.
I believe that the pre '86 frames had smaller down tubes and fewer braze-ons.

mtnbke

The T frames use shaped down tubes, and I think the tubing is all engineered. The ST frame set built a great bike, but its the bottom of the barrell in terms of engineering iterations for Cannondale tubing. I think the T series is completely re-engineered tubeset, but you're suggesting its not. I can't believe they completely re-engineered the entire aluminum line but for some reason kept the ST bike exactly the same in terms of the tubing, but rebadged it from ST to T. Not sure I buy into that. Maybe our beloved ST bikes are the "stovepipe" of the Cannondale aluminum frame world, and the T series is the next engineering iteration. Exterior diameters don't really reveal much, just like on steel bikes.

Ronno6

I had considered that Cannondale left well enough alone with the ST series.
The oval seat stays remained in use for years on the T series, at least til the CAAD2 frame, and maybe until the
advent of the wishbone seat stay rear triangle. Dunno for sure.
I can see from my measurements that at least the down tube has changed.

The 3.0 series design changes arrived for the '80 model year.
I own at least 1 '89 ST frame, and is dimensionally the same as my 88's.
The 90's ST bikes have the larger down tubes, but still have the integrated seat post clamp.
I believe that the '91 frames are the same, but no 27" frame shown in the catalog.
Where does that leave those year ST designated frames in the evolution of things?
Would they also fall into the new "Super Grail" category?

mtnbke

Yep…definintely "Super Grail." The Stanford/3.0 series re-engineering for the Cannondale bikes had already happened by 1990, and apparently they reworked the ST line as well. I had never known that. Thanks for exposing this. The catalog shows the 27" frames only available for the ST, not as production builds. I like the 1990 ST1000 as it still defines the Cannondale ST ethos: Nitto stem, Nitto Bars, Brooks saddle, Suntour Supere Pro pedals w/matching accessorized straps to the Brooks, I love the Suntour Command (Butterfly) shifters but I wish they'd kept the Superbe Pro triple/long cage derailleurs instead of switching to the XC bits. Also the crank doesn't have have half-step touring gearing either.

I absolutely have to get me one of these "Super Grail" frame/forks or a bike, now. I didn't even know they existed until your reveal. Very curious what was re-engineered on the ST bikes or for that matter what wasn't for these "Super Grail/2.0" STs.

Ronno6

I doubt that there is anybody at Cannondale who know, nor look up and relay that info.
Maybe someone at Bibycling MAgazine??

Interesting to note that, originally Cannondale referred to the ST series as "Sports Touring"
then, in the 1986 catalog, they called them "Super Touring"
but reverted back to "Sports Touring" in catalogs sometime later.

mtnbke

ST will always be Sport Touring to me, 'cause that's how they entered the market in 1983. The ST wasn't a Sport Touring bicycle if you look at the original 1983 pamphlet:

https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%201.pdf

It was a Sport/Touring bike. The aluminum frame, yes, did have relaxed touring geometry for loaded touring and long distances, but it could be raced in a pinch. In fact very effectively. These were rocket bikes that would out climb and out accelerate and out sprint any steel bike out there. Now I never ever refer to them as Sport/Touring bikes though that was the branding. To me they are Sport Touring bikes, but I think its swimming upstream to try to convince people even thirty-two years later what amazing bikes these were and actually still are.

cmoran1357

I've got a lot of information to go through it looks like! (sorry I've been off for a bit, busy work week) Many thanks to you all. This is a great community it seems like (quirks and all). I'm just happy to have a project to keep the hands busy. Thanks again!

zs3889

What's the bar tape on this one?

Ronno6

However I am keeping my 1990 which is in worse cosmetic condition but has the canti brakes which are much better for loaded touring. I just never bonded with the 86 like I did with this one and you are correct they are great all purpose bikes. This will be one of the last to go when I need to whittle my bike numbers down.

[/QUOTE]

FWIW Rustoleum makes a metallic blue spray paint that is a dead-on match for the 1990 ST400 blue.
https://www.amazon.com/Rust-Oleum-Aut.../dp/B006ZLQLEW

badger_biker 

FWIW Rustoleum makes a metallic blue spray paint that is a dead-on match for the 1990 ST400 blue.
Rust-Oleum Automotive 251600 11-Ounce Metallic Speck Spray, Blue - Spray Paints - Amazon.com[/QUOTE]

Thanks Ronno6!! Always nice to find out that kind of info. The previous owner tried some no so close touch up so I've got nothing to lose :-)

Ronno6

You will be pleased. I stumbled upon it quite by accident.
Good luck!

cmoran1357

Just wanted to pass along a quick update...

Got decals off of vintagecannondale. Also found a very odd 1993 Raleigh touring bike built for LL Bean (which I can't find anything on the internet about, but without any corroboration I am guessing it is this bike: 1993 Raleigh RT 300 - New and Used Bike Value) for $35 at a yard sale. It gave me a blackburn rack, RX100 DT 7sp friction/SIS and a RX100 triple crank. I'd put it all on the Cannondale, but for the fact that the Cannondale is a 23'' and the raleigh is a 21''. I can stand over the raleigh (with no daylight) and can't even put the cannondale upright under my short legs. I've been riding on both just fine, but I'm not too keen on feeling like I'm mounting a horse, and I am slightly worried about what a emergency stop would look like. Probably should have realized this earlier, but I was too excited about what I had. Perhaps I'll check out the frame pass-around forum to see if anyone has a 21'' ST.

Two weeks ago I thought bikes may as well be diesel trucks, but after some vociferous internet reading and some admonishment for my intellectual failings from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, I've drunk the kool aid and love tinkering. Thanks again for the continuing help; I've got a long way to go!

mtnbke

Bike fit has NOTHING to do with stand over.

Two things are important with bike fit, top-tube length and the relative proportion of saddle height to handlebar height. The reason you typically want a bigger frame is that it gives you a more comfortable handlebar position. For most of us on the forums, handlebars at a neutral position of saddle height and even higher is most appropriate. There are many in the forums that have lost fitness, flexibility, and can't reach anything but the hoods on their bikes because they are now too small. If you can't comfortably ride in the drops on your bars for at least 50% of your mileage, your bike doesn't fit, plain and simple.

A couple things to read about bike fit:

How to Fit a Bicycle
https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?cat=23

and to a lesser degree:
Revisionist Theory of Bicycle Sizing

You don't ride a bicycle by standing over it, you ride ON it.

trailmix

Not sure why you think the ST400 only had 2 bottle cage mounts?

cmoran1357

^love that quote.

From the catalog, it looks like the difference in the top tube between the 21 and 23 is 21.75'' vs. 22.25''. The standover is 30.5 vs. 32.5. With just half an inch less in the top tube, but two inches less for this 5'9'' body to stand over, wouldn't I sleep better at night knowing the crown jewels are safer?

Thanks for those articles!

oddjob2

That would depend on whether your jewels are made of brass, lead, titanium or steel

cmoran1357

*aluminum

Jay.Money

What size tires are you running? I can't seem to squeeze fenders in with my 27 x 1-1/4 tires. I can get 1-1/8" tires locally, but that's not much of a difference in size overall.

pastorbobnlnh 

Actually, depending on the tire, there can be quite a bit of difference between 1 & 1/4 and 1 & 1/8. I know on Panaracer Pasela model there seems to be, especially if you drop to the 1 inch ones.

Recently I rebuilt my '88 ST400, after it sat for 3+ years, forlorn and neglected. My main goal was to use a front dynamo hub wheel I had (thus the mismatched rims). I'm running 700cX28 Vittoria tires. They fit nicely under these fenders but there is not an excess of room to spare.