RiddleOfSteel

It's another '89 in 66cm form, but metallic black instead of fire engine red that I had a few years ago and sold. The metallic flake is low key and the paint had a number of chips as well as bubbling. I bought it as a frameset for cheap, locally, with the worst and smallest CL photos ever, save for the two with the serial number (those were clutch). Dirty and dusty, but it's black paint, which is easy enough to match. Black paint with gold graphics says Black Lightning, but it has an aluminum fork. And since no component on it was original, it's basically a classic Cannondale Mystery Meat SR. The plastic cable guides are in perfect shape, and the DT shifter bosses are complete and in great shape as well. All told, it's doing really well for an old Cannondale frameset. And it's gloss black. Gloss black is the best.

Roger, you and I will have the same overall reach, but I'll be running a lower elevation saddle height. I'm in the middle of getting the inner steerer to work with my Innicycle headset (needs more filing/sanding) as well as correcting some post-heat-treatment wheel alignment issues. Wheels will be my self-built 7400 8-speed hubs laced with DT Swiss spokes to Open Pro black rims. Chorus 9-speed crankset and 7800 everything else. Tires are Vittoria Corsa 32s that are pretty shy 32s when mounted onto classic width rims like Open Pros. Nearly 28.5mm wide at about 70 PSI. They should be about 30.0mm wide on 21mm (external) Shimano wheels (like Dura-Ace C24s) and probably bang on the money on a 23-25mm external rim. The 28.5mm width is perfect for the front because there is no more room for them. The back can run a larger tire.

I'll likely be able to get to it again on Saturday as I'll be busy Friday night. So far I just have the frame and fork sitting on the wheels and tires, nothing else, no top of the headset or bearings. It looks proper and I can't wait to get it done and see how Current Year RoS likes it and thinks about it compared to Previous Riddle.

RiddleOfSteel

1989 SRx00

This frameset cleaned up really well, an easy 2-3 footer. Components are listed in the post above. The frame angles look surprisingly normal enough in this photo. In other photos and in real life, it's pretty much insane.

This bike does well in the saddle--tons of power transfer. The really long top tube calms the ride. Out of saddle is fine--plenty capable and responsive, though lacking the eagerness expressed by my FX or 1.5. The 1.5 is the most 'natural' out-of-saddle climber (when paired with my movements in concert with it) of my aluminum bikes. The 7800 shifting is great. So is the braking.

Recalling my experience with my old red 66cm SR800, there is similarity between the two even as I have years, experience, and an increased sensitivity to a bike's character. Not a barn burner out of the saddle but not dead, competently efficient in the saddle. Working the tire pressures at a 28mm size can help a lot. [Let it be known that the aluminum fork (steel steerer) is not harsh! Neither is the frame!] Still, my primary riding environment is hostile to race bikes, even fancy carbon stuff (minus, say, an S-Works Roubaix SL4 which I still need to try out if I ever find one for not $$$), so as valiantly as this tries, bad roads make it a vanity option at best, and from that standpoint, I think it looks a little goofy since I don't have a longer inseam or reach. That also remains the same for me. A 63cm is too small, which is a classic issue with Cannondales and me. 65cm is my upper limit for proportional decency on horizontal top tube frames.

I love the way these old Cannondale frames look--big tubes and smooth welds are cool. As always, it's angles, fitment and riding environment. If you like what you see and know where you ride, I still recommend them 100%. Remember those #10-32 bolts for the bottle cages and you're set. It's been a nice reunion. 2,496g is the frame/fork/Stronglight headset's weight. As shown, this bike is 20.5 lbs. Impressive!

OldsCOOL

Here it is February and I’m longingly looking at the Criterium Series. Conditioning rides on the winter mtb to help buffer my first ride on the black beast. Can’t wait.

OldsCOOL

Here I am at 66yrs old rocking my custom build 1988 Criterium Series that I built in 2014. Aluminum fork, 23mm clinchers and toe clip pedals. Love it. And if you get into a mood, this thing still climbs walls and blisters short courses. This bike is STILL killing me.

Ironfish653

Just completed my 89 rebuild last week (Bon Temps Rolleur) and I agree. These bikes just respond so well that you feel like you’re letting it down if you’re not going full gas, all the time.
The initial test-n-tune ride turned into an hour long alleycat crit, that I was just about ready to bonk by the time I got back to the garage. (Also, I’m way behind on my training this year)

Mine has the SR Prism alloy fork, and 26mm S-Works Turbo 320 tpi cotton clinchers; something this fast has no right to be this smooth, too

nogroundbeads

Duragrouch

My first good new bike was an '89 3.0 crit (R600?), bought it without a single ride based on the article in Bicycling. I probably should have researched more but might not have changed mind for years. Effortless and stiff sprints, put mega miles on it for many years. Bull horns and aero bars. Went to long-cage rear and triple when I moved to hills. Finally got tired of the unforgiving ride and put 28 tires on it, had to just dust with a file the back end of the front derailleur to clear those. Was on third set of wheels (and finally bought touring rims, more durable) when put in retirement for a townie. Still have the bike. Too much sentimental value. I loved the sporty racy feel of it, but it in hindsight, a better riding steel frame would have been better, but also a lot more cost I think; The 3.0 with 105 and aluminum fork was $700 + tax, that seemed good for a really good performing bike.

Trakhak

I raced on a Bianchi Specialissima Super Corsa for a number of years starting in the mid-'80's. Steel, of course. Essentially the same steep angles and short wheelbase as a Cannondale Crit Series. Believe me, it rode no better (or worse) than the Crit Series Cannondales do. The ride is a consequence of the geometry, not the frame material, but the myth (that aluminum bikes have an inherently harsh ride) is taking a long time to die.

Interesting point about the costs of Cannondales versus comparable full-tilt criterium-geometry racing bikes back then. If Italian crit-geometry bikes had been more affordable and had sold in the same numbers as the Cannondale Crit Series bikes, maybe aluminum bikes wouldn't have acquired that rep.

Classtime 

This is the thread that convinced me to pick up a Cannondale if there was a good opportunity. Now I have two very very fun Cannondales: a zero bike R600 in Texas and a SR800 here at home.

OldsCOOL

Happy to hear this! Glad you are enjoying these great bikes.

Duragrouch

Geometry certainly has an effect on ride. But I retired from structural engineering, so lemme tell ya, in general, aluminum bikes are stiffer, they usually NEED to be in order to be durable in fatigue life (why you don't see aluminum springs, though you do see titanium springs in addition to steel, Ti has fantastic fatigue life). The massive 2" diameter down tube on the 3.0 crit provides *massive* torsional rigidity, as well as the oversize top tube, and the seat tube in bending. Torsional stiffness increases as a 4th power function of diameter or radius. The 3.0 crit was the stiffest frame Bicycling mag had ever tested in their frame jig. So why not steel in same dimensions? For same weight at that diameter, steel would be super thin and dent easily. Aluminum being 1/3 the density, allows greater wall thickness to prevent that. Aluminum is only 1/3 the elastic stiffness of steel, but the above geometry considerations vastly outweigh that, so you end up with a frame that is enormously stiff in torsion, so great for racing, but also light. HOWEVER... this also results in a frame that is stiff in longitudinal bending, and there, you want some compliance for a good ride. With carbon fiber, you can wrap tubes at 45 degrees for strong torsional stiffness, but still allow some long bending compliance for good ride. But carbon frames can be fragile. Titanium is a good compromise, it's greater fatigue strength allows the flex of steel for good ride but also half the density for a light frame. The Cannondale hype about aluminum's "inherent damping quality" is just that, and again, I own and love one. For better ride, you need a material that can flex where you want it, but still hold up in fatigue life.

By the way, I've never had the dreaded "speed wobble" on very fast descents (65kph/40mph), I think it's because of the torsional stiffness of that frame.

Trakhak

One factor usually neglected in these discussions is the fact that diamond-frame bikes, regardless of the material used to construct the frame, are, in effect, two-dimensional structures, all but diabolically designed for maximum torsional flexing and minimum vertical flexing.

Yes, aluminum tubes in large diameters are stiffer than smaller-diameter steel and titanium tubes. The usually neglected issue: what are the measured differences in vertical compliance? There have been few published test results, so that data are sparse, but one comparison of race frames conducted back in 1997 (when Cannondale was making its most uncompromisingly rigid frames) showed a difference in vertical compliance between Cannondale (large-diameter aluminum) and Lightspeed (titanium) race bikes of 0.018". No one would be able to feel that difference, because it would be swamped by the bike's seatpost, fork, and tire compliance.

I've ridden and raced maybe two dozen high-end steel race frames in the last 60 years. All gone at this point, except one Reynolds 853 bike rusting in the basement. Except for a brief dalliance with a CF frame (now relegated to my indoor trainer, after it developed a crack in the drive-side seatstay; my fault), I've done all my miles for the last 15 years on aluminum bikes.

All my steel and aluminum and carbon bikes with my favorite wheelbase have been equally comfortable. At least, I can't feel any difference that can be attributed to frame material. But the aluminum bikes are stiffer with respect to torsional rigidity. That's what makes them my favorites. In fact, my all-time favorite is the one bike with oversize aluminum frame tubes and an aluminum fork with oversize straight blades. Feeling how the wheels track perfectly makes that bike a pleasure to ride every time I take it out on the road.

t2p

many consider the earlier Cannondale frames (mid / late 80’s ?) to be the most rigid

Duragrouch

The chain and seatstays might have been thicker and heavier. But the downtube reached its peak in 1989 at 2" diameter, which is mighty stiff.

(Text on printed page): Where he's standing, it's forward of the rear dropouts, so there is no reason for the front triangle to not be laying flat like it is. The author doesn't understand forces and moments.

top506

Next in the que, as soon as I can find proper graphics for it (damn, I MISS Velocals!).







Top

Duragrouch

SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE

I just saw a screaming deal on a very similar Cannondale 2.8 crit, same style with cantilevered rear dropouts, and the bonus of the replaceable derailleur hanger. **Polished silver finish, no paint*** (and has Cannondale decals over that, so I think polished finish is orginal). A couple small dents and a good deal of scratches on the top tube, but incredible deal. I'm guessing perhaps 1993 but it has RSX triple group and brifters so that might date it unless installed later. Rear wheel is wrong, older, freewheel. I didn't buy, I don't have room for it. Incredibly cheap, and not hot. Message me and I'll give you the details. I have only one request, it has SPD mountain pedals, let me have those.