Danmozy66

Enlisting the opinions of some of the vintage cannondale enthusiasts here. I’m new to these, but I’ve become interested lately and wanted to try my hand at one getting one these older cannondale bikes as my first aluminum bike and because I think they look really nice.

There are a three options in my local craigger right now, and I was curious what you guys thought might be a sweeter buy. Ultimately, I think the answer is that it should always come down to fit, but I haven’t had a chance to see them and wanted to decide which to prioritize since they are not close in distance. I’m about a 54cm usually but I’ve found a 52 and 56 to be ok.

From sorting through the catalogues, it seems like each year they generally ran the same frame through the lineup but the components ranged with the models. In the 80s they had their racing frame with tange steel fork, then they developed their 3.0 frame, and then their 2.8 (these are references to frame weight in lbs I think). These same three gens of frames are also reflected in the 3 options available locally that I am looking at.

On paper, is there one in particular that stands out as more special than the others? My priorities are overall weight, comfort (not sure if steel fork option improves this), and quality of components. Ideally I’d like to fit 28mm tires, too. I’ve read this squeeze is generally possible but does it vary with these options?

As an aside, one of the older ST touring bikes with nice components and cantis would be the dream option, but that might be quite a bit rarer.

Options pictured below:

-1985 (steel fork) SR500 or SR600
-1991 SR300 (3.0 frame),
-1996 ish R400 (2.8 frame, with integrated shifters which are a bonus).

I read somewhere that the 80s gens did not compare to the later models. Would welcome your thoughts on this. Weight wise my guess would be approx 20lbs+ for the ‘85 vs quite a bit lighter 3.0 and 2.8 frames?

Price wise they are all similarly slightly overpriced in my market haha so that’s not much of a deciding factor. Thanks in advance for your help


1985

1990

1996

Catalogues:

1996: https://vintagecannondale.com/year/1996/1996.pdf

1990: https://vintagecannondale.com/year/1990/1990.pdf

1985:
https://vintagecannondale.com/year/1985/1985.pdf

Classtime 

I think I’d get the 2.8 if it was closest to my size. Dual pivot brakes and looks like nice paint. Don’t tell yourself the Alloy fork is a harsh ride. 28s are a maybe but if you put on nice 25mm tires the ride is fine. I ride all steel bikes and recently restored a 3.0 R600 to leave in Texas and with 25mm GP5000s, the bike was fast and comfy during my 50-60 mile rides on so so roads.

edit: you can go to the vintage Cannondale site to get the geometries and sizes if the seller will send you the Serial numbers. The size might be stickeredto the newest one.

Danmozy66

it is, it’s 54cm

jdawginsc 

I actually love my steel fork 1987 Crest Cannondale. It’s a bit harsher than steel of the same type but not unbearably so.

People sweat the 3.0 is one of the fastest rides they’ve had.

And I have a 54/59 cm 1991ish R600 with alloy fork (one of the last cantilevered drop versions) that I will be moving on to another home but took a spin on it and it is a really nice ride.

Danmozy66

3.0 is thought to be faster than the 2.8? Wonder why that would be?

daka

I'd avoid the ones with the cantilevered-out rear dropouts. At the Bike Exchange we've seen some of those cracked or broken.

Danmozy66

would that be the ‘90 and the ‘96? From those pics I see how the dropout design is different. Thank you

Danmozy66

I think I may have been over exaggerating the weight saving benefits of these aluminum frames in my head. if theyre in fact around 22lbs, are there any other real advantages over nice steel road bikes of the same era? i used to have a specialized allez pro for example, i think a 1993–and it was around 20 lbs with gp400 tires and tricolour. What am i missing? Stiffness?

daka

I rode an early Cannondale touring bike (aluminum frame, steel fork) for about 5 years before it was stolen. It was a nice but not outstanding bike. After the theft, I bought my first Super Course and haven't ridden anything newer than 1974 since.

bikemig 

I really like my '85 Cannondale ST 400. It's a touring model but with long reach side pulls. The bike is as responsive as a racing bike (stiff frame) but it handles like a touring bike with a long wheelbase. It is a very comfortable long distance machine. I find that running 700 x 32c tires helps smooth out the ride a bit.

KCT1986

Yes, stiffness, especially relative to cost. These frames were really stiff in the bottom bracket and the headtube area. Most steel frames needed high end tubes to get the same stiffness at the same weight, at higher cost.

There should be a couple of articles that reviewed the Cdales on here that a member has posted.

Ironfish653

The Cantilever dropout ran from '88-'96 on the 3.0 and 2.8 series frames. It's definitely a design compromise (believed to be a work-around from the KLEIN patent lawsuit) but it's not a "fatal flaw". These are lightweight road racing bicycles, after all, and some of them were actually ridden hard.

I have a '89 3.0 and it is definitely the "fastest" of my road bikes. The 3.0 was a full-gas criterium racing bike, and it is possibly the most responsive bike I've ridden. It rewards a hard, fast ride, and is " happiest" when you're giving it at least 8/10ths.
It's definitely a stiffer, tighter bike than something like a modern AL Synapse, but not what I would call "harsh".
The handling is much more aggressive than the early bikes, or even the later CAAD-3/4s, even at more casual pace; and that, I feel, leads to the reputation these bikes have for beating up their rider. I've found that the wider, flared bars I prefer (45cm Salsa Cowchipper) lessen that somewhat; as do modern wheels and wider tires (25s are good, but some 28s will rub)

Ironfish653

The 3.0 was a very aggressive, full-gas criterium racing bike, of the kind not seen outside of high level competition, at the time. It proved to be maybe a little too much for the recreational market.
The 2.8 is still a pretty racy bike, but not as hard-core as the 3.0. It got some improvements in the tubing butting, and updates like 130mm rear spacing and integrated cable stops.

Of the three you've posted, I'd go with the 1996, unless you really want the "vintage bike experience". It's the most modern in terms of running gear and components, and seems far less "used" than the other two. Seems like it would be the better rider, right out of the gate.

Lascauxcaveman 

I've had 3 Cannondales, all from the aluminum-frame, steel fork era. Definitely the stiffest bikes I've ever had; in a good way. The one I kept is the one that fist me. A 1990 ST600, upgraded with slightly more modern shifty bits, 35mm Paselas and fenders. A keeper.