Options for vintage cannondale models
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Options for vintage cannondale models
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
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
Last edited by Danmozy66; 08-02-23 at 02:28 PM.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,707
Bikes: 82 Medici, 2011 Richard Sachs, 2011 Milwaukee Road
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1952 Post(s)
Liked 2,013 Times
in
1,112 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.
#3
Newbie
Thread Starter
#4
Edumacator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 6,829
Bikes: '87 Crestdale, '87 Basso Gap, '92 Rossin Performance EL-OS, 1990 VanTuyl, 1980s Losa, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 1987 PX10, etc...
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2444 Post(s)
Liked 3,137 Times
in
1,976 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 2003 Pinarello Surprise, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1987 Peugeot Competition, 1987 Nishiki Tri-A, 1981 Faggin, 1996 Cannondale M500, 1984 Mercian, 1982 AD SuperLeicht, 1985 Massi (model unknown), 1988 Daccordi Griffe , 1989 Fauxsin MTB, 1981 Ciocc Mockba, 1992 Bianchi Giro, 1977 Colnago Super
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 2003 Pinarello Surprise, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1987 Peugeot Competition, 1987 Nishiki Tri-A, 1981 Faggin, 1996 Cannondale M500, 1984 Mercian, 1982 AD SuperLeicht, 1985 Massi (model unknown), 1988 Daccordi Griffe , 1989 Fauxsin MTB, 1981 Ciocc Mockba, 1992 Bianchi Giro, 1977 Colnago Super
#5
Newbie
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Last edited by Danmozy66; 08-02-23 at 02:24 PM.
#6
Senior Member
I'd avoid the ones with the cantilevered-out rear dropouts. At the Bike Exchange we've seen some of those cracked or broken.
Likes For daka:
#7
Newbie
Thread Starter
would that be the ‘90 and the ‘96? From those pics I see how the dropout design is different. Thank you
Last edited by Danmozy66; 08-02-23 at 02:24 PM.
#8
Newbie
Thread Starter
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?
Last edited by Danmozy66; 08-02-23 at 03:53 PM.
#9
Senior Member
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.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Middle Earth (aka IA)
Posts: 20,435
Bikes: A bunch of old bikes and a few new ones
Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5888 Post(s)
Liked 3,472 Times
in
2,079 Posts
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.
#11
Senior Member
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?
There should be a couple of articles that reviewed the Cdales on here that a member has posted.
#12
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
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)
#13
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
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.
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.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Posts: 7,922
Bikes: A green one, "Ragleigh," or something.
Mentioned: 194 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked 630 Times
in
356 Posts
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.
__________________
● 1971 Grandis SL ● 1972 Lambert Grand Prix frankenbike ● 1972 Raleigh Super Course fixie ● 1973 Nishiki Semi-Pro ● 1979 Motobecane Grand Jubile ●1980 Apollo "Legnano" ● 1984 Peugeot Vagabond ● 1985 Shogun Prairie Breaker ● 1986 Merckx Super Corsa ● 1987 Schwinn Tempo ● 1988 Schwinn Voyageur ● 1989 Bottechia Team ADR replica ● 1990 Cannondale ST600 ● 1993 Technium RT600 ● 1996 Kona Lava Dome ●
● 1971 Grandis SL ● 1972 Lambert Grand Prix frankenbike ● 1972 Raleigh Super Course fixie ● 1973 Nishiki Semi-Pro ● 1979 Motobecane Grand Jubile ●1980 Apollo "Legnano" ● 1984 Peugeot Vagabond ● 1985 Shogun Prairie Breaker ● 1986 Merckx Super Corsa ● 1987 Schwinn Tempo ● 1988 Schwinn Voyageur ● 1989 Bottechia Team ADR replica ● 1990 Cannondale ST600 ● 1993 Technium RT600 ● 1996 Kona Lava Dome ●