# My New but old Cannondale love it...!



## lastingxcauses

I just got the bike a couple days ago put decent miles in it with each day of riding so far. This bike was handed down from my uncle which i was very thankful for. I am starting to get into this new hobby and sport of mine and i love it! I dont really know much about the bike  , but ill try to name out the things i see...

Cannondale 
6 speed 
Shimano 105 Derailleurs Front/Back
Shimano 105 Brake calipers Front/Back
Shimano 105 Down Tube Shifters
Shimano 105 Crankset
TekTro Brake levers Front/Rear
Forte Quick Release
Forte Stem

The rest of the parts are no name 

The Parts I am planning to upgrade 
Carbon Fork
Carbon Post
Better Seat
Re-do all the Cables

I Dont really know what to look at when buying a new fork are every fork 1 1/8??
My seatpost is 27.2
As for my wheels i would love to upgrande for better ones but i have a 6 speed :idea: So i cant really do anything for my rusted wheels at this point unless you know and may guide me through on getting better ones over the web... :thumbsup:


































This happened to me when i took it out for the first day of riding, Lets just say parents should not let their little kids ride their bike around without paying attention to where their kids are wondering off to... non the less the child was ok more the less scared , i got it pretty bad after landing from a front flip with cuts and scrapes and a messed up wheel and having to walk home carrying my bike about 10 miles :mad2:










Thanks for your time and If you could help me with my questions It would be great!! 

My next bike will be the Cannondale CAAD 8 7 Sora  When I save up enough money! lol
CAAD 7 Sora | Road | The Official Site of Cannondale Bicycles


----------



## thechriswebb

That bike takes a 1" steerer, not 1 1/8". I wouldn't recommend putting too much into this if you are planning on getting a new bike but the carbon fork would make your ride a little lighter and more spritely. Nashbar sells a very nice carbon fork for less than $100 that is reviewed very well. Be sure that you buy a threaded fork because a fork with a threadless steerer will not work with that headset. 

Again, since you will be buying a new bike I don't recommend putting too much into this bike beyond sprucing it up a touch. Six speed transmissions actually require different spacing than what comes standard on modern wheels but you could find a nice inexpensive pair on eBay for pretty cheap. Honestly, if the wheels you have are working, I probably wouldn't buy new ones for that bike because they will not be compatible with your new bike. If you can find a nice pair on eBay for the right price though, then go for it if you wish. I wouldn't worry about the carbon seatpost. If the ride feels too harsh, drop a few psi from your tires. 

Congratulations on your new bike. If I were you, I would touch it up enough to be nice and reliable so that it could still be a "bad weather" bike when newer and flashier things come along. It is a perfectly nice bike; it just so happens to have been made just before a lot of things changed, which creates some compatibility issues with modern equipment. They can be circumvented of course but it would cost so much money to change things out and dress up that frame with all modern gear that it would make more sense to save that money to put towards your new bike and use just enough to make your current cannondale rideable and reliable. It is a very nice starter bike and should be a reliable back up bike for the future.


----------



## lastingxcauses

Thanks for your input!! your correct and i did think about what you said regarding upgrading.

BTW is this what you were referring to?
Nashbar Carbon Threaded Road Fork - Bike Forks / Headsets / Stems
:thumbsup: Thanks


----------



## heybrady

The carbon fork will not make much of a difference, especially when that 100 bucks can be saved towards the newer bike. As a new rider you probably would not even noticed the difference in ride quality. I would just fix the taco'ed wheel, put new tape on the bars, maybe get new tires, and a new saddle. That will get you up and running without spending money needlessly.


----------



## silkroad

Congrats on the "new" bike!


I would suggest getting clip or clipless pedal (and road shoe of course) instead, which can easily be transfered to another bike. Forte pedals are less than $100 or even $50 when you get it on sale, wellgo and exustar products are much less than that. 


Check out VintageCannondale for more infos regarding earlier bikes.


----------



## nightfend

I would not buy a carbon seatpost for that bike. Why? Well new riders often buy carbon seatposts for older frames, and then the seatpost slips, so they overtighten the post without the use of carbon paste or a torque wrench and destroy their $200 carbon post. Stick with aluminum.


----------



## poconomtbiker

Very nice bike. It looks a lot like my 1988 Cannondale SR500 that has Shimano 105 group and 6 speed. I kept it all stock just new tires. I am going to change the rear freewheel from 6 speed to a larger 7 speed so I can climb better. I enjoy riding it, but I will get a more up to date ride in the near future. Enjoy it, you will have fun riding the oldies I know I do.


----------



## liefbike

*cannondale 3.0 ?*

That frame looks a lot like mine (blue), which is a 1990 Cannondale 3.0 'RoadRace' (look at the chainstay for ref to this or the alternative Criterium model

I built up the frame and was able to just slightly widen the rear forks to accomodate a 9 speed cassette matched to the rest of the 105 groupset. As is its reputation, the bike is stiff, twitchy and not a soft ride by any means, however the right seat (Fi'zik) has made some difference. As a frame it is a bit of a classic and not to be lightly dismissed, being the forerunner of the CAAD development. 

If your bike is the same then the following is taken from the allcdale.com site :

Cannondale 3.0 (1990-1993)

The Cannondale 3.0 was born almost as much out of accident as the desire to turn out a state-of-the-art road frame. In any case, it lead Cannondale into an age of computer-optimized, ultra-stiff and light design. 

As the story goes, in the late 90s Cannondale was interested in creating an ultra-light frame made from the relatively new (at least for bicycles) material of carbon fiber. A Stanford-educated contractor was hired to assist in its development. The engineer insisted upon optimizing Cannondale’s existing aluminum frame first as a point of reference (for comparison purposes) for the new carbon frame. He did not receive Cannondale’s blessing to do this, but he did so anyways.

At the end of this exercise, the engineer reported to the company that by optimizing the existing design, Cannondale could have an aluminum frame that weighed over one pound less while being stiffer and costing just a few more dollars than their existing model. He also concluded that a carbon fiber frame would hold no stiffness or weight advantage over the optimized aluminum frame despite carrying a vastly higher price tag. Ecstatic, C’dale scrapped the carbon fiber program and started producing the 3.0.

At first the 3.0 road frame was offered in two versions: the Criterium, and the Road Race. Around 1992, the Criterium model was dropped.

The 3.0 was revolutionary for a number of reasons. In 56 cm size, the 3.0 Criterium weighed only 3.2 lbs. That is lighter than many lower-end frames today (18 years later). Yet, it was the stiffest frame tested by Bicycling Magazine’s “tarantula” test fixture at the time. Indeed, many decried it was “too stiff” for their aching rear ends.

The Criterium model sported a larger (2″ vs. 1-3/4″) downtube, shorter wheelbase, taller bottom bracket, and steeper head tube than the Road Race. The Road Race had more relaxed European geometry for more stable descending. (Reportedly, the Criterium was nevertheless a very stable descender with quicker turn-in.)

An identifying feature unique to the 3.0 (and its successor, the 2.8) were cantilevered chainstays. By mating the seatstay with the chainstay about an inch forward of the dropout, the rear trianger was smaller, saving weight and adding stiffness. This design would later be oft-criticized for being “too stiff.”

Midway through its production (around 1990), the 3.0 was also one of the first frames in industry to have a replaceable rear derailleur hangar. This hangar was designed to break away (and be easily replaced) in the event of a right-side crash, sparing the frame.

The first few years the 3.0 was produced (1989-1991) the Cannondale decal was affixed to the top tube much like Cannondale’s original frames. In 1991 or ‘92, Cannondale began affixing the decal to the now-familiar location of the downtube.

Despite being much-maligned for its overly-stiff ride quality, the 3.0 was a state-of-the-art bicycle without a state-of-the-art price tag. It is considered something of a classic today. 

Bicycle models in this series include:
1990 Cannondale SR2000
1990 Cannondale SR300
1990 Cannondale SR800
1991 Cannondale SR2000
1992 Cannondale R500
1993 Cannondale R400
1993 Cannondale R500


----------



## lastingxcauses

liefbike said:


> That frame looks a lot like mine (blue), which is a 1990 Cannondale 3.0 'RoadRace' (look at the chainstay for ref to this or the alternative Criterium model
> 
> I built up the frame and was able to just slightly widen the rear forks to accomodate a 9 speed cassette matched to the rest of the 105 groupset. As is its reputation, the bike is stiff, twitchy and not a soft ride by any means, however the right seat (Fi'zik) has made some difference. As a frame it is a bit of a classic and not to be lightly dismissed, being the forerunner of the CAAD development.
> 
> If your bike is the same then the following is taken from the allcdale.com site :
> 
> Cannondale 3.0 (1990-1993)
> 
> The Cannondale 3.0 was born almost as much out of accident as the desire to turn out a state-of-the-art road frame. In any case, it lead Cannondale into an age of computer-optimized, ultra-stiff and light design.
> 
> As the story goes, in the late 90s Cannondale was interested in creating an ultra-light frame made from the relatively new (at least for bicycles) material of carbon fiber. A Stanford-educated contractor was hired to assist in its development. The engineer insisted upon optimizing Cannondale’s existing aluminum frame first as a point of reference (for comparison purposes) for the new carbon frame. He did not receive Cannondale’s blessing to do this, but he did so anyways.
> 
> At the end of this exercise, the engineer reported to the company that by optimizing the existing design, Cannondale could have an aluminum frame that weighed over one pound less while being stiffer and costing just a few more dollars than their existing model. He also concluded that a carbon fiber frame would hold no stiffness or weight advantage over the optimized aluminum frame despite carrying a vastly higher price tag. Ecstatic, C’dale scrapped the carbon fiber program and started producing the 3.0.
> 
> At first the 3.0 road frame was offered in two versions: the Criterium, and the Road Race. Around 1992, the Criterium model was dropped.
> 
> The 3.0 was revolutionary for a number of reasons. In 56 cm size, the 3.0 Criterium weighed only 3.2 lbs. That is lighter than many lower-end frames today (18 years later). Yet, it was the stiffest frame tested by Bicycling Magazine’s “tarantula” test fixture at the time. Indeed, many decried it was “too stiff” for their aching rear ends.
> 
> The Criterium model sported a larger (2″ vs. 1-3/4″) downtube, shorter wheelbase, taller bottom bracket, and steeper head tube than the Road Race. The Road Race had more relaxed European geometry for more stable descending. (Reportedly, the Criterium was nevertheless a very stable descender with quicker turn-in.)
> 
> An identifying feature unique to the 3.0 (and its successor, the 2.8) were cantilevered chainstays. By mating the seatstay with the chainstay about an inch forward of the dropout, the rear trianger was smaller, saving weight and adding stiffness. This design would later be oft-criticized for being “too stiff.”
> 
> Midway through its production (around 1990), the 3.0 was also one of the first frames in industry to have a replaceable rear derailleur hangar. This hangar was designed to break away (and be easily replaced) in the event of a right-side crash, sparing the frame.
> 
> The first few years the 3.0 was produced (1989-1991) the Cannondale decal was affixed to the top tube much like Cannondale’s original frames. In 1991 or ‘92, Cannondale began affixing the decal to the now-familiar location of the downtube.
> 
> Despite being much-maligned for its overly-stiff ride quality, the 3.0 was a state-of-the-art bicycle without a state-of-the-art price tag. It is considered something of a classic today.
> 
> Bicycle models in this series include:
> 1990 Cannondale SR2000
> 1990 Cannondale SR300
> 1990 Cannondale SR800
> 1991 Cannondale SR2000
> 1992 Cannondale R500
> 1993 Cannondale R400
> 1993 Cannondale R500


WOW!! thanks for the info awsome!!!


----------



## liefbike

No worries - I gather it is a 3.0 and not the later 2.8, because of the wording on the top tube, but is it a Criterium or a Road Race version (it should be written on the chainstay) ? 

When I get the chance I'll post some pics for comparison, although my old frame is now much the worse for wear, especially when compared with yours, which looks to be in great condition. 

What size frame do you think you have ?


----------



## anakcu

*Not a 3.0 but ride worthy*

Sorry to break this to you but this is not a 3.0 that was introducted in 1989. The most obvious sign is the absence of the famous cantilever rear dropout. Pictures of the 3.0 can be found here: http://66.147.244.179/~vintagm8/year/1989/1989.pdf. I am currently rebuilding my 1989 R700 as a hill climb bike which I have owned since new. This looks a lot like an earlier C'dale race bike I had. With the steel fork and the beefier seat stays my SR400 was about a pound heavier , or about the same as super high priced steel frames at the time. Don't know if the earlier C'dale frames were subjected to the tarantula but overall deflection may be similar to a 3.0 (more deflection in the front triangle lacking a 2" downtube but stiffer in the rear triangle). So if you do get a modern road bike with a vertically compliant frame, save this one for sprint/hill sprint/interval work outs. Might not want to ride this one all day but it will be rocket out of the saddle.


----------



## Winters

re: I gather it is a 3.0 and not the later 2.8

That headtube badge dates it to a frame date of 1983-89. ... Vintage Cannondale - Information and Help

A bicycle can be made the year before for the model year. Example: A 1990 model could be made in late 1989. .... With a six speed cassette, I'd guess a little earlier than if it had a seven speed. 

I'm not convinced that all 3.0's had canti dropouts. Any C'dale historians know for sure ?


----------



## anakcu

*Primary document historian*

On page 12 of the 1989 catalog (http://66.147.244.179/~vintagm8/year/1989/1989.pdf) it says "Introducing the New Cannondale 3.0 Series Frame." Since there is no reference to the 3.0 Series frame in the catalog from 1988 (http://66.147.244.179/~vintagm8/year/1988/1988.pdf) I conclude that the first 3.0s were first introduced in 1989. The 1989 frames had canti dropouts, no earlier Cannondales did, ergo a cantilevered dropout is a necessary condition for classification as a 3.0 frame. QED.


----------



## Winters

I have two similiar C'dales. 
1. serial # 54 01 17 89 xxx A 54 cm frame dated 1/17/1989 with a canti dropout.
It's the SR900 on page 21 of the 1990 catalog with the Campy Athena group.

2. serial # 56 02 35 88 xxx A 56cm frame dated 2/35/88 with a regular dropout. An odd date.
Looks like # 1 except it's a regular dropout with the Campy Chorus group. Chorus decals too.

All 1988 groups were Japanese: Shimano Suntour, etc. No Campy listed. But # 2 has Campy Chorus. ... I don't see any Campy Chorus group in the 1989 or 1990 catalogs.

# 2 isn't a 1990 SR900 upgraded to Chorus from Athena, because it has regular dropouts.

The date of 2/35/88 is odd ..... The bike on page 9 of the 1989 catalog looks to me like it does not have a canti dropout, but the picture is blurry. 

I'm wondering if there was a pre-3.0 version. Produced in '88 for the '88 race season. weighing in at 3.0 lbs but without the canti dropouts ? ..... Any ideas ?


----------



## anakcu

*You have answered your own question*

The bike on page 9 is identified as riding in the 1988 Coors Classic. It does not have cantilevered dropouts or the considerably thinner seat stays. Nowhere is it identifed as a 3.0 (the caption does NOT say "Chris Bailey riding a 3.0 prototype"). Is it possible that Cannondale made some prototypes for racing that had the wider downtube of the 3.0 but not all of the new design elements? Highly likely. Would these be considered 3.0 frames even if they weighed 3 pounds but did not have all of the innovations of the new design? No.


----------



## Winters

Agreed .. Thanks


----------



## cyclusaddictus

Man, does that ever take me back! I had a 105 group from that era...I can almost feel the shifters. Pretty reliable groupset if maintained properly.

That was a seriously radical frame at the time. I remember seeing the 3.0 in the bike shop and marvelling at the "huge" downtube and the rear triangle with the canti'd dropouts. It was so advanced, and magically light.

I don't know who that Stanford engineer was that Cannondale hired back then, but he was clearly a genious and well ahead of his time. Maybe it was simply the fact that he was looking at frame design from outside the box and had a fresh perspective. It sure lead to some major changes though.


----------

