# Cannondale SR300 1985/86?



## ryanr03 (Sep 23, 2009)

A friend of mine had this bike in his yard, left there by previous owners. It seems to be in decent shape, there is rust on the chain and casette. The seat was removed to be put on another bike, but supposedly the bike was rideable when the seat was there. 

I have been looking for a triathlon bike, but can't really afford a new bike (just bought a new mountain bike a month ago!) Would it be worth it to try to fix up this bike? I don't want to spend more than a couple hundred dollars. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

These threads may have some additional insight:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=176306
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=40949


----------



## mtnbke (Jun 2, 2009)

In vintage/classic cycling many of the Italian steel makers (Olmo, Cinelli, Guericiotti, Masi, Colnago, et. al.) get the attention of those seeking a period correct, or retro ride, french frames and components are a complete afterthought.

However, that American framecraft of Cannondale and Klein gets overlooked, and without good reason, is just ludicrous.

Its funny how Colnago, in the US, has such a distinguished brand identity, while a company like Olmo (whose tradition makes Colnago's look like Trek's) is almost unknown except to the most discerning cyclist. The reason isn't based on quality of production, although Ernesto Colnago made good bikes, but rather one of of focus. Colnago, as a company, decided to focus on the US market, and specifically on getting a distribution agreement in place to get bikes into the US. Olmo never concentrated on the US market, and although their bikes did come over (in a trickle), and were substantially more expensive and higher quality than Colnagos, they are an afterthought of the pinnacle of 70s and 80s high end production lightweights. 

Both Olmo and Colnago made great bikes, and both could be had dripping with Campagnolo components for the definitive italian cycling experience, but for whatever reason Colnago just 'seems' more exclusive in the minds of the US cyclist.

Every older US cyclist has heard of Klein and Cannondale, but most wouldn't recognize the quality of their products, especially in the context of comparing them to Italian steel. 

The Cannondale 3.0 Aluminum frame (more modern than the 85/86 you're interested in) made its debut it was the lightest bicycle frame in the world. It also set the benchmark for the stiffest frame ever tested on the Bicycling Magazine 'tarantula' frame testing jig (Bicycling as a rag used to be much less advertising driven than they are today, and used to provide useful pieces, rather than what they are today a multi-page commercial of the 'latest, greatest, have to have...'). 

Rest assured that the old Cannondale you're interested in is a truly world class bike even today. Its one of the lightest, stiffest frames ever manufactured. Only modern carbon frames can even begin to challenge that 24 year old C'dale frame. 

When comparing a modern carbon fiber frame to a vintage Cannondale, almost all of the weight variance comes from the difference between the steel/aluminum quill/threaded fork and a modern carbon aheadset/integrated setup. Throw an Aheadset headset on that 'dale with a nice light weight carbon fork. 

You'll have a bare budget world class bike. While the geometry won't be ideal for a Time Trial, the bike will still be a veritable rocket on wheels. A Cannondale is pure efficiency. Wattage that goes in doesn't get lost in inefficient frame flex (steel is real, really inefficient). On a C'dale you'll have an almost telepathic sense of road feel, something that will spoil you if you try to ride a more modern Carbon bike, which will just feel lifeless and dead. The handling of the bike will be completely predictable and stable. 

While pretense, vanity, and exclusivity drive much of the US market for vintage/classic cycling, rest assured that if performance were the benchmark old Cannondales would be worth multiples of any handmade Italian steel. There is simply no comparison from a performance standpoint. 

In the early nineties Italian bike manufacturers responded to innovation of American aluminum frame technology not by challenging these frames on performance, but on the aesthetic. They were deemed too 'harsh' and 'unforgiving'. 

Its funny how often people rationalize or justify what they want to believe anyway. Show me a vintage Italian lightweight and I'll show you a flexy inefficient frame. About all it has is vanity. 

A vintage Cannondale with a modern carbon fork, carbon seatpost, and modern components and wheels is a thing to behold. You'd have to be an elite cyclist to reach the performance level that would necessitate trading in that 24 year old frame on something more modern, and thousands of dollar more. You can bring the shifters up near your time trial bars with Kelly Take-Offs or bar-ends. 

Quite simply, an older Cannondale or Klein is more bike than all but a handful of cyclists would ever need. 

Cannondale has optimized their aluminum frames over the years, to the point that they are considerably, significantly weaker, and lighter. 

I'm 6'7" and weight 375lbs. I ride a Cannondale 3.0 63cm frame. I would crush most other frames. 

Cannondale used to make a 66cm frameset as part of their product line. This 66cm frame was no longer available after CAAD5 as the optimized design just wasn't strong enough to support that large of a frame.

I consider the 3.0 the pinnacle of the Cannondale progression. The ultimate in strength, efficiency (stiffness), and at the time it was the lightest frame in the world.

That's a great bike in your friends yard. What it doesn't have is snob appeal. You can't say the same of anything high end that's classic/vintage and Italian.

However, you will go fast. Which in a time trial, is all that matters.

The Cannondale frame will never be the limitation of your performance in a time trial event. Try to say that of any other bike frame from the 80s (Colnago, Look, or Olmo).

The most important thing is does the bike fit you, and specifically your time trialing position. There is only about 1.5cm of wiggle room on classic geometry bikes.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

mtnbke said:


> II'm 6'7" and weight 375lbs. I ride a Cannondale 3.0 63cm frame. I would crush most other frames.


And that's why you find aluminum to be comfortable and steel to be flexy as hell...

at 6'2, 220, steel feels pretty nice. When I was down around 190, it was even better.

Your personal dimensions have a lot to do with what you find comfortable- keep that in mind when yer saying steel sucks. It doesn't suck, it just sucks for you. 

And yeah, there are a lot of over-rated frames out there, and a lot of under rated frames. My advice to you- SHUT UP ALREADY! You are going to spoil it for the rest of us! As long as everyone thinks colnagos are special and magic and made by wood elves, they'll stay away from the Serottas that i love so much. 

You want to have to start paying collector-prices for yer beloved cannondales?

Keep them under-rated. that keeps them affordable.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

mtnbke said:


> The Cannondale 3.0 Aluminum frame... set the benchmark for the stiffest frame ever tested
> 
> the old Cannondale you're interested in is... one of the... stiffest frames ever manufactured.




and that ain't nec a good thing, at least for people of more normal stature/size... remember the ad of the dude squatting on the rear triangle?


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

mtnbke said:


> I'm 6'7" and weight 375lbs.


That does explain a lot....:idea:


----------



## mtnbke (Jun 2, 2009)

buck-50 said:


> And that's why you find aluminum to be comfortable and steel to be flexy as hell...
> 
> at 6'2, 220, steel feels pretty nice. When I was down around 190, it was even better.
> 
> ...


Something doesn't smell right here...

When I used to race competitively I was around 215lbs. Even at that weight the highest end steel frames felt like spaghetti. The bottom bracket and frame flexed so much during a hard effot that it would cause steel bikes to ghost shift.

Let's be honest here. In cycling pretense and snob appeal are critical factors to many cyclists in choosing a frame, components and wheelsets. Many current products are technically and from a performance level, inferior to those product lines they displaced. What people ride has very little to do with what is 'best' and has very much to do with appealing to the 'vanity' factor. 

No competitive UCI roadie rides a steel frame, and for very very good reasons. High end aluminum frames like Cannondale and Klein created a new paradigm. The human body doesn't put out a considerable amount of watts. It is absolutely critical to efficiently utilize the wattage that is produced. Steel frames are completely inefficient in transferring energy through the chain drivetrain. A significant amount of the produced wattage is 'lost' due to frame inefficiency. That was all well and good when everyone in the peloton was riding steel, and Colnago could distribute many bikes to the US where they had a premium brand identity. However, once Cannondale and Klein frames made their debut the pardigm changed forever.

For a couple of years the small handbuilt Italian steel shops tried to get by starting rumours about oversized aluminum bikes being 'too harsh'. Certainly, there is a difference in ride feel from an 80's Olmo, Masi, or Colnago and an 80's Cannondale. However, that is like comparing a Jeep Wrangler to a BMW 5 series sports coupe. 

The proper comparison is to compare those same vintage Klein and Cannondale bikes to modern Carbon fiber, Titanium, and aluminum frames.

If you take a vintage Klein or Cannondale and equip it with a modern carbon fork, a modern carbon seat post, a new modern headset, and oversized stem and bars, and a modern wheelset something very interesting emerges. 

That same Klein or Cannondale reveals itself to be an absoultely epic frame, one that accelerates like a rocket, one more predictable in descents and hard cornering, and one that provides an almost telepathic road feel to the cyclist.

A vintage Cannondale or Klein frame will embarass almost any sub $3000 frame on the market today. Its superior in strength and stiffness, and only fifteen years later does it start to concede something in terms of weight.

Steel is real, really cheap. For all the talk about handcrafted steel frames, almost anyone can learn to braze lugs and tubing. You can not possibly begin to compare the years of expertise required to weld aluminum or titanium with what any hack can learn to do in an afternoon to braze steel. 

The truth is that there were considerable barriers to entry in working with aluminum and titanium, or laying up carbon. 

The reason that small frame fabricators worked with steel then (and now) is because it is incredibly cheap to make bicyle frames out of steel tubing. The margins are very high. The skill level required of the framemake is very low when compared to aluminum, titanium, or carbon. 

The 'best' steel bikes in the world Rivendell, Waterfords, and vintage Guerciotti, Cinelli, Olmo etc. don't even enter into the conversation of the 'best' bikes. Sure they are classic, sure there is some pageantry, and sure they have some vanity and snob appeal, but they just don't come close to being what a properly excellent aluminum, titanium, or carbon bike is.

For every vintage Italian steel bike, and for every 'country' Riv, and for every overpriced Waterford there is a better aluminum, titanium, or carbon bike that does everything those bikes do, and better, and with less compromise.

Sure Riv makes great non-racing, ride anywhere, put fenders on it, and a Brooks saddle and adopt airs of civility, sophistication, and a more subtle pretense. Sure that Riv is better at what it does than just about any bike sold new today. However, that Riv absolutely takes a back seat to a vintage touring Cannonale in every discernable way. The Riv which is touted as a touring bike has very real load limits because lugged steel bikes are one of the inherently weakest frame designs (not even to mention one of the heaviest). The bike you want to load up is ridiculously flexy, the bike you want to ride long distances is ridiculously inefficient. In every comparable manner a vintage Touring Cannondale is a stronger, more efficient, faster bike. What it isn't is more appealing (lugs are beautiful, if a poor manner of making bikes). What it isn't is a bike that has snob factor. You can find touring Cannondales that will embarass a Riv with Phil Wood hubsets on Craigslist for under $600. A Riv frame alone will run over four times that.

Sure a vintage Colngago decked out with two grand of some exclusive variant Campagnolo group is a thing to behold. Getting everything period correct makes for a true collectors piece. Having a vintage Colnago is like having a classic Porsche, Maserrati, or Ferrarri. You want everything perfect. You park it out front at the local bistro. Its ostentatious, and you can obnoxiously sound off on the 'passion' in driving it, and the 'soul' of how it handles. The truth is that any BMW coupe, or any modern Mercedes Benz family station wagon will outperform every one of those classic sports cars in every measurable metric. Skid pad, 1/4 mile, 0-60, 0-100, 100-stop, road course, 1/8th mile, top speed, you name it. You don't take your Merc wagon to a classic car show though. Especially not with the groceries in back.

Like many things in life, its not about what it really is, but about what it pretends to be.

Steel bikes are crap. No one prefers a steel bike over a aluminum, carbon, or titanium bike unless they are doing it for reasons of vanity and pretense. 

Steel is real, the biggest disappointment. You can not even begin to imagine the number of disappointed cyclists that find their 'grail' bike, something Italian steel and slowly realize that they just hate to ride it. On even a moderate group ride they can't climb, or maintain pace like they can on their more modern bikes. The frames are just too wholly inefficient. They start riding it less and less. The bike is fun to 'have', but just isn't fun to drive.

A lot like classic cars. They are fun to own, but most certainly not as an everyday driver. They just aren't comparable to a modern car with modern steering, suspension, brakes, etc.

Its not sexy to realize that a business coupe is faster than the GTO you loved a kid, or that the old Lambo you had a picture of on your wall doesn't hold a candle to a modern Subaru. 

However, sexy is about appealing to interest, and in cycling that is almost always about snob appeal and vanity. 

Almost never about performance.

There is a reason that Serotta works almost exclusively with Ti and Carbon now, steel just makes horrible frames...

The builders that still make steel bikes couldn't possibly afford to build carbon or titanium bikes. For starters they couldn't afford the capital, tooling, or skilled labor. However, more importantly, they couldn't reverse themselves from their brand identity of convincing people to buy crappy steel bikes for two grand (frame only).

You name it, mountain bike, touring bike, road bike, you just can't go wrong with a vintage Klein or Cannondale. 

Ten years from now you'll be astounded at what those oversized aluminum tubed bikes will be worth...


----------



## mtnbke (Jun 2, 2009)

FatTireFred said:


> and that ain't nec a good thing, at least for people of more normal stature/size... remember the ad of the dude squatting on the rear triangle?


Frame stiffness is key to a great frame.

You can't even begin to compare the stiffness of a modern carbon bike, titanium bike, or a vintage aluminum bike to a steel frame. There simply is no context for comparison. 

With carbon, the frames are laid up to perfectly dial in bottom bracket stiffness, lateral stiffness, and driveline efficiency. Carbon bikes aren't laid up to ride like steel frames, although they certainly could be. No one wants a flexy inefficient ride. A cyclist wants a bike that accelerates like a rocket. Carbon allows the builder to build in vertical ride compliance without compromising frame stiffness, strength, or efficiency. 

Titanium bikes do everything steel does and better, without the disadvantageous of the heavy steel frames. 

Aluminum bikes are pure thoroughbreds. While Cannondale optimized their aluminum designs making the bikes more supple vertically (via engineering tube thickness, butting, and metallurgy) they also retreated from the pure form of the 'rocket bike'. Cannondale after CAAD5 couldn't even offer larger frames anymore. CAAD6 and later couldn't support the 66cm race frame size or the 27" touring frame size. The optimized design just wasn't strong enough. If you were five foot nothin' and riding a 56cm you probably enjoyed that your frame was more vertically compliant. The truth was that even though your road bike was better equipped than some of the bikes of Div I UCI teams, you weren't really a road racer, but a road rider. You weren't really looking for a bike that was pure performance. No one drives an F1 race car as a daily driver. However, any CAAD iteration flat out embarasses any vintage Italian steel bike. They just can't be compared. Its apples and oranges, different paradigms. Weak versus strong. Flexy versus stiff. Fast versus inefficient. 

You could make a titanium bike stiffer than a classic Klein or Cannondale. You could do the same with carbon. However, most cyclists are not looking for pure performance. They don't really compete at the higest level as a racer, they are more riders. Riders aren't interested in pure performance, but comfort. Steel is comfortable. Just like riding in a 70s Cadillac is comfortable. Its a plush flexy smooth ride.

However, when you throw a modern carbon fork, carbon seatpost, and modern kit on a vintage Cannondale you discover something that you never knew existed. 

Quite possibly the perfect bike. Unrivaled performance, and comfortable to boot...

A bike you'd have to spend thousands of dollars to find comparable performance. So we are not talking about comparing it to vintage/classic yesterdays steel frames, but to today's modern ones, and the comparison is favorable. 

It more than holds its own.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

mtnbke said:


> Steel bikes are crap. No one prefers a steel bike over a aluminum, carbon, or titanium bike unless they are doing it for reasons of vanity and pretense.


Dude, don't be a dick. You like what you like. That's great. But, I like what I like.

I prefer my steel serotta over the klein that it replaced. THe klein was a fine bike. But it wasn't for me. The steel frame just feels better to me. 

That you don't like it is your thing. Love whatever bike you want. But don't be a looooong winded dick about other people's motivations for liking what they like.


----------



## deadlegs2 (Oct 3, 2009)

Clydesdale's opinions on bicycles is like a nun's opinion on birth control.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

mtnbke said:


> Something doesn't smell right here...
> 
> When I used to race competitively I was around 215lbs. Even at that weight the highest end steel frames felt like spaghetti. The bottom bracket and frame flexed so much during a hard effot that it would cause steel bikes to ghost shift. ........





mtnbke said:


> Frame stiffness is key to a great frame.
> 
> You can't even begin to compare the stiffness of a modern carbon bike, titanium bike, or a vintage aluminum bike to a steel frame. There simply is no context for comparison. ........


Thanks for posting those. :thumbsup: 


I haven't laughed so hard in ages.


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

mtnbke said:


> In vintage/classic cycling many of the Italian steel makers (Olmo, Cinelli, Guericiotti, Masi, Colnago, et. al.) get the attention of those seeking a period correct, or retro ride, french frames and components are a complete afterthought.
> 
> However, that American framecraft of Cannondale and Klein gets overlooked, and without good reason, is just ludicrous.


You make some great points. Cannondales were revolutionary bikes when they came out. And Cannondale really transformed bicycle manufacturing from Old World art to New World technology. Many of us still like old world art. My wife as an old Cannodale Touring and loves it.


----------



## nenad (May 5, 2004)

buck-50 said:


> ...at 6'2, 220, steel feels pretty nice. When I was down around 190, it was even better...


At 154, I'm asking where's flex ? 

375...damn...


----------



## e39540is (Apr 10, 2009)

mtnbke said:


> Steel bikes are crap. No one prefers a steel bike over a aluminum, carbon, or titanium bike unless they are doing it for reasons of vanity and pretense.


I disagree with your OPINION. I am not knocking Klein, or Cannondale, I have had two of them, but I do prefer steel. One of my favorite bikes to ride is an 83 Schwinn Traveler that is converted to single speed. I dont think there is any vanity or pretense there. 

My Second favorite is a low end Gitane Newport, which by the way I smoked a newer much more expensive aluminum bike with recently. No vanity or pretense here either.

To the OP. I would say that if this Cannondale fits, I would say it would be a great bike for the budget that you have to work with. You may find down the road that you may want a newer Cannondale, or something else made from Carbon, Steel, Titanium, or whatever you decide that you like.:thumbsup:


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I still have an 86 SR400 sitting in my basement.
For a normal person, it rode like crap. It was so stiff, it just beat the hell out of you. The only way you could do any miles on it, was to throw on some 28's on the wheels. The rear triangle was so stiff, it was very hard to get an 8 speed wheel in there. (the original was 7 speed friction)
At the time, Cannondales were considered to be a light bike. That was only because most steel frames, at that time, weighed 5 pounds, or more. I believe that Cannondale frames, at that time, weighed a little less than 4 pounds. Most modern steel frames can beat that, standing of their heads.

PS.. Yes, they were crap......but at the time, I didn't know any better.


----------



## Jimi_Lee (May 3, 2006)

I just want to add a few things from a mechanical engineers stand point. The numbers I am pulling were for Reynolds 531 and cited (albeit from a google search so it may not be the most accurate). Aluminum could probably be put in there 

Steel / Titanium / Aluminum:
Ultimate Tensile Strength 700-900 MPa / 900-1140 MPa (6AI-4V) / 325 MPa (6061 series)
Modulus of Elasticity 200 GPa / 105-120 GPa (Titanium Alloys) / 69GPa
Density 7.78g/cm^3 (guess) / 4.4g/cm^3 / 2.7g/cm^3

And I will conclude with lovely article by Sheldon Brown. In the end a lot of it comes down to design and the quality of building/assembling. Steel is by far the stiffest of the group, but also the heaviest. Steel is also the strongest, but not noticeably different than titanium. Carbon fiber is a whole new subject that due to its fibrous nature can be engineered to have infinite possibilities.

Steel is real, heavy, stiff, and strong. Try telling someone like Richard Sachs or Bryan Bayliss that you could learn their craft of brazing in an afternoon and that the only reason they survive is because steel is cheap with a high mark-up.


----------



## Lickety Split (Nov 20, 2007)

CDale from that era = boneshaker.
I had a SR800 and it beat the **** out of me.
But then it would take almost two of me to equal what you weigh.
Ya ever thought of a diet?
Is Shaq posting here now?
LS


----------

