# Aluminum Road Models - Historical ?



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

I'm interested in the history of Cannondale's "aluminum only" road frames please help me fill in the more recent stuff

1983-1989 - their original road frame - don't think it had a name
1990-1994 - 3.0 "Criterium" frame
1993-1996 2.8 series
CAAD started in 1997 but I don't know any of the model names from here on out.

Has anyone ridden various models? Any opinions on how the ride has changed over the years?

I'm familar with the original road frame and will soon have a 3.0 ready to roll. I'm looking forward to telling differences in ride bw the 2. The 3.0 has circular smaller seatstays (seatstays on original frame are very beefy)and the rear dropouts extend back 2 inches off the rear triangle on the 3.0. The overall geometry appears similar.

ps- carbon forks ok, just no carbon in frame. i'm guessing at some point cdale started using carbon forks.


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

*Cannonball 3.0*

I have an original Cannondale 3.0 Criterium frame (replaced the steel fork with a carbon fiber). I mainly use it for my rainy day bike. The frame I have was the first introduction of their "cantilever" rear dropout (without the replaceable derailleur hanger). I have to say that it's the stiffiest, harshest frame I have ever ridden. Unyielding. Perfect for criterium racing; horrible for long distance type riding.

Here's a link: http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/showphoto.php?photo=473&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1


----------



## Buck Satan (Nov 21, 2005)

I rode their original frame for 8 years. Since then I have had 3 2.8's (including a 650c bike) and right now I ride a CAAD4. I'm ordering a CAAD 8 this week. I've loved all of them, but the ride has gotten better over time, especially with the CAAD 4. Carbon forks started sometime with the CAAD frames. This, combined with the hourglass seatstays that began with the CAAD 4 really improved the ride qualities. You just can't beat the stiffness of the original and the 2.8. I haven't ridden my original in a long time, but I'm getting it roadworthy again. It has a 6-speed friction shift drivetrain with a 12/18 - nice for hills!


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

nice. I don't think my 3.0 will disapoint me then (it's just about built up). I just pansied out and got a 13-21 7 speed freewheel (dura ace). I had a 12-18 (DA)and 12-20(regina america). These are mated with a 42 small chainring in the front. No hills around here...
I'll skip the 2.8 and get a CAAD for my next frame (prob a 4 or 5). Another reason I like dales is bc you can get used ones for quite reasonable...though the CAAD are a little more dough (everyone wants recent, darn non retro people scared of the "harsh" ride of the old school frames everyone speaks of)


----------



## vol245 (Jan 20, 2002)

Friction_Shifter said:


> nice. I don't think my 3.0 will disapoint me then (it's just about built up). I just pansied out and got a 13-21 7 speed freewheel (dura ace). I had a 12-18 (DA)and 12-20(regina america). These are mated with a 42 small chainring in the front. No hills around here...
> I'll skip the 2.8 and get a CAAD for my next frame (prob a 4 or 5). Another reason I like dales is bc you can get used ones for quite reasonable...though the CAAD are a little more dough (everyone wants recent, darn non retro people scared of the "harsh" ride of the old school frames everyone speaks of)


Steel is retro and rides nice. If you want a Cannondale though you better love the harsh ride of oversized aluminum.


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

Steel does ride great (87 Ciocc Columbus SL). I also love the "Harsh" ride of my 85 Dale (even better bc it feels like a road rocket which it is). Love it so much I once road it 295 miles in 22 hours and change(bicycle marathon of columbus back in 86). I do admit I was 16, back then and I would probably have my bones rattled if I was to do it today (I'd be lucky to make it 100 miles right now).

The new dales aren't as harsh from what I've gathered. If I were to ride one I probably wouldn't consider them harsh at all. What Dale do you ride Vol245?


----------



## Buck Satan (Nov 21, 2005)

vol245 said:


> Steel is retro and rides nice. If you want a Cannondale though you better love the harsh ride of oversized aluminum.


A lot of that "harshness" is a myth. Read this:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/section-43.html

Do people really believe the seatpost _compresses_ that much differently in different materials?


----------



## vol245 (Jan 20, 2002)

Friction_Shifter said:


> Steel does ride great (87 Ciocc Columbus SL). I also love the "Harsh" ride of my 85 Dale (even better bc it feels like a road rocket which it is). Love it so much I once road it 295 miles in 22 hours and change(bicycle marathon of columbus back in 86). I do admit I was 16, back then and I would probably have my bones rattled if I was to do it today (I'd be lucky to make it 100 miles right now).
> 
> The new dales aren't as harsh from what I've gathered. If I were to ride one I probably wouldn't consider them harsh at all. What Dale do you ride Vol245?


I have a custom steel bike. I have never ridden a Cannondale so I have no experience with them and should STFU. Anyway, every time I read about those old Cannondales I hear the same thing. Rides bad and goes fast. I would hope they found a way to make the newer ones ride better. I'm too old now to deal with the type of ride the old Dale would give.


----------

