's Forum Archives - Components

Archive Home >> Components(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )

History Buffs - Name that C'Dale(19 posts)

History Buffs - Name that C'Dalelnin0
Aug 25, 2003 6:20 AM
Ok. Just thought someone might help me identify what model this bike is. It has the old C'Dale house logo on the front.

The only markings on it are "3.0 Series Aluminum" and "Made in the USA" on the seat tube. The chainstay also says "Patended Design".

Biopace. 105 SLR short reach / single pivot brakes. 6 SPD SIS downtube shifters. Judging by the parts I would guess mid to late 80s but I was curious to know if anyone can tell if this is a CAAD frame or not. There is no CAAD markings on it. Did C'Dale make pre-CAAD aluminum bikes or make a CAAD frame that was not marked so?
I have some four and five-letter names for itJS Haiku Shop
Aug 25, 2003 6:46 AM
here's one: ouch.

this was my first road bike, purcahsed from the mtbr classifieds. note the saddle-bar drop. note the rear brake cable housing routing across the seat tube. note my inability to shift into the big ring, and clueless state when faced with this problem. note my then-chronically-numb-nards. no thanks.

call 1-800-bike-usa with the serial number for model & year info. that's a stiff frame. "enjoy".

yikes! sorry for the big pics! nmJS Haiku Shop
Aug 25, 2003 6:47 AM
I don't know what's more dangerousFez
Aug 25, 2003 8:19 AM
The stiff Cannondale bike or the Ford SUV with Firestone Wilderness tires on it.

Can't tell if that is an Exploder or an Expedition from the photo, but a lot of folks who had Exploders wanted to get rid of all Firestones, regardless of whether they were recall tires or not.
exploderJS Haiku Shop
Aug 25, 2003 8:49 AM
we had two sets of tires recall replaced within 8 months. LOL.
Aug 25, 2003 12:16 PM
Did you originally have a set of Firestones get recalled replaced with new set of "OK" Firestones, only to have Ford CEO Jacques Nasser recall the "OK" Firestones with something different?

Talk about a lot of wasted tires. That whole thing was really freaky.
yup nmJS Haiku Shop
Aug 26, 2003 8:15 AM
Okay, I'll bite...M_Currie
Aug 26, 2003 8:14 PM
Explorers, sure - but what's so dangerous about a stiff Cannondale?
Not life threatening, butFez
Aug 28, 2003 6:13 AM
there sure are a lot of people that talk about how much discomfort they endured while riding the harsh Cannondale.
I had a 3.0 frame long agopmf1
Aug 25, 2003 8:36 AM
Its before the CAAD frames came out. Actually, there was a 2.8 model that came out after it, and then the CAAD versions. Depending when you bought it, it could have been one of several models since Cannondale uses the same frame, but switches components in a few models. Mine was the R400 with RX-100 parts.

It was a punishing frame to ride. Extremely stiff. I eventually broke it, and gladly moved on.
What did the 3.0 and 2.8 stand for?Fez
Aug 25, 2003 12:18 PM
Was it the supposed weight of the bare frame in a mediumish size? Hence, the 2.8 being the more recent frame?

Or was it the number of months the average rider could ride the thing before it needed replacement?
I think it was weightpmf1
Aug 26, 2003 5:45 AM
Although they never stated what weight --- probably the weight of an unpainted 48 cm frame. I do recall 3.0 and 2.8 being pounds.

This may seem pathetic given the weight of many frames today, but back then, a 20 lbs bike was considered to be extremely light weight.
To put it in perspectiveFez
Aug 26, 2003 6:35 AM
If Cannondale's claim of 3 and 2.8lbs was credible and if it was for a medium (55-57ish) frame, then that was quite lightweight, because I think those frames spanned the very late 80s thru mid 90s.

Given that Cannondale's current CAAD7 probably weighs something like 2.3 lbs, I guess it shows that weight was never a problem with Cannondale frames. Most of the improvements have been in comfort and quality control.

If an old flagship Cannondale complete bike weighed 20lbs, and a new Cannondale R3000 complete weighs 16.5lbs, then we can safely conclude that only a half lb came off of the frame and the other 3lbs came off of the fork, wheels and components. Kind of puts things in perspective.
If you believe them, that ispmf1
Aug 27, 2003 5:33 AM
I never saw or read anything from Cannondale attesting exactly what frame size the 2.8 or 3.0 referred to. The 3.0 frame came out in 1989 or 1990 -- the 2.8 came out in 1992 or 1993. I don't think either bike ever broke the 20 lbs barrier. Remember, this was in the day of heavy aluminium forks and 8-speed STI shifters (that were quite heavy) among other things.
RE: To put it in perspectivetube_ee
Aug 31, 2003 12:33 AM
I remember that 'dale's 3.0 and 2.8 lb claims for their frames were based on a 56 cm frame. Realistically, that's still pretty freakin' light. They also last just about forever. Since I have come back into the sport, I have noticed that Cannondale bikes have lost the reputation for reliability they had throught the early 90s. Back then, nobody would have called them "crack-n-fails".

IMHO, current AL frames are pushing the limits of what is possible with the material. I think they passed the limit of what is wise about 1/2 lb ago. And remember, 1/2 pound may be 17% of the weight of a 3 lb frame, but it's only 1.25% of the weight of the bike, and only .25% of the weight of the entire system (180 lb rider, 20 lb bike).

Even using the parts available at the time, you could build one of these frames up under 18 lbs. Sub-16 is possible now, if you use stupid-light parts.
re: History Buffs - Name that C'Daleukiahb
Aug 25, 2003 9:29 AM
That is probably late '80's, I bought one like that in '89 or '90 and still have it, it is now my rain bike. Took three frames (under warranty) to get one that did not creak while standing on the pedals, though IIRC this was only a problem on big frames...mine is a 60 cm. FWIW the ride is not so harsh on the bigger 3.0 frames also...
re: History Buffs - Name that C'DaleMShaw
Aug 25, 2003 10:23 AM
You hit it on the head. The frame model was the 3.0. I don't remember if they had numbers for them like they do now.

IIRC, the 3.0s were early to mid-90s. I had a second gen. C-dale from '87 that was completely different. Talk about harsh riding (in a 52-3cm size)! I could ride it about an hour, then my back started to hurt, etc. ...and that was when I was 22!

Love that "cantelever" chainstay design! Hey, I know, let's make the chainstays SHORTER so they'll ride better! Uhh, yeah.

This frame will make a GREAT crit/sprinting bike.

re: History Buffs - Name that C'DaleM_Currie
Aug 26, 2003 8:12 PM
As others have noted, this should be late 80's. I think the 3.0 came out sometime around 89. I know my 87 Cannondale is a pre-3.0 "Criterium" frame, introduced that year. Earlier frames had a different geometry. I don't think there's much difference between the Criterium and the 3.0

I don't know whether they still do, but Cannondales used to have the date in the serial number. If it's an 11-digit number, check digits 7 and 8. They should be the year of manufacture.
re: History Buffs - Name that C'Daleclintb
Sep 2, 2003 8:35 PM
Hah! I still have a 2.8 that's in fantastic condition. 60cm that's 1435g w/Stronglight X-14 cups installed. Good bike.