Nov 27, 2003 4:17 PM
I have the opportunity to buy a Dale 2.8 (1997 model) second hand (for my wife) for a good price but I can't find any info on this bike - could anyone help with a piccy and/or some info on the bike? This one has an Ultegra groupo and Mavic Open Pro wheels but that is all I know. I'm checking it out tonight.
Thanks in advance.
|What I can tell you;||KG 361|
Nov 27, 2003 4:27 PM
|is that it was the last series of frames that C-dale built by hand, before the CAD series of bikes. It will have been made of a fairly high quality but the ride will be next to bone-jarring. Not sure what your wife prefers, but smooth-riding is not a term I would use for a 2.8. On the plus side, it's light and fairly durable.|
Nov 27, 2003 5:44 PM
|... Indeed, the R 2.8 preceeded the CAAD... specifically, the CAAD3 frame designation in Cannondale's catalog...
The frames share many of the same features as a CAAD3... the main spotting difference being the cantilevered rear chainstays (the seat stays join the chainstays an inch or so in front of the rear dropouts) which in part, gives the frame it's legendary stiffness.
As for ride qualities, that might best be left to the individual... that is, there is no doubting the overall stiffness of this frame... but whether or not it's "comfortable" is subject to personal wants and needs. I for one (larger rider) like the stiff rear end... updating the overall package a bit with the addition of a carbon fiber fork. As such, the frame is still worthy of any contemporary "upgrade" or gruppo if the abovementioned ride qualities are to the individual's liking.
Be the bike.
|Yes, a medieval torture device for us lighter riders!||Tig|
Nov 27, 2003 6:31 PM
|My old 2.8 was easily the most painful riding bike I have ever ridden. I would stay away from one unless you are over about 180 lbs. We have a 2.8 frame at the shop that we cannot give away for $20!|
|Boneshakers rode better than my 2.8||Dave Hickey|
Nov 27, 2003 6:52 PM
|the 2.8 is a very stiff frame but I was beat up and tired after after a couple of hours|
|$20? New or used? What size?||martym|
Nov 28, 2003 7:44 AM
|$20? New or used? What size? LEt me know....|
|Looks like a 56cm. Black. Missing downtube cable guides. -nm||Tig|
Nov 30, 2003 7:57 PM
Nov 28, 2003 9:08 AM
|I had one a few years back. At that time, I thought a bike had to be stiff to be "good". Silly me. I've since wised up (and aged a bit). I've switched to a Litespeed Tuscany with Spox wheels and a carbon fork. Much better all-day ride machine.
A carbon fork may help the 2.8 out a bit, but it will still be one harsh beast. Someone mentioned it's a good crit machine, and I'd believe it. I'd look elsewhere for a bike for club rides.
|OBVIOUSLY you've never ridden their 3.0 Crit frame....||funknuggets|
Nov 28, 2003 11:10 AM
|arrrgh... Now THAT was serious. That bike was crazy, I swear the downtube on that sucker was at minimum 3.5 inches in diameter... meaning stiff stiff stiff. Of course, I upgraded to a 2.8 frame. I'm still amazed that I was able to have children.
|I had TWO! I still think the 2.8 was more cruel. LOL -nm||Tig|
Nov 30, 2003 7:54 PM
Nov 27, 2003 7:04 PM
|What size frame is that? How tall are you? The drop from the seat to the stem is a barn burner.|
Nov 27, 2003 7:30 PM
|... top is a 60cm... bottom is a 58...
... yepper, it's a bit more radical than most riders... owed to the fact that my Dad was an alien from outer space and I inherited his phreakish inseam and long monkeylike alien arms (slightly more leg than body)... we, however, don't own a barn...
Be the bike.
Nov 27, 2003 8:07 PM
|Thanks folks! I kind of expected the bike would be fairly stiff and in the "boneshaker" category, but that probably doesn't matter. My wife will only use the bike for shortish (45km) rides with me and the Bike Club so the durability and lightness qualities of the frame are probably more important. If she gets into longer rides we could always go with a carbon fork to aid in the comfort stakes. Thanks again.|
|I got a spy pic of your backyard....||divve|
Nov 28, 2003 5:18 AM
Nov 28, 2003 8:18 AM
|What are you using if for?||russw19|
Nov 27, 2003 9:25 PM
|I notice that everyone here is saying it's too harsh, but I had one with the Sub One fork on it and loved it. But I have said over and over here that I tend to like extremely stiff bikes.
Now, that said, if your wife will be doing short races, especially criteriums, it's a great frame. In fact I think it's one of the best Crit Specific frames ever built. If I had a separate bike for racing Crits, I would get one of these again.
Now if she likes to do long slow club rides, and you have bad roads in your area... steer clear of this bike.
If there was ever an application specific frame on the market, this was it. Crit racing.... Good.... touring and comfy distance rides... Bad.
Nov 27, 2003 9:55 PM
|Thanks Russ for your input - as always, very informative and to the point - its good to see someone sharing advice who obviously cares about the worldwide riding community!
To answer your question, my wife doesn't race and most likely never will - although I realise this bike is a crit specific machine, we want a lightweight, durable bike that will only be used for short rides around Brisbane - on reasonable sealed roads. I'm getting it through a mate at our club for a song so its more value for money than anything else. I'm getting a loan of it tonight so she can try it out this weekend. If she is only in the saddle for an hour or so I don't think the frame stifness will be too much of a negative but if she doesn't like it I can return it. Perhaps if she falls in love with cycling we could improve the comfort with a combination of tires/tire pressure/carbon forks etc.
Thanks again for your (and everyone's) help - I really appreciate it.
|The 2.8 series...||tube_ee|
Nov 28, 2003 1:52 AM
|I have a 2.8 series H300 hybrid that I use for commuting. Just the 2.8 series touring fameset with flat bars, since 'dale only made 3 frames then. I don't think it's harsh at all, but then it's a 60 cm frame and I run 700 x 35 tires. I wouldn't feel the same way if I was shorter, or using 23s. Also, the rear spacing may be 126 mm, which would limit you to 7 speed.
Since vertical compliance in bicycle frames is basically a myth, the limiting factor in comfort will be the size tire you can fit.
On the upside, the 2.8s were the last Cannondale frames that were really durable. The CAAD series was what has earned them the nickname "crack-n-fail".
If the price is right, I'd go for it.
|re: Cannondale 2.8||bayou06|
Nov 27, 2003 11:56 PM
|I have a 55cm 2.8 Dale with 650 wheels. I am 180 pounds and always found the ride very rough. I recently added a carbon aero fork. The ride is now significantly smoother. I was ready to change frames, but now am just going to continuing upgrading.|
|re: 2.8 .. 1997...????||Rusty Coggs|
Nov 28, 2003 7:31 AM
|There is no 2.8 in the 1997 Cdale catalogue.The ultegra bikes were caad3 and 8 speed. It's older than that.|
Nov 28, 2003 10:36 AM
|Have her ride at 85psi in the front and 90-95 in the rear and it will feel fine.|
|re: Cannondale 2.8||MShaw|
Nov 30, 2003 11:18 PM
|I owned a Crit specific frame from '87 or so. Ugh! Anything over about an hour and my (insert favorite pet name here) went numb and my back hurt. Anything UNDER an hour, it was about the best sprinting/crit bike I've owned.
The SO isn't going to be too happy on this one. The only thing I can think of to make it better is a pair of PBO spoked Spinergy wheels. AFAIK they tend to ride softer than other wheels.
I switched to a steel frame and the pain went away. Go figure.
If I needed a crit frame, I'd buy another. For anything else, steer clear.