need opinion on a Cannondale bike.
Elvis Presley
I am reletively new to mountain biking. In fact my last bike was a
Redline BMX bike! I finally broke down and bought a bicycle about
a week ago. I bought was I was told was Cannondales bottom of the
like bike. The M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was
bad decision. He prefers his Trek (930?). He claims that Cannondales
have a weak track record. He said the "small company does not know how
to build bikes!" He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a
year. Oh well. I can still return it. What do you all think?
Felix KS Wong
(Elvis Presley) writes:
|> [My Cannondale] M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was
|> have a weak track record. He said the "small company does not know how
|> to build bikes!" He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a
|> year. Oh well. I can still return it. What do you all think?
Don't listen to that guy, Elvis! Your Cannondale is much nicer than his
Trek! Not that I have anything against Treks -- I've owned a pretty nice
Trek 1000 in the past (before I got my Canny). It's just that your M300 is
a stiffer, lighter, faster bicycle that's handcrafted in the good ol' USA.
It's also a lot more elegant and beautiful (just look at its paint job,
tasteful decals, and smooth, hand-filed welds). And where in the world did
your "friend" hear that 'dales had weak track records?!!! Even if you don't
take care of the bike (something I do not advocate), it'll last many decades
longer than 1 year! (If it doesn't, you can always use Cannondale's
lifetime guarantee....)
Anyway, when have you started opening your ears to listen to other people?
People keep saying you're dead, and look -- you're very much alive!
-Felix
David M. Fresco
Felix KS Wong <feli...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>Don't listen to that guy, Elvis! Your Cannondale is much nicer than his
>Trek! Not that I have anything against Treks -- I've owned a pretty nice
>Trek 1000 in the past (before I got my Canny). It's just that your M300 is
>a stiffer, lighter, faster bicycle that's handcrafted in the good ol' USA.
I would have to agree with Felix in that your friend with the Trek sounds
a bit bitter and envious. I would go as far as to say that the worst bike
I ever owned was a Trek and that I will never buy another one. The Trek
930 may have slightly nicer components than your M300, but you have a much
nicer frame and, if you get really turned on to MTB-ing, you have a much
nicer frame to build upon.
Be gentle with your Trek 930 friend, he already sounds upset because you
have a cooler bike :).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= David M. Fresco =
= Department of Psychology =
= CB#3270, Davie Hall __o =
= Chapel Hill, NC 27599 , \<, =
= Internet: fre...@unc.edu `,/'(*) =
= fre...@med.unc.edu (*) . ./""" =
= Voice: (919) 962-5082 """" =
= Fax: (919) 962-2537 =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hoover
>In article <2bhvpk$l...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, el...@wam.umd.edu
>(Elvis Presley) writes:
>|> [My Cannondale] M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was
>|> bad decision. He prefers his Trek (930?). He claims that Cannondales
>|> have a weak track record. He said the "small company does not know how
>|> to build bikes!" He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a
>|> year. Oh well. I can still return it. What do you all think?
>Don't listen to that guy, Elvis! Your Cannondale is much nicer than his
>Trek! Not that I have anything against Treks -- I've owned a pretty nice
>Trek 1000 in the past (before I got my Canny). It's just that your M300 is
>a stiffer, lighter, faster bicycle that's handcrafted in the good ol' USA.
>It's also a lot more elegant and beautiful (just look at its paint job,
>tasteful decals, and smooth, hand-filed welds). And where in the world did
>your "friend" hear that 'dales had weak track records?!!! Even if you don't
>take care of the bike (something I do not advocate), it'll last many decades
>longer than 1 year! (If it doesn't, you can always use Cannondale's
>lifetime guarantee..
First things first. I don't like Treks OR Canondales. Stiff will only get
you so far. At a certain point a stiff frame will just beat you up. Besides,
a frame with a little give will smooth out the ride and enhance control. The
old wive's tale about losing energy to frame flex is a lie, it is returned
because the frame acts like a spring of sorts. As far as hand craftsmanship
goes, the frames are poorly aligned. I work at a Canondale dealership, and
the 2 months I've been there part-time, I've seen almost half a dozen frames
that were visibly out of wack one way or another, like a bowed downtube. Why
hand file the welds, what do they have to hide? You can't tell if whoever
was building it screwed up, and often filing a weld actually makes it
weaker. As far as their track record, ONE person I know has trashed SIX
Canondales and recently switched to a Yo Eddy(last year), and hasn't had any
problems. Another friend cracked two swingarms on the Delta V frame, and
more recently broke the the swingarm on a Super V.(no he doesn't crash them)
Warranty for the Super V took almost a month. Also a female friend of mine
who rides only occasionaly off road broke two of their frames.
Not a very impressive track record.
Buy steel, its proven, and titanium if you can afford it.
Just my incredily biased opinion.
Hoover
>-Felix
bui tho xuan
>I need an opinion on Cannondale Bicycles.
>
>I am reletively new to mountain biking. In fact my last bike was a
>Redline BMX bike! I finally broke down and bought a bicycle about
>a week ago. I bought was I was told was Cannondales bottom of the
>like bike. The M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was
>bad decision. He prefers his Trek (930?). He claims that Cannondales
>have a weak track record. He said the "small company does not know how
>to build bikes!" He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a
>year. Oh well. I can still return it. What do you all think?
I saw Cannondale's track bike. it's very nice. Just kidding.
Sounds like your friend has the "I-spent-money-so-I-bought-the-best"
disease. Undoubtedly the Treks are nice, but I woudn't refuse
any Cannondales that's given to me either. If YOU like your bike, you
made a good purchase. If it breaks, bring it back to the store and
they (the store AND Creakondale) will fix 'em for ya.
I ride a C.J. Higgins and it's the best bike. heh.
tho
Kevin Kuehl
>The
>old wive's tale about losing energy to frame flex is a lie, it is
>returned because the frame acts like a spring of sorts.
The energy will only be returned on frame flex if something else does
not absorb the energy. I have only seen one bike designed to return
the energy as a spring and it was WAAAY out of my price range so I
don't know if it even worked.
>Why
>hand file the welds, what do they have to hide? You can't tell if whoever
>was building it screwed up, and often filing a weld actually makes it
>weaker.
In general it is very difficult to make an objective opinion about a
weld just by visual inspection. Yes, there are obvious mistakes such
as a purple titanium weld or pitted welds, but usually those never see
the public. The best description I ever heard of filing welds came
from a race car frame builder:
Filing a weld will not make a damn bit of difference. If
the weld was good, the filed metal is excess and not needed.
If the weld was poor, the removed metal won't help the joint
much anyway.
Personally I think filing a weld is a bit silly, but I guess the buyer's
demand it. I would rather the money spent on labor to file the weld
was spent in using a better tubing material or better edjucating the
welder.
--
Kevin Kuehl
kevin....@att.com
att!ihlpm!kkuehl
Geoffrey Hall
>the 2 months I've been there part-time, I've seen almost half a dozen frames
>that were visibly out of wack one way or another, like a bowed downtube.
The occasional bowed tube on Cannondales used to bother me, too, but it
really doesn't matter.
With some frames, bowing of the tubing may be a concern. I believe that
for tubes that approach the limit of the material in the ratio of diameter
to wall thickness, straightness is important (at least for steel).
I recall from a bike show in N.Y. in the 70's, when Ishiwata entered the
very light frame tubing market, their claims about the straightness of
their tubing definitely caught the attention of some of the Reynolds folks.
With light steel tubing, I think it is important to try to preserve the
straightness that the tubing manufacturers provide. If brazing a top tube
cable guide on the thin-walled center portion of the tube would cause the
tube to deform, then putting a braze-on there may not be a good idea. But
that is off the subject.
With 'Dales, the bowing is not a problem at all. Bowed tubes are a
frequent result of Canondales manufacturing process, in which they relieve
stresses resulting from welding, while also maintaining alignment. I
understand it is possible to do this without ending up with bowed tubes,
but it would drive the cost up. Compare to Klein.
I have ridden a few 'Dale road bikes, and never noticed any alignment
problem worth mentioning. I consider them a decent value (though I happen
to be partial to steel frames).
>Why
>hand file the welds, what do they have to hide?
Maybe they think that on a painted frame, smooth joints are more attractive.
It was only fairly recently that unfinished welds became acceptable at all
in the upper-end bicycle market.
Geoff (My opinions, not my employer's)
William Kellagher
>>hand file the welds, what do they have to hide?
>
>Maybe they think that on a painted frame, smooth joints are more attractive.
>It was only fairly recently that unfinished welds became acceptable at all
>in the upper-end bicycle market.
>
>
>Geoff (My opinions, not my employer's)
I remember back when Canondales first came out, and they received ALOT of heat
about the crude look of their un-sanded welds.
I've always thought it was a shame that these bikes didn't have more forgiving
geometry. I mean how many sub-three pound frames are there out on the market
for less than $1k. If they gave them a little longer wheelbase, they'd
cure the handling problems and the harshness problems, and have the hottest
road frame on the market. Just my opinion.
Bill Kellagher
America's Bicycling Theme Park
Boulder CO
Felix KS Wong
|> Personally I think filing a weld is a bit silly, but I guess the buyer's
|> demand it. I would rather the money spent on labor to file the weld
|> was spent in using a better tubing material or better edjucating the
|> welder.
I think most people would feel the same way, too. Not me, though! I
definitely would pay a little more for this attention to detail. Filing the
welds make the frame tubes appear to "melt" into each other for a
beautiful unibody appearance (not to mention saving a few insignificant
grams). Cannondales are reminescent of sexy Kestrels, while other (and often
Taiwanese) frames with unfiled TIG-welds look more like uglier Murrays or
Huffys. I guess you can say that looks are very important to me,
unfortunately!
I guess you can also say that I am blabbering about nothing and thus should
keep my mouth shut more often....
-Felix
Felix KS Wong
|>
|> I've always thought it was a shame that these bikes didn't have more forgiving
|> geometry. I mean how many sub-three pound frames are there out on the market
|> for less than $1k. If they gave them a little longer wheelbase, they'd
|> cure the handling problems and the harshness problems, and have the hottest
|> road frame on the market. Just my opinion.
Yup, many people say the 3.0 frame was too unyielding (though I, ~145 lbs,
strongly disagree), but many critics claim that the newer 2.8 frame is
"comfortable, especially for oversized aluminum" (Steve Martin -- the short,
lightweight writer for Bicycling Mag -- said this about an R700 in early '92).
Supposedly the double-butted, and thus thin-wall, tubes made the 2.8 a lot more
resilient while maintaining the efficiency of a good ol' C'dale.
Oh, and I saw a 2.8 frame in a relatively expensive bicycle shop for only $395 a
few months ago! What a great deal for an efficient, comfortable, sub-2.8-pound
frame! (The ovalized, tapered, oversized tubes were awesome, too!) I love my
3.0, though....
-Felix
Brian A. Mellor
I bought a 3.0 as a training stablemate for my 2.8. I find both very comfortable,
including for long rides ~85 miles. The 2.8 does have the edge, but with 32 spoke
gl330s and Vittoria corsa CXs versus 36 spoke ma40s with 150psi conti gp, that is
to be expected. The ally rides rough surfaces beautifully, soaking most of the
high frequency stuff. The back end never drifts under sprinting, unlike my old
531 bike. Cornering is breathtakingly good, I haven't scared myself yet, let
alone broken away and I corner like a serious nutter.
I do weigh in at 140 lbs and ride a 53 cm so maybe things are different with
abnormal,six foot, vertically challenged riders.
That Indurain, far too tall to make it big.
Cheers
Solve all bike fit problems - be born average.
Brian
Andre T. Yew
>I bought a 3.0 as a training stablemate for my 2.8. I find both very comfortable,
>including for long rides ~85 miles. The 2.8 does have the edge, but with 32 spoke
>gl330s and Vittoria corsa CXs versus 36 spoke ma40s with 150psi conti gp, that is
>to be expected. The ally rides rough surfaces beautifully, soaking most of the
Ouch, that sounds really rough. I don't own a Cannondale -- I have
a Bridgestone RB-1. Listening to all the Bridgestone owners in .marketplace,
one would get the feeling that it's a magically comfortable bike (no
offense meant to them --- the general trend of comments tend to be
pretty effusive), but I disagree. I think the biggest difference between
any frame has got to be the wheels. On my first century, I decided to
pump up my tires (Ritcheys on 32-spoke, double-butted Vantage Comp
rims) to about 105-110 lbs from my normal 75 lb. pressure. The bike
was okay on smooth roads and such, but every bump and ripple was transmitted
painfully to my whole body. In other words, it felt like a really
stiff bike.
In retrospect, maybe I just have to get used to the bike with tires
at normal pressures. And I do still like the bike, but only because it
fits me well. I ride a 59cm frame, and weigh 135-140lbs at 6'1", so I
guess I'm one of those abnormal data points.
--Andre
--
PGP public key available
Shag
>I need an opinion on Cannondale Bicycles.
>The M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was bad decision.
>He prefers his Trek (930?).
>He claims that Cannondales have a weak track record.
>He said the "small company does not know how to build bikes!"
>He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a year.
*laugh* I think your friend's a little bigoted... I've been riding a C'dale
(albeit a street racer, an '88 SR-500) for about half a dozen years now, and
it hasn't died yet, or even come close. Large-gauge welded aluminum frames
are pretty sturdy, and last time I checked they were pretty good about fixing
them if anything ever did go wrong. I come from a trail-riding background
myself, and my _street_ C'dale is frequently subjected to bunny-hopping and
other such unseemly behaviour by its 190+ pound rider. As for them not
knowing how to build bikes, I'd say nothing could be further from the truth.
-Shag
--
Queensryche Net-Digest and FAQ Maintainer - queensryc...@pilot.njin.net
GEOS2.0 Termcap Sadist, PPI FaxModem PractiFAQ Maintainer, ShagNet Coordinator
She turned me into a Newton! A Newton? Well... I got better. [Monty Zoomer]
Very long-haired strange character in love with a dancer by the name of Maisha
Rich Stewart
>I bought a 3.0 as a training stablemate for my 2.8. I find both very comfortable,
>including for long rides ~85 miles. The 2.8 does have the edge, but with 32 spoke
>gl330s and Vittoria corsa CXs versus 36 spoke ma40s with 150psi conti gp, that is
>to be expected. The ally rides rough surfaces beautifully, soaking most of the
>high frequency stuff. The back end never drifts under sprinting, unlike my old
>531 bike. Cornering is breathtakingly good, I haven't scared myself yet, let
>alone broken away and I corner like a serious nutter.
>I do weigh in at 140 lbs and ride a 53 cm so maybe things are different with
>abnormal,six foot, vertically challenged riders.
>That Indurain, far too tall to make it big.
>
>Cheers
>
>Solve all bike fit problems - be born average.
>
>Brian
I second these opinions of the 2.8. I am 175lbs on a 56cm frame. At that weight
I find the bike comfortable and quick. I like climbing and the bike climbs
great. If you do want to scare yourself, tap the down tube with your
fingernail before you ride is. It kinda sounds like an empty Budwiser can.
-Rich
--
rste...@megatek.com
James W Gourgoutis
>a week ago. I bought was I was told was Cannondales bottom of the
>like bike. The M300 rides fairly nicely, but my friend claims it was
>bad decision. He prefers his Trek (930?). He claims that Cannondales
>have a weak track record. He said the "small company does not know how
>to build bikes!" He said that it would be a pile of scrap metal within a
>year. Oh well. I can still return it. What do you all think?
The M300 is C'dale's entry-level bike (god, you can tell I sell bikes!
I just said "entry-level", instead of bottom-of-the-barrel!)
It is a member of the 3.8 series frameset bikes. As far as I know,
the 3.8's are still hand-made like the 3.0's, but they are just a bit
cheaper than the 3.0's. No oversized headtube, no butted seattube,
no cantilever rear dropouts, no pepperoni fork. The tubes are not as thin
walled, or as oversize. But you still get a lightweight, handmade, aluminum
bike!
My biggest beef with the 3.8 series C'dales is the price. If memory
serves me correctly, the 300 goes for around $475-500. Yeah,
you might get a decent quality frame, but they skimp on components!
The 1993 bike came with Altus C10 parts on it! It's hard to sell
that bike when you have something like a Giant ATX 760 right next to
it for the same price, with EXAGE. And, the Giant has a pretty decent
frame for steel, too!
So basically, it's a tradeoff, as I see it...You can either spend the
money and get a handcrafted-aluminum frame with low-grade parts,
or you can get a mid-level steel frame with better parts. I think
that the C'dale is an excellent platform for upgrades, and when I sell
these bikes, that's what I tell customers. Sometimes, it makes for
a difficult situation!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ / | | / |--- /^\ |---\ | | / |--- /^\ | James Gourgoutis
\ / | |/ |___ \ |___/ | |/ |___ \ | Graduate School of
| | |\ | \ | \ | |\ | \ | Mechanical Engineering
| | | \ |___ \_/, |___/ | | \ |___ \_/ . University of Pittsburgh
[jwg...@pitt.edu] [jwg...@vms.cis.pitt.edu] Pittsburgh, PA
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jim Becker
i've got a 63cm 3.0, which is great. however i've been thinking about
building a commuter bike - starting with a 27" touring frame (if i can
get one!). i'm 6'9", so would like to stretch out as well.
anyone have experience comparing the 3.0 or 2.8 ride to the touring
ride? am i going to expend a lot more energy to go the same distance?
i'd have to expend a lot more money, so i'm wondering if it's worth
it!
-jim
--
-Jim Becker / j...@ncd.com / Network Computing Devices, Inc. (NCD)
Shag
>I second these opinions of the 2.8. I am 175lbs on a 56cm frame. At that weight
>I find the bike comfortable and quick. I like climbing and the bike climbs
>great. If you do want to scare yourself, tap the down tube with your
>fingernail before you ride is. It kinda sounds like an empty Budwiser can.
Hopefully you don't empty too many Budweiser cans before you try riding the
bike that sounds like one. ;)
-sh