Road Cycling - Cannondale R800

I just purchased a 2003 Cannondale R800. It rode great on my test drive. I am now reading some posts of people having problems with the Parade wheels (needing constant truing); any input?

I've been riding an R800 with parade wheels for close to a year and at least 4000miles. The Gipiemme's are still perfectly smooth and true - and the roads around here are anything but smooth.

Great choice going with the Cannondale... you won't regret it!

Mike

Nice feature of Cannondale is that you can get their best frame with components that match your riding and/or budget. Optimo is a great ride.

I've been riding an R800 with parade wheels for close to a year and at least 4000miles. The Gipiemme's are still perfectly smooth and true - and the roads around here are anything but smooth.

Great choice going with the Cannondale... you won't regret it!

Mike

What are Gipiemme's? Have you had any problems with the R800? I just know nothing about it. It rode great on my test drive and it was such a good deal so I bought it. Thanks.

Nice feature of Cannondale is that you can get their best frame with components that match your riding and/or budget. Optimo is a great ride.

Did you ever ride a Cannondale (esp R800)? Is it the same frame as a higher end Cannondale? What is Optimo? Thanks.

lenny: Gipiemme is the brand of rim that comes with the R800. Some say these rims are the only detraction from the bike given that they are fairly heavy and some say have some maintenance issues. This is debatable I would imagine. The Optimo frame is Cannondale's latest frame and your 800 frame is the exact same as the frame on all models up to include the R3000. The R5000 is the same frame also with some minor differences like a proprietary bottom brackett and crank and perhaps (not sure) the steerer tube. So rest assured, you got a good frame for the money. You may (or may not) want to upgrade to some lighter rims at some point once you get the dosh. Have fun!

I think those rims are ugly. However, I have not heard of any real problems with them besides weight. maybe your bike shop will swap them out for something like 32 spoke open pros for the difference in price...

lenny: Gipiemme is the brand of rim that comes with the R800. Some say these rims are the only detraction from the bike given that they are fairly heavy and some say have some maintenance issues. This is debatable I would imagine. The Optimo frame is Cannondale's latest frame and your 800 frame is the exact same as the frame on all models up to include the R3000. The R5000 is the same frame also with some minor differences like a proprietary bottom brackett and crank and perhaps (not sure) the steerer tube. So rest assured, you got a good frame for the money. You may (or may not) want to upgrade to some lighter rims at some point once you get the dosh. Have fun!

I got the 2003 R800; is all you say the same for that year's model? Thanks.

Did you ever ride a Cannondale (esp R800)? Is it the same frame as a higher end Cannondale? What is Optimo? Thanks.

Optimo is the Reynolds trade name for the top aluminum frame made by Cannondale. The R800's frame is the same as the one in the R3000, R5000, and Saeco team bike, the top three bikes they make. They jsut take down the components for the R800 to give you a top frame for a more affordable price.
They don't call it CAAD7 anymore.

Now, when the Six/13 comes out, then that will all change.

Optimo is the Reynolds trade name for the top aluminum frame made by Cannondale. The R800's frame is the same as the one in the R3000, R5000, and Saeco team bike, the top three bikes they make. They jsut take down the components for the R800 to give you a top frame for a more affordable price.
They don't call it CAAD7 anymore.

Now, when the Six/13 comes out, then that will all change.

What about the 2003 R800, which is the one I bought.

What about the 2003 R800, which is the one I bought.

the '03 model had the CAAD5 frame.

2003 R800 specs (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR8D.html)

the '03 model had the CAAD5 frame.

2003 R800 specs (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR8D.html)

How does this compare to the Optimo. Also I only got a Tiagra front derailleur. Thanks.

How does this compare to the Optimo. Also I only got a Tiagra front derailleur. Thanks.

CAAD5 uses a product called 6061-T6 aluminum. Optimo is the name Reynolds gave the alloy in the Optimo (CAAD7) frame. It is about 15% lighter than the old 6 without a loss of strength, put simply. I am guessing the 7 is about 20% lighter than yours. But weight reduction is not always a good thing, as less weight also means it can take less abuse.

The CAAD5 was the first frame where Cannondale figured out how to reduce, by machining, 15% of the headtube for weight reduction. If you ever look at a 4 look how the head tube is a cylinder. The 5 has an expanded top and bottom...actually they machined the middle so it is not a cylinder.

The Optimo is a lighter more agile frame, and as a result, more expensive.

Cannondale only uses racing frames in their road bikes. The 4, 5 and 7 are all or were the best frames of their time. I have a CAAD4 I still ride that was a three thousand dollar bike back when the 4 was the Optimo of its day, three or so years ago. Cippolini won most of his Saeco TDF stages on 3's and 4's.
Now the CAAD4 is on the R400 and is a $750 bike.

If you want to see all the gory details, go to Cannondale's website and look up the year and then you can get to the frame. I think the 6 (which they tossed when the 7 came out) was where they figured out how to drop the bearing cups from the bottom bracket to save more weight.

I have an R3000 I got about a month ago...it's 15.5 pounds...

and this is way too much information....you have an outstanding frame. For the price, I think it is the best frame, in comparison to other's at the same price point. Nobody made a living on those. They were not nor are they cutting edge technology as the 5 was in the not too distant past. A couple of years ago, that frame was on a bike that cost twice as much as yours...for that price, that is unique.

can't help you with the front derailleur....check with the place where you bought it. I have not seen an '03 R800 in months, so I'd have to have looked it up if you'd asked for specs.

CAAD 5 info (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/caad5road.html)

Enjoy

CAAD5 uses a product called 6061-T6 aluminum. Optimo is the name Reynolds gave the alloy in the Optimo (CAAD7) frame. It is about 15% lighter than the old 6 without a loss of strength, put simply. I am guessing the 7 is about 20% lighter than yours. But weight reduction is not always a good thing, as less weight also means it can take less abuse.

The CAAD5 was the first frame where Cannondale figured out how to reduce, by machining, 15% of the headtube for weight reduction. If you ever look at a 4 look how the head tube is a cylinder. The 5 has an expanded top and bottom...actually they machined the middle so it is not a cylinder.

The Optimo is a lighter more agile frame, and as a result, more expensive.

Cannondale only uses racing frames in their road bikes. The 4, 5 and 7 are all or were the best frames of their time. I have a CAAD4 I still ride that was a three thousand dollar bike back when the 4 was the Optimo of its day, three or so years ago. Cippolini won most of his Saeco TDF stages on 3's and 4's.
Now the CAAD4 is on the R400 and is a $750 bike.

If you want to see all the gory details, go to Cannondale's website and look up the year and then you can get to the frame. I think the 6 (which they tossed when the 7 came out) was where they figured out how to drop the bearing cups from the bottom bracket to save more weight.

I have an R3000 I got about a month ago...it's 15.5 pounds...

and this is way too much information....you have an outstanding frame. For the price, I think it is the best frame, in comparison to other's at the same price point. Nobody made a living on those. They were not nor are they cutting edge technology as the 5 was in the not too distant past. A couple of years ago, that frame was on a bike that cost twice as much as yours...for that price, that is unique.

can't help you with the front derailleur....check with the place where you bought it. I have not seen an '03 R800 in months, so I'd have to have looked it up if you'd asked for specs.

CAAD 5 info (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/caad5road.html)

Enjoy

I appreciate the info. The specs on the Cannondale website say 105 front derailleur so that is what I expected.

I am a small guy so the Cannondale seems a little to stiff for me and seems to be taking more out of me than I would have expected from a great frame. I am going to try a 2004 Trek2200 this Saturday. I am hoping the carbon rear triangle and seat post will make it a smoother, easier ride. Also it has Ultegra and 105 components.

What do you think of the comparison between these 2 bikes, including frame, components and wheels? Thanks again.

I appreciate the info. The specs on the Cannondale website say 105 front derailleur so that is what I expected.

I am a small guy so the Cannondale seems a little to stiff for me and seems to be taking more out of me than I would have expected from a great frame. I am going to try a 2004 Trek2200 this Saturday. I am hoping the carbon rear triangle and seat post will make it a smoother, easier ride. Also it has Ultegra and 105 components.

What do you think of the comparison between these 2 bikes, including frame, components and wheels? Thanks again.

Components have zilch to do with ride comfort. In fact, I'd bet money if I switched out an Ultegra derailleur for a 105 and had you ride the bike, you'd never be able to tell the difference. On fronts, there is so little difference between them.
Ride-wise...the 2200 is a nice bike. But...the rear carbon stay has no give at all (take your hand and try to flex it). And it weighs twice what the stays on rear of the Cannondale weigh, and it is still married to a big aluminum lug to connect to the frame. And the Cannondale hourglass design of the stays are such that you get the stiffness with a bit of give (you can squeeze them a bit with your hand). The 2200 is actually a stiffer bike due to the additional carbon, IMO. But it's all about what you find most comfortable.
The Cannondale's are stiff as they are or were racing frames. They are supposed to be that way. Your weight is relative as you are riding a smaller bike.
Of the three 2000 series Trek's. I think the 2200 is the best deal...

Click on the carbon seatstay point of the back of the bike. (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/caad7/)

Like I said, what I like is not what someone else will like. Being in the business, I ride them all that we sell, but it's still only my opinion. Since I am used to a racing frame, I like frames stiff to not waste energy. But a stiff frame with a short wheel base is not what everyone likes.

Components have zilch to do with ride comfort. In fact, I'd bet money if I switched out an Ultegra derailleur for a 105 and had you ride the bike, you'd never be able to tell the difference. On fronts, there is so little difference between them.
Ride-wise...the 2200 is a nice bike. But...the rear carbon stay has no give at all (take your hand and try to flex it). And it weighs twice what the stays on rear of the Cannondale weigh, and it is still married to a big aluminum lug to connect to the frame. And the Cannondale hourglass design of the stays are such that you get the stiffness with a bit of give (you can squeeze them a bit with your hand). The 2200 is actually a stiffer bike due to the additional carbon, IMO. But it's all about what you find most comfortable.
The Cannondale's are stiff as they are or were racing frames. They are supposed to be that way. Your weight is relative as you are riding a smaller bike.
Of the three 2000 series Trek's. I think the 2200 is the best deal...

Click on the carbon seatstay point of the back of the bike. (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/caad7/)

Like I said, what I like is not what someone else will like. Being in the business, I ride them all that we sell, but it's still only my opinion. Since I am used to a racing frame, I like frames stiff to not waste energy. But a stiff frame with a short wheel base is not what everyone likes.

So your opinion is to stick with the 2003 R800 rather than the 2004 Trek2200?

I thought the carbon would absorb more of the road and put less fatigue on the rider. I would like a stiff bike to put more of my pedaling power into moving the bike forward. The Cannondale seems heavier as I ride now then I would have expected. It seems I am doing way to much work to make it move. Maybe it is the wheels/tires.

I rode a full carbon Trek in the 5000 series as well as the new Lemond Bueneos Aries and they seemed to allow me to put more energy into moving the bike forward. That is why I thought a partial carbon/aluminum bike might be good for me. I loved my Trek1000 and think it was actually easier to move forward than the Cannondale (without clipless pedals). I know that may sound weird but as you say it is all about personal fit.

I can always upgrade the Cannondale components so I am not worried about the 105/Tiagra combination on the R800. I just want a bike that I can keep for 8-10 years and be happy with. I do not want to sell myself short and am not sure the Cannondale is the right bike.

Do you have any other suggestions, perhaps even another brand that might be suitable for smaller riders?

Thanks so much for all your help.

Speaking of components, my wife and i just bought a R600 each with CAAD5 frame. The lbs had my wifes bike on the floor but had to order mine from Cannondale. Took two weeks and much to my surprise, and the lbs as well, Cannondale shipped the bike with Dura-Ace rear dur. From what I hear, Shimano is behind on 105 and ultegra componets so I can only assume that to not endanger a sale, Canondale or Shimano just used Dura-Ace. Very happy with that.

As far as Cannondale, in our price range of $1000.00, the CAAD5 frame on the R600 is the only race proven frame of any bike I looked at. Including Trek, Orbea, Specialized, Fuji. I love the frame, very fast and stable, however, I haven't really put any miles on it yet, this weekend will be the test, I'm sure it will be fine though.

Speaking of components, my wife and i just bought a R600 each with CAAD5 frame. The lbs had my wifes bike on the floor but had to order mine from Cannondale. Took two weeks and much to my surprise, and the lbs as well, Cannondale shipped the bike with Dura-Ace rear dur. From what I hear, Shimano is behind on 105 and ultegra componets so I can only assume that to not endanger a sale, Canondale or Shimano just used Dura-Ace. Very happy with that.

As far as Cannondale, in our price range of $1000.00, the CAAD5 frame on the R600 is the only race proven frame of any bike I looked at. Including Trek, Orbea, Specialized, Fuji. I love the frame, very fast and stable, however, I haven't really put any miles on it yet, this weekend will be the test, I'm sure it will be fine though.

I have the CAAD5 frame (2003 R800) and it is stiff. It seems hard for me to put my energy into moving the bike forward. What size are you and your wife (if you want to tell me) since I am 5'6" 140 pounds and think I am working too hard to move the bike? What about the tires/wheels; how do you like them?

[QUOTE=lennyparis]So your opinion is to stick with the 2003 R800 rather than the 2004 Trek2200?

I was sold on a 2200/2300 until I rode the R1000(or R800 for that matter). Yes, the 2300 is better on paper with the carbon stays, seatpost and full ultegra, but when you RIDE The bike, there is.. to me.. a noticable difference. I can't say that the 2300 was noticably smoother, but I can tell you that the C'dale was a noticably a better performer, at least for my size/riding style.

With the 2300, I could wait until the end of year markdowns, if not until next year, with the R1000, I felt that I NEEDED this bike NOW. The C'dale put a smile on my face, the Trek didn't. But everyone has a preference. To be honest, the only reason the Trek was still in the running after riding the C'dale was that I felt the 2200/2300 might be more durable.

[QUOTE=lennyparis]So your opinion is to stick with the 2003 R800 rather than the 2004 Trek2200?

I was sold on a 2200/2300 until I rode the R1000(or R800 for that matter). Yes, the 2300 is better on paper with the carbon stays, seatpost and full ultegra, but when you RIDE The bike, there is.. to me.. a noticable difference. I can't say that the 2300 was noticably smoother, but I can tell you that the C'dale was a noticably a better performer, at least for my size/riding style.

With the 2300, I could wait until the end of year markdowns, if not until next year, with the R1000, I felt that I NEEDED this bike NOW. The C'dale put a smile on my face, the Trek didn't. But everyone has a preference. To be honest, the only reason the Trek was still in the running after riding the C'dale was that I felt the 2200/2300 might be more durable.

What is your size/riding style? I am 5'6" 140 pounds and thought I had to work to hard on the Cannondale (2003 R800). I have yet to ride the Trek2200 but loved my Trek1000. Did you get the year 2003 version (i.e CAAD5 frame)? What did you like/dislike about each bike and why would Cannondale be better performer while Trek would be smoother? Why would the Trek hold up better? Thanks.

So your opinion is to stick with the 2003 R800 rather than the 2004 Trek2200?

I thought the carbon would absorb more of the road and put less fatigue on the rider. I would like a stiff bike to put more of my pedaling power into moving the bike forward. The Cannondale seems heavier as I ride now then I would have expected. It seems I am doing way to much work to make it move. Maybe it is the wheels/tires.

I rode a full carbon Trek in the 5000 series as well as the new Lemond Bueneos Aries and they seemed to allow me to put more energy into moving the bike forward. That is why I thought a partial carbon/aluminum bike might be good for me. I loved my Trek1000 and think it was actually easier to move forward than the Cannondale (without clipless pedals). I know that may sound weird but as you say it is all about personal fit.

I can always upgrade the Cannondale components so I am not worried about the 105/Tiagra combination on the R800. I just want a bike that I can keep for 8-10 years and be happy with. I do not want to sell myself short and am not sure the Cannondale is the right bike.

Do you have any other suggestions, perhaps even another brand that might be suitable for smaller riders?

Thanks so much for all your help.

Most pros are small riders. They ride stiff racing frames and can ride them at 25+ MPH without much problem. The best climbers are like jockeys. Very small and light.

You say, heavier than expected...I'm lost...didn't you ride the bike before buying it? What did you "expect"? Also, if you want it lighter, plow a couple thousand additional into the bike and you've got a steed that won two Giro stages for Cippolini. Example, my CAAD 4 ultegra equipped cannondale with Open Pro wheels is 3 pounds heavier than my Dura Ace equipped Optimo with Ksyrium SSC SL wheels. You get what you pay for.

I ride what I ride because I've been fortunate to ride top equipment all along. It feels much much different than average to mid-range stuff. The 2300 is not a racing frame. The OCLV 120 and 110 frames are. The 2300 and 2200 are nice frames, but they are not high performance frames. But heavier equipment is more durable. If you go for lighter wheels you get less durability.

Go for what you like...don't ride what I or someone else likes unless you get it for free.

Hope that helps.

Most pros are small riders. They ride stiff racing frames and can ride them at 25+ MPH without much problem. The best climbers are like jockeys. Very small and light.

You say, heavier than expected...I'm lost...didn't you ride the bike before buying it? What did you "expect"? Also, if you want it lighter, plow a couple thousand additional into the bike and you've got a steed that won two Giro stages for Cippolini. Example, my CAAD 4 ultegra equipped cannondale with Open Pro wheels is 3 pounds heavier than my Dura Ace equipped Optimo with Ksyrium SSC SL wheels. You get what you pay for.

I ride what I ride because I've been fortunate to ride top equipment all along. It feels much much different than average to mid-range stuff. The 2300 is not a racing frame. The OCLV 120 and 110 frames are. The 2300 and 2200 are nice frames, but they are not high performance frames. But heavier equipment is more durable. If you go for lighter wheels you get less durability.

Go for what you like...don't ride what I or someone else likes unless you get it for free.

Hope that helps.

What do suggest for better wheels since I think this might be the problem I am having? Thanks.

A buddy who is used to riding a Lemond Zurich rode my R1000 recently and said he noted a big different in transfer of power.. and the weight of the bike/transfer made an even bigger impact on hills.. of course, he's at about 205.

This is also what I noticed between the r1000 and the other bikes that I tested in this price range. I mention this, as it's the opposite of what we had noticed. I would expect that being stiff, that the R800 would our perform the trek 2200/2300. I would think that the R800 would appear MORE stiff under a lighter rider.

Here's a thought.. could it be an adjustment of going from a triple to a double and dropping from a 42 to a 39?

Have you timed yourself? It may seem like you're working harder, but you may be travelling fast. I know that I saw an immediate improvement of 1mph onto my average. Have you compared your times on known rides?

My personal opinion? You're over analyzing things! Enjoy your bike! Talk about buyers remorse!
The Cannondale is probably the higher performance frame... but the Trek is probably more durable. Both bikes, taken care of, will last you a long time. If you test rode the R800 and liked it enough that it inspired a purchase.. I'd probably keep it.
If you REALLY like the trek 1000 better, I wouldn't buy ANY bike right now. Save the money until you can get that 5200 you want.

Most pros are small riders. They ride stiff racing frames and can ride them at 25+ MPH without much problem. The best climbers are like jockeys. Very small and light.

You say, heavier than expected...I'm lost...didn't you ride the bike before buying it? What did you "expect"? Also, if you want it lighter, plow a couple thousand additional into the bike and you've got a steed that won two Giro stages for Cippolini. Example, my CAAD 4 ultegra equipped cannondale with Open Pro wheels is 3 pounds heavier than my Dura Ace equipped Optimo with Ksyrium SSC SL wheels. You get what you pay for.

I ride what I ride because I've been fortunate to ride top equipment all along. It feels much much different than average to mid-range stuff. The 2300 is not a racing frame. The OCLV 120 and 110 frames are. The 2300 and 2200 are nice frames, but they are not high performance frames. But heavier equipment is more durable. If you go for lighter wheels you get less durability.

Go for what you like...don't ride what I or someone else likes unless you get it for free.

Hope that helps.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Cippolini ride Specialized bikes???

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Cippolini ride Specialized bikes???
He does now. He used to ride for Saeco-Cannondale.

A buddy who is used to riding a Lemond Zurich rode my R1000 recently and said he noted a big different in transfer of power.. and the weight of the bike/transfer made an even bigger impact on hills.. of course, he's at about 205.

This is also what I noticed between the r1000 and the other bikes that I tested in this price range. I mention this, as it's the opposite of what we had noticed. I would expect that being stiff, that the R800 would our perform the trek 2200/2300. I would think that the R800 would appear MORE stiff under a lighter rider.

Here's a thought.. could it be an adjustment of going from a triple to a double and dropping from a 42 to a 39?

Have you timed yourself? It may seem like you're working harder, but you may be travelling fast. I know that I saw an immediate improvement of 1mph onto my average. Have you compared your times on known rides?

My personal opinion? You're over analyzing things! Enjoy your bike! Talk about buyers remorse!
The Cannondale is probably the higher performance frame... but the Trek is probably more durable. Both bikes, taken care of, will last you a long time. If you test rode the R800 and liked it enough that it inspired a purchase.. I'd probably keep it.
If you REALLY like the trek 1000 better, I wouldn't buy ANY bike right now. Save the money until you can get that 5200 you want.

My MPH are down from last year and I seem to be working harder. I can't believe this given I was driving a Trek1000 with sneakers last year. Maybe I need better wheels; any suggestions? I was even thinking about the 2004 R1000 (better, lighter frame, better wheels & components). I am only stuck on the Trek because I had success with the 1000 and if I liked an entry level Trek why not the mid level ones. I went into the LBS stuck on the 2200 on can't get that out of my mind without even comparing it to what I bought. I was also told by the LBS that the 2003 and 2004 were the same frame and they are not.

This thread is most interesting to me... I am 6'4", 225 pounds. I am looking at Trek 2300 and Cannondale R1000. I really like all that I've read and seen about the Cannondale but I'm concerned about the durability of the thin/light frame. How many miles on New England roads should I be able to get out of this frame? I probably ride less than 3000 miles a year. I ride 3 to 5 times a week - 25 mile loop typically. I'm not a racer. I ride to stay fit.

Having said that, I am very much into performance. I measure my times/average speed all the time and continually strive to increase avg MPH. I'm moving from a Trek 520 touring bike (heavy cadillac type bike) and hoping to have a performance boost on the R1000.

BUT, I'm not willing to throw away this frame after 2 or 3 years. Can I get 5 to 10 years on this frame given my riding habits?

Thanks,
Tom

So your opinion is to stick with the 2003 R800 rather than the 2004 Trek2200?

I thought the carbon would absorb more of the road and put less fatigue on the rider. I would like a stiff bike to put more of my pedaling power into moving the bike forward. The Cannondale seems heavier as I ride now then I would have expected. It seems I am doing way to much work to make it move. Maybe it is the wheels/tires.

I rode a full carbon Trek in the 5000 series as well as the new Lemond Bueneos Aries and they seemed to allow me to put more energy into moving the bike forward. That is why I thought a partial carbon/aluminum bike might be good for me. I loved my Trek1000 and think it was actually easier to move forward than the Cannondale (without clipless pedals). I know that may sound weird but as you say it is all about personal fit.

I can always upgrade the Cannondale components so I am not worried about the 105/Tiagra combination on the R800. I just want a bike that I can keep for 8-10 years and be happy with. I do not want to sell myself short and am not sure the Cannondale is the right bike.

Do you have any other suggestions, perhaps even another brand that might be suitable for smaller riders?

Thanks so much for all your help.


You know, if you liked your Trek so much, and you liked the 5000 and the Lemond, maybe you should be considering a Trek (or a Lemond, built by Trek). Just a thought.

You know, if you liked your Trek so much, and you liked the 5000 and the Lemond, maybe you should be considering a Trek (or a Lemond, built by Trek). Just a thought.

I got the Trek2200 and even though it is not a race frame it is better suited to me. The only negative I see so far is the handlebars are a little narrower than the Cannondale so my breathing might be a bit compromised on the Trek.

I've just bought a Cannondale R800 double (2004) for only £999 - and such a fast smoooooth ride... looks damn fine too. Got it at Southwater cycles near Horsham very happy. :D

This thread is most interesting to me... I am 6'4", 225 pounds. I am looking at Trek 2300 and Cannondale R1000. I really like all that I've read and seen about the Cannondale but I'm concerned about the durability of the thin/light frame. How many miles on New England roads should I be able to get out of this frame? I probably ride less than 3000 miles a year. I ride 3 to 5 times a week - 25 mile loop typically. I'm not a racer. I ride to stay fit.


In all likelyhood, you'll get sick of riding before the frame gives out. If at all possible, avoid super light wheels. Get something with 32 spokes on the rear.

This thread is most interesting to me... I am 6'4", 225 pounds. I am looking at Trek 2300 and Cannondale R1000. I really like all that I've read and seen about the Cannondale but I'm concerned about the durability of the thin/light frame. How many miles on New England roads should I be able to get out of this frame? I probably ride less than 3000 miles a year. I ride 3 to 5 times a week - 25 mile loop typically. I'm not a racer. I ride to stay fit.

Having said that, I am very much into performance. I measure my times/average speed all the time and continually strive to increase avg MPH. I'm moving from a Trek 520 touring bike (heavy cadillac type bike) and hoping to have a performance boost on the R1000.

BUT, I'm not willing to throw away this frame after 2 or 3 years. Can I get 5 to 10 years on this frame given my riding habits?

Thanks,
Tom

Your use as outlined above is not even close to the use contemplated for racing applications. Their concern is having riders coming back who put 75+ speed miles a day on the frame after 3-4 years crying warranty.
You are a recreational rider....I sell them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Cippolini ride Specialized bikes???

Not when he rode for Saeco.

Cipo (http://www.cannondale.com/passion/timeline/1998_saecoad2.html)