Road Cycling - Got a new (old) Cannondale and wondering what it is.

I posted this in the Classic & Vintage forum but it doesn't seem to get much traffic. I hope me posting this here isn't too much of a bother. This Cannondale was recently given to me. Can anyone tell me what model it is or when it was manufactured? Thanks!

http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v66/awalkinthewind/bike.jpg

What is the serial number (its on the bb). IIRC, it is the month, year, and number. 0387235 would mean March 1987, number 235.

It looks like a run of the mill late 80's Aluminum C'dale. I picked up a "like new" one at a yard sale for $60.00 (yes, I'm bragging ;))

What do you think of the ride compared to new-aged bikes? I though it was smoother and more comfortable. Plus, mine only weighs 21 lbs.

What is the serial number (its on the bb). IIRC, it is the month, year, and number. 0387235 would mean March 1987, number 235.

It looks like a run of the mill late 80's Aluminum C'dale. I picked up a "like new" one at a yard sale for $60.00 (yes, I'm bragging ;))

What do you think of the ride compared to new-aged bikes? I though it was smoother and more comfortable. Plus, mine only weighs 21 lbs.

Brag all you want. I got mine for free. :p

It says BB0876... the rest if covered by a piece of plastic holding the gear cables in place. I guess this means it's from August of 76? Thank you.

Brag all you want. I got mine for free. :p

It says BB0876... the rest if covered by a piece of plastic holding the gear cables in place. I guess this means it's from August of 76? Thank you.

That does not seem correct. 76' might be a bit early for Alumminum. Let me look around for a few minutes and get back with some information that is more accurate.

Cannondale
Serial number code: first two digits are the size, next 6 are date of manufacture, remainder are unit number. For instance: SN#54021787121 indicates a 54 cm frame, built on February 17, 1987, #121.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/vrbn-a-f.html#atala

Hope this helps,

ehenz

you might be able to carfully unscrew the guide and see the rest of the numbers. I could on mine.

Cannondale
Serial number code: first two digits are the size, next 6 are date of manufacture, remainder are unit number. For instance: SN#54021787121 indicates a 54 cm frame, built on February 17, 1987, #121.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/vrbn-a-f.html#atala

Hope this helps,

ehenz

you might be able to carfully unscrew the guide and see the rest of the numbers. I could on mine.

Well I moved the guide and the full number is BB08767. That serial code from Sheldon Brown wouldn't work with my serial since it doesn't have as many digits. Hmm...

Looks like a touring frame... maybe their number scheme is different.

Nice bike.

I got a similar gift (an old R400) from a friend hwo gave up the "wedgie" bike for recumbents.

No one has asked or commented yet, so I am going to give it a go.

Why aren't you running a front brake? I would suggest that unless you have a great dental plan and life insurance you remedy that. If you are interested in running one brake I'd go with the front.

Nice looking bike though.

Looks like one of the early 90's touring bikes. Check out the trail on the front fork. This should be a comfortable ride.

The fork has braze-ons for panniers, so obviously a touring bike. Looks to be from the same era as my wife's 'dale, about 87-88.

Looks like one of the early 90's touring bikes. Check out the trail on the front fork. This should be a comfortable ride.

Looking at the shift levers on the bottom tube, I'd say late '80s early '90s sounds about right.

No front brake. OY!

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Well I wanted to remove one of the brakes. There were too many cables causing a clutter. I figured that it would be natural to have just a rear brake. Maybe this has to do with me being a lefty. Maybe it's just because I don't know any better. Why is it better to have a front brake than a rear?

when you decelerate, weight is transfered from the rear to the front... necesitating braking power in the front. the rear wont have enough traction for braking... the tire will just slip and [insert carnage scenario here]

To expand on what redfooj said, the majority of your braking power is with the front brakes. In fact, you can stop a bike about twice as fast with the front brakes alone as you can with the rears alone.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but you really need to have both brakes on there. The front is good the majority of the time, but the rear is helpful/necessary in slippery, bumpy or other low-traction environments, as well as if you have a front flat or a front brake failure.

The lack of wires is pretty smart looking, I must admit.

The lack of wires makes it look like a track bike