mtnbke

My favorite part from the Cannondale/Klein discovery process of that litigation was learning that Gary Klein had ripped off another student in their working group. Gary Klein's aluminum bikes used small aluminum tubing, it was another student that testified that broke open the case, that it was HIS bikes that had used oversize tubing. Regardless, Cannondale was able to prove "prior art" (aluminum bikes go back to the 1800s) and that they were motivated from experimenting with aluminum masts from sailing. To say Cannondale ripped off Gary Klein isn't fair to the young engineer that Gary Klein himself ripped off from that working group. Gary Klein wasn't the innovator at the beginning that he was later, he was just "in the room" with bright innovative minds and ran with it. He recognized the other students design and borrowed it. There is an absolutely scathing post out there from the actual other engineering student that eviscerates Gary Klein and details what work of this other MIT student was copied. The guy was pissed when he wrote it. He also discusses his testimony in the Cannondale Klein litigation.

mtnbke

Nope. A BOBish bike is a heavy boat anchor steel bike with lugged tubes that look absolutely gorgeous with Joe Bell paint. However, look at any catalog of Cannondale ST bikes from '83 through the early 90's and you'll see bikes that defined what being BOBish was. Grant was looking at what Cannondale was selling before he started at Bridgestone.

Starting in 1983 on Cannondale:
1" quill stems
relaxed touring geometry
fitment for wide tires & fenders
mounts for racks and capable of loaded touring
sensible & smart components
touring/randonneuring gearing
required Brooks saddle w/matching accessories
Nitto handlebars
Nitto stem
high-zoot "peak component" spec from lost era of fit & finish

Look at the 1986 ST800. There was never a more BOBish bike. Its a Grant wet dream aside from being aluminum.

My favorite moment of the week this thread:
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...teel-bike.html

There are two kinds of Riv and Surly LHT people. Those who have admitted the cult and hype are hyperbole and have sold the bikes and have moved on, and those too stubborn and intellectually dishonest to do so. When they do there is room on the Canonnondale ST bandwagon, if they don't mind riding a bike that can sprint like a race bike, climb like a race bike, and be raced in a pinch, but is actually a relaxed geometry touring bike intended for loaded touring. If they insist on only riding slow, dead, unresponsive steel they'd HATE the Cannondale ST. It's a rocket bike, just stronger, faster, stiffer and more fun than anything they've ever ridden.

So in that sense it isn't BOBish because you actually enjoy riding it, not just posting Instagram pictures of it to the other members of the cult.

fender1

This is, an awesome thread. What does as St frame/fork weigh vs. a 531 Reynolds frame and fork of the same size? About half as much? So if a 531, frame and fork weighed 8lbs an ST frame and fork weigh about 4lbs?

Ronno6

Good question.
Methinks half would be stretching it a bit.
The Cannondale fork, at best, is Tange Chrome Moly.
So, the diff would be in the frame alone.
Dunno

fender1

Right. So if the difference was 2lbs, (cannondLe being lighter) once you add all of the stuff needed to actually ride a bike, plus water bottles, tack and I the case of the OP and additional 400lbs, that 2lb difference amounts to......not much. Stiffer for the big fella' maybe but all of this boat anchor/ rocket ship talk is preposterous. At 400lbs your are only a rocket ship going down a steep hill, no matter what bike your on. You should be more concerned with brakes rather than frame material........

Ronno6

You make some cross comparisons in your summary.
The statement of the Cannondale ST being a "rocket ship" would not pertain to loaded touring.
I wouldn't consider any loaded touring rig in those terms.
The term is more apropos in the context of every day riding or training, especially on the hills where the frame's efficiency would become apparent.
As for loaded touring, I have experience that directly attests to the Cannondale's desirability for the endeavour.
I own a 67cm custom built touring bike that is made, so I was told, from a tandem tubeset.
I have toured on it, as well as my 27" Cannondale T1000.
With similar loads, identical tires,and the same engine (me) the 'Dale was a considerably superior steed.
Not near as flexy, while still affording me a comfortable ride.
The Cannondale IS my touring bike of choice.
YMMV

As for training, I have a 27" '98 ST400 set up with 23c tires and 2 x 10 gearing.
I train on it early in the season til my upper body gets toned enough to support my weight.
I have been laughed at on organized training rides for the "big,old giant bike."
That laughter would not often last for long........

mtnbke

Ronno when I meant rocket bike, I meant stripped of racks/fenders, and treated as a racing bike in a pinch. The STs are very capable of being fast club ride bikes, capable of keeping up with anything if you have the right components/wheels dripping off them. They really are fantastic and versatile frame/forks. I didn't mean being a rocket bike loaded with racks/panniers and gear.

The funny thing about bike touring though is that most people that having gone unsupported touring on steel bikes hated it. They think its the touring. Kind of like people who think they need an internal frame backpack for "real backpacking," while every child carrier in the world is essentially an external frame. Only the Kelty isn't cool.

mtnbke

If you can't comprehend how frame material, and with specificity, how a bike paradigm is changed from steel to aluminum, you're stuck in an era of irrelevant frames. There is really not a better tandem, racing bike, touring bike, mountain bike, pretty much any bike that is made from steel rather than a high-end US aluminum version (Klein, Cannondale, Yeti, etc.). To think otherwise is absurd. The aluminum frames are stronger than the steel ones can be built because the steel bikes are so heavy. They have upward bounds on frame material otherwise you end up with a Schwinn. The aluminum bikes are stiffer and more efficient, and climb, accelerate, and sprint just better. A vintage Cannondale ST touring bike is actually a better/faster race bike than any vintage steel race bike even with the non-racing loaded touring geometry. In fact, it isn't even close. Its kind of like the Dodge Viper. That 10 cylinder engine came from the pickup truck line. With a different cam & intake and building a purpose built car around it you end up with the Dodge Viper, a car that would embarrass most sports cars on the road. However, it started as a pickup truck engine.

Me thinks you own some steel bikes, and really don't know what you're talking about. If you've never ridden an aluminum Cannondale or Klein, or modern carbon fiber road bike go on thinking that frame material doesn't matter and steel and hi-end aluminum are not significant variables. There is a reason that when aluminum went mainstream a steel bike NEVER won the Tour again. The riders didn't change, the paradigm did.

There is nothing wrong with vintage steel. If I could get them in my size, I'd love to ride a vintage Olmo with pantagraphed Campagnolo Gran Sport. I had one, in 60cm or about 9-10 sizes too small for me. I bought it because I loved the components and the history of the brand. That I couldn't actually ride it didn't matter. If I could fit, I'd have a stable filled with Craigslist finds like old steel Colnagos, Cinellis, and even a Lemond Maillot Jaune like form the SI cover (three color fade). I love those bikes, but I don't think they are "better" than frame materials that transcended the potential and appropriateness of steel as bicycle frame material. I don't live in some fantasyland where I pretend that a Ferrari or Lamborghini from the 70s could keep up with just about any high end European business coupe today. However, they are still epic and iconic cars. The fact that a Subaru STI would embarrass both doesn't come into it. I don't like Subarus and I do like late 70s and early 80s "poster cars." However, in cycling there still persists this myth amongst aging cyclists that their steel steeds are "just as good" as what has passed by steel as a frame material. A Cannondale ST bike is not by any means the standard of what to make a bike out of today.

However, compared to ANY vintage steel bike racing bike, yes that Cannondale designed for loaded touring is a veritable rocket bike by comparison. It will out climb, outsprint, and in general be a faster bike than a steel Olmo, Cinelli, Guericotti, Colnago, or Masi. Does that make it "better?" No! Its like the Subaru point. Only if you like Subarus. However, the point is that these bikes were and are incredibly comfortable. Cannondale had a brilliant and visionary "country bike" perspective that Rivendell then grabbed the coattails of and borrowed.

Its just interesting to me how many people are emotionally vested in a frame material that just builds bad bikes. Steel does not build efficient, light, fast, stiff bikes. There is always a better frame material to make a bike out of than steel. There is a reason that essentially no intelligent high end bicycle brand builds bikes out of steel for ANY market niche be it cross country racing, downhill, touring, tandems, and race bikes and time trial bikes. Steel is essentially a price point for tandems as rule. Steel is low end other than the marketing claims of Rivendell, and the cult of Surly, Soma, Velo Orange and the like. Steel is something that someone with little technical skill can learn to braze a lugged bike. In fact anyone with NO skill can learn to braze their own bike in a weekend. Given the right tube set no cyclist could ever tell the difference between a bike they brazed themselves and one that was built by a legendary builder, if it was done correctly and the frame was straight.

There are companies out there that are trying to educate people that there is nothing good or even better about a lugged steel bike, other than the gorgeous aesthetics:
https://www.missionbicycle.com/blog/welding_vs_brazing

There are others that have moved along into the future. Cycling technology is stupid in a lot places. Things on a bike have gotten heavier and more complicated in order to sell bikes with a perceived paradigm shift. 8 to 9 to 10 to 11 makes no sense. Disc brakes on a road bike or tandem that will be ridden in Colorado or on other steep descents make no sense. Plasticky crappy components made in China aren't better. Thirty five pound front and rear suspension mountain bikes aren't "better" than a 16.5lb Klein with 7 speed thumb shifters and a first generation suspension fork, in a Norba race, all other things being equal. Much of what we think of as better is a function of the marketing and the perception of what wins in a race. However, the pro peloton has always been full of kit that the riders would prefer to not race on given the choice. However, the sponsors are footing the bill.

Now, the paradigm shift to aluminum was real. It isn't just marketing and hype. There is a reason that steel bikes are not relevant in ANY sense in just about any competitive cycling discipline. In fact a lot of reasons: Heavier, less efficient, frames are less strong, are not as stiff. However, there are good reasons why small boutique bike builders work with steel: It doesn't require the expertise or learning curve that say welding aluminum or titanium requires, or say laying up epoxy on carbon. Also, most importantly it represents the cheapest entry cost into manufacturing. Any fool can build steel bikes for essentially bargain basement entry. Not so with manufacturing aluminum and titanium. The welding learning curve is extreme to weld aluminum and titanium, and any competent aluminum or titanium welder recognizes their time is worth a lot of money. Not so with the master craftsman of the steel bikes. They don't have value to industry in the same manner.

No one is saying you can't love your steel bike, just don't pretend your pickup truck is a Ferrari.

Darth Lefty 

Also absent from my 96 XR800 and the only other similar example I've seen, even though the catalogue shows it, and seems commonly lacking. I can only conclude they weren't really careful about this stuff...

degan

So basically your saying that yes, cannondale ripped off Klein but its okay because Klein ripped off someone else?

Road Fan

Re: Grant I just think there are better ways to spend that much money on a bike! -- Boulder, Ocean Air, Mitch Prior, Sacha White, Ellis Cycles, just for a few examples!

fender1

I love you .

JohnDThompson 

No, I think he's saying that since there was prior art demonstrated, neither Klein nor Cannondale can have an exclusive claim on using oversize aluminum tubes for bicycle frames.

In a related point, when we were developing the original Trek bonded aluminum frame, we were quite careful to pick tube diameters that provided physical properties similar to those of steel frames to avoid infringing on Klein's claims that his use of oversize tubing was to increase stiffness (this was years before Trek bought out Klein). We even had Klein come to the factory to test ride our prototype. We all went for a lovely ride in the Waterloo countryside swapping bikes every few miles. As I recall, Klein brought his personal bike, we had a prototype bonded aluminum frame bike, a couple steel bikes (970 and 770), a Vitus, and a Sakae Ringyo bonded aluminum bike. Klein seemed satisfied that our frame didn't infringe on his patents, and even conceded that the benefit of the oversize tubing was to provide larger weld area as much as to increase stiffness.

pastorbobnlnh 

Real life. Real experience. Real world. Real truth. Thanks!

Where does the Raleigh Technium 440 fit into this matrix with its bonded tubes (31.8mm IIRC) and steel stays? I ask because I'm working on one (a 19" small frame) that I'm building for my grand nephew to ride when he visits next month.

kaliayev

Hold your nose, the BS is coming down hard!

Ecrevisse

BS. If it ain't steel lugged it ain't BOBish.

investmentbiker

Well spotted. Yes it is a TA Spécialités Cyclotouriste 180mm 52-42-32 and it's a crank that I've used since about 1995. The remarkable thing is that the chainrings show almost no wear after many thousands of km. Crank is plenty stiff for me as is the frame (6'8" / 250 lbs).

Ronno6

I submitted an inquiry to Cannondale on the subject, not really anticipating any reply beyond "sorry."
Though I did make contact, what I received was basically "sorry" (but, VERY politely.)

So, we are left to draw our conclusions as to the evolution of the ST frames into T frames.
Seems to me that I have seen the 27" size listed on geometry charts thru 1999.
It did not appear in 2000.
I wish I know if there were any 27" frames manufactured after 1993...............

Mine is at least a 1993 due to the collar seat post clamp that was introduced in that year.

tricky 

Lots of mention about crank? Hmm, meth might explain it. Really, though. I am not picking up what you are putting down. I'm not the sharpest tool on the shed...

mtnbke

No. Cannondale was able to prove that what attracted them to exploring aluminum frames was a process disconnected from Klein. Remember, aluminum bicycles were around since the late 1800s, the litigation was about a patent violation, Klein had no claim that they invented the aluminum bicycle, just that they had patented oversize aluminum bicycle frames. Klein's history is sketchy but I've never seen anyone claim that Klein beat Cannondale to the market in 1983. In fact the first "production" Klein's I've ever heard of were also referred to as 1983 bikes.

So how one company can be accused of copying another company that doesn't actually bring their "innovative" product to the market first is beyond me. However, that's patent law. It doesn't really matter who was first with the development or the innovation, but rather who was first to file with the patent. In this case Gary Klein did have a patent for large diameter aluminum tubing for the bicycle frame. However, it turns out that it was another student in the Independent Activities Period developed the oversized aluminum tubing approach, not Gary Klein. That student was very hostile to Gary Klein in the depositions and later on bike listserv boards. Essentially he communicated that Gary Klein's bikes all had small aluminum tubes and it was his bikes that innovated the large aluminum tube approach. When I say hostile, I mean downright hostile in trying to correct the narrative, for what he considered his innovations.

Cannondale's narrative included their research and development of using aluminum in their backpack frames, and that they had been experimenting with aluminum masts in sailing, something Joe Montgomery was passionate about. Their approach to aluminum frames was through the innovations in their business and their manufacturing and commercial development of aluminum materials. Their design for the oversized aluminum tubes emerged from trying to engineer materials to make a better bicycle frame than the existent steel. They discovered what the case would prove that many others discovered independently, oversize aluminum makes an aluminum bike accelerate so differently compared to older frame materials.

Check this out from when Klein was bringing their bikes to the market, its interesting to see what the Bicycle Guide writers were saying about their experiences riding an aluminum road bike for the first time:

MOMBAT: Klein Bicycles History

Anyway, Cannondale proved in a court of law that they didn't violate the Klein patent. The crazy thing that emerged from the contentious litigation was the drama and tone from the other student from that IAP class, the one that had pioneered the large tubing (Gary then patented the other student's idea). It was all very messy and did a lot of damage to the claims of priority in terms of who innovated what. What emerged is that Gary Klein IAP bikes used small diameter tubes, and another student innovated the larger tube approach. William Shook of American Classic, it turns out did openly create an oversize aluminum tubed frame and actually raced on it long before Klein bicycles was a thing. Also Roger Durham of Bullseye was credited with having developed an non-heat treated oversized aluminum frame. Regardless, Cannondale proved they the "prior art" issue that their bicycle was based on. Everyone ended up paying their own legal fees, as part of the ruling, but in the end, Klein lost, and Cannondale was vindicated.

Kind of like the Bebop vs. Speedplay lawsuit, only in that one Bebop "won" in that they were vindicated, but Speedplay had been successful in forcing all the vendors and distributors from carrying the Bebop pedal. The insane thing about that one is that all those same vendors NEVER returned to the carry the Bebop pedal again, even though Speedplay lost the suit.

pastorbobnlnh 

"Bending time and space..." = exceeding the speed of light

"worm hole..." = a theoretical way to bend time and space

"AI..." or Artificial or Alien Intelligence... = has to bend time and space by traveling through a worm hole in outer space in order to reach Earth in a reasonable time

All of the above is a theoretical explanation for the purpose of this thread and the conversation it has generated.

Although "crank" and "meth" are a more likely explanation. After all worm holes are just a theory.

And I just added a picture of my Headshok equipped Cannondale SR500 road bike to to see if there was any possible way to introduce divergence into the conversation. So far, it hasn't worked!

mtnbke

There are two fork designs that were vastly superior to the Stanchions and sliding lowers that kind of have always dominated the market. Most people don't remember the AMP fork but it was a brilliant mountain bike XC race fork, and the Cannondale Headshok never had the market traction because Cannondale wouldn't release the design to the general market. The interesting thing though is back when a Merlin titanium bike was essentially the best bike you could get, Cannondale actually worked with Merlin and allowed them to license the Headshok. There are bunch of Merlin frames out there now with what technically is a better spec of fork design on them. The sad reality is that the Headshok was plagued by some production issues and a lot of units failed or leaked. However, with the sliding needle bearings and rigid lowers it really was/is a superior fork design.

I've never ridden a Headshok road bike. I always kind of wanted to understand what I'd want it for. I don't ever remember being on a road bike and thinking this is too bumpy, I need suspension. On a road bike, even when using my Cannondale STs as gravel grinders, I don't think I'd want the additional weight. My favorite thing about the big 69cm Cannondales is how light they are.

Now I'd LOVE to have a 24" Cannondale 29er frame with a functioning Headshok that didn't have any issues. I'll buy that in a second. Better yet, make that a 36er!

pastorbobnlnh 

I'm guessing that the roads in Boulder County, CO are significantly smoother then roads here in in the mountains of NH. Frost heaves wreck our old roads which all started as horse and wagon paths in the early 1700s. Cracks, lumps, drop offs, pot holes, blow outs, you name it, we have it in spades!



The extra weight adds about 1.5 lbs. Not much additional weight for the improvement in ride over these rough roads.

mtnbke

1.5 pounds of frame weight is enough to completely change the characteristics of a bike. That's an incredible amount of frame weight. If those roads are as bad as you are representing that might be a good candidate for one of those weird titanium bikes with the rear road suspension but no linkage. They would give you, from memory, like an inch or so of rear travel just from the flexibility of the titanium. Might be the perfect place for one if your roads are that bad. I couldn't find a link but I remember seeing one like the Moots Mooto-X YBB but on a road bike.

Also check out this weird conversion of a ti Serotta with tunable rear suspension "leafs":
Serotta Hors Categorie Titanium Road Bike Retrofit by TiCycles

pastorbobnlnh 

You are talking $$$$ I'd rather not spend.

I actually spotted on CL a number of years ago an older Litespeed road bike (made by the original Lynskey family) which was equipped with a Headshok and had the flexible rear chain stays with a small shock between the seat stays and the seat tube. IIRC the asking price was $2000+ and the frame was too small.

BTW, my nephew works for Lynskey and can get me a fantastic deal on a new titanium frame (something on the order of a 60-70% discount), but I keep waving him off.

In getting back to the Cannondale comparison, I picked up my '96 SR500 2.8 for $200 and sunk another $300 to upgrade to the 105 groupset. Since I also own a '93 R600 2.8 (aluminum fork), I can easily compare the ride difference from the weight savings. There's not much. The R600 is lighter and stiffer for out of the saddle climbing. But over the same 25 mile ride the time is about the same. My guess is what I loose in climbing with the Headshok I make up in descents.

I suppose if I wanted full suspension for the SR500 I could add a special seatpost.