The Golden Boy 

Rivendell rivendell.

Rivendell!

bandezzy

Don't want to ruffle any feathers here but as an ST1000 owner I figured I better weigh in. I have to say the ST1000 is one of the sweetest touring/just plain riding bikes I have or have ever owned. I have had the bike for over 10 years, built it up from a $50 frame I found on craigslist (it sports a random and regularly changing assemblage of mountain and road parts) and have put probably 10,000 km on it. After building up the bike and riding if for a while I kept hearing people tell me about how fragile cannondale frames were and that I should watch out for cracks, also that it was just a matter of time till the frame catastrophically broke. Well this may be the case for some cannondale frames but not this one.

In 2010 I was riding home from a party (yes drunk, yes stupid, yes I know better now) and going a decent clip when out of nowhere (this is obviously due to the drinking) a concrete pole appeared which I hit head on. this impact stopped the bike immediately sending me over the handles and onto the asphalt (wine bottle in the bottle cage was fine miraculously). the cromo fork was bent up into the downtube, the bike was not ride-able and was pushed (ten miles) home. I figured that this was the end of my ST and that, with a heavy heart, I was going to have to buy a new frame. I took the frame into the LBS and they looked her over, no cracks or damage to the frame was found (other than the thrashed fork) and so I ordered another fork (not easy as its a 1 inch threaded unit which are getting tough to locate) and put the bike back on the road. It has been going strong ever since. In fact, I use it for some light duty offroad, single track/trial riding (it has a salsa woodchipper on it now and mountain gearing) and it performs rather well.

Recently I was getting discouraged with having a hard time finding parts for the ST so I "upgraded" to a surly touring frame, gotta say that the ride of the steel frame is not as good as the aluminum and the bike is noticeably heavier. The BB flex is significantly more noticeable and the frame feels a little less lively ( I love the new surly but to be honest I dont find the ride as great) and the surly is WAY heavier and I tried to make it light!

So to sum up, the ST1000 is almost 30 years old, gets ridden at least 3 times a week, does light offroad and touring, gets stripped down for the odd race, gets roped into winter commuting, does some loaded touring, is being forced to accept 135mm rear hub spacing ( and I believe it was designed for 126mm rear hub) and I have no idea what kind of stress this places on the rear triangle, and does it all without a fuss (or any rust for that matter). It functions well in all conditions, never gets shifty under loaded situation or going downhill and is darn comfy to ride.

After riding the steel frame surly for half a year I decided to through a little love ( and some lighter components) on the cannondale, I replaced the threaded fork with a threadless 1 inch unit, put a new headset on it, 11-34 cassette, and new crankset. She feels better than new and is still a great bike to ride. The surly may last longer if properly maintained but the ST has gone 30 years so far, I can only assume it will go a little more.

Recently I have been looking into getting a touring bike for my wife, I have been looking at the LHT, straggler, Kona Sutra and rove, and the specialized awol, one thing I have noticed about all of the aforementioned bikes is, man are they heavy, even without pedals, panniers and bottle cages. I am now hoping to find another cannondale st frame to build up for her so that she can have a great touring bike that does not cost $1500 and weighs less that todays models.

I dont want people to think I am a cannondale groupie or something, two of the worst and most uncomfortable bikes I have ever owned have been cannondales, and I have way more steel bikes than aluminum ones. I just have to say that there is something special about the st series, they are well built, they have comfortable geometry, the frames are forgiving and lively at the same time, and in my experience they are extremely durable. I love mine and I am searching for another.

All the best and happy riding.

Also, I fully realize this post is 2 years old. Just wanted to add my piece

Cheers

pastorbobnlnh 

Welcome to BF and C&V. You should find a nice home here for all your vintage questions.
OUCH!!! Not smart, but I'm guessing you never did this again.
Ebay is your friend. Also cheap bikes on Craigs List can be used for parts. You need to be clever and hang out here more.
My '88 ST has a 130mm hub that slipped right in with no stretching. Should not be an issue.
All bikes from the cheapest to the most expensive can last an "eternity" if carefully maintained. But since the oldest bikes are only about 130-40 years old, "eternity" might be a bit of an exaggeration.
2 years old is nothing. A blink of an eye.

You can be a groupie. We all have our favorites.

To ride is to be happy!

shelbyfv

This appears to be a smaller size ST if anyone is interested. Cannonade Road Bike, VeryGoodCondition I had forgotten about the "entertaining" OP. Seems he's been gone since 2013.

Ecrevisse

Is this just an opinion or based on some obscure fact? If it is fact, I would love to see the source of this. Personally, based on years of experience with Grant before Rivendell up through this date, I do not believe this. Sounds like BS to me.

Now if a person likes C'dale and thinks they are the best, fine. But to make these kinds of statements to bolster C'dale at the expense of another bicycle company is just wrong.

shelbyfv

Yes it's BS, OP was known for his position. Read and enjoy the thread for what it is.

investmentbiker

I’m on my third 27” Cannondale ST. First was an ’87 that sadly got nicked in ’89. Saddest part was the loss of my beloved Brooks saddle which was thoroughly broken in. Insurance replaced the bike but in ’93 my local bike shop noticed a hairline crack in the frame and called the Cannondale rep. I got a new frame for free under Cannondale’s warranty. I’ve changed all of the original components based on a liking for unusual quality components. As an example, I used to be really into building wheels and I came across a pair of Campy Record 40 spoke tandem hubs which I built up and have ridden on for about the last 20 years. I’m 6’8” and 250 lbs so I love the solid frame, solid wheels combination. The point of posting is simply to add that I have many, many miles logged on my Cannondale and I love it. I’m tempted from time to time by other touring bikes but I still enjoy riding the ST so much I see no reason to change. Just another bike geek chiming in!

The Golden Boy 

And that is the point.

Some people turn over bikes by the dozen- to find a bike you like and still inspires you 20 years later- that really speaks well of the bike.

Welcome to the Bike Forums!

investmentbiker

I looked at the earlier stream of this thread and am surprised at what people fixate on. My 27" Cannondale is a great bike for me but it's not going to be great for everyone. I suspect a small size C'dale frame could be so stiff it would be uncomfortable to ride. My large frame, for me, is the perfect balance between stiffness and comfort, which is what I want in a touring bike. When I loaded it with front and rear panniers to travel the Loire Valley, I could not believe how stable the ride was. For that trip, my wife rode the same model Cannondale (21") and also loved it. However, as I'm certain is the case for all on this forum, I've owned other steel bikes (Panasonic, GT) and aluminium (Trek) and each has been good for it's purpose. It's less the material than the combination of design factors that make a great ride. We all love riding so who cares what someone else thinks of our bike? Try a bunch of different types of bikes and see what you like. I'm just outside of London and the bike that is hugely popular in town is the Brompton. I rode one the other day and I can't imagine a better city bike. Responsive, quick, fun, and folds up so you can take it in to work and it won't get nicked (big problem in London). But on the rolling hills of Hampshire where I live, a Brompton would suck. Excellent bike but wrong design for the environment. There's a saying here, "There's no such thing as bad weather, simply inappropriate clothing". There's no such thing as bad riding IMO.
Get on yer bike and ride.

Ronno6

I am intrigued by your 27" T1000 from 1992.
I own one that I believe is the same frame.
However, I cannot verify as the only number I find on the frame is: B1 0302
The T1000 sticker is not present.
No other numbers are apparent.
Mine is the Anthracite green/gray. cantilever brakes and 135mm rear dropout spacing.
But, the fork crown is not the unicrown shown in the brochure; it is the forged sloping crown.
Is yours the same??
Anyway, it IS my touring bike of choice.
I also own the aforementioned 27" ST400 and ST600, as well as
3 additional 27" ST400's from prior years.(And 3 25 inchers as well....)
Fantastic machines all!

randyjawa 

I have owned/built/ridden lugged steel, welded steel, welded alloy, glued alloy, glued and screwed alloy and even steel/carbon fiber. One thing I can say for sure about ride quality...

Material makes little difference to me! My Cannondales were horribly stiff, so stiff that my wheels would fail prematurely. But I liked riding the bicycles.

My Vitus and ALAN were both aluminum and WOW, what great riding bicycles, but too flexible for a guy my size and strength.

My Bianchi Pro Race Team is alloy, all the way, but a wonderfully comfortable a fast bicycle to ride.

Then my steel steeds, mostly all lugged, offered similar rides with only a couple really standing out as exceptional ride quality bicycles.

After a while, I realized that all the hype (nonsense) about "steel is real" (really - words that rhyme do not a mantra make, in my book) is just that, foolish hype. I base my opinions, regarding ride quality of vintage bicycles, on personally experience. I have ridden all metals except titanium and manganese and a couple of plastic (carbon fiber) bicycles. Each offers pros and cons.

These days, I prefer to ride New School because I find the bicycles more comfortable and easier to use. But will continue to love the aesthetics of Old School bicycles. Actually, New School aesthetics are pretty darn nice also (my opinion).

Which one won the best rider of my rides? My lugged steel/carbon fibre Cyclops, presently fitted with a Shimano ten speed Brifter group. Which, I might add, works better than my Campy ten speed Brifter group - yup, Campy don't blow my kilt up all that often, anymore, either.

gaucho777 

It's worth mentioning that the OP is a giant of a man. I seem to recall him saying something like 6'7" and 300+ pounds. There's a reason he needs a stiff bike. After re-reading this zombie thread, I need a stiff drink.

OP hasn't posted in a few years, but he's still around. In fact, I notice he is currently logged in at this very moment.

mtnbke

Everytime I've showed people with a Rivendell tattoo, or pronounced members of the BOBish cult the 1986 Cannondale catalog they've came away shocked. They look at the '86 Cannondale ST800 and say "that's a BOBish" bike.

You have to then think about when Cannondale started making bikes, and then when Grant made his first sport touring bike. He makes lots at Rivendell, but not so much at Bridgestone. The thing is Cannondale started as a backpack and nylon goods company (panniers, sleeping bags, backpacks, etc.). They started building bikes because of their love for exploring fire roads, single track AND backpacking. Sound familiar?

Go to the Rivendell website today and its the original Cannondale ethos, on heavier, slower, less efficient bikes. Any vintage Canndondale ST can actually be raced in a pinch. They are phenomenally strong frame sets and while very comfortable, incredibly stiff. Incomparably efficient to a steel touring bike or a modern Riv. An ST Cannondale is a bike you can actually sprint on. A bike you can race your group ride to a summit finish on AND its the bike you can load up with racks & panniers and go bike touring with, even on dirt and fire roads or non-technical single track.

In 1983 when Cannondale put out the FIRST ST touring frame, their first bicycle, this was the Cannondale Sport Touring concept:


Pay attention to the timeline. When did Grant even first start working for the conglomerate Bridgestone? When did that small backpacking company Cannondale start putting out bikes that represented the very core of what Grant would latch onto? When was the FIRST BOBish/Rivendellish bike that Grant ever brought to market? How many years of Cannondale catalogs and bikes had Grant been looking at by that time?

jmeb

Any bike (meeting race requirements) can be raced in a pinch. The question always is, will it be competitive. This depends first and mostly on the rider, and a distant second on the bike.

All riders being equal a C-Dale ST wouldn't be competitive in Cat 1 or Pro Racing. Cat 4 or 5? Sure. But then again, a similarly equipped Riv would probably be just as competitive.

And I'm done feeding the C-Dale troll.

Lascauxcaveman 

I'm confused. In what way exactly is a fat-tubed welded aluminum bike in any way similar to anything Rivendell makes or ever made? Does rivendell have line of alloy-tube touring bikes I'm not aware of? I own and use a 1990 Cannondale ST600 which I appreciate for it's merits (very stiff and relatively lightweight) but would not mistake it with any of my heavier, flexier, more traditional (one could say more Rivendellish) lugged steel bikes.

Just trying to understand how exactly that evil Grant Petersen ripped off C-dale.

investmentbiker

I wondered about the serial number on my frame so I emailed Cannondale. I have the same B1 0302 which according to Cannondale means it was made for export. If you look closely you'll see other numbers on the frame but they are very faint and look as if they are made up of dots. The other numbers on mine are 5 27 0992 8200 with the 5 representing that it's a 135 mm dropout spacing, 0992 is the date of manufacture and 8200 is the lot number. I was told that because it was a warranty replacement frame it may or may not have a serial number and I haven't been able to locate one. My fork has a forged sloping crown, cantilever brakes and is green/gray. No T1000 sticker just the Cannondale name on the down tube. Are your parts original or have you changed them? Good to meet you!

Ronno6

I purchased as frame and fork only
so I started from scratch. I need to look at to remember exactly what.
I know it is 105 triple, bar end shifters,Brooks B-17
If I remember correctly, Velocity Dyad rims laced to Velo Orange Grand Cru freehub hubset.
Nitto bars and stem, I cannot recall what brakes.
Brown saddle, bar wrap and cable housings (brown heat shrink on the derailleur cable housings.)
Fenders like the original and Panaracer Tourguard 700 x 32 tires.
I believe I have a pic on the Show Your Touring Bikes thread, but dunno where.
Nice to meet you,too!

mtnbke

Its the ethos. The entire Rivendell brand is directly copying the Cannondale concept from the inception of bicycles in '83 to the standard of the "Cannondale" bike the ST 800. When you look at an '86 Cannondale ST 800 and think about what Cannondale was trying to do in going with different component makers
(Suntour, Shimano, Campagnolo) but beholden to none, that's something Grant copied while at Bridgestone and often on the same bike. However, everything that Peterson stands for is reflected in that '86 ST 800. A bike that could be raced, but wasn't designed with uncomfortable geometry. A Rivendell is always going to be beautiful, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, a heavy steel lugged bike, regardless of the artistry with which it was brazed, is what it is. Just a steel bike. It can be an art bike, like a Rivendell, but that's a piss poor choice for an only bike, imo. A lugged steel bike just isn't efficient. It's heavy, it doesn't climb well. It doesn't sprint well. A handmade steel bike just isn't "fun" to ride compared to light, fast, agile, well made factory aluminum bike. The Cannondale ST Touring bike rides like a rocket compared to most steel vintage dedicated race bikes. That's the point.

Now back to Cannondale/Rivendell. Bridgestone was a huge corporate conglomerate, and their bicycle division that Grant went on to affect did NOT ever produce something "Bobish or Rivish" early on. In fact we shouldn't even call it that. If Grant had any intellectually honesty he'd call it "Cannondaleish" as the ST series from '83 on inspired everything he would come to advocate, grouch about, and want to continue to carry on (with the single exception of frame material).

Over the years EVERYTHING Grant ranted about could be found on the only bikes Cannondale made (the ST series), as they weren't initially a bike company, but a backpacking goods company. Everything on this list Cannondale did FIRST:

1" Quill Steerer bikes quickly adjustable to the rider
Touring geometry for bikes that are sporty, but with NO emphasis on racing, but rather utility and comfort
ability to fit wide tires and fenders
bike able to go on a century ride AND loaded touring AND could be ridden on fire roads and non-technical off road
emphasis on "fit & finish" of 80s hand polished components from Japan
stock Nitto seat post, stems, handlebars
obsession with the Brooks/Ideal leather saddles "look" matching (Cannondale branded leather toe straps)
emphasis not on racing components, but durable functional components at high end (Riv can't afford anymore)
emphasis on functional gearing ("half-step" touring gearing) on common sense cranks
using the "best" when nothing else will suffice (Brooks, Ideal, Nitto, Superbe Pro, Super Champion rims, Sugino AT cranks)

In fact, the joke amongst Cannondale fans is that when Grant rants about something, he's usually forgetting what he is advocating he saw in a CANNONDALE catalog as a production bike before he ever thought about bringing to the Bridgestone line, or decades later with Rivendell.

Cannondale had a lot of trouble finding qualified workers to meet their standards to manufacture bikes. Any fool can braze a lug. What is the difference between a master-crafted lugged steel bike and one you lug yourself? Welding aluminum is something most professional welders aren't competent at. Let alone with super thin wall tolerances. Why does Grant push steel? Because he can "brand" steel working with Waterford or Mark Nobillette. However, Mark Nobillette once made the high zoot lugged frames for GT. No one is championing a GT with a Joe Bell paint job as an heirloom bike. The thing is, Rivendell couldn't afford the production model to make american high-end aluminum bikes the way Klein/Cannondale developed them. The production costs are too expensive. Trust me, Waterford and Nobillette are happy to have the work, but they aren't being paid what you think.

What Grant ripped off from Cannondale was the ethos, the approach, the idea of bike packing, one bike. The entire company, the ONLY bike a the time, the ST idea, was one bike that was comfortable to ride, you could take for loaded touring, fit wide tires, and fenders, but could actually be raced in a pinch, had components that made sense that weren't just hyper light or trendy, a bike that was functionally strong, capable of carrying racks and heavy loads, or riding just on a fast weekend ride. Cannondale started as that backpacking company, that bike packing company that I see in every image on the Rivendell website. Every one, that WAS Cannonale in 1983, no less. Every Atlantis that Rivendell every sold was just the continuing legacy of the standard of the Cannondale ST ethos. Only heavier, slower, and much less efficient. But a bit more beautiful. Lugged bikes just are gorgeous, especially with high-end paint. I want one on a poster, but if I could have one bike it would be a Cannondale ST.

I'm not the only one that feels that way. Grant has been building and selling heavier, weaker, and slower copies of that "ST" concept every since. Its a powerful concept, the "one bike" Sport Touring bike, even thirty-two years later.

investmentbiker

Love to see a pic if you find it. I've got a Brooks B-17 and Shimano bar end shifters as well. I've got the V-O Grand Cru seatpost, stem and canti brakes. The Grand Cru hubsets look sweet and easy to overhaul. V-O has a lot of great stuff and it's nicely made. I would not buy their Mk3 canti brakes again. My hubs are Campy Record 40 spoke tandem with Mavic rims. Derailleurs are XT and crank is a Specialities TA triple. Headset is Mavic and bars are Cinelli deep drop 66/44. Tires are Schwalbe Marathon Plus. Fun to be a total bike geek for a few minutes.

lord_athlon

I didn't realize cannondale invented the threaded 1" fork.

Ronno6

Check out https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...l#post16099029
page 45 post #1103 for 2 of my 27" ST's and this T1000.

Ronno6

The 27" frame does not appear in the '92 catalog, but does in the geometry chart for '93.
I am unsure as to what month Cannondale produced bikes for the next model year. It is possible
that your 0992 was actually produced for model year '93.
For that reason I had previously referred to mine as a '93.

Lascauxcaveman 

Well if that's your whole argument, then Cannondale ripped off that "ethos" from Alex Singer, Rene Hearse and the other lesser known constructeurs of the 1930s - 1970s; the so-called "golden age of handbuilt bicycles."

As much as I'm enjoying my ST600, I don't see as how Cannondale invented much of anything other than those fat aluminum frames that look and ride like nothing Grant, Bridgestone or Rivvy ever produced.

Your argument is just plain silly.

mtnbke

Fair enough. I think paying $2500 for a Rivendell, which isn't a better bike than vintage steel I can pick up on Craigslist. I also know I can build a better bike with better components than Rivendell can afford to sell me, with their margins. In fact Grant would agree with me, if you look at his own writings. You think Riv thinks those crappy Dia Compe Silver shifters are good shifters? No, he just can't source Suntour Bar-Con Accu-shifters anymore or Suntour Power Ratchet Butterfly shifters. If he was only selling the number of bikes he could build with good kit, that is the quality stuff he actually appreciates from the heyday of fit & finish on French, Italian & Japanese components, he'd sell a couple of bikes a year. A supply chain is not getting old parts on ebay and bike swaps. If you read what Grant preaches for the most part he doesn't even sell stuff that meets his rants standards. He sells what he can source, that he can distribute competitively, and that he can make an operating margin on. None of those things have anything to do with begin "good" kit. If you really want to have fun, go look at the components that Rivendell has on their website and then ask yourself, "would I want to buy that at a bike swap, and for what price?" I like playing that game. The answer is often No, and price really isn't the object. It just isn't as Grant used to point out, like Mavic SSC, only one way, the best way. Not building anything or letting anything go out the door that doesn't meet his standards? Look at a Rivendell on Craigslist and see the gorgeous components that Rivendell used to be able to source, compared to what they can give you today. I swear anyone that wants a "good" bike that is dropping $2500+ with them should literally junk almost everything on the bike the day after, and replace it with good stuff. If you still want to play the Rivendell game, because its a hobby of mine, play along with me. Whenever you see a Rivendell for sale in your state's Craigslist (whole state, or nearest large cycling nexus state) email the seller. Important: Tell them you're interested in their bike, and ask why they are selling it? Keep the email. Email them from another account, tell them you aren't interested in Rivendell's at all but notice a LOT of custom Rivendell's and non-custom as well ending up on Craiglist. Ask them what they didn't like about the bike, why they bought it, what they thought it was going to be, and what it ended up being to them. Keep these emails. I like to wait to send the second one until after they sell the bike. I've found I get better answers that way.

Back to your point. Rivendell isn't selling constructeur bikes per se. In fact, I don't think a single Rivendell bike comes stock with constructuer racks or point to what necessarily works with "that" bike. Not to get into pointing out that you don't know what a constructeur bike is, I guess but actually I don't know how to make this point without making that point, a constructeur bike from the golden era that Rene Herse still tries to copy (having only bought the brand) or Alex Singer did make, and his shop still makes, those bikes were holistic. The frame, racks, lighting system, even the decalers allowing quick removal of say a handlebar bag, those were ALL designed holistically. It wasn't pick up a Riv Atlantis frame and by the way we also sell this other stuff. You picked up an Alex Singer with the other stuff, and the Alex Singer was designed to be built with all the other stuff on it. That just isn't a Rivendell philosophy. They are about selling you the bike. Call 'em up and ask how many newly purchased Rivendell's go out the door with at minimum, a front and rear rack, and a handlebar bracket/decaler and a saddle bag. The answer is not half as many as you think. In fact not many of the Rivendell models are even just about being what you are confusing as a constructeur bike, but in reality is just a sport touring bike capable of loaded touring. Many of their bikes are made to just be quick and fun to ride, not carry stuff. I can't think of a worse quick fun bike, than steel, but that's me. Some people collect Ferrari, some Lambo, some Masarati, and some guy somewhere put $15000 into restoring an AMC Gremlin. To each their own. The thing is that Cannondale's vision for their ST bike was an image in the '83 catalog of the bike covered with racks and CANNONDALE handlebar bags, CANNONDALE panniers, CANNONDALE saddlebags, and thought of as a Sport Touring bike from inception. They were first and foremost a backpacking and bicycle touring company, not a company making bikes.

The '83 brochure from the first Cannondale (Ronno look at those specs and tubing diameters and compare the ST to your T and tell me if those are right):
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%201.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%202.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%203.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%204.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%205.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%206.pdf

Sure Cannondale wasn't invested in aluminum, they didn't make bikes before '83. They could have manufactured bicycles to meet their vision out of any material. Had they used steel you'd have had a Rivendell Atlantis on a plate. That's what an Atlantis is, a steel Cannondale ST, with potentially better paint and aesthetics (lugs are just freakin' beautiful on a bike). Cannondale didn't have an agenda with aluminum at the time. There wasn't some HUGE marketing demand for aluminum bicycles. In fact as the bike boom had petered out between '75-'83 Cannondale couldn't have picked a worse time to bring a bicycle to market, with an unproven and unknown frame technology/paradigm. They approached it with a clean slate. You know why Cannondale picked aluminum? Because steel bikes suck in comparison. Slower, heavier, weaker, don't climb as well, frame stability issues loaded for touring (wiggly frame syndrome), and you sure the hell can't sprint on a steel bike the way you can on an aluminum one. Take a group of any prospective UCI Pro Tour roadies, we'll go to Boulder and give them a choice: Any vintage steel racing bike they want, or a Cannondale ST freakin' Sport Touring bike designed and built NOT for racing but for being a country bike, a loaded touring bike, a bike to ride on fire roads and bike paths. Guess which one they'll want to bet their future career on to catch a ride in the European peloton if that is the only tryout they get. Will it be the vintage steel Colnago lightweight racing bike or the freakin' 1983 aluminum bike Cannondale designed to NOT be a racing bike, but designed to be everything Grant Peterson wants the Atlantis to be. The ST does everything better. Plus its just more fun to ride. Heavy, dead, steel bikes with frame stiffness problems just aren't fun to ride. Cannondale's are veritable rocket bikes, even the original one designed to be a Sport Touring bike, not a racing bike (not the right geometry). Cannondale wasn't vested in aluminum, they looked tabla rasa at cycling and thought about what would build a better bike. They weren't exactly Easton trying to market aluminum manufacturing stock. On the contrary, Cannondale hired that engineer from Stanford intending to stop focusing on their aluminum bicycle identity. They hired him to build their initial carbon fiber bikes. He convinced them that a carbon fiber bike couldn't then be built better than he could instead optimize their aluminum bikes. This wasn't a walkover conversation. Cannondale really believed carbon fiber was the future. People forget about all their R&D and carbon fiber development (the aluminum & carbon spine of the off-road Raven and such). That engineer designed the 3.0 series frames, which at the time were the lightest, strongest, stiffest, and flat out fastest frames on the planet. Don't think so, I'll find a vintage Cannondale 3.0 series frame off craigslist and put it up against any vintage steel racing bike YOU own. We'll hire two prospective UCI pro riders (there are a ton around Boulder) on the day they are trying out for a spot on a pro team. We'll have one ride your vintage steel racing bike with modern components, wheels, fork, seat post, etc. We'll have one ride a vintage Cannondale 3.0 Series frame with the exact same components and kit as the steel bike. Guess which kid isn't going to want to bet his future on that Olmo, Cinelli, Colnago or Masi? He'd be better off on the freakin' Cannondale ST touring bike, and the 3.0 frame would destroy the steel bike when they climb oh I don't know what Cannondale-Garmin thinks is the toughest climb around Boulder:
Cannondale-Garmin Pro Cycling Team » Boulder, CO ? Magnolia/Sugarloaf/Super Flag

Give me a break. Sure there is a great history of cycling long before the slant parallelogram derailleur. Anyone trying to market a non-slant parallelogram derailleur as "better" or with some ethos of being more about something hokey-pokey is Rivendell in a nutshell. Don't get me wrong, the Mavic erector set derailleurs are the most beautiful derailleurs EVER! I've got a drawer full of Mavic components from that era. I love them. In my drawer, not on my bike actually shifting. I'll build a Cannondale ST using the Mavic components from the pre-Mavic SSC 8 speed indexing group, just because they are so freakin' beautiful someday. I'll paint that bike up with Mavic Neutral support scheme. It will be a Cannondale 27" ST and effectively a 69cm but will be painted 56 just like a real Mavic NS bike, why? Because that is the most common size in the peloton and on the Mavic car. I'm intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that ANY Suntour derailleur of that era was a better derailleur because of the slant parallelogram patented technology. I love my Suntour Superbe Pro components on my Cannondale ST800. Are they as cool as vintage Campagnolo GT (last generations), oh my gosh no! Is Suberpe Pro as cool to me as Mavic SSC 8-speed indexing group in triple/long cage? Not a chance. I like my Superbe Pro a bit better than my Sachs New Success 8-speed indexing Campagnolo made Ergolevers and flawless perfection 8-speed Shimano spaced shifting. Nothing I ride shifts as well as the Sachs New Success, not even close. In fact nothing I could buy made by Campagnolo since could shift better. Campy derailleurs aren't speed specific, and cramming more cogs onto a cassette and making the cogs closer, narrowing the chain, and making everything just more precise and finicky doesn't make for "better" shifting. If I bought modern 10/11 Campagnolo Ergolevers and replaced the shift disc with the Sachs New Success 8-speed Shimano standard shift disc I'd have what I already have, though probably with QS leverage. Is that better? Mabye, but it wouldn't say Sachs New Success and Campagnolo as mine do. The carbon fiber levers and derailleurs would be cool, and it would neat to blow peoples minds who think that Campagnolo rear derailleurs are speed specific when I ran mine 8-speed with a wider outer chain links (campy sells the derailleur pulley spacers to do this if there is rubbing, or they used to up to 10 speed). People don't remember Campagnolo didn't want to go past 8 speed due to the compromises. Now they're invested in marketing, "this one goes to eleven." It was idiotic in Spinal Tap, and its idiotic on a bike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

Now. Is a Cannondale the exact same bike as a Rivendell? No, its better. But is the Cannondale ethos that they freakin' started their bike company with long before Grant started Rivendell, the same country bike, sport touring do-it-all one bike philosophy that essentially is the Rivendell Atlantis? Anyone who is intellectually honest will say of course it is. Grant hadn't even started working for Bridgestone until what, 1984? The Cannondale ST was already a production bike being sold in the market before Grant had any input at Bridgestone. Grant's entire business knowledge was managing the bicycle line of the largest Japanese bicycle builder, and that line was mostly about steel bikes. Rivendell sells steel bikes because that's what Grant knows. Rivendell used to sell high-end Japanese frames under their label. They can't afford to anymore. Bridgestone went under because of dollar to yen ratios. Grant can't afford to sell you a high-end Japanese Rivendell like he used to, because the average Rivendell buyer would still be price sensitive to a bike that was hundreds to a thousand something dollars more. So Grant started using other US builders, and he had always used Waterford. He's a romantic for Schwinn as much as anything. Does Grant sell you the "Best" bike he can? No he sells you the bike he can, and still remain operational as a business. You'll never see the quality of bikes or components like you saw during the 80s with Klein, Cannondale, Nitto, American Classic, Bullseye, Suntour, Campagnolo etc. Campy can't make cheap titanium stuff in the Zeus factory anymore and get away with it. Price points dictate even Campagnolo has to have cheap chinese plasticky bits to survive. The days of craftsmen hand polishing components in Japan are over. The days of companies making high end American aluminum bikes on a production scale are over. Everything is Chinese and Taiwanese now. Rivendell is struggling to survive trying to find US suppliers of stuff. The sad reality is that Velo Orange isn't beholden to the corner that Rivendell painted themselves into. Velo Orange is able to design, source, and have manufactured for them better components and kit than Rivendell sells on their expensive bikes. Grant should acknowledge the economic realities and partner with Velo Orange. Only Velo Orange is going to start making their own ranonneur bike frames though. Guess what? Velo Orange says it won't be an everything bike. Opposite of the Cannnondale ST ethos. Opposite of the original Rivendell and Atlantis ethos. Velo Orange says it will be a "one thing best" bike. Bet you a dollar my Cannondale ST will still be better on a brevet, and faster, climb better and be more fun to ride than their frame, at least if its steel. You'll never again see the research, manufacturing approach (heat treating), consistency, or US built standards that were on a Klein or Cannondale ST. Those days are gone.

However, we still live in the days of marketing. Which is why Santana sold lots of steel tandems at a price point of an aluminum Co-Motion or aluminum Cannondale. Which is why Rivendell even exists.

The punchline is the Rivendell "brand" was the Cannondale brand when Cannondale brought their bike to the market in '83. Before Grant started at Bridgestone, before there was a Bridgestone Bunch, or anything BOBish, and before Velo Orange or Rivendell. There was the '83 Cannondale. A sport touring bike that did everything, including loaded touring, and did it well. Even better than multiple thousand dollar steel bikes being marketed today as country bikes capable of being the single best bike you'll ever own.

Which is funny why so many people then pretty much immediately sell them in pristine condition. I was so disappointed the first time I rode a Santana Tandem. The marketing was incredible, the steel tandem frame was garbage. We rode a Cannondale and bought it. Hadn't heard of Co-Motion yet. Always wanted a Zinn/Paketa in my Cannondale ST geometry. Heck, there is no reason Cannondale couldn't have made a few 27" captain's compartment tandems. Its the same bike, essentially, as the ST, in its laid back geometry just with a boom tube.

Anyone who knows anything about what a Cannondale ST (sport touring) bike was in 1983 on, that understands what a country bike is, finds it disingenuous that the Rivendell cult find it so offensive to learn that everything Grant has been spouting was someone else's approach. Is steel real? Sure. Is it good on a bike? A good steel bike is better than a bad one. Butted steel is epic compared to stovepipe. Does the best high-end steel bike compare to a Craigslist Cannondale ST? Sure, in aesthetics. A Colnago Master X-Light Decor or Rivendell Atlantis with a Joe Bell paint job are ALWAYS going to be lusted after, preened about, draw a crowd, and in general clear a bike shop to the stand the bike is on. They are beautiful bikes. However, there are better craigslist finds in terms of what they are to actually ride.

Now part of collecting and riding vintage bikes is not about how they operate (remember the slant parallelogram point). Its about what they are in terms of the style. Cannondale was cool US engineering ingenuity. Rivendell is brilliant advertising positioning, using the ethos of the original Cannondale ST approach to building a bike, only heavier, slower, a worse climber, and less fun to ride. But cheaper to manufacture, and actually something that can be manufactured in small lots, or even single bikes. You couldn't build Klein's or Cannondale's with those scales. It wouldn't have been profitable, and ultimately, wasn't. Grant and Riv don't even sell you their best bikes, Grant knows and bemoans he can't continue to source Japanese made frames. He sells what he can, and markets the hell out of it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Just don't get mad when you ride a Rivendell and I say that's a poor man's Cannondale.

Last thing this is the holistic vision of the Cannondale ST 500 in 1983, before Grant would work at even Bridgestone:

Fair enough. I think paying $2500 for a Rivendell, which isn't a better bike than vintage steel I can pick up on Craigslist. I also know I can build a better bike with better components than Rivendell can afford to sell me, with their margins. In fact Grant would agree with me, if you look at his own writings. You think Riv thinks those crappy Dia Compe Silver shifters are good shifters? No, he just can't source Suntour Bar-Con Accu-shifters anymore or Suntour Power Ratchet Butterfly shifters. If he was only selling the number of bikes he could build with good kit, that is the quality stuff he actually appreciates from the heyday of fit & finish on French, Italian & Japanese components, he'd sell a couple of bikes a year. A supply chain is not getting old parts on ebay and bike swaps. If you read what Grant preaches for the most part he doesn't even sell stuff that meets his rants standards. He sells what he can source, that he can distribute competitively, and that he can make an operating margin on. None of those things have anything to do with begin "good" kit. If you really want to have fun, go look at the components that Rivendell has on their website and then ask yourself, "would I want to buy that at a bike swap, and for what price?" I like playing that game. The answer is often No, and price really isn't the object. It just isn't as Grant used to point out, like Mavic SSC, only one way, the best way. Not building anything or letting anything go out the door that doesn't meet his standards? Look at a Rivendell on Craigslist and see the gorgeous components that Rivendell used to be able to source, compared to what they can give you today. I swear anyone that wants a "good" bike that is dropping $2500+ with them should literally junk almost everything on the bike the day after, and replace it with good stuff. If you still want to play the Rivendell game, because its a hobby of mine, play along with me. Whenever you see a Rivendell for sale in your state's Craigslist (whole state, or nearest large cycling nexus state) email the seller. Important: Tell them you're interested in their bike, and ask why they are selling it? Keep the email. Email them from another account, tell them you aren't interested in Rivendell's at all but notice a LOT of custom Rivendell's and non-custom as well ending up on Craiglist. Ask them what they didn't like about the bike, why they bought it, what they thought it was going to be, and what it ended up being to them. Keep these emails. I like to wait to send the second one until after they sell the bike. I've found I get better answers that way.

Back to your point. Rivendell isn't selling constructeur bikes per se. In fact, I don't think a single Rivendell bike comes stock with constructuer racks or point to what necessarily works with "that" bike. Not to get into pointing out that you don't know what a constructeur bike is, I guess but actually I don't know how to make this point without making that point, a constructeur bike from the golden era that Rene Herse still tries to copy (having only bought the brand) or Alex Singer did make, and his shop still makes, those bikes were holistic. The frame, racks, lighting system, even the decalers allowing quick removal of say a handlebar bag, those were ALL designed holistically. It wasn't pick up a Riv Atlantis frame and by the way we also sell this other stuff. You picked up an Alex Singer with the other stuff, and the Alex Singer was designed to be built with all the other stuff on it. That just isn't a Rivendell philosophy. They are about selling you the bike. Call 'em up and ask how many newly purchased Rivendell's go out the door with at minimum, a front and rear rack, and a handlebar bracket/decaler and a saddle bag. The answer is not half as many as you think. In fact not many of the Rivendell models are even just about being what you are confusing as a constructeur bike, but in reality is just a sport touring bike capable of loaded touring. Many of their bikes are made to just be quick and fun to ride, not carry stuff. I can't think of a worse quick fun bike, than steel, but that's me. Some people collect Ferrari, some Lambo, some Masarati, and some guy somewhere put $15000 into restoring an AMC Gremlin. To each their own. The thing is that Cannondale's vision for their ST bike was an image in the '83 catalog of the bike covered with racks and CANNONDALE handlebar bags, CANNONDALE panniers, CANNONDALE saddlebags, and thought of as a Sport Touring bike from inception. They were first and foremost a backpacking and bicycle touring company, not a company making bikes.

The '83 brochure from the first Cannondale (Ronno look at those specs and tubing diameters and compare the ST to your T and tell me if those are right):
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%201.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%202.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%203.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%204.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%205.pdf
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/can...ochure%206.pdf

Sure Cannondale wasn't invested in aluminum, they didn't make bikes before '83. They could have manufactured bicycles to meet their vision out of any material. Had they used steel you'd have had a Rivendell Atlantis on a plate. That's what an Atlantis is, a steel Cannondale ST, with potentially better paint and aesthetics (lugs are just freakin' beautiful on a bike). Cannondale didn't have an agenda with aluminum at the time. There wasn't some HUGE marketing demand for aluminum bicycles. In fact as the bike boom had petered out between '75-'83 Cannondale couldn't have picked a worse time to bring a bicycle to market, with an unproven and unknown frame technology/paradigm. They approached it with a clean slate. You know why Cannondale picked aluminum? Because steel bikes suck in comparison. Slower, heavier, weaker, don't climb as well, frame stability issues loaded for touring (wiggly frame syndrome), and you sure the hell can't sprint on a steel bike the way you can on an aluminum one. Take a group of any prospective UCI Pro Tour roadies, we'll go to Boulder and give them a choice: Any vintage steel racing bike they want, or a Cannondale ST freakin' Sport Touring bike designed and built NOT for racing but for being a country bike, a loaded touring bike, a bike to ride on fire roads and bike paths. Guess which one they'll want to bet their future career on to catch a ride in the European peloton if that is the only tryout they get. Will it be the vintage steel Colnago lightweight racing bike or the freakin' 1983 aluminum bike Cannondale designed to NOT be a racing bike, but designed to be everything Grant Peterson wants the Atlantis to be. The ST does everything better. Plus its just more fun to ride. Heavy, dead, steel bikes with frame stiffness problems just aren't fun to ride. Cannondale's are veritable rocket bikes, even the original one designed to be a Sport Touring bike, not a racing bike (not the right geometry). Cannondale wasn't vested in aluminum, they looked tabla rasa at cycling and thought about what would build a better bike. They weren't exactly Easton trying to market aluminum manufacturing stock. On the contrary, Cannondale hired that engineer from Stanford intending to stop focusing on their aluminum bicycle identity. They hired him to build their initial carbon fiber bikes. He convinced them that a carbon fiber bike couldn't then be built better than he could instead optimize their aluminum bikes. This wasn't a walkover conversation. Cannondale really believed carbon fiber was the future. People forget about all their R&D and carbon fiber development (the aluminum & carbon spine of the off-road Raven and such). That engineer designed the 3.0 series frames, which at the time were the lightest, strongest, stiffest, and flat out fastest frames on the planet. Don't think so, I'll find a vintage Cannondale 3.0 series frame off craigslist and put it up against any vintage steel racing bike YOU own. We'll hire two prospective UCI pro riders (there are a ton around Boulder) on the day they are trying out for a spot on a pro team. We'll have one ride your vintage steel racing bike with modern components, wheels, fork, seat post, etc. We'll have one ride a vintage Cannondale 3.0 Series frame with the exact same components and kit as the steel bike. Guess which kid isn't going to want to bet his future on that Olmo, Cinelli, Colnago or Masi? He'd be better off on the freakin' Cannondale ST touring bike, and the 3.0 frame would destroy the steel bike when they climb oh I don't know what Cannondale-Garmin thinks is the toughest climb around Boulder:
https://slipstreamsports.com/2008/03/...-40-mile-ride/

Give me a break. Sure there is a great history of cycling long before the slant parallelogram derailleur. Anyone trying to market a non-slant parallelogram derailleur as "better" or with some ethos of being more about something hokey-pokey is Rivendell in a nutshell. Don't get me wrong, the Mavic erector set derailleurs are the most beautiful derailleurs EVER! I've got a drawer full of Mavic components from that era. I love them. In my drawer, not on my bike actually shifting. I'll build a Cannondale ST using the Mavic components from the pre-Mavic SSC 8 speed indexing group, just because they are so freakin' beautiful someday. I'll paint that bike up with Mavic Neutral support scheme. It will be a Cannondale 27" ST and effectively a 69cm but will be painted 56 just like a real Mavic NS bike, why? Because that is the most common size in the peloton and on the Mavic car. I'm intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that ANY Suntour derailleur of that era was a better derailleur because of the slant parallelogram patented technology. I love my Suntour Superbe Pro components on my Cannondale ST800. Are they as cool as vintage Campagnolo GT (last generations), oh my gosh no! Is Suberpe Pro as cool to me as Mavic SSC 8-speed indexing group in triple/long cage? Not a chance. I like my Superbe Pro a bit better than my Sachs New Success 8-speed indexing Campagnolo made Ergolevers and flawless perfection 8-speed Shimano spaced shifting. Nothing I ride shifts as well as the Sachs New Success, not even close. In fact nothing I could buy made by Campagnolo since could shift better. Campy derailleurs aren't speed specific, and cramming more cogs onto a cassette and making the cogs closer, narrowing the chain, and making everything just more precise and finicky doesn't make for "better" shifting. If I bought modern 10/11 Campagnolo Ergolevers and replaced the shift disc with the Sachs New Success 8-speed Shimano standard shift disc I'd have what I already have, though probably with QS leverage. Is that better? Mabye, but it wouldn't say Sachs New Success and Campagnolo as mine do. The carbon fiber levers and derailleurs would be cool, and it would neat to blow peoples minds who think that Campagnolo rear derailleurs are speed specific when I ran mine 8-speed with a wider outer chain links (campy sells the derailleur pulley spacers to do this if there is rubbing, or they used to up to 10 speed). People don't remember Campagnolo didn't want to go past 8 speed due to the compromises. Now they're invested in marketing, "this one goes to eleven." It was idiotic in Spinal Tap, and its idiotic on a bike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o

Now. Is a Cannondale the exact same bike as a Rivendell? No, its better. But is the Cannondale ethos that they freakin' started their bike company with long before Grant started Rivendell, the same country bike, sport touring do-it-all one bike philosophy that essentially is the Rivendell Atlantis? Anyone who is intellectually honest will say of course it is. Grant hadn't even started working for Bridgestone until what, 1984? The Cannondale ST was already a production bike being sold in the market before Grant had any input at Bridgestone. Grant's entire business knowledge was managing the bicycle line of the largest Japanese bicycle builder, and that line was mostly about steel bikes. Rivendell sells steel bikes because that's what Grant knows. Rivendell used to sell high-end Japanese frames under their label. They can't afford to anymore. Bridgestone went under because of dollar to yen ratios. Grant can't afford to sell you a high-end Japanese Rivendell like he used to, because the average Rivendell buyer would still be price sensitive to a bike that was hundreds to a thousand something dollars more. So Grant started using other US builders, and he had always used Waterford. He's a romantic for Schwinn as much as anything. Does Grant sell you the "Best" bike he can? No he sells you the bike he can, and still remain operational as a business. You'll never see the quality of bikes or components like you saw during the 80s with Klein, Cannondale, Nitto, American Classic, Bullseye, Suntour, Campagnolo etc. Campy can't make cheap titanium stuff in the Zeus factory anymore and get away with it. Price points dictate even Campagnolo has to have cheap chinese plasticky bits to survive. The days of craftsmen hand polishing components in Japan are over. The days of companies making high end American aluminum bikes on a production scale are over. Everything is Chinese and Taiwanese now. Rivendell is struggling to survive trying to find US suppliers of stuff. The sad reality is that Velo Orange isn't beholden to the corner that Rivendell painted themselves into. Velo Orange is able to design, source, and have manufactured for them better components and kit than Rivendell sells on their expensive bikes. Grant should acknowledge the economic realities and partner with Velo Orange. Only Velo Orange is going to start making their own ranonneur bike frames though. Guess what? Velo Orange says it won't be an everything bike. Opposite of the Cannnondale ST ethos. Opposite of the original Rivendell and Atlantis ethos. Velo Orange says it will be a "one thing best" bike. Bet you a dollar my Cannondale ST will still be better on a brevet, and faster, climb better and be more fun to ride than their frame, at least if its steel. You'll never again see the research, manufacturing approach (heat treating), consistency, or US built standards that were on a Klein or Cannondale ST. Those days are gone.

However, we still live in the days of marketing. Which is why Santana sold lots of steel tandems at a price point of an aluminum Co-Motion or aluminum Cannondale. Which is why Rivendell even exists.

The punchline is the Rivendell "brand" was the Cannondale brand when Cannondale brought their bike to the market in '83. Before Grant started at Bridgestone, before there was a Bridgestone Bunch, or anything BOBish, and before Velo Orange or Rivendell. There was the '83 Cannondale. A sport touring bike that did everything, including loaded touring, and did it well. Even better than multiple thousand dollar steel bikes being marketed today as country bikes capable of being the single best bike you'll ever own.

Which is funny why so many people then pretty much immediately sell them in pristine condition. I was so disappointed the first time I rode a Santana Tandem. The marketing was incredible, the steel tandem frame was garbage. We rode a Cannondale and bought it. Hadn't heard of Co-Motion yet. Always wanted a Zinn/Paketa in my Cannondale ST geometry. Heck, there is no reason Cannondale couldn't have made a few 27" captain's compartment tandems. Its the same bike, essentially, as the ST, in its laid back geometry just with a boom tube.

Anyone who knows anything about what a Cannondale ST (sport touring) bike was in 1983 on, that understands what a country bike is, finds it disingenuous that the Rivendell cult find it so offensive to learn that everything Grant has been spouting was someone else's approach. Is steel real? Sure. Is it good on a bike? A good steel bike is better than a bad one. Butted steel is epic compared to stovepipe. Does the best high-end steel bike compare to a Craigslist Cannondale ST? Sure, in aesthetics. A Colnago Master X-Light Decor or Rivendell Atlantis with a Joe Bell paint job are ALWAYS going to be lusted after, preened about, draw a crowd, and in general clear a bike shop to the stand the bike is on. They are beautiful bikes. However, there are better craigslist finds in terms of what they are to actually ride.

Now part of collecting and riding vintage bikes is not about how they operate (remember the slant parallelogram point). Its about what they are in terms of the style. Cannondale was cool US engineering ingenuity. Rivendell is brilliant advertising positioning, using the ethos of the original Cannondale ST approach to building a bike, only heavier, slower, a worse climber, and less fun to ride. But cheaper to manufacture, and actually something that can be manufactured in small lots, or even single bikes. You couldn't build Klein's or Cannondale's with those scales. It wouldn't have been profitable, and ultimately, wasn't. Grant and Riv don't even sell you their best bikes, Grant knows and bemoans he can't continue to source Japanese made frames. He sells what he can, and markets the hell out of it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Just don't get mad when you ride a Rivendell and I say that's a poor man's Cannondale.

This was the holistic vision for the 1983 Cannondale S(port) T(outing) 500 bicycle:



A do everything country bike that Cannondale was manufacturing a full decade before Grant would have to start Rivendell. The irony being that the Mustache bar on a Cannondale ST makes the bike transcendent.

pastorbobnlnh 

Ahhhhhhhhhh! I finally get it @mtnbke! Where you are coming from!

The 1980s Cannondale ST has become your god. The 1983 Cannondale Brochure is your bible (along with other '80s Cannondale publications). Grant Petersen is your anti-christ. Rivendell and any version of lugged steel (vintage or modern) is your satan or sin.

Understanding you from this bicycle "faith" perspective makes a great deal of sense. It is similar to a Presbyterian trying to have a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. Both profess the same faith in Jesus, but both do not agree on his purpose (I'm not going into the details since this is a conversation about bikes and not faith).

We who are more "ecumenical" in our approach to bicycle brands and frame materials stand no chance when trying to engage a dogmatic individual (such as yourself) in a civil conversation about the merits of a variety of bicycles.

I do not mean any of the above as an insult, just an observation, primarily for the other members of C&V who are posting in this thread, as a means to help understand better how you approach this conversation.

FWIIW, I rode my '96 SR 2.8 on Sunday and had a most enjoyable 40 mile ride. Last night I rode my '83, lugged steel, Richard Schwinn built Waterford Paramount with its new tubular wheels/tires, and had a most enjoyable 25 mile ride.