Something seems wrong..?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by carolina
Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic: click here to see the bike. Here's the CAAD7 on the Cannondale website: click here to compare. Whats up with that? The bike is otherwise beautiful.

Thanks for any input here.

The used bike you are looking to buy has a smaller size frame, hence the tubes come together closer at the head tube.

The model you pointed to has a near horizontal top tube-standard road frame. The pic of the prospective purchase has a sloping top tube-compact road frame. The Cannondale R2000 feminine has a sloping top tube although not as much as the prospective purchase, that appears the model you are looking to purchase. However the R2000 feminine on mfg's website is a larger frame size, so maybe the smaller size adapts a more compact style frame.

Find out what size frame the prospective purchase is and if that is the smallest frame for that model.

Thanks. The size on the prospective purchase is 48cm (it is not the feminine), which is the smallest size for that frame, so i guess that explains it. I'm 5'3 with a 29in inseam and I'm also looking at the same bike in a 47cm feminine which doesn't give this appearance.

Regards, Karen

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by meb
The used bike you are looking to buy has a smaller size frame, hence the tubes come together closer at the head tube.

The model you pointed to has a near horizontal top tube-standard road frame. The pic of the prospective purchase has a sloping top tube-compact road frame. The Cannondale R2000 feminine has a sloping top tube although not as much as the prospective purchase, that appears the model you are looking to purchase. However the R2000 feminine on mfg's website is a larger frame size, so maybe the smaller size adapts a more compact style frame.

Find out what size frame the prospective purchase is and if that is the smallest frame for that model.

it looks to me that the tubes are welded together because the head tube is really short. head tubes
on small bikes are also really short. aluminum frames need to have the thick tubes too so that
doesn't help any. try finding a steel frame of the same size and compare...

"carolina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a
previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on
this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the
top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic:
i24.ebayimg.comdf 3.JPGclickOpen ↗ here to see the bike[/url]. Here's the CAAD7 on
the Cannondale website: click"]http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR2D.html]click here to
compare. Whats up with that? The bike is otherwise beautiful.

Thanks for any input here.

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com cyclingforums.comcyclingforums.comOpen ↗

carolina said:

Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a
previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on
this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the
top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic:
i24.ebayimg.comdf 3.JPGclickOpen ↗ here to see the bike[/url]. Here's the CAAD7 on
the Cannondale website: click"]http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR2D.html]click here to
compare. Whats up with that? The bike is otherwise beautiful.

Besides having the wrong equipment ( it isn't Ergo) the light blue bike is very small. I don't know
Cannondales very well but I'd say it looks like a 48cm frame. Do you need that size? The mfr web
page shows a 57cm frame.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

carolina said:

Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a
previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on
this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the
top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic: i24.ebayimg.comdf 3.JPGOpen ↗
click here to see the

That's a small frame.

Quoted message said:

bike[/url]. Here's the CAAD7 on the Cannondale website:
cannondale.commodel 3RR2D.htmlOpen ↗

That's a medium-sized frame.

The difference between different sized road bike frames shows up mainly in the length of the head
tube; small frames have very short head tubes, as shown in your picture. From your picture I cannot
see anything wrong with your bike, although I cannot of course guarantee that there is nothing wrong
with it. If the frame fits, you, go for it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; better than your average performing pineapple

Thanks for all the replies.

I was also thinking the tubes were welded and the weld seemed very apparent (I thought cannondale was noted for smooth, nearly transparent welds). I haven't seen enough small bikes to compare though, so this may be perfectly acceptable.

Yes, this frame is the smallest for the standard 2000 (48cm CAAD7). The 2000 feminine I'm also looking at (which is a 47cm CAAD5 feminine) does not have a weld and the head tube is longer (even though it is a smaller bike). I suppose this is because the feminine version is designed for a smaller proportioned bike? For looks alone (in this size) I like the feminine frame better.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serg
[B]it looks to me that the tubes are welded together because the head tube is really short. head tubes
on small bikes are also really short. aluminum frames need to have the thick tubes too so that
doesn't help any. try finding a steel frame of the same size and compare...

"carolina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a
previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on
this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the
top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic:
i24.ebayimg.comdf 3.JPGclickOpen ↗ here to see the bike[/url]. Here's the CAAD7 on
the Cannondale website: click"]http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR2D.html]click here to
compare. Whats up with that? The bike is otherwise beautiful.

Thanks for any input here.

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com cyclingforums.comcyclingforums.comOpen ↗ [/B]

carolina said:

Thanks for all the replies.

I was also thinking the tubes were welded and the weld seemed very apparent (I thought cannondale
was noted for smooth, nearly transparent welds). I haven't seen enough small bikes to compare
though, so this may be perfectly acceptable.

H'mmm... That's true, actually. The welds on my Cannondale are absolutely beautiful, far smoother
than on any other make of bike I've ever seen. I shouldn't be surprised if there's a fair bit of
filler in there, though. By contrast the weld in your picture does not look as nice. On the other
hand the paint job looks original so I'd be very surprised if it's been repaired.

Quoted message said:

Yes, this frame is the smallest for the standard 2000 (48cm CAAD7). The 2000 feminine I'm also
looking at (which is a 47cm CAAD5 feminine) does not have a weld and the head tube is longer (even
though it is a smaller bike). I suppose this is because the feminine version is designed for a
smaller proportioned bike? For looks alone (in this size) I like the feminine frame better.

Which fits you better, and how much of a saving would you get on the second hand bike? Women's
geometry also tends to have shorter relative top tube, so you may find a 'mens' frame too long in
the reach even if it's right in the leg.

It's worth remembering that if you get a new Cannondale (at least on the 2003 models) you get a
frame guaranteed for your lifetime, which is worth a bit of extra in my opinion. I think the 2004
models may only be guaranteed for three years, though, so check - and if you can still get a 2003
that may be the one to go for.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting me down. I think I'll
upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're
crawling with bugs.

carolina said:

Hello. I'm in the market to buy my first road bike and one of the bikes I'm looking at is a
previously owned 2003 Cannondale 2000 Si Double. I'm no expert, but something about the frame on
this bike is bothering me. Maybe someone here can steer me straight on this one, look at where the
top and down tubes meet at the head in this pic:
i24.ebayimg.comdf 3.JPGclickOpen ↗ here to see the bike[/url]. Here's the CAAD7 on
the Cannondale website: click"]http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RR2D.html]click here to
compare. Whats up with that? The bike is otherwise beautiful.

My Cannondale MTB circa 1993 is the same. It's hard to make out a separate head tube because
everything flows into one another.

Basically, that's a small frame size and the only way to get the bars in a low racing position is to
have a tiny head tube.

"carolina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was also thinking the tubes were welded and the weld seemed very apparent (I thought cannondale
was noted for smooth, nearly transparent welds). I haven't seen enough small bikes to compare
though, so this may be perfectly acceptable.

Yes, this frame is the smallest for the standard 2000 (48cm CAAD7). The 2000 feminine I'm also
looking at (which is a 47cm CAAD5 feminine) does not have a weld and the head tube is longer (even
though it is a smaller bike). I suppose this is because the feminine version is designed for a
smaller proportioned bike? For looks alone (in this size) I like the feminine frame better.

"Feminine" designs have shorter top tubes; less reach to the bars. The chances are very good that if
the standard frame is an optimal fit for you, the feminine isn't, and vice versa. Also, neither
frame may fit you. If you don't *know* the geometry that matches your physique and riding style,
buying a bike untested is nothing more than a gamble.

Buying your *first* road bike off ebay seems risky to me, unless it's a frame you have previously
test ridden and found suitable, or unless it's a frame whose geometry is identical to one you
know fits you.

RichC

Simon Brooke said:

carolina said:

Thanks for all the replies.

I was also thinking the tubes were welded and the weld seemed very apparent (I thought cannondale
was noted for smooth, nearly transparent welds). I haven't seen enough small bikes to compare
though, so this may be perfectly acceptable.

H'mmm... That's true, actually. The welds on my Cannondale are absolutely beautiful, far smoother
than on any other make of bike I've ever seen. I shouldn't be surprised if there's a fair bit of
filler in there, though. By contrast the weld in your picture does not look as nice. On the other
hand the paint job looks original so I'd be very surprised if it's been repaired.

<snipped>

Quoted message said:

It's worth remembering that if you get a new Cannondale (at least on the 2003 models) you get a
frame guaranteed for your lifetime, which is worth a bit of extra in my opinion. I think the 2004
models may only be guaranteed for three years, though, so check - and if you can still get a 2003
that may be the one to go for.

I've stripped all the paint off my M1000 frame and there is no filler, just filed (and very nice)
welds. I have heard that 'Dale do push out frames with filler in them occasionally.

FWIW the guarantee is hardly worth the paper it's written on. The Cannondale website makes it clear
that it is only meant to cover manufacturing defects, not fatigue. Also, repaint the frame and they
will refuse to pay up. The paintjobs are pretty fragile for offroad use and after only a year my MTB
looked awful where stones had blasted the downtube.

Zog The Undeniable said:

FWIW the guarantee is hardly worth the paper it's written on. The Cannondale website makes it
clear that it is only meant to cover manufacturing defects, not fatigue. Also, repaint the frame
and they will refuse to pay up. The paintjobs are pretty fragile for offroad use and after only a
year my MTB looked awful where stones had blasted the downtube.

I had a friend with a ten year old Cannondale which developed a crack. He thought of it as basic
wear and tear, and took it into his LBS to see if it could be repaired. Shortly after a brand new
campaign came back, free. That's not a bad guarantee.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and ;; it isn't furry.

Simon Brooke said:

I had a friend with a ten year old Cannondale which developed a crack. He thought of it as basic
wear and tear, and took it into his LBS to see if it could be repaired. Shortly after a brand new
campaign came back, free. That's not a bad guarantee.

I think they're tightening up on it judging from their website, but it's nice to know some people
are still getting frames out of them.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Simon Brooke said:

I had a friend with a ten year old Cannondale which developed a crack. He thought of it as basic
wear and tear, and took it into his LBS to see if it could be repaired. Shortly after a brand
new campaign came back, free. That's not a bad guarantee.

I think they're tightening up on it judging from their website, but it's nice to know some people
are still getting frames out of them.

Well, the 2004 frames seem only to have a three year guarantee, so I'll be keeping my 2003.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ /-\ You have discovered a
security flaw in a Microsoft product. You can
|-| report this issue to our security tesm. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem for free?