Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!eirik
From: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Cannondale frame quality
Message-ID: <246@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 03:44:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekchips.246
Posted: Sun Sep 29 03:44:50 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 03:20:08 EDT
References: <285@ncr-sd.UUCP> <4200025@uiucdcsp>
Reply-To: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 68
Summary: 

In article <4200025@uiucdcsp> leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>/* Written 10:22 pm  Sep 23, 1985 by kehoe@reed.UUCP in uiucdcsp:net.bicycle */
>
>Buying a bicycle: Cannondale have the best frames (except for
>Gary Klein's frames); also look at Bridgestone bicycles.
>
> ...
>/* End of text from uiucdcsp:net.bicycle */
>
>
>Is that why Cannondale's recalling their forks?  These frames look
>like slop, too, with no effort made to fill or polish the welds.  It
>seems to me Cannondale just runs the tubes under a torch and smothers
>everything in Imron.
>
>If you buy a cheap production bike like the Cannondale, you can't
>expect the kind of careful "total job" construction and careful
>parts selection that you'll find on a top quality production bike.
>
> ...
>
>-Ben Leimkuhler


I missed something.  What does the quality of a frame made by
Cannondale have to do with the quality of a fork supplied by a
Japanese manufacturer? Cannondale is recalling some of its Chromoly
forks, but even the ones it isn't recalling are steel forks on
aluminum frames, and there is simply no need for Cannondale to
manufacture them itself. Even if Cannondale did a poor job of
selecting somebody else's forks, that still is not necesarily a
reflection on the quality of its frames.

I own a Cannondale, and I assembled four others when I worked in a
Schwinn shop. I don't think the frames look like slop. Cannondale's
goal is not to manufacture the most aesthetically appealing frames 
in the bicycle world; if that is your major concern, go ahead and
spend twice as much. If there is a structural problem with their
"sloppy" welds, it is news to me. Before they "smother" their frames
in Imron, they heat-treat them (after welding). The entire process
involved some non-trivial engineering; some of us feel that the
result, a frame which is stronger, stiffer, and lighter than steel
frames, is worth the appearance and price. I personally like the
appearance of the oversize tubing, and I have no objection to the
appearance of any functional joint (my cousin repaired my Hypercycle
frame with an arc welder, and it is still holding).

I missed something else. What does the price of a bike have to do
with the parts selection? In my opinion, Cannondale does a decent
job of this (except maybe a fork here or there). For the ST400, they
made the same choice everyone else seems to be making these days,
the Shimano new 600 group. Its reputation is deservedly good. On
their other models, they do a bit more mixing and matching. What bad
decisions do you think they made about parts on any of their models?

One more comment: anyone who doesn't like the parts selection
Cannondale does can still buy one of their framesets, for noticably
less money than Klein's budget model, though for a racer I'm
inclined to buy the SR300 and upgrade some of the parts (possibly
lace up a pair of tubulars). Buying the whole bike gives the
"manufacturer's discount", and I'm sure I can find a use for any
leftover parts (I always do). 

I'm not sure just how much of your anti-Cannondale rhetoric is based
on factual evidence of actual problems. If any of it is, I would
like to know before I decide whether to buy another, or continue to 
recommend them to others.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com