Search results

It's great to see another restoration project. 80s in TX and 90s and super humid in IL. We could use the rain, seems to be everywhere else.

22/28 low gear should get you close to walking speed. I would suggest that you try to pare down the weight of the gear you are carrying. I've hosted a lot of touring cyclists and I doubt any were carrying 75 lbs of cargo.

I've never been on a tandem so hard to understand the benefits/tradeoffs. I've never understood why they are at a disadvantage climbing. Seems like the total bike weight per rider would be lower and you still have whatever aerodynamic advantage there is even at lower speed.

Doesn't correspond to the serial number sequences we have. My best guess based on the year of the bike is that it was made on March 1, 1990 (30190) , but the other numbers don't line up with what is typical for the period.

Since this is a vintage site, my comments were based on common sizing circa 1990, when I bought my first road bike. A pro rider of my height at the time might have ridden a 56 cm frame to get the aerodynamic and miniscule weight benefits. But I think 58 cm would have been the average...

I usually complain about good buys being too small but this one is likely too large. If local, I'd buy it right now just to add to the 1987 bikes. If it's close to you I'd send you the money to buy it, if you have room to store it - probably forever.

Photo is so small that I can't see any detail. I have a couple of CAAD7s here but neither with the same paint. The 2003 USA catalog photo shows the team bike with the red decals on the seat stays. My best guess is that the factory simply didn't have the decals at the time it was painted, or...

I used to do a group ride out of Dunlap Illinois and a couple on a tandem were regulars. In the rolling terrain they could easily gap the group on the downhill sections. I remember working really hard to get back in touch on the uphill sections. as they were both strong riders and the hills...

I'd happily pay $3-400 for a nice SH if it were local to me.

Most 6' tall folks would want a frame of at least 58 cm. I'm around the same height and prefer 60-62 cm frames depending on brand, but I like the seat height to be higher than most. Your 2.8 looks to have a nearly complete Campagnolo group:: hubs, crankset, cassette, shifters, derailleurs...

I'm already way past that point.

It could be mainly adjustment needed. I would pull it apart and check the condition of the spindle and cups. If they don't have any obvious damage, just replace the balls and add fresh grease. I'm not sure I have a bottom bracket loose to check ball size but will try to look. My guess is 1/4".

Try a PM.

For me it's a case of already owning three 1987 SRs and it being two sizes too small. If it were a 60 cm I'd be very tempted.

Bike looks nice in the photo. I would keep riding it as is and do the required maintenance. You will probably be able to ride it for decades.

Looks to be really nice. Too small for me but you might want to add the size.

New question to me. Looking at the '95 catalog doesn't help as it doesn't even list the wheel size for the C/H bikes though I assume it was 700C for both. Trek and Gary Fisher had some nice green paint in the same era. I have a Trek 7000 MTB with beautiful green paint, also an 820 and a...

I wish I had the serial number of my 1989 SM800. There were definitely differences in components from USA to other markets in certain years. Nutted Maillard hubs seem out of place, but the Sun rims suggest to me that the wheels are original to the bike.

Looks like you have a stem that can be rotated down, which will result in the bar being farther forward and lower. If that doesn't get you where you want to be, the next step is to change stems.

I took one off a 2.8 road frame and was able to reproduce a functional equivalent. Not as nice as the original but it will work for me. PM me if you would like to have the original. Just be patient as I don't check in here more often than once a week on average.