CAAD 4 Identification please

[woof]

I have a CAAD4 that has a very unusual serial number configuration. I realize the fairlead is in the way, but it reads:

585 <fairlead> 451 (all of these are numbers, not letters)
2RR <Fairlead> ? 56

I'll post a pic, but a couple of things. The frame appears to be no earlier than 1999 and it is probably no later than 2001...

The 56 in the lower right appears to be hanging out on its own.

I'll post a pic. Let me know what you all think this is. The frame seems to measure as a 56 likely... I get 21.25" from center of BB to top of top tube. That's 53.975 cm or 54cm. According to all the geometry charts I can find for CAAD, generally it appears that you add 2 cm to the measurement referenced for the final frame size = 56cm.

So I am hoping this is some kind of weird alternate serial with the frame size being on the lower right. However, beyond figuring out the size, I'd also like to understand what kind of weird alternate this is and what people can tell me about the bike based on it?

 

[Brian]

Cannondale had drama in switch from 1989 to 1990 and from 1999 to 2000.. Do you have a full photo? or is there another SN? There would usually be 2 letters to determine the year. They might be under the guide.

 

[woof]

No other serial. It's all under the guide. Interested more in frame size than year, but it is so weird that I am intrigued and trying to figure out what gives. I do think the isolated "56" in lower right corresponds to the frame size. My measurements pretty much confirm that, and frankly it fits higher than my CAAD10 54 and about the same as my SuperX 56.

It's just weird, because it should either conform to this for 1993-1999

Notice in this figure that there is a
1. long, ie not short, string of numbers lower right, and;
2. the two letter year/month, upper left.

A. Mine has a long string on the upper left starting with a number, not a letter - "585" as far as I can tell, and
B. Only two digits, not letters lower right, ie: "56"

Then there is this for 2000-2001

This LOOKS more promising and it is. However, here we have the year and month codes in lower right and it should be a letter followed by a number. Valid letters are: L= 2000, M = 2001;

Mine is very clearly a "56"

It's not a 1986-1992 for sure and it is not a 2002-Current. See reference here: https://vintagecannondale.com/info/serial_numbers/

This is some kind of odd variant Serial number.

I am guessing it is at the 2000 boundary. There are things about the bike that clearly date it to 2000 to 2001. It has a complete Campy Daytona group set. Daytona seem to have replaced the former group set at that level in 2000, and was itself renamed to Centaur in 2002. The fork is very clearly a 2001 based on its paint scheme...

Thoughts? Were there other schemes? Transitional schemes?

 

[black lightning 1987]

I think your serial number conforms to the example for 1993-1999, with the exception that the example doesn't show the frame size. I have a 1999 R40000 CAAD4 and a 1998 R4000 CAAD3. They both have the size included in the frame code as the last two digits. On my CAAD4 the size is preceded by a two letter code, with most of the frame code under the cable guide. I have an earlier 2.8 frame that I can check to see if it has size included, but I will have to remember to check.

 

[woof]

So I take it you think it is a 56 based on this... an yes I'd be interested in knowing what the 2.8 tells us.

Frame could definitely be a 1999. Fork is almost certainly 2001, and group set is 2000-2001. I am guessing it was a frame sold in 2001, and someone put period Campy mid-range parts on as an homage to the RS5000 team bike.

I forgot to mention it is a Saeco CAAD4. There is no Saeco in the catalogs with Daytona...

 

[black lightning 1987]

I would think it's a 56. Seat tube should measure 58.7 cm center of bottom bracket to top of tube. From 52 to 60 the seat tube of each size will vary by 1 cm. So if your seat tube measures 57.7 it's a 55. You will have to elaborate on the fork. Early CAAD4 frames had a 1" head tube, while the upper end road bikes in 2001 were CAAD6 and CAAD5, which had 1 1/8" head tubes and integrated headsets. I think all 2001 road frames had 1 1/8" head tubes, even the CAAD4s. Hard to say about the parts group. It could have been an R5000 with Record originally, and someone moved the parts to another frame. Daytona is great stuff though, gives up nothing in function to Record 10 - just weighs a bit more. When Campagnolo was forced to close out Daytona and change the name, you could buy a complete group with hubs for $350. I wish I'd had the money to buy ten groups, had to settle for one.

 

[woof]

Hmm, you have a great point about the fork/head tubes.

This is what I meant about the fork. Many of the forks for the Saecos are painted black... The baseline is that my fork is painted full red. It's a Slice Carbon... No black or fade, or anything fancy. It's a slice.

Very few Saecos in 1998 catalog, other than the team replica, which has a black fork. http://vintagecannondale.com/year/1998/1998.pdf
Also few Saecos in 1999 we have a team replica with a red to black fade on the fork - http://vintagecannondale.com/year/1999/1999V2.pdf

It is worth noting that on mine, the Saeco (decal?) is white. Not yellow as with the team machines in 1998 and 1999.

In 2000 we have the Silk Road 400 Triple Saeco. Pretty sure this is not a silk road, and there certainly is not shock; also the shift lead on the main tube is not present. The Saeco Team replica looks closer, but again has a black fork. The r2000 and r800/400 Saeco have a red to black fade. http://vintagecannondale.com/year/2000/2000.pdf

The fork really looks similar to fork on the R5000 Si in 2001 - however, that bike is a CAAD6, and actually has the Si logo; http://vintagecannondale.com/year/2001/2001.pdf

It is worth noting that the Saeco (decal?) does not have the "machine de cafe" under the lettering - again, white. All the the 1998/1999 bikes have yellow Saeco. 2000 bikes show "machine de cafe."

Which means that I do not see this exact frame or fork anywhere in the catalogs. It is pained like a 2001. It's a CAAD4, so In the end it looks like a CAAD4 painted more or less as a 2001 R5000 Si, with a red Slice fork that I cannot quite identify either.

You are right about 1" versus 1 1/8.

So it's a mystery really. Feels like this was sold as a frameset and built up. Otherwise we would see a black or red/black fork.

At the moment the bike is not with me, so I cannot look at some other potential cues. In the end, I am going to pull that fairlead off and get the full serial and determine the year. I'll post pics when that happens.

 

[black lightning 1987]

Wondering if it could be a 2001 R600 with an added Saeco decal. We've seen bikes before that have paint that doesn't match the catalog models. Cannondale did spec Daytona on the 2001 Chain Gang, but it was a CAAD5 frame. Perhaps they had some extra groups and put them on some CAAD4 Saeco frames.

 

[woof]

Wondering if it could be a 2001 R600 with an added Saeco decal. We've seen bikes before that have paint that doesn't match the catalog models. Cannondale did spec Daytona on the 2001 Chain Gang, but it was a CAAD5 frame. Perhaps they had some extra groups and put them on some CAAD4 Saeco frames.

Yes, this is the kind of thing I am wondering. Some kind of off-catalog build?

I see what you mean about Chain Gang being Spec's with Daytona.

I found a picture of the fork. It is a Slice Prodigy Alloy Steerer with Carbon Blades. That Slice is very clearly the one in use with the R600 in the 2001 Catalog. I guess my question is... do you know of examples like this that were off-catalog, assembled potentially from spare parts... at this 2001 point in time perhaps they were moving on from CAAD4 Saeco (cause CAAD 6 is obviously on offer in 2001) and might have some CAAD4 frames. They need to move them, so they do an analog of a CAAD6/Record R5000Si using downmarket components as CAAD4/Daytona?

BTW: An interesting point about the R600 is that it is a CAAD4 AND has a 1 1/8 Slice Carbon according to the catalog. So it's going to be interesting to look at that when I get the bike back.

This would make it a kind of rare variant. I do not suppose we will ever know. But all the more reason to get the full serial established.

 

[woof]

This is not my serial number. It comes from a red R600 CAAD4

However, I am very clear that this is the FORMAT of my serial number. This format does not conform to any of the formats presented here on Vintage Cannondale.

If this is indeed a 1993-1999, then the only pair of letters that make sense are "LK." In this case the letters would have to be revered. The diagram shows the order as Year and Month. If "LK" were the letters it would have to be Month and Year or November of 1999.

E = 1993, F = 1994, G = 1995, H = 1996, I = 1997, J = 1998, K = 1999

A = January, B = February, C = March, D = April, E = May, F = June, G = July, H= August, I = September, J = October, K = November, L = December

 

[black lightning 1987]

Did you take the serial number picture of the 52 cm frame? Since it doesn't show the whole width of the BB shell, I'm not convinced that there is no separate two letter code. The two letter codes on my frames are well to the left of the frame code. Does the 52 cm bike conform to a 1999 model? Will be interesting to see if there's a two letter code in your frame number that puts it in the 2001 model year window.

I've seen numerous examples where Cannondale substituted various parts from catalog spec. Can't recall a full group substitution, but think it's possible. We have seen many examples of frames where we are sure of the year or model, but the paint doesn't match anything in the catalogs. I have a couple examples myself. Perhaps the Chain Gang wasn't selling and Cannondale decided to paint some as Saeco to stimulate sales. Your bike could be something a dealer put together as well. Lets say a dealer had a Chain Gang and a Record bike on the floor. The Chain Gang was the customer's size, or he liked the color better or both, but he wants Record. Dealer swaps the Record to the Chain Gang and the Daytona to whatever frameset yours turns out to be. Do you have Campagnolo Proton wheels? That would be further evidence of a factory or dealer build, rather than a random owner build.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm pretty sure that all 2001 road frames had 1 1/8" forks - even though previous CAAD4s were 1". It's curious that Cannondale didn't designate the 1 1/8" CAAD4s as CAAD5 and the SI threaded BB frames as CAAD6. Many would view the 1 1/8" fork as a more significant development than the hourglass stays, which is the only difference (as far as I know) between CAAD3 and 4. If your bike turns out to be a 1 1/8" CAAD4, it's most likely a 2001 model. There was a CAAD4 R500 in 2002 and a CAAD4 R400 in 2003, but these were Sora/Tiagra models and unlikely to have received Saeco paint.

 

[woof]

>> Does the 52 cm bike conform to a 1999 model?

Great question... No. The 52cm is clearly marked as an R600 CAAD4. In 1999 the R600 was a CAAD3. Good point! So this is not a 1999 format. In format it looks most like 2000-2001, but the two letter code is missing.

>> Do you have Campagnolo Proton wheels?

No... When I go it it was a mutt in that it had a mismatch. Rear is a CXP22 Front is a Ksyrium...

 

[black lightning 1987]

Here's a 2.8 I have that's in the year range for same serial number configuration. I need to check a couple of others.

It's essentially a 1995 R800, but has an aluminum fork instead of the carbon fork the catalog shows. It's also a bit of an anomaly, as it has no model decal on the top tube but has the 2.8 Aluminum decal similar to what was on 1993 frames. May have been some kind of a team bike. At any rate the serial number conforms to what we have on the information page: has a two letter code (GH) upper left, and the size (58) following the frame code. I need to check my 1993 M800 next. If it has the size stamp, I think we can be fairly sure that the size normally followed the frame code from 1993-1999.

 

[Matt Lewkowicz]

I just bought a very similar used Cannondale and am trying to identify the serial as well. Pic below. Sorry for the novice question but is there any way to identify the full serial without removing the fairlead?

What I can read is
50 <fairlead> 10
1RR <fairlead> 54

 

[woof]

>> is there any way to identify the full serial without removing the fairlead?

I do not think so. I will say this. I remain convinced that this format is not accounted for in the literature I have seen.

Based on having seen this format quite a few times now and based on sizing the bikes I have seen, I know that 54 is the size. I have additional theories but cannot prove them.

 

[Matt Lewkowicz]

Damn. So, if I wanted to register with the bike index, or the local police, how would I do that then? I live in Brooklyn and have had 2 bikes stolen so I'm trying to behave with only best practices from now on.

 

[black lightning 1987]

If I was going to register it, I'd remove the cable guide and photograph all the numbers. You don't have to disconnect cables: just shift to the big chainring and big cog while turning the crank - then shift all the way in the opposite directions without turning the crank. Should result in plenty of cable slack to move the cable guide far enough out of the way to photo all the numbers. I would also photograph the bike in a location that isn't a public place - identifiable as your house, your parents, etc.

 

[Ionut]

Reviving this as I got into the same issue; Could it be a Silk Frame (by looking at the very short head tube) with road fork?

 

[black lightning 1987]

With the exception that it's a CAAD4 frame, that looks like it could be a 2000 Silk Road 400 - which is shown as a CAAD3 in the catalog. The 400 had mostly Tiagra components with Coda crank and brake calipers and CXP11 rims. CAAD4s originally had 1" head tubes (35 mm OD), but later ones may have had 1 1/8" (43 mm OD) head tubes. The Headshok Silk Road head tubes measure 54 mm. Your frame is a 52 cm frame. If the head tube measures 54 mm, it's definitely a Silk Road. My guess is that they may have quit making the CAAD3 Silk Road frames at some point during the model year, after the catalog was printed. The only difference between the two frames was that the CAAD3 had straight seat stays, and the CAAD4 had the S bend stays. It was likely cheaper to make all the Silk Roads CAAD4 than to continue to produce both.