Just got this bike I know nothing about, can anyone help me identify it? My plan was to make it into a gravel bike but I don't think I can fit gravel tires.
R600?
- Thread starter woopud
- Start date
It's a 1996 2.8 series frame. My guess is that it was built up from a frameset. R600 and above had the carbon fork that year. The color/decal combination was used on the R700 but that model had time trial geometry and an aluminum fork. Your bike looks to have road geometry. Measure the seat tube and head tube angles. Road frames were 73/73, TT frames were 75/72. There were no Campagnolo equipped Cannondales in1996, so you can't really pin a model number on it. Your group looks to be 1994 or older Athena. 1995 and later would have had the model name on each part. I've not owned that fork so I can't say what size tire would fit. I've run 28 mm slicks on older (1987) and newer (1998 CAAD3) frames and that is the limit on them. Often the brake caliper is the tightest clearance, so changing to later dual pivot Shimano can gain some there if the tires clear the frame.
letsbike
Well-Known Member
Occasionally someone posts a bike like this; a bike that is so changed from it's original self as to make the identification tricky.
The serial number says May 1996, which was the last year of the 2.8 frame like yours. The only yellow road bike, in the catalog, was the R700, a triathlon bike that is the farthest thing you would want for a gravel conversion. This is where the bike gets weird. The previous ownership put some pretty pricey Campy parts on the bike, yet that stem is pretty cheap. The two highest end Road bikes in 1996 debuted the carbon fork on your bike, yet they had high end components themselves that I wouldn't have changed for what your bike has. That frame is also pretty small. In 1997 there was a yellow R600C (C meaning Compact) with a carbon fork, but it had the new CAAD2 frame.
If you really want the truth, seek out the previous owners and ask what they did and know. I'm thinking the bike was bought originally by someone wanting to compete in tri and/or biathlons, they threw money at the bike to make them "faster." Decided the next year when carbon forks were the rage to add that too. The next owner bought the bike; it was too small for them, the aero bars had to go. They added that stem. Then you bought it. This is all conjecture of course, and we all know that truth can be stranger than fiction (also don't take the colors in the catalogs as Gospel) Please let us know if you solve this riddle. It looks as though you are at maximum tire size for that bike. If you really want a cheap gravel bike, look for something with cantilever or linear pull brakes. My Cannondale touring bike takes up to 40mm wide tires. You'll see on this site that plenty of people are putting shallow drop bars and slightly narrower tires on mountain bike's as well.
Good luck. I hope to see more posts from you.
The serial number says May 1996, which was the last year of the 2.8 frame like yours. The only yellow road bike, in the catalog, was the R700, a triathlon bike that is the farthest thing you would want for a gravel conversion. This is where the bike gets weird. The previous ownership put some pretty pricey Campy parts on the bike, yet that stem is pretty cheap. The two highest end Road bikes in 1996 debuted the carbon fork on your bike, yet they had high end components themselves that I wouldn't have changed for what your bike has. That frame is also pretty small. In 1997 there was a yellow R600C (C meaning Compact) with a carbon fork, but it had the new CAAD2 frame.
If you really want the truth, seek out the previous owners and ask what they did and know. I'm thinking the bike was bought originally by someone wanting to compete in tri and/or biathlons, they threw money at the bike to make them "faster." Decided the next year when carbon forks were the rage to add that too. The next owner bought the bike; it was too small for them, the aero bars had to go. They added that stem. Then you bought it. This is all conjecture of course, and we all know that truth can be stranger than fiction (also don't take the colors in the catalogs as Gospel) Please let us know if you solve this riddle. It looks as though you are at maximum tire size for that bike. If you really want a cheap gravel bike, look for something with cantilever or linear pull brakes. My Cannondale touring bike takes up to 40mm wide tires. You'll see on this site that plenty of people are putting shallow drop bars and slightly narrower tires on mountain bike's as well.
Good luck. I hope to see more posts from you.
Attachments
By the looks of it, the fork blades are indeed carbon. But in those days all carbon forks had alloy steerers and Cannondale from 1993 to 1996 settled on their MTB headsets for road bikes using 1-1/4” (37 mm internal) steerers.
That bike with a little TLC could be brought back to be an excellent ride. The first thing that needs to go is that (pardon the term), horrendous stem.
I’d disassemble it and clean and mantain all the parts but other than some new bearings, perhaps, it looks like it wouldn’t need much else.
I’m close to being finished turning my 1993 2.8 R900 into an abomination itself.
Turns out that with the proper brake calipers, you can clear (some) 30C tires on 19 mm internal (26 mm external) rims. I’ve got Vittoria Rubino Pro 30’s mounted on some wheels. The mounted tires measure out to 30.4 mm. The original Shimano 600 tricolour brakes and frame clear the tires. I did have to go with a carbon fork in order to accomplish this.
That bike with a little TLC could be brought back to be an excellent ride. The first thing that needs to go is that (pardon the term), horrendous stem.
I’d disassemble it and clean and mantain all the parts but other than some new bearings, perhaps, it looks like it wouldn’t need much else.
I’m close to being finished turning my 1993 2.8 R900 into an abomination itself.
Turns out that with the proper brake calipers, you can clear (some) 30C tires on 19 mm internal (26 mm external) rims. I’ve got Vittoria Rubino Pro 30’s mounted on some wheels. The mounted tires measure out to 30.4 mm. The original Shimano 600 tricolour brakes and frame clear the tires. I did have to go with a carbon fork in order to accomplish this.
letsbike
Well-Known Member
A compact model would mostly be a smaller frame with 650C wheels instead of 700C. The catalog doesn't specify, but it probably had shorter crankarms for ground clearance and maybe smaller brake levers. Everything is geared towards a smaller individual.
It's nice to know that the fork is just painted black. I'd say it's a 1996 R700 that's been heavily modified over the years, unless that yellow was used on another model. I searched this site's database for 1996 models and no other yellow road bikes are on it.
It's nice to know that the fork is just painted black. I'd say it's a 1996 R700 that's been heavily modified over the years, unless that yellow was used on another model. I searched this site's database for 1996 models and no other yellow road bikes are on it.
letsbike
Well-Known Member
You also don't really need a very wide tire. Try looking into cyclocross tires. A quick search found this one that comes in a 700×30 for under $20 a tire.
Everyone's gravel roads are different. Where I live there are many dirt roads that are packed clay and as smooth as pavement, yet others aren't quite as nice.
Everyone's gravel roads are different. Where I live there are many dirt roads that are packed clay and as smooth as pavement, yet others aren't quite as nice.
Attachments
I believe the catalog does in fact specify that the R700 is a “multi-sport 650C” bike that’s spec’s with Shimano 105 and 650C (571 mm rims) wheels. It’s in the component and geometry specs. It was convention back then to use 650C on smaller frames and TT bikes in general.
I’d suggest measuring the rim diameter before making any further plans because if it’s not a 650B (584 mm) or 700C (622 mm) capable frame, tire choices are considerably reduced. Particularly if you want to use the existing wheels.
Regardless of wheel size, I’d also be very surprised if you can pass a 30C CX tire. It’s barely doable with a slick tire and if the frame does in fact have TT geometry and runs 650C’s, it’s even less likely to pass such tires. I’m also not sure whether there is such a thing as a 650C CX tire.
If the rims are 650C, that may be the first thing to change verifying what wheel size the frame can handle. It may not clear 700’s but there’s a chance it can work with 650B’s (13 mm delta) without the brakes over reaching. Of course, once you go to a wider wheel diameter, clearance for tires is going to be reduced further yet.
The tires may also indicate if they are 650C’s (571-?? Markings) which would answer the question about the wheels and indicate this is very likely a May 1996 R700.
One last thought – I suspect the reason why the frame no longer appears to have TT geometry is possibly due to the non-original fork. If the fork is even 10 mm longer axle to crown, that will change the appearance and overall geometry of the bike.
I believe that this is exactly what Cannondale did earlier (say in 1993) in order to produce a TT bike. They’d basically take the same road frame, swap out the fork for one designed for 650B/C (shorter axle to crown) and run different sized wheels front and rear. With a lower stack, the ST and HT would now be more agressive and in line with a TT position.
Last edited:
The compact frames were offered in sizes 43, 45, 47, and 49 cm. If you compare the 49 to the smallest standard geometry frame (48 cm) you will see that the compact geometry has steeper seat and head tube angles and higher bottom bracket. The compact frames were designed for 650C wheels rather than the 700C of the standard.
letsbike
Well-Known Member
I let Artifical Intelligence take a crack at solving this one. Every yellow framed 2.8 that came up was a R700.
This is a small representation.
This is a small representation.
Attachments
Easy to tell if it's an R700, just check the angles. The lack of a model decal makes me lean toward a replacement frame or frameset.