Looking for some input. My wife is 5'3 and about 120lbs and I am looking at a Cannondale R1000 Feminine. It is a 50cm bike. She road a trek 52cm at the bike shop because they said that is what fit, but every bike fits different. Its used and it is out of town. I just don't want to make a wasted trip. Any thoughts on size and what is a 2006 Cannondale R1000 Feminine worth. She wants to start riding with me and I hate to pay for a new bike if she doesn't like road riding.
Cannondale R1000 Feminine
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Joined
·
5,962 Posts
50cm sounds more like it. 52cm sounds too big.
I'm 5' 4.5" with longish arms and legs and ride a 49cm unisex bike.
While there is a newer version of 10 speed Ultegra out now, the 2006 R1000 looks to have been spec'd nicely.
I hope you're getting a good deal. BikePedia says it was $2K in 2006. My guess is $900-1000 now, at most.
Here's one on ebay. See what it sells for. Expect to pay a bit more as you'll be getting a new bike. Or bid on the ebay one, which doesn't have many miles on it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-Cannondale-50cm-R1000-Feminine-/160470281884?pt=Road_Bikes#ht_500wt_1154
I'm 5' 4.5" with longish arms and legs and ride a 49cm unisex bike.
While there is a newer version of 10 speed Ultegra out now, the 2006 R1000 looks to have been spec'd nicely.
I hope you're getting a good deal. BikePedia says it was $2K in 2006. My guess is $900-1000 now, at most.
Here's one on ebay. See what it sells for. Expect to pay a bit more as you'll be getting a new bike. Or bid on the ebay one, which doesn't have many miles on it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-Cannondale-50cm-R1000-Feminine-/160470281884?pt=Road_Bikes#ht_500wt_1154
Thats the one I am watching. Its only 45 min drive from me. I think it would make a nice 1st bike for her. I just hate to make a mistake and buy something that doesn't fit her. I did that last year for my self. The big was way too big for me. Live and learn. I am hoping it doesn't reach a reserve and I can contact them and go look at it.
Joined
·
875 Posts
Hi smace:
I seriously doubt that your wife could ride a 50cm Cannondale or a 52cm Trek (regular or Women Specific Design). I'm 5'5 and rode a 50cm CAAD4 for many years (90mm stem, Thomson Elite Seat Post No set back & 170mm cranks) and that barely fit me. Currently riding a 48cm CAAD9 and with the same components and I'm far more comfortable. It's amazing how a few centemeters does to comfort. Don't compromise on fit, if her back or shoulders ache after a few miles, she will not ride the bike, even its it cost $10K.
Considering how well the current CAAD9 have been selling, I think you should get a very good price on the 2006 R1000 (CAAD8???). Don't foret to look at your LBS, if you like Cannondales. The company is curently transitioning to 2011 production so may find a good deal on a 2010 model.
CHL
I seriously doubt that your wife could ride a 50cm Cannondale or a 52cm Trek (regular or Women Specific Design). I'm 5'5 and rode a 50cm CAAD4 for many years (90mm stem, Thomson Elite Seat Post No set back & 170mm cranks) and that barely fit me. Currently riding a 48cm CAAD9 and with the same components and I'm far more comfortable. It's amazing how a few centemeters does to comfort. Don't compromise on fit, if her back or shoulders ache after a few miles, she will not ride the bike, even its it cost $10K.
Considering how well the current CAAD9 have been selling, I think you should get a very good price on the 2006 R1000 (CAAD8???). Don't foret to look at your LBS, if you like Cannondales. The company is curently transitioning to 2011 production so may find a good deal on a 2010 model.
CHL
Thanks for the response. I am going to take her this weekend and ride a few more bikes, because I am thinking the Trek 52CM she tried just happened to be the smallest they had. I want her to ride a few different sizes and see what is the most comfortable.
CHL said:
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
You can't trust the manufacturers. Even within their own lines, their number simply aren't accurate.
Trek lists all Madone frames in one (old) chart. But the REAL bicycles do not conform to it. They vary by year with no indication of the variation. For example:
2007 Trek 5.2 in the 50cm frame has a 47 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar (at a point 4' in front of the seat post). It has a regular seat tube so you can use an aftermarket seatpost to get perfect saddle position if you can start over the 47cm mark.
2009 Trek 5.2 in the 50 cm frame has a 44.5 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar. The seatpost (mast?) is part of the frame and cannot be altered. The seatcap is also propriatary. For a shorter person (who else rides a 50cm frame???) perfect saddle position is hit or miss as there are no aftermarket parts and no way to lower the mast height although the cap can be moved in one direction (up).
That's an inch of difference. For some riders that inch is crucial. There is NO WAY to learn this important fact without measuring the bike (with a tape measure or your crotch). Even Trek dealers aren't aware of it. Some engineer is, somewhere at Trek, but he's holding the information as a trade secret. That engineer is, no doubt, 6'1" tall and oblivious to the problem.
Trek lists all Madone frames in one (old) chart. But the REAL bicycles do not conform to it. They vary by year with no indication of the variation. For example:
2007 Trek 5.2 in the 50cm frame has a 47 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar (at a point 4' in front of the seat post). It has a regular seat tube so you can use an aftermarket seatpost to get perfect saddle position if you can start over the 47cm mark.
2009 Trek 5.2 in the 50 cm frame has a 44.5 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar. The seatpost (mast?) is part of the frame and cannot be altered. The seatcap is also propriatary. For a shorter person (who else rides a 50cm frame???) perfect saddle position is hit or miss as there are no aftermarket parts and no way to lower the mast height although the cap can be moved in one direction (up).
That's an inch of difference. For some riders that inch is crucial. There is NO WAY to learn this important fact without measuring the bike (with a tape measure or your crotch). Even Trek dealers aren't aware of it. Some engineer is, somewhere at Trek, but he's holding the information as a trade secret. That engineer is, no doubt, 6'1" tall and oblivious to the problem.
Joined
·
4 Posts
Leg/body proportions matter here greatly, and as others have already noted sizing differs between manufacturers.
For example, I am 5.3 in my stocking feet and have long legs + short reach that many women have. My Surly Long Haul Trucker is the second smallest they make at 46cm and fits me perfectly.
I just sold my too large 15 inch Trek 7.6 FX WSD - it was fine for my legs but the reach was too long. I should never have bought it but I did not know anything at the time and that is the smallest size that Trek makes in the 7.6 - the LBS was more concerned about the sale than whether it fit. I COULD ride it - for 20 miles or less... My LHT I can ride all day - and do. I have a new LBS these days.
All of that being said, my LHT is not a WSD - so there are bikes out there that will fit smaller women that are not a women-specific design. Test ride, test ride, and test ride some more
For example, I am 5.3 in my stocking feet and have long legs + short reach that many women have. My Surly Long Haul Trucker is the second smallest they make at 46cm and fits me perfectly.
I just sold my too large 15 inch Trek 7.6 FX WSD - it was fine for my legs but the reach was too long. I should never have bought it but I did not know anything at the time and that is the smallest size that Trek makes in the 7.6 - the LBS was more concerned about the sale than whether it fit. I COULD ride it - for 20 miles or less... My LHT I can ride all day - and do. I have a new LBS these days.
All of that being said, my LHT is not a WSD - so there are bikes out there that will fit smaller women that are not a women-specific design. Test ride, test ride, and test ride some more
I am a male junior who is 5 feet 2 inches, and I have that exact bike (2005-2006) in size 50. I have ridden many bikes and it compares favorably to to most high carbon bikes. I absolutely LOVE it. VERY FAST bike, 17.1 pounds. (with speedplay pedals and metal water bottle cages). However I have a massive inseem and short torso....
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
That seems to be a bit on the large side. My husband is 5 ft 5 in and has a 48cm Canondale. The 50cm would be too big for him. I'm 5ft, but I also have short legs with a bit longer reach and have a 47cm Trek (men's bike, not a WSD), which is the very limit of how large of a bike I can ride. I'd think it would be a really good idea for her to test one that is the next size smaller just to be sure of what she is the most comfortable with.
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
Wyker, he couldn't stand over anything larger with any clearance. We also both had our inseem measured and that was what they told him he needed (short inseem). I also have a short inseem, of course I can't remember for the life of me what mine is. LOL.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Join the discussion
