[ccd1977]

I just picked this bike up today for $220. The crank arm is a little loose, the rear wheel needs trued and the bike is too big for me. However, did I get a good buy that I can resell? I believe it is a Cannondale R500 series? Maybe around 1987 ish? Not sure. Anyway, please let the comments be known.

Not sure how to measure the size but from the center of crank bolt to center of top tube is 61cm and from center of crank to top of seat tube is 64cm.

 

[T K]

Expert you say. Everyone here is an expert. Me too.

 

[ultimobici]

Don't know what they retailed for back in the day, but $220 seems a lot for a bike that old with entry level components (RX100) that doesn't look to be in that good a condition. Mechanically it appears to be in good order so any improvements would need to be cosmetic (paint, tyres & tape) which all cost and would eat into any profit. So my vote is no.

 

[Topher]

I bet you could sell it for what you paid for it, but you won't get a lot more than that.

 

[Hank Stamper]

If that's a dent in the chain stay as it appears you'd have to pay me to take it.

 

[ultimobici]

If that's a dent in the chain stay as it appears you'd have to pay me to take it.

That's supposed to be there!!

 

[Hank Stamper]

Had no idea. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[stevesbike]

I"d say you paid about $170 too much for that.

 

[CougarTrek]

However, did I get a good buy that I can resell?

No.

If it fit you, and you really liked it, and you had the mechanical abilities to fix everything (and given it's age and listed issues, basically pull it apart/clean/regrease everything) then you would have gotten an ok deal.

You won't likely resell it for what you paid, and forget getting a profit to cover time and labor to make it rideable so you can resell it.

 

[natedg200202]

The biggest boo-boo is that you bought a bike that is too big for you. That means you won't get any use out of it, and re-selling for $220 will be challenging.

 

[Sebastionmerckx]

If that was my size,I would've paid $100 max for it.

 

[SilverStar]

And even if the bike did fit, Cannondales from that era are filling-rattlers. At least mine was (86/87 Black Lightning) .

Try to sell it for at/near what you paid and move on to something that fits you better.

 

[ccd1977]

Seems like that is what I will do. Move on. What should I look for in a bike that will ensure a good bike then? I though cannondales are good?

 

[laffeaux]

And even if the bike did fit, Cannondales from that era are filling-rattlers.

This is one of the bikes that helped give aluminum a bad name. The seat stays are nearly vertical, which transfers pretty much 100% of the rear wheel impacts right to the saddle. Ouch!!

 

[mitmoned]

Unless you live way out in the boonies, I'd highly recommend going to multiple bike shops. Any bike will be a "good bike" if you get it from a decent bike shop. How much you pay for it can determine how "good" the bike is.

Can you spend $800 on a new road bike from a bike shop and get a good bike? That's subjective. The bike will last you a long time if you take care of it and replace worn parts with better quality parts. The replacing of parts just happens on bikes - the more you pay for those parts up front, the longer they can last, within reason.

Can you spend $400 on a used bike from craigslist and get a good bike? That's also subjective. If instead of your Cannondale, you had posted a steel Trek that fit you, and had better components, you probably would've had a showering of compliments and suggestions that you keep the bike. However, you may have not enjoyed the ride of it.

I guess I'm saying a bike being a "good bike" is really a subjective personal thing. A good bike shop can help you determine what your version of a good bike is. Not everything can be learned from the internet.

 

[CougarTrek]

Seems like that is what I will do. Move on. What should I look for in a bike that will ensure a good bike then? I though cannondales are good?

Cannondales are perfectly good bikes.

IFF they FIT you and IFF they are in good mechanical and structural condition.

That bike, with some maintenance, will make a fairly nice (if older and not so smooth) ride for someone. But at it's age it just doesn't hold that much monetary value anymore.

To get a good bike it is FIT first, period, end of discussion. Doesn't matter if you are riding a $10,000 piece of hand laid carbon fiber with full Dura Ace; if it doesn't fit you will be miserable.

If you have no clue as to what geometry an measurements to look for then I highly recommend spending some time with local shops discussing what you want/need in a bike, what your budget is, and what's going to fit you size wise. If your budget absolutely cannot stretch to a new bike see if you can find a shop locally that sells used. Or find a bike-savvy friend that's willing to go with you and help you sort through craigslist finds.

 

[stevesbike]

Seems like that is what I will do. Move on. What should I look for in a bike that will ensure a good bike then? I though cannondales are good?

the issue isn't make, it's the age and depreciation - how much would you pay for a 1987 car? An older bike will have some value only if it's a real classic - like a 7-eleven team bike, etc.

 

[T K]

If you had just been told you overpaid for a 1987 Ford truck in this condition and you had no use for a truck anyway, would you say "but I thought Ford made good trucks?"

 

[laffeaux]

the issue isn't make, it's the age and depreciation - how much would you pay for a 1987 car? An older bike will have some value only if it's a real classic - like a 7-eleven team bike, etc.

The problem with comparison to a car is that cars have improved a lot in the past 20+ years. They have air bags, anti-lock brakes, satellite radio, get better gas mileage (generally), etc. Also a 20 year old car maybe nearing the end of it's life.

A 20 year old bike that's not been abused (particularly if it's been ridden very little) is still completely useful. The technology has not changed that much, and although there are improvements (integrated levers, more rear cogs, double-pivot brakes, lighter materials) bikes works exactly the same as it did 20, 30 or 50 years ago. I often commute on a 30 year old bike, and I see cruisers from the 50's and 60's biking past my house every day. There's nothing wrong with old bikes.

The good thing about buying used bikes is that you can get a really good deal on a good bike. The bad news, in this case, is that the bike is too big, so was a bad deal at any price.

Given that prices are determined by demand (instead of usefulness), $220 was a bit high for this bike. But there are plenty of bikes that age or older that I'd love to find for that price.

 

[ToF]

I have a cannondale criterium 3.0 frame, the higher end version anyway (SR2000), out in my garage. I bought it brand new in 1990. I think your frame is the same vintage. The "3.0" refers to 3 pounds, which was pretty light back then. The other series was a road bike, with a bit more relaxed geometry. This is a snappy cornering little beast but it can be a bit whippish. They were not built for comfortable long rides...
I would guess based on the components you have an SR400. You can get the serial # with the model number on the frame under one of the chainstays:

During 1986-1992 cannondale used 2 different formats.


​

(Version 1)
56 020588 132
56 = Frame Size
020588 = Production Date
132 = Sequence Number


SN#56020588132 indicates a 56 cm frame, built on February 5, 1988, #132


Here is the 1990 catalog, see page 29. https://sanaandterry.com/cannondale/year/1990/1990.pdf