R2000 early 90s?

[alh_p]

Hi, I just acquired what looks like an R2000. I’m keen to figure out a date for it. It looks like there is a serial number under the cable guide under the BB, I will investigate but keen for thoughts already. It has a mix of ultegra and Campag parts and a Time fork. This does not look like original components from the cannondale catalogues.

I’m a bit confused by the lack of head tube logo. I wonder if this was resprayed? Some of the welds and supports around the rear wheel dropouts look a lot more agricultural than elsewhere.

 

[alh_p]

Here’s the underside of the BB. Not easy to tell what this is. Doesn’t obviously fit the marking types described elsewhere on this site.

I’m becoming more convinced this was resprayed at some point, after the rear drop outs had an aftermarket or diy strengthening plate welded on. It is also missing the integrated seat post clamp/bolt. The decals are not standard for any catalogue photo for the relevant eras though.

I’d say the frame shape and rear drop outs do make this look like a cannondale from c. 1991. Any thoughts? Seller was not able to give any history of the bike.

 

[Trailmix]

Your information will be under that thick paint on the BB shell. Serial number location makes it a 93 or later.

 

[alh_p]

Thanks! I see from the 93 catalogue (Here) that they also started using collars on the seat post from 93 too.

Not sure I’m invested enough yet to remove the paint and redo it, but I’ll retain that option for a future project.

 

[doxilia]

This bike strikes me as it was originally an R900 that got modified (due to a weld crack at the stay junction?) and possibly had a different diameter head tube (HT) welded to it which could be the cause for the missing C logo on it. Might have been involved in a serious crash that ended up damaging the original fork.

The saddle, seatpost, collar, headset, stem and bar are all aftermarket as is the Time fork. Question is whether the ID of the HT is 37 mm or whether it is narrower to accommodate a 1-1/8” steerer. The wheels would indicate if it was an R900 or R2000 with the former having Ultegra hubs and the latter Dura-Ace hubs.

The rest of the bike, except for the crankset (also possibly damaged?), seems to be Ultegra so that’s why a re-painted R900 strikes me as more likely. The colour scheme is also inline with the Team Saeco colours of Mario Cipollini and co of the time. Cipollini was a very flamboyant Italian racer of the time.

If the frame is aligned and in good shape, I’d definitely consider cleaning it up and giving it a good fresh paint job. Whether you want to keep the original components or not, that’s a personal preference but know that these frames can accommodate 30C (in some cases, 32) tires on wide (28-30 mm) carbon rims. I only mention this because it completely transforms the way the bike rides compared to using the skinny 15 mm internal Mavic Open 4 rims and wheels. On those rims, 28C tires measure out to only 25 mm which makes it a rather harsh ride at quite high pressures.

A year ago I decided to transform my original Ultegra 600 '94 R900 into a modern vintage bike with SRAM AXS components and carbon finishing kit (fork, seatpost, saddle, stem and bars). The bike is a completely transformed experience though I have only been able to test ride it a few times due to it not being quite finished. The bike went from being a 9.5 kg ride to loosing over 2 kg. It’s now 7.4 kg with pedals, cages, bottles and computer mount all included. My bare 60 cm frame weighed 1275g so just about exactly 2.8 lbs (5g over for an XL frame) as Cannondale states.

A suggestion: please do rotate those bars forward so the shifters are not pointing to Mars and you end up riding it like a city commuter rental!

Also, get yourself some fresh brake pads. I’d recommend some SwissStop. The Shimano ones you have are terrible. Incidentally, the Shimano Ultegra components put this bike as a '95 or later. The '94 models came with “600 Tricolour” Shimano which predate your parts.

David

 

[alh_p]

This bike strikes me as it was originally an R900 that got modified (due to a weld crack at the stay junction?) and possibly had a different diameter head tube (HT) welded to it which could be the cause for the missing C logo on it. Might have been involved in a serious crash that ended up damaging the original fork.

The saddle, seatpost, collar, headset, stem and bar are all aftermarket as is the Time fork. Question is whether the ID of the HT is 37 mm or whether it is narrower to accommodate a 1-1/8” steerer. The wheels would indicate if it was an R900 or R2000 with the former having Ultegra hubs and the latter Dura-Ace hubs.

The rest of the bike, except for the crankset (also possibly damaged?), seems to be Ultegra so that’s why a re-painted R900 strikes me as more likely. The colour scheme is also inline with the Team Saeco colours of Mario Cipollini and co of the time. Cipollini was a very flamboyant Italian racer of the time.

If the frame is aligned and in good shape, I’d definitely consider cleaning it up and giving it a good fresh paint job. Whether you want to keep the original components or not, that’s a personal preference but know that these frames can accommodate 30C (in some cases, 32) tires on wide (28-30 mm) carbon rims. I only mention this because it completely transforms the way the bike rides compared to using the skinny 15 mm internal Mavic Open 4 rims and wheels. On those rims, 28C tires measure out to only 25 mm which makes it a rather harsh ride at quite high pressures.

A year ago I decided to transform my original Ultegra 600 '94 R900 into a modern vintage bike with SRAM AXS components and carbon finishing kit (fork, seatpost, saddle, stem and bars). The bike is a completely transformed experience though I have only been able to test ride it a few times due to it not being quite finished. The bike went from being a 9.5 kg ride to loosing over 2 kg. It’s now 7.4 kg with pedals, cages, bottles and computer mount all included. My bare 60 cm frame weighed 1275g so just about exactly 2.8 lbs (5g over for an XL frame) as Cannondale states.

A suggestion: please do rotate those bars forward so the shifters are not pointing to Mars and you end up riding it like a city commuter rental!

Also, get yourself some fresh brake pads. I’d recommend some SwissStop. The Shimano ones you have are terrible. Incidentally, the Shimano Ultegra components put this bike as a '95 or later. The '94 models came with “600 Tricolour” Shimano which predate your parts.

David

Yes the bars have since been set to a conventional angle

The fork steerer is either 1” or 11/8”. Not disassembled further yet.

Groupset is a mix of ultegra (shifters, front mech), 105 (hubs) and Campy (cranks, chainset) - definitely not original!

Thanks for your suggestions!

 

[doxilia]

I’d be surprised if the steerer is either 1” or 1-1/8” unless a “reducing” headset was used with the aftermarket Time fork. These 2.8 frames had 37 mm ID head tubes which used 1-1/4” aluminum steerers on the original SubOne Al Cannon forks.

If the Time fork has a carbon steerer then maybe it is 1-1/8” and you have a pretty rare headset. The other possibility is that a frame builder replaced the headtube with a 34 mm ID and you have a standard headset and steerer. Makes everything much easier. In any case, your bike is built and the steering presumably working.

Chris King used to make 37 mm headset cups for 1-1/4” HT frames such as these 2.8’s. 1-1/4” steerers were pretty rare for road but companies such as Cannondale would use them to standardize the headtube ID and steerers across the board with all their bikes (MTB, hybrid, touring, road, etc.). The CK headsets were known as “Devolution” units. That’s what I used to fit a standard 1-1/8” steerer carbon fork to my '94 R900 (see attached pic).

 

[doxilia]

On second thought, doesn’t your headset say <Headlight 1”> on the drive side?

Measuring the steerer would be pretty easy as you’d just have to remove the top cap and measure the ID of the stem. Not even, you could simply measure the cap itself and it’ll likely tell you if it’s a 1” which I’m now leaning towards.

Something about your HT doesn’t look right when compared to standard 2.8 frames. I’m thinking that the bike may have indeed been involved in a crash and a frame builder replaced the HT to use the aftermarket Time fork and a standard headset.

I don’t think Devolution type headsets in the early 90’s were ubiquitous so it might have been the only way to salvage the frame. The subsequent paint job was unfortunately not stellar. Mostly an issue with poor paint prep I’d say.

But otherwise a great find and purchase!