Search results

I would be interested to do even a short ride with a HRM. My rides these days are under 10 mile commuting, I'm always trying to get to the next stop and don't want to mess with anything beyond having enough air in the tires - sometimes don't even take the time for that. After so long without...

I have a couple of contacts in AZ, one in Scottsdale. Post what you need to get the bike running.

My aunt and uncle were in Switzerland about 50 years ago. He was a chemist with Dow. Daughter Heidi was born there, and my cousin Scott fell into a manure pit there while working at a hog farm. They loved living there, but got transferred to San Francisco after a few years. I remember my...

Cheap and I have friend Jake in Sapulpa who would ship it. But do I need a third Super V?

I would leave the cable stop intact.

I've never measured them but there were Shimano 8 speed chains designated as "narrow". I doubt that the overall width varied much from their 9 speed chains. I'm using 9 speed chains on several 6/7/8 speed bikes and have never had a problem with one falling between the rings. What crank?

It's great to see another restoration project. 80s in TX and 90s and super humid in IL. We could use the rain, seems to be everywhere else.

22/28 low gear should get you close to walking speed. I would suggest that you try to pare down the weight of the gear you are carrying. I've hosted a lot of touring cyclists and I doubt any were carrying 75 lbs of cargo.

I've never been on a tandem so hard to understand the benefits/tradeoffs. I've never understood why they are at a disadvantage climbing. Seems like the total bike weight per rider would be lower and you still have whatever aerodynamic advantage there is even at lower speed.

Doesn't correspond to the serial number sequences we have. My best guess based on the year of the bike is that it was made on March 1, 1990 (30190) , but the other numbers don't line up with what is typical for the period.

Since this is a vintage site, my comments were based on common sizing circa 1990, when I bought my first road bike. A pro rider of my height at the time might have ridden a 56 cm frame to get the aerodynamic and miniscule weight benefits. But I think 58 cm would have been the average...

I usually complain about good buys being too small but this one is likely too large. If local, I'd buy it right now just to add to the 1987 bikes. If it's close to you I'd send you the money to buy it, if you have room to store it - probably forever.

Photo is so small that I can't see any detail. I have a couple of CAAD7s here but neither with the same paint. The 2003 USA catalog photo shows the team bike with the red decals on the seat stays. My best guess is that the factory simply didn't have the decals at the time it was painted, or...

I used to do a group ride out of Dunlap Illinois and a couple on a tandem were regulars. In the rolling terrain they could easily gap the group on the downhill sections. I remember working really hard to get back in touch on the uphill sections. as they were both strong riders and the hills...

I'd happily pay $3-400 for a nice SH if it were local to me.

Most 6' tall folks would want a frame of at least 58 cm. I'm around the same height and prefer 60-62 cm frames depending on brand, but I like the seat height to be higher than most. Your 2.8 looks to have a nearly complete Campagnolo group:: hubs, crankset, cassette, shifters, derailleurs...

I'm already way past that point.

It could be mainly adjustment needed. I would pull it apart and check the condition of the spindle and cups. If they don't have any obvious damage, just replace the balls and add fresh grease. I'm not sure I have a bottom bracket loose to check ball size but will try to look. My guess is 1/4".

Try a PM.

For me it's a case of already owning three 1987 SRs and it being two sizes too small. If it were a 60 cm I'd be very tempted.