Tom–
Have you had a chance to review the 2004 Cannondale Ironman bikes? The 2000 and 5000 models look pretty nice with the new frame and all…would love to hear what you think about them.
I’m looking forward to reviewing them. They made some interesting geometry changes. I’ll send word when I’ve reviewed them, but it may not be for a couple months yet…
Tom,
I don’t know who in their right mind would buy a Cannondale Tri bike in 2004. I have a 2002 Multisport and I have wasted a lot of money on specing it to my desirers. The only reason I can see someone purchasing the 5000 is for the crank/bottom bracket combo which is very nice and I wish they offered it on more models. Consider this for; about the same price or less you could buy an Abici Time Machine, Cervelo P3 or HED VO2 Lab Frame and spec it with Ultergra or 9 speed DA with an H3 up front and the new 5-7-5 Renn disc in the rear. As far as the C’dale 2000, there are a ton of bikes I would purchase before the 2000 for the same price like the QR Caliente.
I’m trying not to bash C’dale since it is the bike I ride, but if I knew better I would have purchased something else. Cannondale is falling way behind in the Tri/TT game and desperately need a new fresh design.
Dave from VA
That is an awfully damning view of C’dale, DC! From the 2004 5000, there isn’t much to change besides maybe the handlebar system, if you really want something sexier. If you are a sexy parts kind of triathlete, you will find fault with just about every factory spec out there. Most of the time it is just to have something different. What could you add that would be REAL speed? A disc? Ok. But no one specs OEM discs. So what’s the rub? Cervelo still insists on specing those ugly brake calipers. If you want the Shimanos or something sexy like Dia Compes, you are outside specs. If you want a sexy Hed or Vision Tech aero bar, you are still out of spec. Outside of a race wheelset, I doubt any of your changes have made significant difference in the performance of your C’dale.
I bought a 1999 Cannondale MultiSport 2000 (in 2000) when I also, didn’t know crap about multisport bikes. Because it was the previous years model, I got it at a pretty fair price, $1300 I think.
Since then, I’ve done too many tris and dus to count including 2 IMs. I have nothing to compare it to but it’s NEVER had any problems (and I am not particularly kind to my bike) and the only thing I’ve upgraded are the wheels and saddle. When I go for my next tri bike, I will at least still consider Cannondale.
If C’dale would just extend the seat-tube up towards the saddle and create an aero mast they would improve their produce IMHO. I have not looked at the new 04 frames, but they need to reduce the size of their tubes if they truly want to be aero. I think John Cobb commented on C’dales fat tubes not being all that aero. I also wonder why they don’t put their crank/BB combo on more bikes, even the lower end frames. Now as far as their road bikes, thats a whole new ball of wax. I think their road bikes are very nice and way stiff.
Dave from VA
Hey Dc check out the Cannondale web site. They have made the tubes skinnier on the new models. I have an old R700 tri-bike that I used for 8 seasons without any problems at all. I gradually swapped out a lot of the original components but that will happen with wear and tear and “cool new sexy” factor on just about any bike you buy and keep for 8 years. I think that the specs on the new bikes make them every bit as desireable as a QR or Cervelo. The tubes may be somewhat less aerodynamic than Cervelo, but for most of us, that little difference won’t make any real difference in how well you ride in a race. Position on the bike, aerobars and race wheels give far more benefit to your overall bike speed than a few skinny tubes (oh, hard training should be thrown in there too!). As an aside to this, I saw a Kestrel KM40 (supposedly a fairly aero framed bike) at IM FL and the guy had attached his bike number to the rear brake cable so it was hanging out at the side and flapping in the wind. So much for any advantage gained over the round-tubed riders that were posititioned well and hid their numbers behind some tubes.
I think the 2004 C-dales are as nice as any Tri-bike ont he market. I think they did the homework and fixed alot of the problems the previous years models had. As far as the Aero seatmast, they had one at one point and decided to ditch it cause the windtunnel data they have says it doesn’t get you anything. I think I’ve read some other articles that have said the same thing. Anyway for most people i don’t think it would even matter, at the speed they ride. It seems to me the triathletes, myself included spend way to much time worrying about aero the bikes/frames are…and not enough time on working on position which probably would gain you more time.
Today I had the opportunity to check out Hellriegel’s new C’dale ironman 2000. It looked awesome. The paintjob is very nice with the dark blue and the glimmering decals and logos. It had the CAD6 bb and was outfitted with 10speed campagnolo. If I would plan to buy a bike (I do not) then I’d really think about this bike.
Frank