Cannondale questions.

I have just bought a '92 M800 and have a couple of questions for anybody in the know who might be able to help me.


It was listed as a "meduim" but it is very small. Centre of cranks to center of top tube is barely 15 inches, yet the '92 brochure lists 18" as the smallest.

Is this because it has a high BB and so the "18" is a relative size compared to the other models in the range??

Also it still has the "force 40" brakes (low profile cantis). They feel spongy! I have little experience of these things, my other bikes have either full cantis, U-brakes or full hydro discs. Would it be normal practice to just change the force 40 arrangement to a normal cenre pull?

Isn't that with the "Beast of East" geometry? The high bottom bracket and sloping top tube might explain the short seat tube.

Yes it is. So that is why I'm thinking they call it an 18inch, so it can be compared to the M100 etc.

Quick pic.

I have a bit of experience.....as stated the 'beast' models have a high bb and do feel a little smaller to ride.....the force 40's were an attempt at something different, a nice idea and looked good I thought......unfortunately they are a bitch to set up well and need constant tweaking too.....I put xt v's on mine and feel they perform better for less hassle.....y'pays yer money and all that!....
ls

rupeww":2sh1x32z said:

I have just bought a '92 M800 and have a couple of questions for anybody in the know who might be able to help me.


It was listed as a "meduim" but it is very small. Centre of cranks to center of top tube is barely 15 inches, yet the '92 brochure lists 18" as the smallest.

Is this because it has a high BB and so the "18" is a relative size compared to the other models in the range??

Also it still has the "force 40" brakes (low profile cantis). They feel spongy! I have little experience of these things, my other bikes have either full cantis, U-brakes or full hydro discs. Would it be normal practice to just change the force 40 arrangement to a normal cenre pull?

Click to expand...

Will meausre my M1000 for you this week to see if its the same, I have fitted XT Vbrakes to mine, which seem pretty awesome tbh.

Your Dale looks in great condition though

kind of hard to say from that pic
but it dont look like a bote geo frame
if you look side on the chain stays are horizontal on the beast frames
i dont think it affects the size tho

The BB is definatly a full13 inch high, and the chainstays look horizontal.

When YOU say it doesn't effect the size do you mean the actual size or the size the bike is given by the manufactureres?

My point is that the distance from center of BB to center of top tube is 14.5 inches, and to top of seat tube is 16 inches. If we than add an inch for the extra BB clearance and another for the sloping top tube that would give it an equivelent frame size of 18 inches. I am assuming that cannondale give it an 18" size so it compares to the 18" frames in the rest of the range, even though the actuall measurements are shorter.

EIther way its definatly a small not a medium. It rides nicely but I am just about to put some longer bars on it. Short is cool for commuting but they are everso twitchy on such a small bike!

Measured mine, which I thought was an 18" frame, C-C is 18.0",C- top of top tube is 18.5"(20 1/4" from C-Top of seat binder)

Not sure If mine is medium and yours a small , or yours medium and mine large !

rupeww":388xhed8 said:

It was listed as a "meduim" but it is very small. Centre of cranks to center of top tube is barely 15 inches, yet the '92 brochure lists 18" as the smallest.
Is this because it has a high BB and so the "18" is a relative size compared to the other models in the range??

Click to expand...

The "beast of the East" geometry is inspired of the first 'dale with the 24" rear wheels, a 13" high BB and a sloping horizontal tube. These bikes were made for technical tracks, and climbing, not for going the faster you can, your head on the handle bar . It's a different philosophy.
In the end, these frame were used for trial.
The very small size of that frame was 16" in 1990, but the bike had 24" wheels, (front and rear). I think that C'dale gave up the 16" size, and then, the 18" was the smaller size in such geometry.
More important than the measure of the seat tube, you have to consider the length of the frame. If I remember the length is 22"50 ! It's quite looooong

rupeww":388xhed8 said:

Also it still has the "force 40" brakes (low profile cantis). They feel spongy! I have little experience of these things, my other bikes have either full cantis, U-brakes or full hydro discs. Would it be normal practice to just change the force 40 arrangement to a normal cenre pull?

Click to expand...

The system of brake was created for the EST first : they couldn't fix a cable hanger under the shocker, so, a little pulley was the solution. On other end, the brake were confortable in loooong downhills, powerfull but spongy !
Tighten the spring of your canti, and try to keep a 90° angle between the canti and the cable
But direct cable hanger is a solution too