also, i find it hard to believe the 2.8 in the name stand for 2.8 ounces, maybe pounds, thats like 1/5 of a pound…I’ve gotten heavier sacks of weed.
http://cgi.ebay.com/60-cm-Cannondale-2- ... dZViewItem
Seriously.
No fucking way that frame is even 2.8 pounds.
yes, it is 2.8 lbs.
i have the “big brother” of that frame. the 3.0-guess wha, it weighs 3lbs!!
op, you are an asshat
I dunno it could just be you, he seems good to me. sure he is obviously trying to sell the bike on how little it weighs, but he provides good detailed measurements, pictures, all the information you really need. If you know bikes, by looking at that you know what it is and whether you want it based upon what he has provided.
those brushed red cannondales were some of the best and prettiest bikes ever made.
If it was a little bigger I’d be bidding on that shit.
Really? I’ve heard they provided a harsh and terrible ride.
i don’t think the 60cm weighs 2.8 pounds. i think that weight was based off of the 53 or 54 cm frames. i could be wrong though, since i 'm not coming across anything to support that.
i have a 3.0 as well, and it’s been wonderful. no harshness, no terrible ride. i love it.
Do not jack the praise of old Cannondale with bringing that retardation into discussion.
I want one of those old Cannondales really bad. They ride like a track bike from what I’ve heard. Also heard that any “harshness” is taken away with swapping to a carbon fork. I doubt it’s anything intolerable with the stock steel or aluminum fork it came with.
i got one for sale everyone!!!
it’s the girlfriend in my sig.
why am I an asshat? haha
oh, I wasnt saying he was a doing anything wrong, I thought the stuff he said about all the “really fast” parts was pretty funny, as well as the 2.8 ounce frame. I wasnt employing it was a poor description in the least, just the commentary he put on some of that stuff is pretty rich.
I think we’ve all seen worse
[quote=“thehappyrobot”]i got one for sale everyone!!!
it’s the girlfriend in my sig.[/quote]
Looks quite nice 