# Old Cannondale Super Vs ?



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

I have always ridden hardtails. I'm interested picking up an inexpensive full suspension bike to see if I like it. I don't want to spend a lot of money. I started looking on craigslist for a used full suspension bike. The ones I seem to come across the most are older Cannondale Super Vs. They are horribly ugly but, other than that, are they good bikes? Is it worth spending $500 for one or would it make more sense to save up for a new bike?

thanks


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm sure that put up against a modern fully, they would fail miserably. Why buy a bum full suspension bike to see if you like full suspension? Does not compute. Don't you have friends that would let you ride theirs? Or know of a shop that has rentals?

I've had several Cannondales over the years. While I liked them, they were prone to cracking, either on the frame or the swingarm. If you don't listen to us telling you not to buy one & go ahead with your cockamamie scheme anyway , make sure you do your research to find where the trouble spots are & inspect the hell out of it before you buy.


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

Thanks for your honest opinion. To answer your questions, no, I don't have any friends. I also don't live near a shop that rents bikes. I have a wife and two young kids so I can't spend money the way I used to. I guess you are right, though. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense to spend money on an obsolete bike. 

I'll have to join a club and get to know some guys that ride. I'm in my late 30s and most of my buddies just drink beer and watch sports on t.v.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Dung Hopper said:


> Thanks for your honest opinion. To answer your questions, no, I don't have any friends. I also don't live near a shop that rents bikes. I have a wife and two young kids so I can't spend money the way I used to. I guess you are right, though. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense to spend money on an obsolete bike.
> 
> I'll have to join a club and get to know some guys that ride. I'm in my late 30s and most of my buddies just drink beer and watch sports on t.v.


Well, consider some things:

Mountain biking started commercially in the very late 1980s/early 1990s. The entire history of mountain bike design and manufacturing is compressed into a time span from then to now. Due to manufacturing capability, advancements in the early years were rather quick, in other words we were technically capable of producing much better bicycles than we were making, but it took a while for designers and manufacturers to make these kinds of products because the market just wasn't there yet.

So asking about buying a 10+ year old bike is like saying you're going to buy a 1975 Toyota corolla to get an idea of what a new 2014 toyota camry is like. It's not going to be close obviously. If the 1975 car is crappy or even if it is good, it has no bearing on what the 2014 car is like. I think it's pretty obvious that the 2014 car is going to be better in every way though, even though some people are attached to their "old stuff".

So looking at an old Super V, it's a low pivot, which means it bobs some, it's fairly active, but you get a lot of suspension movement due to pedaling, it won't react to square-edged bumps well, and it's likely a falling rate design, which many single pivots of that design were. The falling rate means it needs a stiffer spring or more air pressure than one would guess if you set it up with a normal amount of sag, which makes it pedal a little better initially, but it makes it harsher and it tends to blow through travel on hard/big hits. There isn't much you can do about this, but at least if it was a progressive linkage-style bike it could then use a rear shock with some sort of "pro-pedal" adjustment to make up for the inefficient/bobbing that robs energy...assuming we are still talking about an older bike. But most likely even an older linkage style frame will need a shock rebuild if it's never had one, or a completely new shock because the old one may not be supported anymore.

If you've sacrificed your own ability to enjoy a healthy hobby for a family, then there is little that can help you likely. You make those choices and obviously something there is more important than your health and keeping you alive. You sound to be at a cross-roads where you need to make some major decisions regarding your health. I took up rock-climbing and some other sports in addition to mountain biking, and I've never been healthier. I don't have kids, but I also found that mountain biking keeps me happy, not so much in fantastic shape. You have to do a lot more to stay in shape than mountain bike, or mountain bike every single day for a few hours, but almost no one has that kind of time and a lack of core-strength will still run you into a wall where you can't get any better. Point is make some better decisions, start riding with some shops on their shop-rides, get involved in some clubs, join rides posted on mtbr in your region, etc. You don't have to join that XC racer-boy subset to be a healthy mountain bike rider.

FS bikes are nice, but expect to shell out at least $1500-2000 for a bottom-end bike that will have parts that won't constantly go out of adjustment, be so weak they bend every few rides, or be so ineffective that you'd be better off on a lighter hardtail. Low end suspension forks and shocks on low end mountain bikes often do not have the damping circuits to allow for good high and low speed performance, so the bike can feel like a jackhammer still, or pedal like poop uphill on rough terrain, and then you're still lugging around 5-7 extra pounds of bike weight compared to if you spent the same amount on a hardtail.

Speaking of which, modern 29er hardtails (with a suspension fork) allow you to do a lot and are amazingly versatile. That 29er wheel rolls over stuff easier and while I personally do not agree that 3" of suspension on a 29er is better than 3" of suspension on a 26er (I think they are he same), I do agree that it will roll over stuff better to the extent that you can hold on. This means the 29er hardtail kind of makes a 26" XC "race" bike with 3-4" of travel fairly obsolete. They weigh close, but the 29er is going to be a little lighter due to not being a suspension bike, the 29er will have instant and better power delivery due to being a hardtail, and of course it will roll over obstacles as well or better, even without the rear travel. Sure, it's a hardtail and it will never be as smooth as a full suspension bike, but the point is you can get a lot of value out of something like this, compared to a full suspension bike. That $1500-2000 will buy a much better hardtail bike with an actually decent shock and actually decent parts that won't be lead anchors waiting to bend.

In any case, getting out and riding anything is better than watching sports on TV.


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

Good point in the technology. 

I doubt my health will be adversely affected by sticking with a hardtail.


----------



## formicaman (Dec 2, 2011)

Funny, I just bought a Super V. My reasoning was that good old stuff beats crappy new stuff. However, I think it probably would have made more sense to buy a cheap build of a good bike like a Jamis Dakar for $800.

HOWEVER, I like the Cannondale, it's light and feels great to ride, so I'm just going to ride it. I was having a blast on my 1999 Jamis FS before it got stolen. I've never ridden a fancy new FS 29er, of course. Maybe it's awesome.


----------



## Fachiro1 (Nov 25, 2012)

I had one...back in the mid 90s...it was a great bike...Did just about all the socal trails on it. Capaable, unconventional looking...the frame was well made. In 2-3 years riding it, never had any issues. I would upgrade the front shock...get rid of the old headshock and go with a modern conventional fork. Get some moder v-brakes, although the vintage xt or xtr parallel push v-brakes were great.


----------



## ZmyDust (May 13, 2011)

Mispost..


----------



## Structure (Dec 29, 2003)

Owned a Super V. It was fine at the time but I would never recommend one now as a used bike. Reasons?

A) the suspension is almost sure to be obsolete and difficult and expensive to replace or rebuild. For example, the rear shock is probably an unusual size (mine was quite short by current standards). Even if I found one it just made little sense to spend that much on parts for a bike that isn't worth much. Mine had a Headshock in front which needed periodic rebuilding. To replace I would have had to buy a Cane Creek adapter headset and a new fork. Not sure you can buy adapter headsets and Headshock rebuild kits today, but even if so, it's not a good financial investment.

B) I never really liked the fit of the bike. Your tastes may differ, but it was very steep, had some brake jack, and a short top tube with a long stem. 

C) All the components were crummy by modern standards. If you could get a bike that had been updated all around then this might not matter as much, but you don't want to be constantly "updating" brakes, shifters, wheels, etc. The bike just isn't a good base for this.

Short version, don't put pearls on a swine.  (don't really think Super Vs were "swine" but they are a heavily dated design that doesn't warrant further investment).

If you really want full-suspension and only have $500 to spend, start looking for something 2004 or newer. Specialized or Giant would be my first choices on that budget. You'll still need to worry about the suspension and pivot bearings and other consumables, but I think it would be a better base to start from. Though I would urge you to consider a hardtail. For a lot of reasons it would be a better starter.


----------



## formicaman (Dec 2, 2011)

Structure said:


> C) All the components were crummy by modern standards. If you could get a bike that had been updated all around then this might not matter as much, but you don't want to be constantly "updating" brakes, shifters, wheels, etc. The bike just isn't a good base for this.


I have to disagree on this one point. They were good components and remain good components in the sense that a 1996 Deore LX is going to hold its adjustments and perform predictably vs. newer Alivio which is more technologically advanced, but still not built for reliability. At least, that was my experience with a modern hybrid I had vs. my Scwinn S[96].1 That was basically why I chose to go with a mint condition Super V 700 over an $800 Diamondback or Jamis. I mean, that and I just liked the geometry of the Cannondale more than anything I've ever ridden.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

My first bike was a Super-V. It was a two wheeled pogo machine. Even with the appropriate weight spring and cranked down, it had a heavy tendency to bob. I moved on to another bike within 6 months. The build quality and components were fine. The suspension design was the issue. Things have come a long way. I expect you can do better.


----------



## Structure (Dec 29, 2003)

Getting mint or nearly new components would perhaps change the dynamic. My 900 came with Deore LX which was fine but also had a lot of house and "other" components. Once I started riding it hard these started to fail and for me anyway, the issue was that I didn't like spending to upgrade/fix since I didn't particularly like the bike.

Set up right (good fork and shock) I think it could be a decent bike...not my first or second choice though.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

I learned to ride on a Super V 700, and still ride it occasionally for nostalgia, but I'm not pining to go back to 2" of travel and v brakes. 

I'd try to get something newer. You could easily get screwed if something breaks.


----------



## formicaman (Dec 2, 2011)

PerfectZero said:


> not pining to go back to 2" of travel and v brakes.


I've never had a problem with v-brakes, but then I don't ride in mud for the sake of the trails.


----------



## sbarnhart (Jun 8, 2011)

A new shock from Risse starts at $200. Mendon Cyclesmith can rebuild a headshok for usually less than $60. Dont pay 500 for one with a carbon fiber swingarm. They had problems. $300- $500 is about what they sell for.This is my GFs. It has the fork from my Jekyll.


----------



## archone (Sep 24, 2009)

Super V's are just fine for their intended purpose. You need to put things into context. Back in 92-97 full suspension bikes were light, fast cross country bikes that were designed to reduce fatigue and increase performance on cross country trails. A properly optioned out Super V will hit the scales in the high 24 lbs range. Weight at the time were a design priority. Essentially, these were smoother riding hardtails in concept.

If this is your type of riding, the Super V will suit you fine. Otherwise, move along and get something new.

Super V's are NOT Downhill, all mountain, or bash bikes.

There are two designs of Vintage Super V's. One with the high pivot box swing arm, and one with the lower pivot Active design. (The Active design comes and 80cm & 100cm models.) I have owned both.

The Box swingarm had a lesser tendency to bob. It used an old design that locked out the suspension travel when the chain tension was higher than than the bump force. This actually worked well and was liked by many. (but hated by everyone that rode dirt bikes)

Around '95 or '96, in my opinion partially because of new editors in Mountain Bike Magazines with motorcycling backgrounds, a shift in tastes to a more "active" design was started. The theory was that more suspension travel was more desirable than the bobbing and weight it would bring. It was seen as an acceptable trade off in the public eye. After all, bigger suspension numbers are better, right? All the bike companies started dumping their older lockout designs in favor of longer travel active designs. Hence the Super V active with 70mm in front instead of 50mm and 100mm in back instead of 80mm.

In my opinion the box rear Super V had more precise handling. It was very hardtail-like in handling, but allowed you to go through the rougher stuff faster and with less regard. The Active swing arm felt slower, but went through the rough stuff with less drama. The customization of the Fatty Headshox was awesome at the time, IF you could find a mechanic who knew how to tune it and had the box of shims that was needed to do it. Those were very rare even back in the day.

Then came all the funky really long travel designs, but they're out of the scope of discussion here.

New bikes have a lot of newer technology and better manufacturing capability and depending on where you ride, may be more suited to the trails today.


----------



## rger8 (Mar 12, 2012)

I have a 1995 Super V 2000 with the carbon swing arm. I'm the original owner and still love it. A long time ago I dumped the Head shock for a Manitou conventional fork and it worked out fine. I agree with "archone" that "Back in 92-97 full suspension bikes were light, fast cross country bikes that were designed to reduce fatigue and increase performance on cross country trails." The box swing arm high pivot design is very good. My bike does act alot like a hard tail and seems very precise. I still have the original Fox shock on the back and it's still holding air and maybe some oil too! I really like my "V" because it's light, fast and those 26" wheels make for a whole lota fun compared to my 29R. Hey come to think of it, I think I still have the original Lifetime warranty on mine as well! Maybe if I break it they will give me a new one!!


----------



## archone (Sep 24, 2009)

Yeah, I actually preferred the carbon box rear over the active one. The spring rear shock was supposed to work better, but the adjustability of the air shock made the overall bike more tunable if you spent the time. Sadly, some bastard stole my original Super V which is why I've owned both designs.

My at the time weight of 128 lbs on a medium frame worked well with the Headshox, but I know a lot of other people were bottoming out that 50mm of travel. I must have pulled that shock apart five or six times before I got it where I liked it. The 70mm on the newer active bike was much smoother. I wish I could have put the 70mm on the box section rear.



rger8 said:


> I have a 1995 Super V 2000 with the carbon swing arm. I'm the original owner and still love it. A long time ago I dumped the Head shock for a Manitou conventional fork and it worked out fine. I agree with "archone" that "Back in 92-97 full suspension bikes were light, fast cross country bikes that were designed to reduce fatigue and increase performance on cross country trails." The box swing arm high pivot design is very good. My bike does act alot like a hard tail and seems very precise. I still have the original Fox shock on the back and it's still holding air and maybe some oil too! I really like my "V" because it's light, fast and those 26" wheels make for a whole lota fun compared to my 29R. Hey come to think of it, I think I still have the original Lifetime warranty on mine as well! Maybe if I break it they will give me a new one!!


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

I'm still riding mine. It's 14 years old. It hasn't been ridden all 14 years but I just rode it yesterday:


----------



## Micahnator (Oct 16, 2014)

*Me too!*

I'm in the exact situation that you're in. I too seem to find a lot of the Super Vs for sale at my price range. I asked a bike snob friend (no kids, spends more on bikes than I have on cars) and he seemed offended that he had to look at an ad for one.

I'm just looking for something fun to ride down mountain trails with. Looking to sell or trade my road bike for something along these lines. I too have never ridden a FS bike and there is no bike shop in my town, nor do I have friends in town with FS mtn bikes.

Did you end up buying one of these bikes?

I'm looking at...

"Cannondale Super V 4000. Downhill Mtn bike. Great bike! 
Rock Shox Boxer fork, Hayes 9 disc brake on the front, Shimano downhill clipless pedals, rear fox alps 4R air shock, Shimano XTR rear derailer, Sach rear disk brake"


----------



## archone (Sep 24, 2009)

*Super V 4000*

The Super V 4000 bike was a special bike. As I heard the story (and therefore may be complete hearsay), it was actually a prototype bike never really intended for production. The Cannondale Team at the time were using it quite effectively in downhill competition and it was one of the first downhill bikes designed completely from the ground up for that purpose. UCI threatened to ban it from competition citing unfair advantage. The Super V 4000 was quickly put on the market so anyone could buy it which made that argument academic. It didn't matter though, everyone else was working on a downhill specific bike too and those showed up shortly after the V 4000 hit the market.

The SV 4000 really isn't suited to cross country use. The bottom bracket is higher, and the geometry is based around the front shock. Speaking of the front shock, there was a recall around the original, but I can't remember what the reasoning was. I doubt parts are available for it now. Also, I don't think the disc brake mounts (for both the caliper and the rotor) are using the current standard so they may be hard to find too.

If you're looking to ride general trails, one of the standard Super V's are probably a better bet.

Its a nice collectors item though!



Micahnator said:


> I'm in the exact situation that you're in. I too seem to find a lot of the Super Vs for sale at my price range. I asked a bike snob friend (no kids, spends more on bikes than I have on cars) and he seemed offended that he had to look at an ad for one.
> 
> I'm just looking for something fun to ride down mountain trails with. Looking to sell or trade my road bike for something along these lines. I too have never ridden a FS bike and there is no bike shop in my town, nor do I have friends in town with FS mtn bikes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Micahnator (Oct 16, 2014)

Thank you for the historical and contextual info about that bike. I also learned that the bikes gearing isn't well suited for uphill riding (duh!). I've decided to keep shopping around and look for a hardtail 29er in the $500 range. I don't expect I'll ever find a FS bike in that price range that isn't obsolete, regarding replacement parts. In the interim, I'm going to do some trail riding on my rigid Schwinn Paramount commuter mtn bike from the 90's. I'm sure I'll appreciate any advance found on something newer after that. Seems like I ought to be able to climb into a couple year old decent hardtail from the big brands for around $500.



archone said:


> The Super V 4000 bike was a special bike. As I heard the story (and therefore may be complete hearsay), it was actually a prototype bike never really intended for production. The Cannondale Team at the time were using it quite effectively in downhill competition and it was one of the first downhill bikes designed completely from the ground up for that purpose. UCI threatened to ban it from competition citing unfair advantage. The Super V 4000 was quickly put on the market so anyone could buy it which made that argument academic. It didn't matter though, everyone else was working on a downhill specific bike too and those showed up shortly after the V 4000 hit the market.
> 
> The SV 4000 really isn't suited to cross country use. The bottom bracket is higher, and the geometry is based around the front shock. Speaking of the front shock, there was a recall around the original, but I can't remember what the reasoning was. I doubt parts are available for it now. Also, I don't think the disc brake mounts (for both the caliper and the rotor) are using the current standard so they may be hard to find too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rohanday (Aug 2, 2016)

I had an early sv400 with z1 bombers and to be honest it was an adgile, fun trail bike , you do have to take on a new riding style to not bob along on the shock , sit in the saddle and spin it out on the climbs as its no hardtail or xc climber , that said on many of my local trails many guys on much newer and much more expensive bikes were shown up on the climbs and descents 😎


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

There's already a couple of SuperV threads in the Cannondale forum. But here's mine, it's a 2000 model 700SX:


----------

