Cannondale Raven SL 1998

[solorueda]

Size M
frame: Excelent conditions
Paint: almost PERFECT
missing: right shifter, chain, brakes, saddle

fork: working
rear shock: needs a new one

rear derraileur: PERFECT
crankset: PERFECT
BB: PERFECT
wheels: PERFECT
Bearings: perfect

price: 300 pounds
Location: MExico

 

[gert]

price frame only?
I'm not interessed into the fork or wheels ...
shipping to Europe? only frame

 

[IanS62]

Re:

Raven frames were all recalled under warranty because they broke, as I recall. I would be very wary of buying one.

 

[jimo746]

Re: Re:

Raven frames were all recalled under warranty because they broke, as I recall. I would be very wary of buying one.

Quite a few did, most of the rest were injected with a resin to strengthen them.
If this frame had those issues it would have broken 20 years ago, so I'm guessing it's ok.

Way to screw up someone's for sale thread btw. If you're not interested in buying then maybe refrain from posting negative remarks in future?

 

[IanS62]

Re:

Just merely pointing out that they were all recalled because of a very high failure rate. A potential buyer might not have been aware of this. Now they are. Don't see what your problem is.

 

[kase1983]

Re:

i worked for Cannondale shop sales during Raven years, warrenty issues where only the 2000/2001 frame sets. this is an earlier framset

i had a early one and thrashed it, never had a failure.

In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Cannondale is conducting a voluntary
recall of all Raven II frames built to date.
The following bicycles are subject to recall:
Model year 2000 Raven 700 SX Model year 2001 Raven 800 SL
Raven 800
Raven 2000
Raven 900 SX
Raven 3000
Raven 1000 SL
Raven 4000 SL
Raven 2000 SL
Raven 4000 SX
Raven 4000 SL

 

[IanS62]

Re:

Good info there, thanks. Problem solved. I read an article on the problem a few months ago on a bike website (can't think which one offhand, I'll try and find it) which said that they had a "catastrophic" failure rate around the main beam, where there was an internal magnesium casting covered in the carbon shell. The solution was to pump the area full of expanded composite foam which made them a lot heavier (the frame was amazingly light) and eventually all models from that era were recalled.

Glad to be proved wrong tho, and any potential buyer should now be reassured. That's what is great about this place, some amazing product knowledge out there.

 

[old_coyote_pedaller]

Re:

It's a pity you saw fit to repeat unverified internet pish without checking or having first-hand knowledge of the subject.
Turns out you were wrong but you then compound it by adding that the "expanded composite foam" made the frames "a lot heavier".
You ever lifted a lump of this stuff? Especially a piece the size that would fit inside the BB area and the part of frame it's attached to, not the entire inside of a Raven frame? Thought not.

 

[IanS62]

Re:

I managed to track down the piece - here it is:
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/artic ... get-46672/

I was wrong - it wasn't expanding foam, but resin. Make of that what you will.

I dunno about you, but I don't usually feel the need to cross-check every article I read, esp one from a reasonably respectable site like BikeRadar. Life's too short.

And I don't want to get into a dick-waving contest over this, but as an aircraft engineer I can guarantee you that I've had more experience with alloys and composites and many types of expanding foam filler than you, so your "thought not" comment makes you seem a bit of an arse.

I'll not comment further.

 

[old_coyote_pedaller]

Re: Re:

Raven frames were all recalled under warranty because they broke, as I recall. I would be very wary of buying one.

You made the above sweeping statement that could possibly have caused the seller a sale, because "I dunno about you, but I don't usually feel the need to cross-check every article I read, esp one from a reasonably respectable site like BikeRadar. Life's too short." Yet you felt the need to repeat it unchecked.

I'm comfortable being an arse and I'm fine with your dick-waving if that's what gets you off, but as an "aircraft engineer" shouldn't you be checking info you share on a thread such as this? You do check info like this in your day job before using it, don't you? Life could get really short, for some.
Your "experience" of expanding foam filler I don't doubt could well be better than mine but at least I know not to claim a small amount of it would make a frame "a lot heavier".