Talk:Cannondale

message: The page reads as if it's updated by the folks at Cannondale. For example, there are no downsides to Cannondales (e.g., the awkward large tubes can be hard to fit and accessorize). Also, there's no coverage of the failed Cannondale Motorsports venture which is notable because it drove the company to reorganize under Chapter 11.
-- Mikeblas 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Regarding this recent change:
The availability of repair and rebuild components and experienced service technicians for Cannondale forks is much less widespread than Fox, Manitou and Marzocchi designs.
I think something like this would be more honest:
Many Cannondale dealers are uncomfortable servicing Lefty and Headshok products and prefer to return them to the factory for service, this can be inconvenient for the customer. Despite this reluctance Lefty's and Headshok's are no more difficult to service then other suspension forks and often require fewer specialty tools to do so.
I base this on the following. 1) I have never found a shop that has seals and/or bushings for any suspension fork in stock, they all special order them. 2) Replacing said seals and bushings on all twin leg forks requires around $100 in special tools. 3) Having spend a few years servicing Cannondale forks the "castle tool" is the only special tool you need to completely gut a fork. It costs ~$12 from any Cannondale dealer.
--Raelx 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the article for better focus. There is now a Products heading with subheadings for frame, forks, and components. I commented out (not removed) parts of the article that didn't fit into that, including sentence about changes in the Saeco team, and details about Hollowgram, which I suggest putting into a new Hollowgram article. I also removed some text about the Saeco team that already appears in the Saeco (cycling team) article.
RosinDebow 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought of a slightly better structure, but I used up my three edits - rename the subheading "Components and standards" to "Components" and create a new heading named "Innovations" at the same level as "Products" RosinDebow 08:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I updated references using the WP:FN style. I dropped the claim about OnePointFive that "Cannondale was involved in the development of this standard." because it is clear from the history at the OnePointFive website that Cannondale was not part of the industry consortium that defined the standard. They might have influenced the standard, but "involved" is incorrect. If you can find a source that says otherwise, by all means please cite and reinstate this sentence.
RosinDebow 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lefty / Headshok

message: I replaced the "citation needed" tag on the marketing ploy" sentence because after Thewalrus removed it with this comment:
: (I don't see how a citation is needed for this - anybody in the bike industry can name 15+ manufacturers of sub-1100 gram road bike frames. Cannondale is nowhere near the lightest, and has never been.)
The article might be read by people who aren't in the bike industry and don't know about other light-weight frames. But a citation isn't needed for the bike being heavy (or heavier, or as heavy); it's for "Many in the bicycle industry considered this to be a creative marketing ploy". Who in the industry considers it a creative marketing ploy? Why? Where can we read more about it? Without a citation, I think that kind of writing is not objective; it's just weasel words.
--Mikeblas 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, I think the "nowhere near lightest" assertion is incomplete; as Ralex points out above. -- Mikeblas 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Mikeblas. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. RosinDebow 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't comment on the balance or POV of the statement. I just said it needed a citation to show its source. Who said it, and when? A story on Cannondale not allowing the bikes to be weighed at a press junket doesn't show us that people are saying it's just a marekting ploy. If you can dig up some quotes, that would really help. Otherwise, the statement should be stricken as unverifiable. -- Mikeblas 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds much better to me, Rosin. -- Mikeblas 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  marketing ploy 

message: It's unclear to me what the purpose of the P-bone link is. I wasn't the one who removed the link, but I  agree with its removal for two reasons: 1) it constitutes original research and is not independently verifiable and 2) it is not essential to the content of the article (there is not even a mention of P-bone in the article). Cannondale has created perhaps hundreds of products, do we need to have reviews to each one here? But it's cool that Borislav has taken the time to review the fork and created an adapter (maybe not so cool about going airborne 20 times). See Wikipedia:External_links. RosinDebow 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have removed the P-Bone link. -- Mikeblas 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Does anyone know when Lampre-Caffita switched from Cannondale to Willier? It seems like Cannondale is still selling L-C team replica bikes and I think Willier is now sponsoring 2 (two!) teams in the pro tour (Lampre and Cofidis). It must have been recent, but I'd like more details if anyone else is more familiar with this.
It was just the beginning of this year when their contract was up.
--Raelx 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro sponsorship? 

message: Including the entire list of 2007 models seems like excessive detail to me, especially considering that the model names are not self explanatory. This is information you could easily get from their website. Instead, I suggest replacing this section with a sentence like "As of 2007, Cannondale sells a full line of mountain, road, recreation, urban, and speciality bicycles."
RosinDebow 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I didn't know if it would be appropriate but I added it as a mirror of the list, a substantially longer one, at Toyota. Goodnightmush 02:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models 

message: I'm reproducing here two paragraphs that I'm removing because they are taken verbatim from the Cannondale website (see []) and thus infringes on copyright (see WP:C). RosinDebow 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAAD frames 

message: Some elaboration should be done on Cannondale's brief motorsports program. Especially the quads, they caused quite a stir with their innovative fuel injection and split lubrication systems. Cannondale entries in some quad races were quite hight at one pointRustyATV  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannondale Quads/Bikes 

message: I recall sometime in the past Gary Klein sued Cannondale for patent infringement, as he had made and apparently patented in some way aluminum frames with large diameter tubes. However, I never saw how this case was resolved. Seems to me we need some mention of this in this article. Wschart (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Klein and patent infringement