Originally Posted by jcm
Nice bike there. Just curious as I am not up on all the various Trek model numbers; I though they stopped making lugged frames in the late 80's, like my dead 830. Also, do the 900's have a zillion hardoints like mine? It actually has
more than my 520. You can hang your laundry on it and still have places for things like, oh, I don't kmow, panniers and such. Excush the spelling, but I've had a couple in emeory of an old pals' passing... gettin mighty melancholic here...
Oh yeah, you asked what size. Well, the one in the pick is actually too big for me. It's a 23" with a SO of 33 inches. I bought it that way becuase I knew I would only use it for pavement with occasional shoulder or greenbelt use. I like the feel of a taller bike. A 21" or 22" with SO of 31" would do nicely as well. My 520 is a 23" with SO of 31" and it feels pretty good on the road - very good, in fact.
Are those chainstays on the 900's nice and long?
I believe the lugged 900's were made into the early 90s
If by hardpoints you mean brazed on eylets, my 970 has 2 per side on the rear dropouts and rack mounts at the top of the seat stays. No eyelets on the front fork. I had to use clamps to mount the front fender.
The fork is a fat tubed straight fork that is great for singletrack riding, but I would rather have a curved and tapered fork with eyelets for road use.
I think you are quoting road and MTB dimensions interchangeably, which is a bit confusing. My 970 is 19.5" C-T with a 22.5" C-C top tube and 30.5 standover with fat knobbies mounted. I'm 6' with 34.5" pubic bone height and it fits me on the large side of my fiit range, which is how I like it. For reference, my road bike size is 58cm or 23".
The chainstays are 17".