View Single Post
Old 01-30-08, 11:11 PM
  #10  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times in 506 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Fat Guy
Here's why I ask...Every Trek I've ridden has seemed lackluster in ridability. Granted, I'm a spoiled, opinionated coot, but still...

A Schwinn Voyageur SP seems every bit as good, if not a better full tourer, and I've seen great American custom steel frames (Nobilette, Kellogg, etc) in the Sport Tourer category go for less than this with better components.

Is it just the early Trek mystique?

I know that you'd have to spend much more for a modern bike, but that's irrelevant. My wife's 23 year old NOS Merckx Professional cost less than an entry level Cannondale with Sora, but that's one of the reasons we buy old steel bikes, right?

Hey, Old Fat!

As far as your first question, is it worth it, I can only say, not to me! Like you, gimme a sexy Italian or good American builder any day.

There's certainly an early Trek mystique, but that is not an early Trek.

I've spent considerable time now on a stock -84 610, a trail-increased '84 610 (same bike after a rake adjustment and full alignment), and a stock '83 600. All three have IMO steering that is just lacking the best balance of response and stability. In my Italian bikes I can ride one-handed with good stability. On the Treks I feel the bike is wandering all over the road without two hands on. The Masi and Mondonico will slog up a (in my case not-very-steep) hill in a straight line no matter how slow I go, but the Treks need extra room under those conditions.

I really don't get the so-called benefits of low trail.

Sidetracked, but basically in agreement with you: I don't get it.

Road Fan
Road Fan is offline