Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Clyde + Old Trek = ?

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
143gadgets
10-17-09, 10:25 AM
Hey. I found an old 92' Trek 2300 on craigslist. I am gonna buy it, but I was wondering what your opinions were in terms of durability. It's a Carbon and Al mix frame. I'm about 265lbs and 6' tall.
Homeyba
10-17-09, 10:42 AM
The frame/fork should be fine as long as there is no damage. Just take the wheels to a good mechanic and have them go over and retension the wheels.
rcummings1
10-17-09, 11:42 AM
I bought one new in 1991 and weighed 245 then. I gave it to a buddy of mine who weighed 280 when he started riding 5 years ago. He is now down to 220. I think it's a great bike to get you where you want to be. As mentioned above, the best and first thing you should do is get the wheels retensioned. Probably a lot of miles left in that bike. The Shimano 600 group that came on mine was bombproof. Rode the daylights out of it and it's still going today.
LarDasse74
10-17-09, 04:21 PM
I think there were a few of those frames that the bonding let go between the tubes and lugs, and also where the waterbottle bolts are bonded to the frame... if the bike has lasted this long then is should be able to handle more abuse.
As said above, have the wheels retensioned and ride it like ya stole it!
Mr. Beanz
10-17-09, 07:02 PM
I think there were a few of those frames that the bonding let go between the tubes and lugs,
I've read a few posts on this subject in various forums. Claims that early days of Trek bonding weren't yet perfected! But I do have a couple buds that have them. No problems but lightweight guys.
I remember seeing them in stores back in 93'ish. I thought they were some sweet bikes but $600?:eek:....Nowadays, $600? I wish!:D
LarDasse74
10-17-09, 07:06 PM
I've read a few posts on this subject in various forums. Claims that early days of Trek bonding weren't yet perfected! But I do have a couple buds that have them. No problems but lightweight guys.
I remember seeing them in stores back in 93'ish. I thought they were some sweet bikes but $600?:eek:....Nowadays, $600? I wish!:D
If the claims are true, they were very early frames (late 80s) and they all would have been replaced under warranty.
I worked with a guy that had one of the 8500 mountain alu/carbon bikes and he had it replaced under warranty a few times because the water bottle bolts came out and various other little problems.
rthomse
10-17-09, 07:37 PM
I had a 2100.Ran the heck out of it.Upgraded to an 06 Cannondale R1000. 3000 plus clyde miles.
Mr. Beanz
10-17-09, 07:54 PM
I had a 2100.
What year?
143gadgets
10-17-09, 09:07 PM
Thanks everyone. Its just the frame, a new carbon fork, original fork, water bottle cages, and chris king headset
143gadgets
10-19-09, 11:11 AM
Picked up the frame yesterday and it is in perfect condition. It looks brand new. I'm so excited!!! It's gonna be my new ride for next year.
bautieri
10-19-09, 11:29 AM
Clyde + Old Trek = Happiness.
Enjoy your new ride :thumb:
CliftonGK1
10-19-09, 01:20 PM
I owned a '91 2100 which I raced as my tri-bike at the early days of the Clydesdale category. I was about 205 back then. The bike saw its fair share of punishment, including a high speed crash which destroyed the fork, but the frame was still fine. I can't speak much to the wheels since I replaced them composite spokes right from the get-go.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.