Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Decision Time

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Decision Time

    First-time poster, looks like a good site. I've been out of cycling for some time. I have three decent bikes and plan to keep one. The other two have to go as part of a big push to make room/cut back on clutter. The bikes are: 1984 Trek 420-T Loaded Touring, like new; 1989 Bridgestone Comp MB2 (the red/white one with the white Koski forks), very good but needs a bottom bracket; Approx. 1992 Trek 930 Single track, excellent.
    I'm leaning toward fixing the MB2 and keeping it, because I'll never forget the feel of that frame the first time I took it around the block in 1990. If I do this, it will become my 'do-it-all' bike. I really never did any wild mountain-biking, just a park trail now and then. Mainly I just rode it around town. My son had it for several years and did ride it hard but it survived with a few scratches. So, I'll fit it with some 1.75" road tires, a softer seat lowered an inch and raise the handlebar an inch. My wrists can no longer take the weight of a forward lean. It's also an 18" frame, and for a real trail bike I would need a 16", which is why I picked up the Trek 930. Since I'm pretty settled that I won't be doing any aggressive trailing, I think the 930 is out. That leaves the loaded-touring bike that I did put a few hundred miles on, no hard use. The main thing here is I know I'm never going to use drops again and it also has down tube friction shifters. This is a cool road bike -20" frame, long and comfortable with low gearing, a removable Helicomatic freewheel, Brooks saddle and braze-ons for panniers and rack.
    Anyway, thanks for listening - laying it out like this has pretty well cleared it up for me - I'll cast my lot with the Bridgestone and keep an extra set of wheels with big tires with it just in case I want to try to break my neck.
    I guess the 420-T probably is worth $150 and the 930 maybe $175? Both bikes will pass for new. What does the 'hive' think?
    Last edited by 1saxman; 02-08-11 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #2
    DRF aka Thrifty Bill wrk101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The NC Mountains
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, all vintage
    Posts
    19,247
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1saxman View Post
    I guess the 420-T probably is worth $150 and the 930 maybe $175? Both bikes will pass for new. What does the 'hive' think?
    Without pictures, no idea. If the bikes are comparable condition wise, a 420T is worth about 2X the 930, maybe 3X. Vintage MTBs go cheap. Vintage steel road bikes bring much more money, and one that can be argued to be somewhat a touring bike, bring even more. Small size of the 420 helps on value too.

    2000 Trek 930 Single Track? Most likely older. I think the last 930 was made in 1999, but I could be wrong.

    Most vintage steel MTBs are under appreciated, WAY under appreciated. They could take off someday, but not yet. Some, like your Bridgestone, have a more enthusiastic following.
    Last edited by wrk101; 01-31-11 at 08:46 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member auchencrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    10,022
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Around here I see larger Trek 930's in nice condition go around $75-100. A 16" frame would go for less. MTB's tend to be undervalued because there are billions of them for sale, and people generally won't PAY more.

    The 84 Trek 420 is a desirable bike -( Any Vintage double butted steel Trek is desirable, and Touring bikes even more so. )
    They did not make a 20" model though - it had to be 19 or 21". The Helicomatic hub is not well regarded by everyone, so this is a slight downside.
    - In the spring, a 21" Trek would probably sell very easily - the 19" version might be a slow seller, but to the right person, it might actually be worth a premium. Again, ASSUMING you are not selling in the dead of winter - I would estimate an '84 Trek 420 to be worth about $250-300, based on the the condition you described.

    Someone was asking $395 for this one, but that was San Francisco. (prices can be much higher in "hot" markets).

    - Auchen

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay, I'll do some pics. You're right about the size of the 420 - now that I think about it, it is 21". And the Trek 930 - I picked it up used, almost new, and I must have bought it in 2000, but it obviously would be made somewhere around 1992. On the Helicomatic - I was reading a lot of posts on it on different forums, and I have to say apparently most of the 'haters' do not understand that it's big feature is easy roadside removal for emergencies like replacing a spoke. This is why it was put on the loaded touring bike. Other than that its pretty much just another freewheel. I think it does take a narrow chain, but its not like you have to change that very often.

    I certainly appreciate all the info - you all have already been a big help. If it doesn't rain tomorrow, I'll see if I can get some good shots. I'll need them anyway for any possible listings.
    Last edited by 1saxman; 02-08-11 at 01:17 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member auchencrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    10,022
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1saxman View Post
    .....On the Helicomatic - I was reading a lot of posts on it on different forums, and I have to say apparently most of the 'haters' do not understand that it's big feature is easy roadside removal for emergencies like replacing a spoke. This is why it was put on the loaded touring bike. Other than that its pretty much just another freewheel. .....
    Hi 1saxman - I happen to be a Helicomatic fan, but the truth is that a heavily loaded touring bike is the one situation most likely to reveal its weaknesses, because of the smaller bearings. Otherwise, I think it is a convenient and exceptionally smooth running hub, that under most other circumstances, will last a long time when serviced properly.

    -Of course replacement parts are ridiculously expensive, so at that stage it's just a matter of substituting another hub, just like any other hub.
    Last edited by auchencrow; 02-01-11 at 06:18 AM.
    - Auchen

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay, some pics, starting with the Trek 420T Loaded Touring in 'Pewter' Imron. Almost entirely original, the seat and post are replacements along with the rims (not hubs), tires and chain. I pumped up the tires and rode around the block on all three of my bikes today, and this 420T still is amazing, even with the down-tube shifters.







  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now for the Trek 930 Singletrack. After riding them all, this may be the only one I let go. It rides great and works perfectly but I probably shouldn't have bought the 16". If I actually keep the MB2, this one will be surplus.







  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And last but not least, the Bridgestone Comp MB2. Also mostly original except for bigger tires and replacement chain. The bearing races went bad in the BB and my son put the wrong crank axle in it - I need to pull the whole bike down and basically overhaul it. I think the 1989 was the only year with the 'Koski' fork.






    Last edited by 1saxman; 02-08-11 at 01:17 PM.

  9. #9
    DRF aka Thrifty Bill wrk101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The NC Mountains
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, all vintage
    Posts
    19,247
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1saxman View Post
    Okay, I'll do some pics. You're right about the size of the 420 - now that I think about it, it is 21". And the Trek 930 - I picked it up used, almost new, and I must have bought it in 200, but it obviously would be made somewhere around '97-'98.
    Nope, its older than that. The last year for lugged steel frame 930 was 1993. That bike is a 1992 model.

    Helicomatic or not, that 420 is in nice shape and would have good value. A serious rider would just find a replacement wheelset (easy to find good ones used).

    Everyone has an opinion, I do too. To me, the value of mid grade vintage bikes is all about the condition of the frame: paint, any rust, decals, any scrapes, etc.

    These bikes have really nice paint! (A lot of MTBs lead a tough life, so rashed up paint is kind of the norm). 930 might bring $150 to $175, 420 might bring $300, maybe slightly more, not sure about the Bridgestone (but you plan to keep it anyway). These are market price estimates, assuming everything works, bikes are clean, tires are aired up, marketed well with great pictures, in a reasonable market.
    Last edited by wrk101; 02-01-11 at 03:47 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for all the info. Actually I'm glad the 930 is that old, because it is completely original, tires and all, so it must have been used very little by the original owner and kept indoors. And of course, it may have languished in a bike shop for quite awhile before being bought too. After riding the 420 this afternoon, I do not think I can bring myself sell it, so I'll keep it and the MB2. I might keep the 930 too and see if my grandson wants it when he gets about 5'6" tall. I love the color of the 930, a 'Bugatti' blue but with the dark blue spackles. Then there's the 'Ferarri' red on the MB2. I'll just have to come up with a more efficient storage system in the garage.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do Trek numbers correlate to year of manufacture? The 930 is 954007.

  12. #12
    Senior Member curbtender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SF Bay Area, East bay
    My Bikes
    Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Schwinn Speedster, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina
    Posts
    2,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.vintage-trek.com/index.htm I agree with you on keeping the MB2. It would probably be your best all-arounder bike. I'd sell the other two and upgrade the 'stone with anything that feels right to you. Keep the original parts for the next user...

  13. #13
    DRF aka Thrifty Bill wrk101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The NC Mountains
    My Bikes
    Too many to list, all vintage
    Posts
    19,247
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1saxman View Post
    Do Trek numbers correlate to year of manufacture? The 930 is 954007.
    Its a 1992.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agree. I went ahead and did the lookup. This numbering series has nothing to do with year, and the exact model, color and all, is in the '92 brochure. The actual listed frame size is 16.5". I'm probably keeping all three - they're too much fun!
    For several years in the '80s I was in a club and did the club rides, plus I rode to work most every day (two miles each way plus coming home for lunch), so that was eight miles a day or forty miles a week. Then I changed jobs, the club faded out, I moved to a different area and the bikes got parked - until today!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I went back through this and corrected the manufacture dates - the MB2 is a 1989 and of course the Trek 930 is a 1992 as wrk101 stated. I have started work on the MB2, mainly ordering parts. I think the rims are write-offs so I'm going to replace them using the old hubs and spokes (Wheelsmith 14 ga stainless). Tires will be 1.75s. I have the BB parts, and a chain, one shift cable and a seat will put it back on the road. That is, after I overhaul the hub bearings. Actually, I'm keeping them all. The two Treks are both in fine shape but I will overhaul all the bearings as I get around to it.
    Here are the brochure pages for the MB2 - mine is a 45cm.


  16. #16
    Senior Member TugaDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,179
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nice bikes

    All three are very nice. I noticed you have made more than one critical remark about downtube shifters. You don't like them? It is certainly a personal preference, but don't assume that dt shifters would hurt the saleability of the bike. It would be a plus for me and many other collectors.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I didn't mean to be critical of the downtube shifters, I was under the impression that they have been passe' for some time and nobody would want that set-up any more. In fact though, during the short time I actually rode that bike, I really got it shifting very smoothly. The new chain seemed to help a lot too. Thanks for the input on the shifters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •