Trek 520, Schwinn Voyageur, and Trek 720

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=456844


http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=456842http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=456843


Soon to come, Trek 620, and maybe another Voyageur, or Univega Touring.
I accidently threw in my Trek 500-sorry.

Only thing I really know about it is:
Butted frame tubes, Butted steerer, 'thin' oval Taper Gauge fork blades and plain gauge head tube and standard taper style seat stays. A set born out of many years experience in producing lightweight cycle tubes for performance touring frames.

http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/rey...-transfers.jpg





When I responded yesterday, I thought 531ST was the same as 531CS- but it looks like they're different- with CS being CrMo in the fork blades and stays and ST being "all" 531. Cool tube set, cool bike.

I don't know what's not classic, vintage or tour-y about it. :thumb:

My British Eagle Touristique, built around 1990 I believe, 531ST

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=456909

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=456911

I'm glad you got it! That's a really sweet bike!

Thanks, I just sold a bike I built up over the winter. Now I can get started on the Miyata! This one's a keeper for sure.

Wasn't that you who just build up a 700 series Trek?

Not that they're really in the same game- but I think that would be a comparison of a light sport touring frame and a more solid touring frame... It'd be cool.

I did just build up a Trek 710, it's not the one I'm selling. It's a great bike, I'm looking forward to seeing the differences between the Miyata and the Trek. The Miyata is a bit heavier for sure.
http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/r...y/DSCN1064.jpg

Thanks dude :) I knew none of this.

The compact and 11/28 on it now isn't quite low enough for touring, but it rides great so I won't tear it down, it's N + 1 time.

Just swap out that Ultegra double for a quality triple- a Deore XT M700 crankset would dominate on there.

1986 Trek 520
http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/...psjvfwjciu.jpg

I look forward to a full, detailed photo spread of that bike.

IMO- the 86/87 graphics were Trek's best- nothing gaudy, still had a version of the old style head badge, and honestly- I didn't realize that the 520 was this cool at this time. I just looked at the 520s as "also rans" until 1991 or so when they became more of a legitimate steel touring bike.

Cannondale T1000 1992
 

My beloved Cannondale T1000 manufactured Sept '92. I took the racks off until the next tour. I've owned this since new but I don't think there is an original component remaining because I've tinkered with it over the years. Lovely riding bike loaded or unloaded.
Seat Tube Angle: 73.5°
Head Tube Angle: 72°
Top Tube Length: 24.25”
Chainstay Length: 18”
Fork Rake: 2.125”
Bottom Bracket Height: 10.63”
Wheelbase: 44”
Trail: 2.15”
Ground to Top of Top Tube: 36.5”
Ctr. BB to Top of Top Tube: 25.9”
Dropout Spacing: 135 mm
Rims: Mavic Module 3D Front / Module 4 Rear 40 hole
Hubs: Campagnolo Record 40 hole
Spokes: Swiss DT 14 guage SS cross 4
Tires: Schwalbe Marathon Plus 700x32
Front Derailleur: Shimano Deore XT
Rear Deralleur: Shimano Deore XT
Bottom Bracket: Campagnolo Record 123mm
Shifters: Shimano bar end
Crankset: Specialites TA 180 mm Cyclotouriste
Pedals: Shimano MTB dual SPD
Freewheel: Sachs Maillard 7 speed cassette
Brakes: Velo-Orange cantilever Mk 3
Handlebar: Cinelli model 66 - 44cm
Stem: Velo-Orange
Headset: Mavic 305
Seatpost: Velo-Orange
Saddle: Brooks B17 Select
Fork: Tange sloping crown
Mudguards: Velo-Orange
Colour: Green
Frame Size: 27”
Weight: > 28.5 Lbs

When I rode my first century many years ago, my buddy Jake rode a 520, a really lovely bike. Yours looks in great shape and I'd like to see more pictures.

When I rode my first century many years ago, my buddy Jake rode a 520, a really lovely bike. Yours looks in great shape and I'd like to see more pictures.

Finished this up the other day. Schwinn Voyageur.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2ho9ut0.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/25gdyqo.jpg

Ha, just noticed a curiously similar bike on craigslist. What racks were those?

Huh. Strange. I'm sure Schwinn made more than a couple. ;)

They're the racks that I believe came on the bike when new. I'm not around it right now to check for branding though as the gal is currently dragging me around Target...

Never found any markings but didn't get a chance to look that hard. It's gone now. Had a ton of interest, received $50 more than my asking...

Not bad. I'm sure they were stock with the bike then, the fit looks too good.

I've got a similar Jim Blackburn non adjustable rear rack, but it doesn't sit near level. Bare aluminum racks are not easy to find and vintage ones are usually overpriced and also not plentiful. I don't have issues with heel strike and it works fine, but the aesthetic bothers me.

The racks were made by Blackburn, along with the bottle cage that you could get from "factory" for the Voyageur. The rear mounts to the bosses, but the front one mounts to the brake bolt and required a spacer. I have both in the shed that came from an 83 Voyageur I restored and recently sold. Originally was going to use them on my 85 Voyageur, but not so sure anymore. Like many aluminum of the period, they are a pain to keep nice and shined.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/538/1...f5406a73_k.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/434/1...6e865dd7_k.jpg

My '80 Schwinn Voyageur 11.8 during a recent 60mi rounder to this historic hotel in a small farm town.

Completely changed the stock Shimano to a Suntour triple. Everything is changed except the stem, brake levers and calipers, and bottom bracket.

I'm not so concerned about the shininess of the silver aluminum racks- IMO, even scraped, they look better than the scratched OEM powder coated Blackburn racks.

Blackburn made a few different styles of the racks- rears that mounted to the brake bolt, rears that mounted to braze ons with adjustable stays and the OEM rears that were permanently set and angled for particular bikes. The fronts I've come across were the low riders, the front that attaches to the brake bolt and the front that wraps around the fork and attaches to the brake bolt from the rear of the fork crown.




http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1644e620.jpg


http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/...psd40e4a40.jpg

I've got the lowrider Blackburn front rack which is nice, though it's mostly on for looks. I may remove it, taking out the front wheel requires pulling out the qr skewer because it gets caught in the rack.

I like the matte finish on these aluminum racks more than polished, plus it requires no maintenance.

This picture also depicts the sorry state of the rear rack.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...psa6966b62.jpg

Great looking bike.

I'd be annoyed by the rear rack angle as well. But for me I always obsess over the looks of my bikes. I suppose it's not possible to swap the eyelets between the fender and rack/it still doesn't achieve the proper angle?

Thanks. No, I don't think so. I don't think it would bend back enough to line up with the lower eyelets. I think I'm probably going to just buy a new Blackburn ex2 rack, they carry them in silver in the UK. Ribble has it for about $50 shipped which isn't bad.

@Chuckk That's sharp and surprisingly similarly equipped. Mine is an ancestor to yours, before they made the switch to the oversized downtubes. I think it might be a bit less stiff and ride a little smoother than later models. It's also not particularly light. I rode a 97 R300 CAAD2 frame and that was real stiff, but very light.