Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Old Skeptic stronglight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    My Bikes
    19 road bikes & 1 Track bike
    Posts
    1,044
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    58cm TREK Touring bike - auction ending soon

    Bike is not mine... and I really have no idea about this seller.

    But, I thought someone might like to see (or even buy) this bike.

    From the serial number it appears to be a 1982 model. Seat tube decal is missing and it is a bit tattered, but a very worthwhile winter project bike with full Reynolds 531 fork and frame tubes. The Titanium Brooks B17 saddle makes this even a more attractive buy. Looks to be built up with a hodge-podge of parts from the 70s to present, mostly non-original. Bidding is currently stalled under $220, but that will surely change.

    In spite of some confusion on the listing regarding frame size, the frame stamping indicates a 58cm - which is exactly what it looks like ... and NOT either the 56 or 57cm which are both mentioned.

    The model appears to be a 728 (720 as frame alone) and here is a link to the catalog page on the TREK website: 1982 Trek 728 which shows lots of data about the original components, etc.

    Plenty of detailed photos on the auction page too: #190178111165

    A top quality vintage touring frameset. At very least, it's worth studying the details to see what a US manufacturer came up with 25 years ago. Clean, sturdy and simple design.


  2. #2
    www.theheadbadge.com cudak888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Florida
    My Bikes
    http://www.theheadbadge.com
    Posts
    22,730
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got a 57cm '82. Whippy as hell, dead response if not downright spongy, worst VLW I've ever ridden, IMHO.

    -Kurt

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cudak888 View Post
    I've got a 57cm '82. Whippy as hell, dead response if not downright spongy, worst VLW I've ever ridden, IMHO.

    -Kurt
    Sorry I don't know, but what does VLW mean? Thanks! -GT2005

  4. #4
    Lanky Lass East Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Take a deep breath, and ask--What would Sheldon do?
    My Bikes
    Nishiki Nut! International, Pro, Olympic 12, Sport mixte, and others too numerous to mention.
    Posts
    21,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello GT2005, VLW means 'Very Light Weight', and usually refers to bicycles from the mid 1970s through mid 1980s or so. In other words, not a Schwinn Varsity or Continental .

    Oh, welcome to Bike Forums!

    East Hill
    ___________________________________________________
    TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...

  5. #5
    biked well well biked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by East Hill View Post
    Hello GT2005, VLW means 'Very Light Weight', and usually refers to bicycles from the mid 1970s through mid 1980s or so. In other words, not a Schwinn Varsity or Continental .

    Oh, welcome to Bike Forums!

    East Hill

    I thought VLW means "vintage light weight." Maybe I'm wrong, though.

  6. #6
    biked well well biked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stronglight View Post
    The model appears to be a 728 (720 as frame alone)....
    Isn't the difference between a 720 and a 728 the type of brakes they use (centerpull calipers on the 728, traditional canti's on a 720)? So a 720 frame would have canti bosses, a 728 would not? This frame doesn't appear to have canti bosses-

    edit: after looking at the '82 Trek catalog, maybe there was no 720 available as a complete bike? I couldn't find one in the catalog, anyway. Apparently, model 720 available as a frame only.....so was the '82 720 frameset the same frame as the 728 frame (i.e, no canti bosses)? The pic of the 720 frameset doesn't appear to have canti bosses-
    Last edited by well biked; 12-03-07 at 08:02 PM.

  7. #7
    Lanky Lass East Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Take a deep breath, and ask--What would Sheldon do?
    My Bikes
    Nishiki Nut! International, Pro, Olympic 12, Sport mixte, and others too numerous to mention.
    Posts
    21,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by well biked View Post
    I thought VLW means "vintage light weight." Maybe I'm wrong, though.
    Actually, I think you are correct . Thank you for catching that!

    I'll go hide myself for a few hours...

    East Hill
    ___________________________________________________
    TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...

  8. #8
    Disraeli Gears Charles Wahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    NYC
    My Bikes
    Riding: 1960s Falcon commuter; Queued: 1977 Bob Jackson, 1983 Serotta Club Special, 1984 Motobécane Team Champion, 1983 Guerciotti SLX, 1974 Harding (like Holdsworth Pro), 1974 Peugeot PX10LE, 1970s Jeunet Franche-Comté, 1974 Raleigh International
    Posts
    3,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cudak888 View Post
    I've got a 57cm '82. Whippy as hell, dead response if not downright spongy, worst VLW I've ever ridden, IMHO.
    Now, don't sugar-coat it, tell us what you really think! Do you think that the rather long chainstays have anything to do with this?

    Well, someone bought it for $327.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,285
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a 57cm, basically brand new, Panasonic PT-5000 that I would sell for that in a heartbeat! Free unused Panasonic water bottle included!

    PM me!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Western North Carolina
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by well biked View Post
    so was the '82 720 frameset the same frame as the 728 frame (i.e, no canti bosses)?
    The 720 was the frameset, the 728 was the complete bike, no difference except one came complete and one didn't. Trek often sold framesets of their nicer bikes, and would use a slightly lower model number but keep the first two digits the same, ie 720 and 728. '82 was the last year that the 720 didn't have canti bosses.

  11. #11
    biked well well biked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalbicycle View Post
    The 720 was the frameset, the 728 was the complete bike, no difference except one came complete and one didn't. Trek often sold framesets of their nicer bikes, and would use a slightly lower model number but keep the first two digits the same, ie 720 and 728. '82 was the last year that the 720 didn't have canti bosses.

    Thank you very much for the info, I did not realize that-

  12. #12
    Senior Member cinco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For my 1979-80 Trek 730 frame, the last number designates the component group. Specifically, the 730 frame was available with component group 006 (Shimano 600EX), 007 (Campy GS), or 008 (Campy NR). I built it as a 738. The same component options were available for the 930-series frame of that year, and slightly different component options were available for the 510-, 710-, and 910-series frames. That's my understanding of the early system, anyway.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nor~Cal
    Posts
    1,678
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I bought a trek elance 400 frame on ebay for $30 with free drop-off.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by East Hill View Post
    Hello GT2005, VLW means 'Very Light Weight', and usually refers to bicycles from the mid 1970s through mid 1980s or so. In other words, not a Schwinn Varsity or Continental .

    Oh, welcome to Bike Forums!

    East Hill
    Thank you! -GT2005

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by well biked View Post
    I thought VLW means "vintage light weight." Maybe I'm wrong, though.
    Thank you! -GT2005

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by East Hill View Post
    Actually, I think you are correct . Thank you for catching that!

    I'll go hide myself for a few hours...

    East Hill
    You can come out of hiding now! -GT2005

  17. #17
    59'er Mariner Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, IN
    My Bikes
    LeMond Maillot Jaune, Vintage Trek 520 (1985), 1976 Schwinn Voyageur 2, Miyata 1000 (1985)
    Posts
    3,299
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's really hit and miss on the amount of attachments you get on the pre-1985 Trek touring bikes. I never understood why they would sell a touring bike with only one water bottle attachment.

  18. #18
    Lanky Lass East Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Take a deep breath, and ask--What would Sheldon do?
    My Bikes
    Nishiki Nut! International, Pro, Olympic 12, Sport mixte, and others too numerous to mention.
    Posts
    21,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GT2005 View Post
    You can come out of hiding now! -GT2005
    I'm back .

    Still red-faced, but back!

    East Hill
    ___________________________________________________
    TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...

  19. #19
    www.theheadbadge.com cudak888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southern Florida
    My Bikes
    http://www.theheadbadge.com
    Posts
    22,730
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Correction - '82 was the first and last year the 720/728 was built sans canti bosses, for the model debuted in '82.

    Charles, you asked for it. Here's the entire PM I sent in response to an inquiry by Stronglight on these machines:

    Hello Bob,

    The overlong Reynolds 531 DB chainstays did them in, in my opinion. Front triangles also felt whippy - don't know if that was a side-effect, or an oddity of the model.

    Poorly built, I'll grant it that. Rear brake bridge popped off one side of the seatstay with apparent effort (hardly any braze on it), and both stays have cracks at the seatlug joint (but refuse to snap under intense pressure).

    I've been meaning to dump that 728 frame on eBay, knowing quite well someone will buy it, lumpy electroweld on the bridge or not.

    I also own a Trek 610, which is essentially 531 mainframe with 4130 stays and fork - I'll never get rid of it for its looks, but I've never cared for its ride either. Stone dead and flat, even though it isn't whippy (but it feels as if it takes some effort to "punch" it - which is why I'll always prefer my two Paramounts and early '90s oversized Columbus EL lugged Guerciotti over the Trek).

    I have never ridden any of the 900 series - I'd jump at the chance to do so, but I wonder whether I'd find harmony in the ride. I've become somewhat of a snob when it comes to the responsive liveliness of my machine, and for the most part, if it doesn't perform right, I won't bugger with it.

    Incidentally, the 728 was my usual yard-sale hopping machine, with '90s French-touring-type aluminum racks front and back:



    After having become royally fed up with the ride, I transfered both racks onto my '84 Raleigh Alyeska (shown as bought - have changed to a double):



    The Alyeska does not show the better craftsmanship of the Raleigh USA Taiwanese factory of the era - and the fork is about the worst off-center brazed piece of trash I've ever seen, semi-rectified after 4 hours of fiddling with the blade alignment and grinding the dropout slots - but for a touring bike equipped with crappy Kendas, she gallops off the line as if her rear tire was on fire. She's become my dedicated heavy-hauler, as you might imagine.

    Now if only someone sold some brown or dirty-gold fenders to go with it...

    Whoops - just realized something I hadn't addressed - got to talking too much about my own bikes then reading your comments . The Trek does NOT feel like French whippyness. Whippy French frames are, indeed, whippy, but they're lively, and will - for the most part - "spring" into a sprint with intense gusto - and enough frame movement for the rider to consider it a suicide mission. The Trek is just dead. Whippy and dead.

    Eh, I talk to much. Time to hang it up. I ought to put some of these correspondences on a website...

    Take care,

    -Kurt

Posting Permissions

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