58cm TREK Touring bike - auction ending soon
12-02-07, 01:09 PM
#1
Old Skeptic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 1,044
Bikes: 19 road bikes & 1 Track bike
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
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.
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.
12-02-07, 02:21 PM
#2
www.theheadbadge.com
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,513
Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 4,391 Times
in
2,092 Posts
I've got a 57cm '82. Whippy as hell, dead response if not downright spongy, worst VLW I've ever ridden, IMHO.
-Kurt
-Kurt
__________________
12-03-07, 12:15 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
12-03-07, 12:28 PM
#4
Lanky Lass
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
.Oh, welcome to Bike Forums!
East Hill
__________________
___________________________________________________
TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...
___________________________________________________
TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...
12-03-07, 12:44 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
89 Posts
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-
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 09:02 PM.
12-03-07, 01:19 PM
#7
Lanky Lass
. 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...
___________________________________________________
TRY EMPATHY & HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, PERHAPS I'LL SEE YOU ON THE ROAD...
12-03-07, 08:59 PM
#8
Disraeli Gears
Well, someone bought it for $327.
12-03-07, 09:06 PM
#9
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
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!
PM me!
12-03-07, 10:22 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
12-03-07, 10:48 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
89 Posts
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-
12-03-07, 11:22 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 568
Bikes: Forty of them
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times
in
21 Posts
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.
12-06-07, 07:24 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
12-06-07, 07:27 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
-GT2005
12-06-07, 08:11 AM
#17
59'er
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alexandria, IN
Posts: 3,307
Bikes: LeMond Maillot Jaune, Vintage Trek 520 (1985), 1976 Schwinn Voyageur 2, Miyata 1000 (1985)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
__________________
12-06-07, 08:57 AM
#18
Lanky Lass
.
12-06-07, 09:01 AM
#19
www.theheadbadge.com
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,513
Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 4,391 Times
in
2,092 Posts
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:
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
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
__________________
