trailz 

Saw a 198? Trek 520 for $230 on CL earlier this evening. I drove 45 minutes to take a look at it, thinking it might make a great commuter for my better half. Oddly, even though it's 54m, the stand-over height is more than my LHT 56cm. While I'd say the bike looked to be in pretty good condition (for it's age), I quickly noticed that something was catywampus with the chainrings—almost like they're egg-shaped and not round. So, after a little haggling, and $180 later, I've now got a Trek 520, that is likely too big for my wife, and needs at least new chainrings (not sure if they're original), and maybe new BB (although it seems OK). Not being much of a bike mechanic, I think I've got some learning to do on this one. Still, I'm optimistic I've got some good bones to start from. Honestly, I pretty psyched to get this bike back to running well.

bradtx

Those chainrings are designed that way, trailz.

Brad

brooklyn_bike

https://sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

you'll be able to figure out the year by:
https://vintage-trek.com/TrekBrochures.

nice deore drive train components. should be good for commuting and light / moderate touring.

AZORCH

After I got used to BioPace rings (especially the granny), I've gotten to really like them.

leunkstar

brilliant post, trailz!

welcome in the wonder world of ancient technologies
Remember the yellow little triangle on the outer chainring and you will recognise it a lot in ads. Also cool to brag off: yeah, that bike is probably a '89-'91 somewhere. Owner: how do you know?

enjoy the ride, nothing wrong with BioPace!

djb

Biopace warning, Biopace warning!!!!!!!!!!!

bought my touring bike in 90 or 91, it had Biopace---changed them out to round ones after having knee problems. Lets put it this way, there were many other people who had knee problems, and over time it was fazed out. I could not get rid of mine fast enough and even went to the point of throwing them out so that they would not get used on another bike, thats how much I saw them as a problem.

Do some searches on here and you will probably find more detailed accounts, mine included.

I had to put this stuff down as I really disagree with comments that it is ok. There is a "herky-jerkiness" that happens to your knees at faster cadences, and it aint good for your knees.

(my knees are crying out to you, "throw them away, throw them away!"

trailz 

Thanks all!

1988 it is.
Biopace- wow, mixed reactions. Sheldon says easier on the knees, others say the opposite. Guess I'll give it a careful try...
This bike is in far better condition than thought.

AdamDZ

I heard that people who rode Biopace ended up walking funny. Watch out!

B. Carfree

Who are you calling old? My family of three has five Treks in the stable and the newest one is five years older than the one shown. In fairness, one of them has had a bi-lateral hip replacement and one we no longer have was put down due to the same hip ailment.

anotherbrian

Not sure why you'd limit it to moderate touring. In 1988 (as discovered) it was the full-on touring bike. It originally came with a nice Blackburn rear rack. The stock canti's work fine with 700c wheels if it still has the original 27" wheels. At $180, even with some updating to do, that's a fantastic price.

Here's a pic of my mildly updated (cranks with circular rings, 7spd freewheel, Tiagra brifters, and 700c wheels). I'd planned to sell it, but if the going rate is $180, I'll keep it for awhile longer.

DVC45

Are there any scientific studies that supports this claim?
' not doubting ones experience, I really just want a more convincing proof.

I happen to like my bikes with Biopace and I never had any pain issues in my knees while ridding them. But then, I don't ride fast either.

Oh, sorry for the thread jack.

Phil_gretz

I had Biopace 52/42 13-26T on my Fuji Club and really loved it. I thought that they felt better at proper cadence. Although not my primary bike, it gave me ~1500 troublefree and fun miles its first year. PG

AZORCH

FWIW, I've been running a BioPace triple on the Shogun since January; before that it was on an '88 Voyageur. When I first rode the Voyageur, I thought the spin was really weird. Turns out that the rings were paced incorrectly (the pin needs to line up with the crank.) After rotating the middle ring correctly, the spin felt a lot better and after a couple of rides I've never noticed a difference since. As I said, I've had this setup on the Shogun all spring and I've ridden at least seven metric centuries and a whole bunch of shorter trips. My knees are feeling fine and the drive has been completely reliable and trouble free. I'll be touring in June so I'll post back if anything changes.

djb

re Biopace, here is a quote I just wrote in response to other talk of it in the Roadie section:

[QUOTE=achoo;12419402
If there were any magical mechanical bullet already being made that would make anyone go faster on a bike, it'd get widespread use - FAST.
[/QUOTE]

Thankyou! That sums it up.

I used them, hated them. Even for a skinny, not strong, non racer like me (20 years ago and today) I and my knees didnt like them. Yes, at slow cadences "maybe" they were ok, but as someone who sometimes spins up fast on downhills or whatever, not wanting to shift up sometimes, the herky-jerky going on was just fricken terrible for knees. It just felt weird and unnatural, and frankly felt bad for the knees.

for the supposed gain in reducing "dead spot" in a pedal stroke, it was not for me worth the risk for my knees, and having to keep an eye on my cadence and not being able to (safely and comfortably) spin up on a downhill.

as I have said in other threads on this, I changed them out and unlike my usual practice of keeping **** "in case" its needed down the road, I threw these suckers in the trash.

**I totally agree with the person whose comment I quoted, that if oval rings were really a great thing that made pedalling more efficient, they would be out there still and racers would use them all the time for the X % of efficiency gain, its really that simple. I can see how for slower cadences they can maybe work, but in everyday life, I have times where I speed through an intersection, or bomb down a hill and the cadences can get high (I dont have a cadence speedo so cant give numbers) and the uneveness with oval rings is very much apparent at high cadences.
Again, if they were such a great, universal idea, they would be on bikes, I cant back it up with scientific proof, but my personal experiences and the fact that it isnt around (for me) pretty much sums it up.
Darwinian thing ( I mean, we still have bar end shifters, non-clip in pedals etc) but no Biopace.

djb

I should add obviously, if you have them and they work fine for you, thats great. There are some of you that use them with good results. Also, I now recall that there was a Biopace 1 and 2, with I think diff "ovalness" shape, or something.
As I have said in other threads on this, for me its simple, if it aint broken, dont fix it (round rings) and as I had issues with Biopace in the past, I have no inclination to go there again--and yes, will be vocal in "warning" people about it.

rogerstg

My right, problem, knee (from hockey and jackass stunts) benefits greatly from biopace. I especially like them for rides > 100 miles, touring or cold weather. My normal cadence is 90-110, fwiw. My left knee does not seem to care whether rings are round or biopace.

peterw_diy

The same is true of my 1991 Trek 520 -- it has a high bottom bracket. In 1991, the 520 had the same geometry as Trek's nicest steel hybrid (the 750?). The frame was nearly identical, the only difference being a couple braze-on fittings. I figured that Trek had cut costs by using the same lugs on both frames. Also, IIRC back then the 520 was measured in inches, and, like the hybrids, had 2" gaps between sizes. So that would be a 21" frame, and you should be pleased it wasn't a 23". :-)

In any case, I've always thought the bike rides well, especially when fully loaded (front and rear). Sure, it doesn't feel "nimble", but that's not what I wanted, especially when touring. I think you got a good deal. Enjoy the bike.

Ciufalon

That bike definitely looks more like a 57cm or 58cm. Are you sure it is a 54? Does it say what size it is somewhere on the bike or as part of the serial number?

trailz 

Very perceptive Ciufalon... 58cm.
Cleaned and relubed the drive train, and shifting greatly improved
I'm really loving the look of this bike, and I'm putting new tires on tonight.
Can't wait to put on some miles!