Originally Posted by af895
I have a 1986 Trek 500 "Tri-Series" - a misnomer, as it has 'sports' geometry - not a total lame pig ride but not as aggressive as modern performance bikes either.
Slightly OT but how do you define "aggressive geometry" as it applies to a road bike?
Comparing the 86 Trek and my 02 Orbea, I see
Trek has fork with much more rake/trail, longer front half, less toe/wheel overlap
Trek has longer wheelbase, rear wheel further from seat tube and longer chainstays with seat farther ahead of rear axle.
seat tube angles are about the same. top tube length (53cm c-c) and seating position is pretty much identical with the longer stem on the Trek.
Slimmer tubing diameters overall with a smoother ride overall on the Trek. The Orbea is columbus starship and alpha q carbon fork. A nice ride and a bit more snap than the Trek though I honestly feel the Trek has a better sprint response character! I prefer the Orbea for long seated climbs due to the weight (17 pounds) and it certainly works nicely due to the newer hubs and gruppo. Subtle and subjective points but that's the way it feels to me comparing the two.