Gartenmeister

So I am well-aware that early Treks are highly regarded and in those days "Trek made no bad bikes." The question for discussion is for those who have owned/ridden multiple examples from the era. How much difference in the ride is there between the different tubesets given the same geometry and size? Example, in 1981 the same (or very similar) sport-touring geometry was available in 022 main tubes (412), 531 main tubes (610), full 022 (510) and full 531 (710). How do they stack up? I don't mean in the model lineup, I mean in real-life riding. Can you feel the difference? In a blind taste test could you pick the full 531 frame over the one with hi-ten fork & stays?

reedfe

I'm interested in this as well. Maybe we could even extend that comparison to some of the True Temper stuff like RC-1 and RC-2 used in the late 80s.

The Golden Boy 

That's not really true- they were an ordinary American company with skilled labor- as with anything- there were good ones and bad ones. The Ishiwata fork crowns from the early 600 series bikes are known to cause fork failures. I've seen evidence of really poor brazing (not like on some Ralieghs that I've seen, but...).

I think the idea is that Trek didn't have a really bottom end bike. "Even the entry level Treks were as good as the mid level competition."

Your question is more about the characteristics of tubesets than it is about Trek and geometry.

I will say that I have a 1978 Trek 730 and a 1986 Trek 400 Elance. The 400 is actually the more aggressively angled bike. The 400 has a double butted 531 main frame with Tange CrMo fork and stays. The 730 is double butted 531 throughout. The 730 is much noticeably lighter, both in riding and when picking the bikes up and hanging them or moving them or whatever. In terms of the ride- the 730 rides light and has a certain "glide" about it. The 400 rides more like one of my touring bike- it goes "through" bumps more than it just goes over them. The 730 "gives" more.

I think, all things being equal, you would be able to tell the difference in the ride and weight of a double butted 531 frame/fork/stays bike compared to a 501 or Ishiwata 022 frame.

OldsCOOL

I'll weigh (***ahem***) in on this. My '85 460 was the entry level road racer, designed for weekend warriors with a budget. Nicely built and equipped, it had the True Temper1 frame with the "plug in" cast lugs. The bike was fast, handled well and had a thrill dynamic in the feel that reminded you there was a racer under your butt. Just plain nice and I rode my first century on it. There is regret for selling it after 10 years of good service.

Then came the 760 with full 531c frame, Campy drivetrain, Modolo Equipe (love em) brakes. Same plug in cast lugs, and that gorgeous red. Yeah, the same fast red. Anyways, I really cant tell much via the frame. What really makes that distinction difficult are the tires being the same on both bikes. The 760 weighs 1.5lbs lighter and that is discernable. The 760 is a professional grade bike and having one in like new condition took the sting out of selling the 460.

Nice bikes. They need to be rode hard to be understood.

fleslider 

I would add that if you are a bigger rider or "pedal masher" you will see a difference also from the frame flex. I would ride a 1987 Trek 560 with Reynolds 531 tubing and if i was off the saddle pedaling hard i would get enough frame flex that it would cause the chain to pop off the chainring.

OldsCOOL

II had considerable flex when stomping on the 460, the small chainring dug into the chainstay until it was shimmed out (bb spindle) a good 2mm. The 760 with full 531c will flex enough to ghost shift the Campy NR every now and then. I have since tuned that out and havent had the problem in a while. I am 5'9 and 168lbs.

exmechanic89

I worked in one of the first shops to carry Trek, I believe this was around '81. One thing I remember distinctly was that the first ones we got had pretty terrible brazing on the frames. Lot's of globs of solder and an overall sloppy look to the lugs. We were all surprised how bad they looked next to the japanese bikes we had. The owner of the shop was pretty mad about it in fact. He eventually worked something with the Trek rep though I dont remember now what it was.

That said I own several early 90's Trek mtbs and love them, in fact they're by far my favorite mtbs of the era. I think after those rough first years they really ramped up the quality, because they obviously became very nice rides eventually.

SJX426 

I have a 1984 610 that was stripped of all paint. You can visit the quality of brazing in the Flickr album.

Not all of the frame was assembled in USA. The fork is a Tange from Japan and I believe the rear triangle was also sourced from Japan with the final assembly in USA. JTT can answer that directly as he worked there.

The following picture shows a CT bridge that is not aligned properly with the stays. the right side is closer to the BB than the left. To me this is hand craftsmanship. Maybe not the best quality but quality regardless.

~[IMG]P1000864 , on Flickr[/IMG