Try to take it easy. His post are often "factually incorrect". If a 531 decal gets stuck on any old fork in the forest but no one is there to post it on Bike forums, did it really happen?:p

It wasn't until I read that article posted on the first page- Trek was responsible for the whole "modern" concept of the touring bicycle- the long wheelbase/tons of braze ons.

I've read from others here that the 720 was a prohibitively expensive bike- but it looks like a lot of those developments are still used to this day.

Hey Golden.... Right on of the early 700's. Again though, my perspective was just as an end-user / shopper. I enjoy reading when you or John T. pipes in.

I could only imagine the start-up and capital to get rolling and then to be recognized as volume builder. Especially at the mid to late 70's decade. Interesting because right from the start, there was lots of handmade involved and at a higher level of quality. But what impresses me is how quickly they ramped up in just a couple of years and built significant numbers.

Then to tackle the venture with crazy interest rates plus competition from Japan. During Spring of 1977, the prime rate was 6.5% and by Spring of 1980 was an astounding 20%. Quite amazing for companies weathering thru that, especially new ones.

Trying to keep the politics at bay, overall think Trek is a terrific American company storyline. There's some dark stuff I tend to disagree with (one being the handling of LeMond) but as a whole they created many well needed jobs.

My local friend has an early Trek touring bike that is loaded with top shelf componentry and frame. I have seen the bike only twice but if I recall it was an '83 720. All original, right back to the days he toured the eastern US with is wife.

At a glance tidbits on early 520 models.
One can quickly view the vintage Trek site the variances in chainstay length and various steel tubing combinations but its interesting to note the different wheel and brake type. The classification is what Trek marketed as being in the brochures.

YR MOD Class brakes wheel size
82 515 sport side pulls 700c
83 520 touring side pulls 27 in.
84 520 touring cantilever 27 in.
85 520 sport side pulls 700c
86 520 sprt tur side pulls 700c
87 520 sprt tur cantilever 27 in. (I'm going with wide 700c rims and 35c rubber + fenders.)
88 520 touring cantilever 27 in.
89 520 touring cantilever 27 in.

^ That worked. And the glass of beer was a nice way to finish off looking at those two beautiful bikes!

Trek it easy to make their bikes look good.

has a 930 been posted yet? this one with columbus sl is from '79, built up with a little of everything (campy, ofmega, superbe).

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8746/...c8de637a_b.jpg

probably the lightest bike i've owned. as you can see by the seatpost height, it was a size too small for me, but really fun to ride.

Thanks. Troegs Brewing chocolate stout.

I wish I could see that glass of beer (and the two bikes too of course). Whenever I click that link I see an image of a bike too small to show much detail, and a whole bunch of peripheral stuff. And my browser asks if I want to allow Flash Player (why? I ask myself - I did try it once and nothing on the site seemed to change). I tried sliding the image around and it seemed to show a movable track of virtual image frames but all the other frames were empty. At some point other areas of my screen filled up with teddy bears or something. Some of the "stuff" may have been links to other images, or to other peoples' images, or to other quantum universes as far as I could tell. I never saw the beer (or the bikes in question).

Did I ever mention how much I hate links to image-hosting sites? Or maybe it's just PB. I could just google Troegs Brewing, I suppose. It wouldn't be the same without bikes.

In the meantime I've learned a lot about Trek (of the single-"Trek" variety). Thank you, all.

I'm not sure what is going on with my images (likely it's me). I do know that photobucket has been a major pain.
Troegs is available in MA but this particular one is a "scratch series" and only available at the brewery in Hershey.

Seatpost height has nothing to do with it. Afterall, in some circles riding a one size smaller bike is chic. What a lovely Trek!

MOD NOTE: Let's keep this on topic, please. Posts with insults and other personal attacks have been deleted. Thanks.

Thank you.

Generally speaking, by the mid-90's the Trek MTB and hybrid line-ups were organized in this way:

7xx series = steel hybrids
8xx series = lower-end steel MTB's
9xx series = higher-end steel MTB's
7xxx series = aluminum hybrids or aluminum/carbon hybrids

I don't remember if there were 8xxx and 9xxxx MTB models but I think there were.

Higher xxx numbers denoted better frames and components (ie, a 990 is a better bike than a 950).

I've never been into road bikes so I know nothing about them.

^
As for the mtn. bikes, in 1991 I purchased an 8000. Upper end model, their top of the line aluminum frame (Easton 7000 dbl. butted), XT / DX equipped. Bonded joints.

This also was the advent year of front suspension fork but only on their top model 8900 of which was the carbon fiber tubed and bonded joints.

I think it was probably the following year I acquired an early release aftermarket Trek branded air/oil fork made by Showa. It was a big ordeal. I think that fork was $250 with a waiting list to get one.

http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...rekCatalog.pdf

I don't know about "low quality." If you go through the Vintage Trek Bikes- Information on Steel Road Bicycles made by the Trek Bicycle Corporation, bike archives of actual brochures, you can see the specs of the frames themselves. When they came out in Chicago they were known for the same frame design and construction for frames with Mangalloy all the way to full 531 dB (531C, not 531 CS). You didn't get any cheap frames, you got a good frame with low level tubing. The lower priced frames were equipped with lower cost parts, but still good quality for the day.

I bought a 1984 610 new in well, 1984, and while I still own it I have never loved it. It rides consistently, it is in great alignment, it has had numerous different drivetrains and headsets, and it needed a seatpost bolt repair that necessitated factory repair and repainting (FREE! a good warrantee!). I never liked how it climbed at my low speed, darting back and forth across the intended path, so I experimented with higher-trail and then low trail (low trail was the solution!). I've also experimented with a front rack load, saddle bags, fenders, and a few lighting schemes. The frame integrity is still good as is the locally built low trail fork. The original Helicomatic wheels hit the road many years ago, I think I sold them for shipping to a guy in Connecticut. I discovered saddle setback on it while struggling to find a good fit.

Low quality in a late '70s, early/mid'80s (3xx) Trek is far better than low quality in a Columbia or Huffy of the same day, or the blighted early '70s Raleigh Record (bleccccH!).

I have never ridden one. :lol:

I have owned more Treks than I can remember, would have kept them all but a mandatory downsizing resulted in selling or giving away most of them.
A Wisconsin native, I'm partial to Treks and the fact everyone I bought was USA made. Sadly I can no longer afford them and don't have room for anymore.
I have taken the factory tour three times and if anyone is near there when tours are given take it.
You can't go wrong with a vintage Trek!

Is that from the vintage Trek website or somewhere else? I'd like to read the article.

I don't remember the Trek 720 as being prohibitively expensive. I bought my Trek 720 in 1983 as a frame when working in a shop. I thought it was one of the best touring bikes made at that time. I have no recollection as to the price but I thought it was in line with what similar quality bikes sold for.

It's funny. I picked up a '84 Trek 610 frame this summer from a BF member. I built it up to do some vintage rides and I wanted something reasonably lightweight that could take a 28c tire. I've been really impressed with the ride of the bike. It built up really well, looks good, and handles great. But yes, sometimes a bike just doesn't work right no matter what you do to it.

It's the article that [MENTION=350383]crank_addict[/MENTION] posted in post 16

http://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...l#post18432914

(you commented on it already!:))


I recall someone here saying that they rememebered selling 10 Expeditions to every 720- with most of those sales based solely on price. Based on what is known about the serial numbers- there were no 720s brazed in 1985 at all- meaning all the 1985 model year bikes were either leftover 84s or brazed in 84 for the 1985 model year.

Additionally, even though there's a metric ton (compared to 720s) of 85 620s around- there are also 1986 "620 Cirrus" bikes around as well. It was a 1985 620 frame painted in 1986/87 color/decal schemes. That means they didn't sell out of 620s either and were selling leftover bikes that weren't in catalogs.

It sort of says something about touring bikes at that time as well as Trek's touring bikes compared to other makes.

Funny, yeah I tend to be a speed reader which can be a problem sometimes; I read the article with an eye towards how Trek revolutionized the industry and I must have glossed over the touring stuff. But it makes sense, it was the touring and sports touring bikes that gave Trek their entree into the market. There was a lot of competition when it came to racing bikes but Trek was early with the idea that there was a market for high end bikes for people who did not race.

I love vintage Italian steel, I also love vintage Treks. Main reason for the love of Treks? I paid less for these three Treks combined than one nice Italian steed.


http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...psotbvmgen.jpg



http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...pspaojcvs4.jpg




http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...psxvzru8xj.jpg