I know nothing of Trek or the various models. Not that I'm looking at one but a lot of people here seem to go gaga over them. So what's the deal?

"Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a troll."

What isnt to like??

I've got a few Treks in the stable. They have a reputation for being good value bikes. Trek still has a strong network of dealers & show rooms. I personally remember the old Schwinn dealerships. I think Trek is still doing what Schwinn used to do 50 years ago.

You can get very nice old vintage Treks for cheap. The 600 series back in the 70s and early 80s had 531 main tubing, for example. I have bought four of them so far, and they are very pleasant bikes.

2 built and a 3d is in the lab while I'm working on a makeover:

1992 Trek 950; what's not to like about a lugged vintage mtb?



Same bike after a good day's ride in winter:



1984 Trek 610 built up with a triple for the dairyland dare (contrary to popular belief, not all the midwest is flat,



And a 1983 Trek 720 which is currently undergoing some repair work in the lab:



Old treks had terrific paint jobs and they were, by and large, well thought out bikes in terms of frame geometry and equipment. Plus they were made in Wisconsin. And they ride good, 'nuff said.

I'm thinking this will make an excellent sig line, .

I think some of the Trek 'splanation stems from the timing of their rise.\, which occurred during the long US Schwinn demise. Same with Cannondale.

They essentially replaced Schwinn as the dominant US based bicycle manufacturers.

Trek also was perhaps the last great bicycle manufacturing venture in the US. Started post bike boom and catered to the descriminating cyclist. Hard to believe there was once a time that some bike geeks could get together and startup a bicycle company, and actually succeed.

^ Could also say they purchased a few others out and wrecked them....

1983 and before that they were a sort of boutique company. Perhaps a bit like the American version of Bob Jackson. They made a range of stuff but were most known for their touring frames and bikes. In 1984 they went more mass market in an attempt to compete with Univega, Peugeot, Raleigh, Fuji, Nishiki, etc. I remember the spiel from the sales rep at my LBS. I guess it worked cuz we picked up the line. They were a good value then and still made in USA.

The history and various models are pretty well documented on the web, IIRC.

Also, when starting out, they weren't trying to make all bikes for all riders. They only made mid and high end bikes.

The bike shop I worked at in New Orleans picked up Treks in the early 80s. That's when I bought my '83 720 frameset. Trek's timing was good. This was after the 70s boom. There were buyers looking for quality bikes and a made in the USA quality bike was, in my experience working on a shop floor, a fairly easy sale. Touring was hot then (kind of) and Trek made a fine line of touring bikes. There was a mini-explosion of touring related gear coming out as well. Quality bikes weren't just for racers anymore.

Plus there's a few C&V members here who used to work a torch there back in the good ol days. So that's also gives a close to home type of feeling to them.

Lance rode one, am I right?

I bought a Trek 990 from the early nineties some years ago. Too small so I do not have it anymore. That was a VERY well built bike and I would love to have one in my size.

A worthy read from 1986. (courtesy of the Vintage Trek site)
https://vintage-trek.com/images/trek/...GuideAug86.pdf

I will perhaps never fully understand Trek's model numbering thru the years.

I get that within a X00 category, the higher the number the nicer the bike. So an 850 is nicer than an 820 is nicer than an 800.
But how on earth are the hundreds chosen? 4XX, 5XX, 6XX, 7XX, 8XX, etc.
Some of those are mountain bike and some are road. Some are touring and some are hybrid. Seems like no rhyme or reason.
Maybe it all does make sense and I just haven't had by John Nash moment seeing how its all connected?

This one looks like a good commuter for you, Jim, once you lash your ankles to the crank arms:

But I don't hold that against them.

That is an awesome read. It covers a lot of ground including the problems the bikes had in the early 80s; I know my shop dealt with those issues but stuck with Trek.

Do you mean "He, whose name shall never be spoken"?

+1. That's the best thing about Trek. I think the 990 was lugged 'til 1994.

Wish I woulda kept my 400T. It was a little whippy and too long in the wheelbase for me back in the day. Now that I'm older a little whippiness doesn't bother me as much. I've always loved road/touring bikes that fit fat tires, and that thing fit 35s no problemo, I even had a 38 up front.

The Pete Rose of cycling.