rekmeyata

No. but they could have half ass'd a repair that is now all covered with paint. It sounds like you're deadset on getting, so get it, it's only my opinion, and it's only your money.

ppg677

I already got it. Like I said, $70 for a Columbus double-butted lugged frame which includes a decent stem, seatpost, seat, headset, bottom bracket, and brake calipers.

Your logic just doesn't make sense to me. If you buy old bikes of unknown origin, then *anything* you buy could have a "half ass'd" repair that is covered with paint. Can you really tell the difference between a glorious 1975 Colnago that is wonderful with original paint compared to a 1975 Colnago that had a half-assed repair in 1982 and was re-painted in 1982 by a competent painter?

rekmeyata

Ok, Another argumentative type of this forum, that's what we need around here, god forbid there isn't enough of them.

Put your thinking cap on.

A person who has a bike professionally repainted to look like as it did new including graphics, and lets add damage repair, it is more likely that whatever body damage that was done to the frame was also professionally redone and therefore done right. Whereas a bike that is not professionally repainted etc (which the one you got was not), and it looks like it was done unprofessionally (as that one you got does look), then chances are good that if there was body damage on the bike that it too was not done right.

Let's reword it because I doubt you understand and will want to argue about it. So let's try it this way. Suppose you had two identical frames, both were damaged and both repainted, one was painted professionally and looks all original and in order; the other was unprofessionally repainted and it shows it, doesn't look original at all; neither show any evidence due to the paint of any damage but both were and the seller tells you that's the case. Which one will you buy?

ppg677

Pot meet kettle



Nice.

That is a faulty assumption. Just because someone is good at painting doesn't mean they are honest or good at repairing frames.

In any case, in this particular case, this frame appears to have been professionally painted. The "pro series" lettering is not decals either. The red and blue paint is high-quality and beautifully applied. This is about the 5th Trek frame I've purchased. I know the difference between a Trek-original Imron-caliber finish and spray paint. There is one ~4" part of this frame where white spray paint was applied to the professional finish. If I was concerned about it, I could strip that part to inspect.

You sound like a very pleasant person who has lots of friends.

rekmeyata

So seeing something with a poor restore job is a false assumption that the restore was done badly? LOL LOL LOL

The Golden Boy 

Everybody thought it's just me.

dailycommute

$70, sure, good deal man. As you said, you buy em to ride so have a blast. I love my 78 trek 022 Ishiwata, a classy bike that rides like a 40 yo hand crafted frame.

OldsCOOL

I mounted up a tubular wheelset this summer. Little thing must certainly have broke into the 19lb range. The full 531c and Campy drivetrain is a real throwback to glory days.

The Golden Boy 

I should see how light I can get my 78 Trek.

As it is- I have it set up for running to the grocery store and stuff- with a rack and a triple. Hmmm...


@JohnDThompson what are some of the things that would be identifying benchmarks to a frame like this? EG- how "identifiable" are things like the BB cable guide and seat cluster for old Treks?

I'm spoiled by having "TREK" cast into everything that I've had.

rekmeyata

You can get it pretty light, depends on how much money you want to throw at it. Going with a carbon fork vs the steel fork will save you at least a pound. Lighter wheels will save you about 1/4 pound total, lighter tires and tubes might save you close to that amount depending on what you use now, but lighter wheels are only effective if you do a lot of climbing, if you are mostly on flat ground it's actually better to get slightly heavier wheels that are aero, and aero means at least 40mm deep, anything less is ineffective. You can also continue going nuts with your money by going with CF seatpost, handlebar, pedals, lighter seat. Obviously if you do all of that the bike will no longer have that vintage look, and if you do all of that keep the original parts so you can convert back if needed. I think an older bike like that could see 19 pound range depending on how heavy the bike is now. There wouldn't be much weight savings changing your components to modern lighter stuff, most modern stuff really isn't that much lighter, if lighter at all depending on what you have. I just don't think spending all that money to make a bike lighter is worth it in my opinion.

My 84 Trek 660 weighs 21.1 pounds, I could knock off a pound of weight with just a CF fork alone, but I won't do it. My Fuji Club weighs 20.8 (not sure why it's this light being all stock, the factory specs said it was 23?), I have an aluminum fork I could put on it that would drop about a pound of weight off.

There is at least one steel frame bike on the market that weighs 13.81 fully equipped with CF fork and WITH pedals and bottle cage! but it's expensive at $11,000 which put it out of my league, but I sure wish I could ride one. There has been no recorded incidents of problems with that light weight of a steel bike, so steel can be made light and be reliable.

Road Fan

A TX700 or 770 is most likely to be a Reynolds 531 DB frame, but there is a small probability it's a Columbus. Based on Skip's comment I'd put that as a very small probability.

There are several physical hints that it is Columbus. The ultimate is to scrape out some metal from a main tube and have a chemist subject it to metallurgical analysis, and see if there is significant manganese in the steel. If so, you have Reynolds. The fork crown doesn't match, so the fork doesn't match, so you can't use the presence of rifling in the steer tube or printing on the steer tube to see if it is Reynolds or Columbus. Finally, sometimes a really careful visual of the existing tubes will reveal a stamping of the Columbus Dove (I have seen this) on a tube, or some kind or Reynolds symbol on a tube (I have never found one of these). Another is to see if you have biconical seatstays (Columbus only), helical reinforcement inside the DT butts (SLX), or whether dimensions of the chainstays indicate anything. Barring these indications, you have no basis to suppose this is a rare custom 700 or 770 made with Columbus v. the standard Reynolds. Much less work just to assume it's Reynolds. It's not a sign of a bad frame, quite the opposite.

It would be good to look into seatstay attachment methods used in Trek frames and see if what we see there was stock on any Trek. If not, it's a pretty strong sign of some major frame repair work done in the past. Most people would not "upgrade" the seatstay attachments on a mass-produced frame just for aesthetics.

jjhabbs 

Not a trek, Or miyata. I dont know what it is however.

ppg677

You think the serial number is a coincidence?

chuck nacke

I have a "Red, White & Blue" TREK Pro 770 with the original 531c forks, but the bike pictured by ppg677 is different.
My 770's derailleur cables run under my BB housing. I've never seen another "Red, White & Blue" Pro 770 frame.
I bought my frame from a California bike shop owner and have ridden it happily for almost 20 years. Will post a current
photo soon.

madpogue 

^^^^ +1, start throwing some intro posts around, get your post count up to 10, so you can post pics.

Under-the-BB shift cables "officially" came in '83. But there are exceptions, and, as the OP references, some "frankenbuilds". I have one frame made of Ishiwata 022, with rack braze-ons, under-BB cables, an investment cast 022 fork, and an '82 serial number. Doesn't mesh with anything in the brochures.

Does yours have the T R E K on the seat stay caps? Generally, what does the seat cluster look like?

Other things that might shed some light - seat post diameter, type/shape of fork crown, identifying info on the steerer tube, rear triangle spacing (unless it's been cold set).

Good choice for a thread de-zombificazione, BTW. I wonder if the OP is still in "78 sq. mi. surrounded by reality".

chuck nacke

Yes both the seat stays and BB are engraved with TREK. I believe the seat is 27.2. Only the frame is original, I've equipped it with carbon FF even though I still have the original 531c forks and currently riding with all DA 7400, 8sp, with MAVIC COSMOS wheels, 130 spaced. Forum will not let me post a photo....

The Golden Boy 

Keep in mind, a Trek 770 is different from a TX 770.

The TX 770 is a touring model with Columbus tubing from the early days of Trek- up until about 78. The 770 was a full on racing specific model from the mid-80s.

The TX 770 was never officially in the catalogs- While a TX 700 was a 531 frame and a sport/touring geometry, a TX 900 was a Columbus frame and a racing geometry. The TX 770 was a Columbus framed version of the TX 700.

The Trek 770 was a tight racing geometry 531 bike from the mid 80s.

mechanicmatt

No I have never seen a fork crown like that on a Trek, and I've seen a lot. The frame has nice aspects but the lugs to me look nothing like a Trek, other than they are lugs.

mechanicmatt

I should say it does look like a quality frame though. Those lugs look early 80's, campagnolo rear drop outs, maybe campagnolo bottom bracket shell, but the seat stays at the seat post do not look right to me for a Trek.

chuck nacke

Yes,

The frame I am talking about and riding is a 770 Pro with 531c Reynolds tubing.
Not "head over heals" into old TREK's, just wondering about this old frame,