Chr0m0ly 

Hey guys,
I'm going to look at an 1984 Trek 610. Reynolds 531cs tube set, which I think means full 531 but with the touring down tube for stiffness. The bike is in nice shape, he's put 700c wheels with shimano 600 hubs on it, and it looks like a great deal.
I've been looking at all I can find on vintage treks and it looks like there's some haters out there, so trying to find out the scoop.
The '84 610 doesn't have the questionable ishiwata fork, and it uses the real lugs, not the cast and cut ones that Trek switched to in '85.

bikemig 

It is not a full Reynolds 531 frame. The main triangle is reynolds 531; the fork and stays are reynolds chrome moly (probably 501). The info is on the Trek website.

This is a kick ass bike. I have one and it is a classic Trek sports touring bike. It can fit 32c tires or 28c with fenders. I run it with a triple and lightweight 32c tires (clement strada LGG 700 x 32c); the bike is a real mile eater.

The Golden Boy 

531CS has the main tubes of 531 and the fork and stays are CrMo.

"REYNOLDS 531 CLUB SPORT transfer; a cycle
bearing this transfer has top seat and down tube
BUTTED (as?) REYNOLDS 531 and head tube BUTTED
steerer, TAPER GAUGE forks, seatstays and
chainstays, manufactured from specially cold worked
chrome Molybdenum tubing. Designed for fast
sports and touring."




The more I pay attention to it, the nicer it gets- even in direct comparison with 531C. I've got an 85 Trek 620 and 85 Trek 720- very similar geometries- I used to think that the 531CS was heavier or more stout- but it's actually just about as light and lively as the 531C 720.

Chr0m0ly 

Trek sold that frame by itself, so I figured it must be pretty high quality. I'm only familervwith Miyata's and Cannondales. This looks like it might compare to a miyata 710?

The Golden Boy 

??

Looks like a full bike to me...

https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...Trek2Sport.pdf


And it is a high quality frame and bicycle.

Chr0m0ly 

It is, but if you scroll down you'll see an asterisk next to the 610 frame indicating it's available as a bare frame too.

Hobbiano 

In '84, the 610 was the nicest sports touring bike the made. And it was pretty nice, but it came with Malliard Helicomatic hubs, the only weak component, imo. However, the one your looking at has 600 hubs? That's good, if they're in good condition.

Hobbiano 

Also, check out the "Show Your Trek" thread somewhere here for more encouragement.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...your-trek.html

Chr0m0ly 

So the fork and triangle are seemed, is that right? But it's taper gauged? This is fascinating. I'm checking it out, (and most likely taking it home) at 5:00. It definitely sounds worthy of being a keeper, but I want to see how it rides.

Steve Whitlatch 

You are going to love the ride. Great frames.

Road Fan

Thanks for the chart, it always helps in this discussion.

You said the 531cs feels as light and lively as the 531C. I agree, the three main tubes have the same spec, according to Trek catalog information. What's interesting is that the Trek down tubes are ALL (for DB531) the 10 7 10 Super Touring tube, while the others are the more usual 8-5-8 TT and 9-6 ST. In non-trek 531 db tube sets, the TT and ST are the same and the DTs are 9-6-9! So for example the 720, 620, and 610 should feel and weigh about the same as each other, but the 720 should be a little stiffer (good for a touring bike!) than say, a contemporary Woodrup or Bob Jackson made (if they were) from the standard 531 set.

So the 610 IMO has always felt a little heavy compared to my Woodrup, Masi, and Mondonico. I'm reasonably sure the Woodrup is standard 531 db set, the Mondonico is Colombus SL (9/6/6 TT and DT and 9/6 ST), and I really don't know what's in the Masi, it's factory paint and there is no tubing decal.

Road Fan

I bought one new in 1984, and I've always liked it, never loved it. But it rides well, has held up, and has tolerated many rounds of prototyping (low trail, triple rear, metal fenders, et cetera, front racks and bags, et cetera) maintaining her behavior and dignity.

As it came from Trek the trail is high, about 55 mm. To get the benefits of low trail, if you want that, you need to probably get a custom fork that will give about 38 or 40 mm trail at the original ride height.

The Shimano 600 hub, whether freewheel or cassette, is a good choice. I never liked the 600 6207 rear mech or calipers, but the hubs are a lot better than the Maillard Helicomatic original setup. Original wheels were 27", but I found the original brake calipers (one saving grace!) can take extend the brake shoe locations to reach the brake tracks on a 700c wheel. The rear end originally is 126 mm wide, but I'm sure it can be safely cold set (by an expert, she's going on 35 years old!!!) to 130 mm. All the parts and frame threadings are English sizes and threads, as well - no French, Swiss, or "special designer's imagination."

Original headset is a Stronglight B10, which is a lightened version of the classic and nearly indestructible A9 roller -bearing headset. You can replace it with an A9, a Shimano, cane Creek, Campagnolo or what have you, but the B10 should need nothing more than washing of the bearing retainers (do not try to remove the little needles!), and the flat races and reassembly. Another 35 years! There aren't many "forever" parts in the cycle world, but this (and the A9) is one.


I recommend it.

The Golden Boy 

In the past, I've thought the 620 was slightly more heavy and dense- but I'm wondering how much of that perception is colored by "legendary Trek 720" reputation.

The 720 is 531C. I'm not sure I entirely understand the "C" in there- my 78 Trek 730 is full 531 frame/fork. My assumption is that it's 531C- it was intended to be a "race" bike. However, it is much lighter and more... "compliant" than the 720- which, as you noted, is a good thing for a touring bike- but the difference in the feel/weight are more than geometry can explain- To my mind, 531C is a tube set with a given thickness and butting. It doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation of the difference between the 730 and 720 is that it's different thicknesses of the 531 tub sets. But it doesn't sit right with me that "531C" "Competition" is a heavier/thicker tube set than other 531 tube sets.

Road Fan

No, they are not seamed, as far as I could ever see. I don't believe it says "seamed" in the Trek literature, does it?

bikemig 

"Reynolds 531CS (Club Sport) frame tubing is first used by Trek. According to Terry at Reynolds-Cycle.com: "531CS was a special set, supplied mainly to Trek. The main triangle was butted 531 and the rear stays were CrMo (501)." The fork was taper gauge CrMo (501). (Info. provided by Dickey Greer.)"

Vintage Trek - Steel Road Bike Timeline, Trek Bicycle Corporation

Using reynolds 531 DB for the main triangle and a less expensive tubing set for the fork and stays is a very good and common way to build a quality bike frame at a lower price point. The French did this a lot and typically used hi tensile steel for the fork and stays. The 610 uses reynolds 501 which is a quality tubing set. No way anyone could tell the difference in ride quality. The weight is very decent for this bike.

It is also a very versatile bike because of the sports touring geometry. The decals esp. on the fork blades are kind of crappy though.

The Golden Boy 

The decal chart is the most information I've seen on 531CS- However, I think it was you that had a frame builder's guide with thicknesses...

The Trek catalogs are pretty vague about 531CS- hence most everyone thinking their forks/stays are 531 because that's what the catalog appears to say.

Although the Vintage Trek site outright states it's CrMo, the source is not as authoritative as it could be.

bikemig 

Reynolds 501 (which apparently is what the fork and rear triangle are made of) is seamed tubing,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Technology

You won't see or be able to even feel the seam in a quality tubing set; this is not like a French hi tensile steel bike where the seam is visible.

There are a lot of damned good tubing sets that are seamed.

bikemig 

yes but if this were a full reynolds 531 DB frameset, Trek would have used a sticker saying so. The 531 CS suggests that it is not full reynolds 531.

Road Fan

It has never sat right with me, either, but the Trek tubing charts (I believe it's the front few pages of the 1983 catalog) shows that the three main tubes are the same set for the 531CS and what Trek calls the 531C. That's estalished by what Trek said, if they did not misprint 35 years ago.

Now the question is, what are the stated tubing specs for 531C (or other 531 sets) as sold by Reynolds to other major (or minor) customers. I remember Tony Oliver's book on frame building indicating "531 Competition" downtubes being 28.6 mm OD and .9/.6/.9 IDs, and the "531 Super Tourist" downtubes being 28.6 mm OD and 1.0/0.9/1.0 ID. The only real inconsistency is that Trek seems (again, it could have been a misprint) to have specified the 10/9/10 tube for all it's Reynolds frame building.

Trek had to be one of the biggest frame manufacturers in the US at that time, so I assume they had some leverage with Reynolds especially if they paid their bills on time (I have been a supplier, it is not surprising that large and consistent customers can get "something special.").

I agree, it doesn't seem right, but i think it is plausible.

Chr0m0ly 

So 531cs is a "tube set" with the top and seat tubes of competition tube for weight and response,, the downtube from the 531 touring tube set for strength and rigidity, brazed to some seamed but highly worked and high quality Chro-mo tapered 501 forks and straight gauge 501 rear triangle.

This sounds like a pretty sweet set up if you're doing anything other than competitive racing, and of all my bikes the only other one with a Chromo fork is the miyata 912. The 1985 710 has a manga-lite fork, the '84 has hi-ten forks, and I -think- the Cannondale has a manganese fork as well, but I'd have to look it up.

So why do vintage treks seem to go for so much less than other vintage bikes? Are there just a lot of them since they were made in Wisconsin? What am I missing here?

Road Fan

I finally think Trek is clear that the fork blades and stays are not 531, and that they are CrMo. That does not imply they are 501 for that frame, and hence seamed. CrMo tubes could have been sourced from many places in those days.

You are free to assume the CrMo is 501, but unless Trek said it was I think there are a lot of other possible truths.

The Vintage Trek site shows a lot of original Trek literature and it states some conclusions made based on them. I regard the words of Trek as more credible than the conclusions drawn from those words. I'm trying to stick with Trek's words. What Trek printed about their products was done in a day when truth in product marketing meant more than it does today. Trek was sometimes vague, but I believe they tried to be correct ("vague" is not equal to "wrong"). If however the Vintage Trek site text that was not directly of Trek or quoting Trek (or a former Trek guy like John Thompson) said something about seamed or whatever, I would regard the Trek literature as a higher authority.

Trek did some funny things. They may have swapped pre-made rear-triangle assemblies around between teh higher models and the lower. They may have swapped entire forks the same way. They did state the disclaimer that product specifications are subject to change without notice. That means that what you got from Trek that they said is a Trek 610 IS a Trek 610 even if it has part substitutions (detectable differences) or different fork, seatstays or chain stays (not detectable differences, mostly. One reason Trek had to do these things is that the most important thing a manufacturer has to do is to legally move product and collect the requisite revenue. And Trek in this period was no longer (if ever) a framebuilding boutique obsessed with quality and detailed satisfaction of customers. They worked hard to achieve qualtiy and excellent designs, but they were not the Raleigh or Peugeot special racing shops, or an Eisentraut or a Medici.

I think if they said it was CrMo, it is CrMo, and it is probaby whatever CrMo they could get that meets the specifications on the day of purchase. It could have been 501 or it could have been something else. But if it met the specification, the rest did not matter, except price and delivery.

bikemig 

I hear you. This will remain a mystery.

Honestly I would lose zero sleep if the tubing was seamed or not. A lot of really good tubing was seamed. My guess is that it was seamed simply because manufacturers like to hit a price point and this was a way to save some money when manufacturing a bike.

On the other hand, you could be right. There is no way to be certain at this point and like I said, I don't think it matters a heck of a lot at the end of the day. The bike rides great.

Chr0m0ly 

That's where I was going, I have to imagine that even seamed (if it is indeed seamed) would still be a step up from hi-ten or manganese. I think people overlook the fact that the real revolution in frames was steel of any type. Even simple carbon steels like 1075 would make a fine bike frame if heat treated and built up properly.
I've been a medieval fencer for 6 years and you see very similar threads about "the best steel for a sword blade" and it really comes down to an accurate heat treat and proper distal tapering and geometry.

One thing we can all agree on, no matter what the steel composition any bike is made better by cutting off all the braze ons and shift mounts and permanently converting it into a Fixie. :-D

bikemig 

I think everyone in C&V pretty much agrees with this,

Chr0m0ly 

So... I went, I rode, I brought it home. I think it's worth the two bills ��!
Other than some crappily matched touch up paint it's gorgeous.
https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/bik/6148841461.html