What level of bad is this...?
So, I got this pile of stuff locally...not sure why it intrigued me...it wasn’t that great a deal.... anyhow,
...what level of confidence would you have in building this frame into something useful? I am sure at some level I know it would be silly to ride this thing... https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...3a29df043.jpeg A bit scruffy...is this carbon or the alloy? https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...25f10b3ec.jpeg How did this inner fork get rug burn? https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a56394a0e.jpeg More rub burn...did someone use 48s or something? https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...198c514a9.jpeg Scruffy fork https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...334c34014.jpeg Head tube...cool looking. Might be the only functional part...not. Cool cable route though... https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e957963a8.jpeg Dramatic down view of the stays... https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...cfe47cf4c.jpeg Looks like carbon fiber |
Trek's bonded carbon models seem to linger on CL locally. I don't think building it would be silly at all, if you don't have concerns about the fork. The 2100 was the 'entry' level bonded frame, with a 2200 and 2300 rounding out the line up. I once had half an inclination to grab one with the green lugs and stays to use for fixed/single speed, until I realized that this bike was built with vertical dropouts.
I've seen griping about harsh rides, due to the vibration dampening carbon being used in the exact wrong places to do any dampening, but I have no experience with it myself. It should make a fine rider with a 7 or 8 speed wheelset, if you have the parts. According to vintage trek, this could be a 1993 2100, and was equipped with Shimano 105. |
Also, these pictures remind me of when my kids were toddlers and they wanted to show me something small, so they'd shove it up my nose to show me.
|
I wouldn't trust that fork. Bit too much tire rub. Clean the frame and check for delamination between the carbon and the aluminum joints. I thought I saw some at the top of the seat tube. Also check closely around that headtube where the housing goes in. If the frame looks good, replace the fork and ride to failure. Don't forget to post whole-bike pictures!
|
One of the strongest, best-built bonded carbon frames ever made. Joint failures on bonded Treks are almost unheard of. Good score. As long as there's no actual damage, build it up and ride it 'till it dies.
--Shannon PS: The clear-coat bubbly - flakey thing is quite common on these. It's not a problem, just ugly. But, then, they're kinda ugly bikes anyway, so who cares... they ride nice. |
IIRC the 2100s (and their cousins in the Giant Cadex and Specialized Allez Epic) were popular enough that we'd probably hear about it if they had a spate of bonding failures.
|
Those photos give me a headache.
|
Yeah, I had a Trek 2100 and I want to find another one that's actually my size to see if it's a as good as I remembered.
At 19 lbs, it was the lightest bike I ever owned. I'm sure I could get that down a bit, with parts I've accumulated since then. Those photos remind me of the one time I took acid. It didn't go that well. :( |
Yeah, the fork and scruffy delamination are what give me pause. I was going to paint the carbon bits, possibly replace the fork and build it up as a fixie/1Xsomething for part of my student bike give away program with upright bars. Wondering if it would be safe.
|
Trainer (indoor) bike
|
Originally Posted by jdawginsc
(Post 21910722)
Yeah, the fork and scruffy delamination are what give me pause. I was going to paint the carbon bits, possibly replace the fork and build it up as a fixie/1Xsomething for part of my student bike give away program with upright bars. Wondering if it would be safe.
The fork is the biggest concern. If you use a straight edge or a flexible ruler, how deep are the rub marks? |
My answer would be biased, for I have an instinctive mistrust of carbon.
|
looks fine to me, both the fork and other bits. If it were a personal ride, I'd swap the fork to 1" carbon for a smoother ride. If you're going to turn it into a singlespeed and flip it, leave the fork as-is. Overall I wouldn't put a lot of effort into it, as I don't have a high opinion of the ride quality of early carbon-tubed, lugged bikes.
|
Originally Posted by Catnap
(Post 21911148)
looks fine to me, both the fork and other bits. If it were a personal ride, I'd swap the fork to 1" carbon for a smoother ride. If you're going to turn it into a singlespeed and flip it, leave the fork as-is. Overall I wouldn't put a lot of effort into it, as I don't have a high opinion of the ride quality of early carbon-tubed, lugged bikes.
just picked up another... https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6f9db6ff7.jpeg |
Originally Posted by Reynolds
(Post 21911014)
My answer would be biased, for I have an instinctive mistrust of carbon.
|
Originally Posted by Unca_Sam
(Post 21910849)
1x, maybe. Fixed? Not unless you like expensive solutions or hacks like the magic ratio. Painting? The clear coat, bare carbon tubes are kind of the point for this series. Moving from drop bars would mean more outlay for DT shifter boss cable stops. (Does anyone use flat bars and DT shifters?)
The fork is the biggest concern. If you use a straight edge or a flexible ruler, how deep are the rub marks? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.