A friend of mine is selling a Trek lw. Mid 80's I think. I know it has the oddball Helicomatic hub/cassette setup, but I don't know the model number yet. My question is, were there any particular models that are to be avoided? If so, why?

Thanks

None that I know of. Some of the lower end 80's steel models were made overseas. But they are still decent frames for the $$ I've had an '83 400, and an '85 460. I have a '83 520 and an '89 330 now. Liked all of them.

I've had an 82 614, an 84 410, and an 84 620. The 410 was the best, the 620 was Ok but had some issues (no fender clearance!), and I never did like the 614. In fact, I gave it away three times - once boxing it up and shipping it across the country - before it "stuck." It's only 5 or 6 blocks away now, so I'm not sure it's finished with me yet. Weird, huh?

But in general, they were very well regarded at the time - all the more so 'cause nobody famous was riding them.

You can always go to https://www.vintage-trek.com/ and view the catalogs to know what it should be. I am not certain, but I think the helicomatic was only used in '85. But even then, I wouldn't have a fear of buying a Trek with one, just replace the hub and get a freewheel/cassette. I have an '85 400 that I love. It is such a smooth ride.

I came across a mid 80's 520 that had helicomatic. I wouldn't call it junk, as it was a pretty nice bike. The Normandy hubs on it were really nice and smooth. Not quite Campagnolo or Dura Ace smooth, but not far off either. Of course, finding helicomatic replacements kind of bites.

I don't have any first hand experience with the Helicomatics, but Sheldon Browns states:
I usually listen when he speaks.

My '84 610 came with a Helicomatic.

Road Fan

Why should one avoid a particular Trek just because of the Helicomatic hub? For starters, you're pretty much excluding yourself of the whole lineup, especially the mid-'80s machines; secondly, there's no law against re-lacing a wheel or swapping the wheelset.

-Kurt

I guess I was wrong, '84's have them, couldn't remember which years and bikes had them.

I agree cudak888, like I said above, just replace hub. Or just ride it the way it is and if you start having the troubles, then replace it.

I gave the type of hub to possibly give folks a better idea of the model / year. Was just wanting to know if there were any LW 80's model Trek's to avoid because of poor handling, frame failures, ect.....

Thanks

FWIW, 2 members of our family were w/ Trek from the 80's through '03. You cant go wrong with any Trek that was built in the "70's,80's, up to the mid-90's. They were still a very good touring/racing machine then, but like Cuda say's, just change the hub/wheel out.

(And finally, as far as avoiding certain Trek's, some people from WI would maybe tell you that they were always a super-high quality ride until the mid '90's (That's my opinion too, anyways). When Trek laid off many of the Waterloo workers who were very good at their jobs, and closed the Whitewater plant, stripping it down to a basic Skeleton Crew so that they could send the work oversea's to unskilled, cheap labor, they lost a lot of respect and quality. I ride a handmade Trek MTB for serious offroading, but I refuse to ride anything made after '95 because of what they did to the employees in WI. But your's would be from the very good era)

Here's an official document issued by Trek on its history: https://www.vintage-trek.com/TREK_History1.pdf

It points to quality control issues in the mid 80's, and especially a problem they had with the 2000 model, a bonded aluminum frame. There were actually a few well made bonded aluminum frames (Raleigh Technium among them), but I think Trek's failure must have spelled the death of that particular method of framebuilding.

Some don't like the flexy ride of the larger-framed Reynolds 531 Treks, others love the cushy ride. I've heard more than once that some of their early models had weak seatstay to seattube bonds that failed prematurely. I have personal experience with a frame that has one seatstay longer than the other (simple fix is a slight wheel redish) and a VERY low rear brake bridge. So, quality control could have been a bit better. Frame rides great, though.

These kinds of problems can be expected with any frame, however, especially mass produced frames like Trek.

I've been riding a Helicomatic hub on my 460 since I built it (and the wheels were on my Raleigh Gran Prix previously) and have been having excellent service. Got about 500 miles on them so far. They roll very well, second only to my LF Campy Records.

Biggest weakness is finding spare clusters. I'm always looking for extras, especially something going 14-28t.

Treks do ride nice, but I beg to differ that they have a "super-high quality ride" - I've only experienced ride quality of that description from my Paramounts and oversized-lugged Columbus EL Guerciotti.

Frankly, I haven't been quite too impressed with the two Trek offerings I own - one, an '81 610, the other, an '82 728. The 728 is a poor rider, and a story in itself which I will not repeat here (dig up my post of 2 weeks ago or so on the matter about the ride quality of the 720/728).

As for my 610, the ride is just slightly more lively then some of the better gaspipe I've ridden, and I've had 4130 frames with response that far surpasses either. The front fork itself is not too stiff (on the X axis - that is, from side to side), and the frame, when sprinting, fights and whips around with the front. It feels akin to sprinting with a semi-loaded rear pannier - the rear triangle bends one way, and the front bends against itself, with a resulting shockwave when the two respective portions of the frame begin to whip back in the other direction.

Take care,

-Kurt

I have ridden a 2000 since it was new; for about 10 years it was my only road bike. I haven't ever had any trouble with it. The technology was applied to the entire line, and the carbon-fiber tubed bikes through the mid-90's; so it wasn't a flash in the pan. The biggest problem that I have ever seen with this type of construction is that the paint is not as flexible as the glue in the joints, and they often develop cracks in the paint at the joint. I personally have never seen a failure with this construction. I have seen failures in the similar method used to fasten together the Specialized Carbon Fiber Allez, and the forerunner to this technology, the Vitus aluminum and carbon fiber frames.

I concede! I was simply summarizing what Trek itself had to say about the 2000.

I have a Raleigh Technium frameset exhibiting the same paint cracking you describe around one of the tube joints. I can't even give it away.

The best Treks, in my opinion, are the early TX900's, as far as getting all of their act together. I had a TX700 for a while as well, and this was nearly indistinguishable from the 900. These were designed and assembled by Appel and Isaacs, and these guys knew (still do) what they were doing. My second favorites are (horrors!) the early bonded aluminum bikes. I have a few different years of the 760/770 offerings, and they are nice bikes; they do everything well, although they don't excel at anything. I also have a 170; it rides almost identically to the 760/770.

I don't have any experience with the touring bikes, but they have an outstanding reputation for ride and reliability.

Sounds like Kurt needs to work on his technique a bit.

My first road bike was a Trek 310. Bought it in 1986, after test riding an 'exotic' bike (a Peugeot), a hand-made American bike (Cannondale), and the Trek. The Peugeot was French and according to the LBS owner would be like owning an Alfa Romeo: great when UP, but requiring a lot of tinkering to keep it in that shape.
The C-dale was light and FAST! But even then, at 22, my fillings were almost jarred loose.
Finally, the Trek was made of Ishiwata triple butted steel in Japan, and was affordable. Didn't have the Campy components or the Made in USA sticker but was very very comfortable.
A few years later I 'upgraded' to aero brake levers, 7-speed indexed Shimano 105 drivetrain, and a different saddle. I rode that thing until 2000 when I built up my Italian made Bottecchia with full Campy. I still miss riding my original bike; I see it in the garage, hanging there, every day...

Oh, I can sprint dead-on straight, but if you come just a tad off, it begins its wobble. Doesn't happen on any of the other machines in my stable.

-Kurt

some advice from my once-upon-a-time German coach. If you can't get it down to a sprint of two, you screwed up.

My '83 560 has the Heliomatic hub. The original owner rode this bike hard, seems to still ride great to me. I also have a '83, 400, and a '87, 330. I like all of them but I'm forced to sell the 330 because it's way to small for me.
I would pick up ANY steel frame trek from the 80s when I'm cruising the yard sales and if it's my size, it's a keeper.

Love my 83 560. I'm planning a bar change and bar end shifters as soon as they come in. The Helico I kept on until I found a nicer set of wheels. Helicomatic is not really all that bad, unless the bearings or cogs wear out. The only real solution then is to buy a mint condition bike to replace the parts(Yeah Right, lol) or change the hub. As far as frame problems, I've had zero.,,,,BD

I rode the 620 fairly aggressively. We used to do tours with a youth group, and even with camping stuff strapped to the bike, every hill was contested. The hills with names weren't too bad since they weren't all that steep, but those things between a half mile and 3 miles in New York or Maine invariably ended in a full on sprint. The tooth design of the helicomatic appeared to allow a half shift (a lot like the Sturmey neutral), and you'd have to come all the way off the power, get the wretched chain re-engaged, and then bring the effort back on. The PG nature of the epithets I hurled at French engineers was offset by the decibels, and I will not be surprised to learn that "Stinking French!" is still echoing in remote glens between Cleveland and Halifax - even now, some 20 years later.

I had the rim relaced to a Suntour hub the next year, and while the frame still whipped around like something Italian and al-dente, it mostly stayed in gear. I was 25 before I figured out that most people didn't tour that way, and a compliant frame is no bad thing. To its credit, it did descend utterly without drama.

The lowly 410 retains a particularly warm spot in my memories.