parksie555

Hello, generally a lurker, first real post....

I have a 1984 Trek 400 Series. Great bike, bought it new as a junior in high school and still ride it quite often. Arguably the best $349 I have ever spent.

Have replaced some failed or badly worn parts (both wheels, freewheel, chain, rear derailleur, rear brake pads) over the years, mostly with the cheapest equivalent I could find at the local bike shop. Still shifts pretty well and rides pretty smoothly. Drivetrain is still pretty quiet and bike is generally free of annoying bumps, rattles, etc.

Not a competitive rider, just like getting out around town. I live in Newark, DE, a pretty good bike town. My typical ride is an after work jaunt of 15-20 miles. Rarely go much further than that.

While picking up an innertube recently I stopped to take a look at some of the low end road Treks at my LBS - 1.1, 1.2, 1.5. Some decent prices now as prime bike buying season comes to a close.

I can't imagine the ride/feel/etc of these bikes would be that much better than what I have now but have been wondering about this a bit.

Wondering if anyone else reading this post has ridden a older low end road bike for a long time and "made the switch" to a newer ride. Not looking for those that have moved to high end machines, more for those that have bought something closer to the $1500 or less range.

What was your experience with the new bike? Worth the $? Wish you stayed with the old ride? Thanks in advance for any that can provide input.

badger_biker 

About 11 years ago I treated myself to a new aluminum Specialized Sequoia Elite road bike for my 50th birthday. At a little under $1100 it has full Shimano 105 and carbon with Specialized Zerts shock dampers in the fork and rear stays which does help smooth out the road chatter. At the time I had my Bridgestone 400, a Trek 400, and a vintage Specialized Expedition touring bike. I thought it would be nice to to go modern and fill a niche for a sagged touring bike.

Since then I've become more involved with vintage steel bikes and have added a number that I've run across to my fleet. The 2004 Sequoia is a fine bike but just does not have the appeal to me that my vintage bikes do and after the first 5 or 6 years I found myself looking past it when I grabbed a bike to ride. It probably gets fewer miles than just about any other bike I currently own.

There is nothing wrong with going modern but what they may gain in efficiency they lack in character. I'm a recreational rider and not concerned with speed so the extra weight of a vintage bike really does not affect my type of riding.

My advice would be to hang on to the Trek 400 no matter what you decide and welcome to the forum!

abellanti

Those old Treks are nice rides- even the 400 series! IMO, it depends on what type of riding your doing. When I ride serious road or mountain bikes, the latest and greatest do shift better, brake better and may be lighter - even $1,500+- bikes. Are they more enjoyable to ride? nope. When I'm cruising around town or doing lazy rides, I love riding my vintage bikes. Vintage bikes have soul, newer bikes just don't. If you enjoy riding your Trek, keep riding it. If your looking to get serious about riding a higher level bike, spend a little more than the $1,500 and get a "nice" bike. $1,500 is really entry level. Enjoy!

OldsCOOL

Being an owner of 2 vintage Treks, they are first of all rich in character as said. The ride is indeed classic. You are really fortunate to be of the few to hang onto one through your years. You may find other bikes as we have but you will only have one with such memories. Hang on and dont let it go. Is is worth the money to buy new? I couldnt tell you. That is how much I enjoy the classics. I have an '88 Cannondale I've painted and equipped with a modern wheelset which I enjoy for it's lightness and ease of replacing cassettes.

The Golden Boy 

Welcome to the Bike Forums!

I'm sure you're aware of the internet rule- "Pix or it didn't happen."

Seriously, I'd love to see pix of your bike!

People always say "even the low end Treks were the equivalent of any other company's mid-level bikes." It's pretty true.

My first "vintage" road bike was an 84 420. I knew it was around an entry level frame, I knew it was not Reynolds 531. As such, I don't think I respected it enough. When I got more "upscale" bikes I realized just how nice that bike really was. It was a Tange Mangalloy 2001 frame- That 420 was a really comfortable riding bike. It didn't have the huge wheelbase of the fancy tourers- but it was compliant, yet felt solid. I think if I would have put a more upscale Suntour group on there, and had another water bottle cage- that bike would have been really cool, regardless of where it sat in the lineup. I also REALLY loved that metallic dark blue.














One of the bikes that "replaced" that 420 was an 86 Trek 400 Elance- again, another 'right around entry level' bike for Trek- but that bike is great. That bike as a double butted 531 main frame with Tange CrMo stays and fork. That's "good" bones. I've replaced a lot of the lower end parts with high end stuff- and it's a great riding bike, and I thoroughly respect the bike and I'm as proud to ride it as any of my other bikes.

bikemig 

I was really excited to find a used trek 400 not too long ago which I fixed up for my daughter. It's a fine bike. I'd post some pics of the bike and we can give you some ideas of what you might want to do to get it into first rate riding shape. I'd fix it up and keep riding it.

OldsCOOL

I had one of the '85 400 Series bikes, the 460. It was their entry level racer that was well equipped for the price. Really miss that little racer. Rode my first century on that.

parksie555

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. Just to be clear, there was never a chance I would not hold on the 400. Actually had to rescue it a few years ago; my son left the garage door open all day and someone passing through decided to trade up, leaving their department store special in my garage. Figuring the thief had to be from within reasonable riding distance, I pedaled around some of the more questionable local neighborhoods and apartment complexes the next morning frantically searching for my wheels. Finally found her lying in a pile of other bikes, probably a few hours away from a trip to the local scrap dealer.


My question was more along the lines of not wanting to spend $1000+ or so on a bike and not enjoy riding it any more than the existing bike. Kind of what badger_biker above described.


In any event, some pictures below. I apologize for the coat of road grime, I usually clean the whole thing up about once a year in the January/February time frame.


As I took the photos I remembered a few other parts replacements over the years, went with SPD pedals (ones with SPD on one side and flat on the other) and also replaced main crank bearing a few years ago when I could no longer find the sweet spot between "cranks flopping around" and "too tight to pedal without resistance" with the old style cup and cone bearing. LBS recommended the all in one unit shown in the 3rd to last photo.

bikemig 

There is nothing wrong with N + 1 if there is something you want or need. This is a fine all purpose road bike. Is there something you want to change on this bike? Do you want a different kind of bike?

shoota 

i couldn't agree more and I couldn't agree less. I agree it definitely depends on how the OP rides. I also agree that these old treks have more soul than new bikes. However I don't agree that they're more fun. I've had just as much fun on my '14 SuperSix as I have on my '87 Trek 560. Different kind of fun to be sure but new tech revs my engines just as much as nolstagia does. I may be the wrong demographic for this question though

abellanti

Exactly what I meant to portray....nothing beats busting out a fast ride on my 16 pound Orbea Orca and marveling how well it rides; but I have just as much fun on my vintage rides and marveling how close they perform compared with new bikes. I love them all, just can't afford more than one new one!

79pmooney

My winter/city/rain bike is an '83 420 set up as a fix gear. It's a keeper, easily the best of the 5 bikes I have had in that role.

One caution: look periodically at the seat stay cap, that oval plate with "TREK" stamped on it. (Middle photo of post #5 ) Eventually cracks will run across the letters. I saw a crack on my right cap and called the framemaker who has built me a couple of bikes. He told me exactly what the reoair would entail, the time frame and cost. Then said to look at the other side, that it was virtually guaranteed that a crack had started there also. It had. (He would have done the repair on both sides regardless. It takes little extra time and the bike had to be painted anyway.

I felt and still do 5 years later that spending more than the bike probably cost to repair the seatstays was well worth the money. The bike's a keeper.

Ben

jgcycle

I started off with a Trek FX and got hooked, 6 months later I picked up a used 2012 Trek Domane. That bike was great. My friend said I should check out old steel bikes and then I got hooked on them.

The Domane to me is the better bike, more solid, smooth and fast with 2x10 shifting. Great when you want to go fast and climb hills.

But its not +$1000 better. I go pretty good on my 85 Falcon and am really loving my Trek 614. I'm 56 and ain't racing nobody.

Dave Cutter

What a great thread!

I love the vintage bikes. But I generally ride modern bicycles when logging my 2000 miles or so a year. My oldest Trek is a steal 360 road bike made in 1988.

It's a nice bike and rides very smooth. Shifting is fast and flawless (and it's even Suntour!).

My newest Trek is a 2014 Trek 1.1. Sorta shifters, relaxed geometry, very quick and easy to ride. If I could only keep one bike... it would be this trek.

Mr.Peloton

Last year I decided to upgrade from my Trek 400 Elance (because I got too tall for the bike) and I upgraded to an aluminum Cannondale Synapse. Despite being slightly lighter than the Trek, I still loved the feel of steel. About 6 months after I bought the Cannondale I bought a 1986 Schwinn Traveler (SOLD IT) and a Horizon Sentinel (If you don't know whatit is that makes two of us). After another couple months I saw a smoking deal on a Team Miyata from the early 90's, and had to have it! Honestly I ride the steel Miyata more than I do my Cannondale because I love the steel feel. I am now looking at purchasing yet another steel road bike!

SkyDog75

I kinda went the other way, from new to old, but I didn't exactly switch. I still have my modern road bike (although '06 is getting less and less modern) and continue to ride it, but I've picked up some older bikes as well.

The biggest difference for me is the shifting. My '06 Bianchi San Mateo has 10-speed integrated brake/shift levers (aka "brifters") and it's effortless to upshift or downshift with the flick of a finger. Shifts are precise and instant, and my hands never have to leave the bar. It kinda feels like driving a sports car with a short-throw stick or paddle shifters. (It feels fast, even if I'm not!)

My '86 Trek 300 Elance, on the other hand, has the exact same derailleurs and downtube friction shifters as your '84 Trek 400 Series. As much as I like how the bike rides, it definitely feels cumbersome when I'm fishing for a gear with those shifters. I've got other bikes with friction shifters and they're all easier to use than the ones on this Trek.

The difference in shifting makes an upgrade worth it in my opinion. But then the question becomes whether to upgrade your current bike or to acquire a newer one. I'm planning to upgrade mine because I have a pretty deep parts bin and I'm comfortable doing the work myself. If that's not the case for you, you may want to shop for a new(er) bike.

Tonecaster

I picked up a Trek 400 today. It looks to be an 88 and seems in nice shape and for $80 ... I think a nice deal.

Dave Cutter

You did real good! I would have jumped on that deal.... and I am at N+2 now.

OldsCOOL

I think a 300 Elance is quite cumbersome (for a Trek) as it is. Move up to one of their racers and feel the improvement.

OldsCOOL

Hold out for a vintage road racer with Reynolds 531c or Columbus SL, if you can. It's worth the wait.

The Golden Boy 

I wouldn't think it would be- It's like any of the other Ishiwata framed bikes- just as light and good as any of the Reynolds or Columbus bikes- but just "Japanese."

OldsCOOL

Not to infer Trek made a sub-quality bike.

The Golden Boy 

You've got the perfect frame of reference between the 460 and the 760- the two "racing" frames- are the geometries pretty much similar? So your differences are the frame material and the component group...

I can compare my 400 Elance to my 78 730- but that's a "sport" bike to a "racing" bike- so it is apples and durian.

SkyDog75

I realize Trek made better bikes, but the 300 Elance fills a niche for me. It's decent, but cheap enough that I don't feel bad subjecting it to bad weather rides or piling it onto a crowded hitch rack. I can loan it to friends who want to join me for a ride without worrying they might crash my good bike. It can take wider tires than my Bianchi San Mateo. And if there's ever a time the San Mateo is out of commission, I've got the 300 as a backup.

But circling back to my original comments... I still think the biggest improvement the OP will gain by either upgrading or replacing his Trek 400 is in the shifting. My 300 and his 400 share the same shifters. His bike was a notch above mine in Trek's lineup, so if those shifters are the weak point on my bike, they probably are on his, too.

OldsCOOL

Shifters....you mean in terms of friction shifters being what they are?