Vintage Trek on e-bay?
08-29-09, 11:06 AM
#2
Dropped
Not sure what your contention is. Clearly looks like an '86 to me. The frames for complete bikes sold as X model year are often manufactured the previous year.
His ad is far superior to that of the previous seller, which goes a long way to increase final sale price.
His ad is far superior to that of the previous seller, which goes a long way to increase final sale price.
08-29-09, 11:09 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That looks exactly like the 86 400 elance I had years ago (same components, paint, etc..). I just went to the vintage trek trek site and that SN is towards the end of the range for bikes serialized in 85. That means it was made in the last couple of mounths in '85. Seeing as they start making (and selling) many months before in the year previous, at that time they would have been making '86s, so this makes perfect sense.
Yeah, the person selling the bike bought it on ebay recently but that doesn't mean anything. They're either a flipper with a good eye, or the bike is really too big for them like they say in the auction. The person has good feedback.
However, having owned an 86 elance 400, I would not wish it upon anyone to own one. The ride was all soft and mushy and dead which is not my thing at all.
Yeah, the person selling the bike bought it on ebay recently but that doesn't mean anything. They're either a flipper with a good eye, or the bike is really too big for them like they say in the auction. The person has good feedback.
However, having owned an 86 elance 400, I would not wish it upon anyone to own one. The ride was all soft and mushy and dead which is not my thing at all.
08-29-09, 12:08 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I still don't understand why you think the serial numbers don't match up. I'd like to see where that serial number matches up with the '85 model year. From the vintage trek site:
https://www.vintage-trek.com/SerialNos85.htm
The table contains dates of frame serializing, and are not necessarily model year. At some time late in each year (generally September or October) frames were built for (then painted with colors for) the next model year.
The reason I didn't like that bike probably had to do with the geometry of that particular model. It had the "I'm stuck somewhere between a road bike and a touring bike" syndrome. I was trying to use it as a regular road bike, which is why I personally didn't like it. I think it was the flex in the chainstays that really got me, probably if they were shorter they would have been stiffer and i would have liked it more. I take back saying I wouldn't wish anyone to have it, it would probably be a perfect bike for some people, just not me.
https://www.vintage-trek.com/SerialNos85.htm
The table contains dates of frame serializing, and are not necessarily model year. At some time late in each year (generally September or October) frames were built for (then painted with colors for) the next model year.
The reason I didn't like that bike probably had to do with the geometry of that particular model. It had the "I'm stuck somewhere between a road bike and a touring bike" syndrome. I was trying to use it as a regular road bike, which is why I personally didn't like it. I think it was the flex in the chainstays that really got me, probably if they were shorter they would have been stiffer and i would have liked it more. I take back saying I wouldn't wish anyone to have it, it would probably be a perfect bike for some people, just not me.
08-29-09, 12:23 PM
#9
Gone World Hepster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
Bruce--
This is an exact match to my 86 Trek Elance 400--the components are pretty much stock down the line--and it's in better condition from the pics, even though mine is in excellent shape. I own several Treks and this is close to the sweetest ride of all. Could it be there was an error in posting the SN? The serial number pages just list the basic model, which is a 400. My serial number is later in the production run--239257--but it still is listed just like this one as a Trek 400. Who knows where the auction will end but the price is in the ballpark IMHO?
This is an exact match to my 86 Trek Elance 400--the components are pretty much stock down the line--and it's in better condition from the pics, even though mine is in excellent shape. I own several Treks and this is close to the sweetest ride of all. Could it be there was an error in posting the SN? The serial number pages just list the basic model, which is a 400. My serial number is later in the production run--239257--but it still is listed just like this one as a Trek 400. Who knows where the auction will end but the price is in the ballpark IMHO?
Last edited by 23skidoo; 08-29-09 at 12:32 PM.
08-29-09, 12:30 PM
#10
Senior Member
I've noticed this, too. I have a 1984 Trek 610, with double-butted 531 main tubes and unspecified CrMo steel fork blades and stays. It rides stiff and responsive, but with a nice resilience over bumps and light washboard. For a while I had a friend's 1983 Trek 600, same size, 531 double-butted tubes, forks, and stays. The 1983 was a smoother and flexier ride. Bikes had the same geometry.
531 is a little stronger than standard CrMo, perhaps the chainstay and seatstay tubes were a little thinner-walled? That would give more flexibility with equal strength and durability.
As far as "all the other brands produced," I can't say anything. I haven't ridden them all. I have a full 531 db Woodrup, and it is cushy and flexy. Maybe it's just what thin-wall 531 does.
531 is a little stronger than standard CrMo, perhaps the chainstay and seatstay tubes were a little thinner-walled? That would give more flexibility with equal strength and durability.
As far as "all the other brands produced," I can't say anything. I haven't ridden them all. I have a full 531 db Woodrup, and it is cushy and flexy. Maybe it's just what thin-wall 531 does.
08-29-09, 12:33 PM
#11
Dropped
i just went to the vintage trek trek site and that sn is towards the end of the range for bikes serialized in 85. That means it was made in the last couple of months in '85. Seeing as they start making (and selling) many months before in the year previous, at that time they would have been making '86s, so this makes perfect sense.
i still don't understand why you think the serial numbers don't match up. I'd like to see where that serial number matches up with the '85 model year. From the vintage trek site:
https://www.vintage-trek.com/serialnos85.htm
the table contains dates of frame serializing, and are not necessarily model year. At some time late in each year (generally september or october) frames were built for (then painted with colors for) the next model year.
https://www.vintage-trek.com/serialnos85.htm
the table contains dates of frame serializing, and are not necessarily model year. At some time late in each year (generally september or october) frames were built for (then painted with colors for) the next model year.
08-29-09, 12:47 PM
#13
Senior Member
As far as "all the other brands produced," I can't say anything. I haven't ridden them all. I have a full 531 db Woodrup, and it is cushy and flexy. Maybe it's just what thin-wall 531 does.[/QUOTE]
You are right on the numbers there. Before I bought my TREK 500 in 1985 I had a Follis which was all 531 DB and I chose to go with the 501DB with cromo forks and stays just to eliminate the flex (I'm 6', lift weights and vary from 215-230# annually.) I felt so much flex with the 531 frame that I thought I was losing efficiency at high speed.
You are right on the numbers there. Before I bought my TREK 500 in 1985 I had a Follis which was all 531 DB and I chose to go with the 501DB with cromo forks and stays just to eliminate the flex (I'm 6', lift weights and vary from 215-230# annually.) I felt so much flex with the 531 frame that I thought I was losing efficiency at high speed.
08-29-09, 04:50 PM
#14
Gone World Hepster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
Sadly I never took any pictures of it and I just sold it last weekend to a young guy who begged me to convert it to single-speed for him: a really nice set of Trek Matrix aero wheels, Salsa straight bar with Oury grips and brand-new Shimano levers and the 600 cranks and brakes. If you could have seen his face when he got back to my house after his first ride, you would take the same comfort I did in knowing it went to a loving home. The Sakae cranks you sent with it and the chain just went on a Lotus Legend I got from ilikebikes, so all's right in the world.
09-01-09, 11:54 AM
#16
Senior Member
hey all,
that flipper of the 1986 trek 400 was me. LOL, i can assure you there were no shenanigans involved. i picked up the bike not really knowing the condition (as the auction very poorly described the bike), hoping to be a fixer for myself. i'm fairly new to bike mechanics and have been building a personal collection for a couple of years now. i had never ridden a trek before, and i thought i might be able to fit the 25.5" treks. it turns out that the 24" trek frames fit me much better, and i have since gotten a nice 24" trek that fits me nicely.
i was pleasantly surprised at the condition of the trek when it arrived (other than the fact that the seller didn't know what he was doing, destroyed the original bar tape and packed the bike horribly, leading to the huge paint gouge). the bike was obviously much nicer than what had been advertised. if you'll look at the start price of my auction, i would have been perfectly happy turning it around for very small profit, mostly to cover the time and energy spent touching up the paint gouge, replacing the bar tape, and giving the bike a tune-up. i can't help that i also happen to be good at researching and describing my auctions, and make no apologies for knowing how to take photos and make a pretty ebay ad. my perfect feedback from over 10 years of ebay membership doesn't hurt, either, and only attests to the honesty and care i take in all my auctions
. as i said before, i would have been perfectly happy turning just a small profit to cover the time and energy spent tuning the bike and repacking it for the next person. i'm not one of these ebay sellers who puts an insane buy-it-now price out there for a few weeks, or an insane reserve to test the waters and see what suckers i can reel in. i was pretty lucky that the final price went as high as it did
as for the S/N discrepancy, yeah i noticed that before i won the auction. it didn't bother me. i chalked it up to either an error in vintage-trek.com's database, or the possibility that it was a very early 1986 model, manufactured in late 1985. clearly the bike matches the 1986 model in every way, down to the last detail. no shenanigans there.
that flipper of the 1986 trek 400 was me. LOL, i can assure you there were no shenanigans involved. i picked up the bike not really knowing the condition (as the auction very poorly described the bike), hoping to be a fixer for myself. i'm fairly new to bike mechanics and have been building a personal collection for a couple of years now. i had never ridden a trek before, and i thought i might be able to fit the 25.5" treks. it turns out that the 24" trek frames fit me much better, and i have since gotten a nice 24" trek that fits me nicely.
i was pleasantly surprised at the condition of the trek when it arrived (other than the fact that the seller didn't know what he was doing, destroyed the original bar tape and packed the bike horribly, leading to the huge paint gouge). the bike was obviously much nicer than what had been advertised. if you'll look at the start price of my auction, i would have been perfectly happy turning it around for very small profit, mostly to cover the time and energy spent touching up the paint gouge, replacing the bar tape, and giving the bike a tune-up. i can't help that i also happen to be good at researching and describing my auctions, and make no apologies for knowing how to take photos and make a pretty ebay ad. my perfect feedback from over 10 years of ebay membership doesn't hurt, either, and only attests to the honesty and care i take in all my auctions
. as i said before, i would have been perfectly happy turning just a small profit to cover the time and energy spent tuning the bike and repacking it for the next person. i'm not one of these ebay sellers who puts an insane buy-it-now price out there for a few weeks, or an insane reserve to test the waters and see what suckers i can reel in. i was pretty lucky that the final price went as high as it didas for the S/N discrepancy, yeah i noticed that before i won the auction. it didn't bother me. i chalked it up to either an error in vintage-trek.com's database, or the possibility that it was a very early 1986 model, manufactured in late 1985. clearly the bike matches the 1986 model in every way, down to the last detail. no shenanigans there.
09-01-09, 12:25 PM
#17
Senior Member
.i had assumed you were telling me the truth about just finding out you were laid off, as the justification you gave for contacting me asking to retract your bid. and to think i was sympathetic
.if you regretted bidding on it, why didn't you just tell me you had bidder's remorse? i'm an honest guy and i would have let you off the hook without the need of a contrived, sympathy-evoking justification. then again, your smarmy move now makes me think twice about being so nice to fellow ebayers.
shenanigans, indeed.
Last edited by southpawboston; 09-01-09 at 12:57 PM.
09-01-09, 08:50 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
no worries, bruce-- remember, even if you had been the high bidder i had promised to let you off the hook .
i had assumed you were telling me the truth about just finding out you were laid off, as the justification you gave for contacting me asking to retract your bid. and to think i was sympathetic.
if you regretted bidding on it, why didn't you just tell me you had bidder's remorse? i'm an honest guy and i would have let you off the hook without the need of a contrived, sympathy-evoking justification. then again, your smarmy move now makes me think twice about being so nice to fellow ebayers.
shenanigans, indeed.
.i had assumed you were telling me the truth about just finding out you were laid off, as the justification you gave for contacting me asking to retract your bid. and to think i was sympathetic
.if you regretted bidding on it, why didn't you just tell me you had bidder's remorse? i'm an honest guy and i would have let you off the hook without the need of a contrived, sympathy-evoking justification. then again, your smarmy move now makes me think twice about being so nice to fellow ebayers.
shenanigans, indeed.
I truly do owe you an apology. I am very sorry for lying to get out of an auction. At the time I thought it was the easiest way without getting into the s/n issue with an unknown e-bay seller. I was dead wrong in
doing so. Your feedback rating is outstanding and I shouldn't have doubted it.
Once again, I'm very sorry. I'll go crawl in a hole now.
Last edited by Bruce Enns; 09-01-09 at 08:54 PM.
09-01-09, 10:40 PM
#19
Senior Member
I'd like some opinions on this item. I put a couple bids on this bike (e-bay item 140341037856) and after doing a bit more homework I'm glad I was outbid. The bike appears to be very clean with low miles, other than the right side seatstay sustained paint damage in shipping.
If you look at the sellers buying history you can see he bought it for a song a couple weeks ago and I assume the paint damage happened in shipment to him. The kicker is the s/n is listed as 215770 which makes it a 1985 standard 400 model (I own one), which is quite different than the 1986 400 Elance with 531 frame tubing.
This is basically just a rant but I'm rather sick and tired of the antics that go along with e-bay. I'm a big fan of the old steel Treks and I've found the s/n guide on the vintage trek web-site to be very accurate. This bikes s/n seems to be WAY out of line and not consistant with the information provided on the web-site.
With this bike addiction we all share I find it hard not to search e-bay for that "special" set of wheels to add to the stable. I should just order a new custom bike, that way I'll be to broke to consider buying used ones off e-bay.
I think I'll go for a bike ride, I'll feel better when I return.
Cheers
If you look at the sellers buying history you can see he bought it for a song a couple weeks ago and I assume the paint damage happened in shipment to him. The kicker is the s/n is listed as 215770 which makes it a 1985 standard 400 model (I own one), which is quite different than the 1986 400 Elance with 531 frame tubing.
This is basically just a rant but I'm rather sick and tired of the antics that go along with e-bay. I'm a big fan of the old steel Treks and I've found the s/n guide on the vintage trek web-site to be very accurate. This bikes s/n seems to be WAY out of line and not consistant with the information provided on the web-site.
With this bike addiction we all share I find it hard not to search e-bay for that "special" set of wheels to add to the stable. I should just order a new custom bike, that way I'll be to broke to consider buying used ones off e-bay.
I think I'll go for a bike ride, I'll feel better when I return.
Cheers
09-02-09, 08:13 AM
#21
Senior Member
southpawboston
I truly do owe you an apology. I am very sorry for lying to get out of an auction. At the time I thought it was the easiest way without getting into the s/n issue with an unknown e-bay seller. I was dead wrong in
doing so. Your feedback rating is outstanding and I shouldn't have doubted it.
Once again, I'm very sorry. I'll go crawl in a hole now.
I truly do owe you an apology. I am very sorry for lying to get out of an auction. At the time I thought it was the easiest way without getting into the s/n issue with an unknown e-bay seller. I was dead wrong in
doing so. Your feedback rating is outstanding and I shouldn't have doubted it.
Once again, I'm very sorry. I'll go crawl in a hole now.
