1986 Trek 700 Tri Series: "This Sucks"
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,904
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1871 Post(s)
Liked 670 Times
in
511 Posts
The main tube specs are the same.
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,904
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1871 Post(s)
Liked 670 Times
in
511 Posts
The main tube specs are the same for the 610s, 620s, and 720s, and nearly all of the Reynolds bikes through their early and classic eras. Not my definition of flexy tubes.
#28
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,664
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 1,731 Times
in
946 Posts
My 86 Trek 400 Elance (which shares the same geometry) is my most aggressive bike- more aggressively angled than my 78 730 "go fast" bike.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
#29
Master Parts Rearranger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,408
Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present
Mentioned: 222 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked 2,037 Times
in
991 Posts
One can have a "whippy" bike that is constantly out of sync with its rider and a rubber noodle of a thing (done that). A "stiff" bike can plane or be in sync with its rider. It can also be rubbish (done that, too!). 1983 Specialized Expedition (3500g frame/fork/headset, 63.5cm CTT size) "planed" with me at speeds as low as 7 mph, and it was not some soggy thing. Incredibly rapid and free-flowing at speeds above that. Epic frame/bike (this is with decent/nice 700C wheels and tires--no boat anchor components need apply). 1981 Trek 716 (65.5cm size) was whippy, and amenable to out-of-saddle efforts. Planing wasn't really a thing, but we got along well.
I think, for someone to come to a conclusion that a bike really planes, that rider must decently explore the performance envelope of said frame/bike. Not some foolish kamikaze downhill effort, but certainly out-of-saddle efforts in conjunction with the rider's size/weight and strength (aka ability to ascertain). I am of the mindset that a bike can plane while in the saddle, as well as feel at least a little whippy, but unless the frame is given enterprising wheels and tires, in combination with harder (out of saddle) effort, full context is never realized, and thus a complete explanation is curtailed.
@ctak 's 700 series is likely a lot like my 716, but focused a little more due to 24" (61cm-ish) size and tidier chain stays. Focused flow, especially with aero wheels and supple tires (to say nothing of his general fitness, endurance, and ability to probe the capabilities of said frame/bike).
I think, for someone to come to a conclusion that a bike really planes, that rider must decently explore the performance envelope of said frame/bike. Not some foolish kamikaze downhill effort, but certainly out-of-saddle efforts in conjunction with the rider's size/weight and strength (aka ability to ascertain). I am of the mindset that a bike can plane while in the saddle, as well as feel at least a little whippy, but unless the frame is given enterprising wheels and tires, in combination with harder (out of saddle) effort, full context is never realized, and thus a complete explanation is curtailed.
@ctak 's 700 series is likely a lot like my 716, but focused a little more due to 24" (61cm-ish) size and tidier chain stays. Focused flow, especially with aero wheels and supple tires (to say nothing of his general fitness, endurance, and ability to probe the capabilities of said frame/bike).
Likes For RiddleOfSteel:
#30
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked 264 Times
in
146 Posts
Update time: I currently have 2,043 miles on the Trek 700, which has established itself as my go-to choice for most rides. Several adjustments have recently been made to better accommodate Seattle hills and bad pavement. Still waiting on the arrival of white brake cable housing. Total weight: 21.1-lbs.
- Dura Ace 7900 downtube shifters
- Ultegra 6600 long cage RD
- Deore XT m771 11-32t cassette
- Spécialités TA Alize 38t chainring
- 32mm GP5000s
- Berthoud Aravis "open" saddle
Likes For ctak:
#31
too many bikes
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 32 Times
in
16 Posts
I do have one complaint about this bike
I have this bike in 22.5” and am pretty happy with it, but do have one complaint. I bought the frame on eBay because it was designed for “standard” or “normal” reach brakes so I thought I could put fatter tires on it. Well as this thread shows, the fork length is kind of between a standard and a short reach brake. (Because this is the C&V forum I can call these standard/normal reach versus short reach right?) The rear one is okay. I have the standard reach ulterga brakes and I had to file the underside of the calipers to clear the 32mm Clement tires I have on the front and it still rubs occasionally when I stand on the pedals. Maybe Trek outsourced the forks and it was too late correct by the time they were received. Even with this defect, I wouldn’t say this bike sucks.
#32
Master Parts Rearranger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,408
Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present
Mentioned: 222 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked 2,037 Times
in
991 Posts
I have this bike in 22.5” and am pretty happy with it, but do have one complaint. I bought the frame on eBay because it was designed for “standard” or “normal” reach brakes so I thought I could put fatter tires on it. Well as this thread shows, the fork length is kind of between a standard and a short reach brake. (Because this is the C&V forum I can call these standard/normal reach versus short reach right?) The rear one is okay. I have the standard reach ulterga brakes and I had to file the underside of the calipers to clear the 32mm Clement tires I have on the front and it still rubs occasionally when I stand on the pedals. Maybe Trek outsourced the forks and it was too late correct by the time they were received. Even with this defect, I wouldn’t say this bike sucks.
As to the "this sucks" title, it's a misnomer. He parked his bike in front of a wall that had graffiti with the phrase "this sucks" on it. The 700 is one of his favorite bikes, but in my opinion, his title of the thread was/is completely misleading. For those that paid attention for a little bit longer and caught the graffiti, it makes sense in a "This is a painting in an art gallery" sort of way (as far as titling things goes). Otherwise to 99.9% of everyone else [edits editorializing], it makes no sense. He isn't bothered by the accidental clickbait title, though it seems I am enough to re-state things, even though it's already been sorted out earlier in the thread (if one bothers to read it all).
#33
Newbie
Not sure either, but agree that frame flex and tire selection/pressure are the main considerations... and what led to my fascination with Trek's Tri Series trifecta: longer chainstays, clearance for 32s and flexy pipes . Would be curious to see more exhaustive studies on seatpost dampening. .
#34
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked 264 Times
in
146 Posts
Hi, reopening an older thread but I'm looking at picking up a Tri Series 700 and am finding so little detail online. So I thought I'd ask. You say clearance for 32s. Have you actually done that? If so, fit well or fit 'ok'. I'm actually quite interested in the one I found because it looks to have such clearance and I'd like to have one of my vintage rides to accept something more than a squeezed 25mm :-)
#35
Master Parts Rearranger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,408
Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present
Mentioned: 222 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1558 Post(s)
Liked 2,037 Times
in
991 Posts
@BikeTim42 it's all there in post #30, man. These 700-level full-531 Treks are superb frames that make for amazing bikes when built even with modest componentry. Dura-Ace, deservedly so. Go for it that 700!
#36
Newbie
I missed that those were the 32s (or nearly so). Roomy
#38
Steel is real
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Not far from Paris
Posts: 2,031
Bikes: 1992Giant Tourer,1992MeridaAlbon,1996Scapin,1998KonaKilaueua,1993Peugeot Prestige,1991RaleighTeamZ(to be upgraded),1998 Jamis Dragon,1992CTWallis(to be built),1998VettaTeam(to be built),1995Coppi(to be built),1993Grandis(to be built)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked 1,013 Times
in
673 Posts
very nice bike thanks for sharing