mountaindave 

And you got 42mm Soma Grand Randonneurs in the back? It’s looking like a build I’d do myself.

ehcoplex 

Yes, though clearance is pretty tight at the chain-stays. I think I'll dimple the stays just a bit for piece of mind, I just haven't got round to making some sort of dimpling jig.

mountaindave 

I’m in the same boat with my 710’s conversion. I can get away with 42s in dry conditions, but I hear scrubbing from grit in wet conditions. Just need to find one of those round tuits…

mhespenheide 

Dave, can you say if 650b x 42's fit in the fork of your 710? That's one that I'm looking at for a potential future conversion.

I bought a 640 and it doesn't look like 42's will fit in the front fork...

mhespenheide 

Posting this here, but it's probably for posterity. Trek 640 frame that I bought off CL and the seller shipped to me from across the country. It's a touch too small, despite my best efforts at reading the geometry from the old catalogs. It's mocked up here as a possible 650b conversion, but, like I said, I probably need to go for the next size larger. The stem is maxed out and I'm not sure even a Technomic would make it work.

mountaindave 

Mine has a replacement fork from an’85-ish Nashbar Touré built for 27” wheels and cantis so I had room. Pretty sure they still would fit with the original fork though. It’s a ‘79 710 (see the photos in my sig in desktop mode).

romanlotus

My 1981.5 Trek 715

romanlotus

I bought it from the original owner and it was 100% all original.

romanlotus

romanlotus

AdventureManCO 

Really lovely bike, and in great shape.

mountaindave 

That was an amazing find - even the tires are original! Like the owner bought it, put it in a hermetically sealed box for 40 years and then decided to sell.

RiddleOfSteel

Any day is a good day for a fully Reynolds 531 Trek, and that thing is spotless!

thumpism 

More pix of that tall Elance. I'm astonished how decent it is overall despite the obviously trashed appearance. No dents or cracks that I can find, the BB and HS spin freely and it's straight. Even the top tube cable guides are undamaged. Damn, this would make a good project for someone but not for me.

It sure ain't pretty but would make a decent ride for somebody.


I don't know the Trek line by heart but recall seeing these 531 frames with Cr-Mo (specifically NOT 531) forks. Kind of an odd offering by the company.







Haven't tried a seatpost yet but assume it takes a 27.2.

ehcoplex 

I'd guess it was purely a cost-saving decision to forgo 531 for the fork & stays (and may possibly have had as much to do with exchange rates, trade agreements, etc., at the time..). I've casually looked for a definitive description of what the real-world differences are between 'chrome-moly' and 'manganese-moly' but haven't come up with anything- at least that seemed 'definitive' (and described something that I personally might notice.... or at least understand!).
I does seem these Trek Elance frames are quite liked by those who have/ride them, even if they aren't highly regarded. I've only been able to try the one I picked up and reno'd on the rollers so far, so can't give a real-world impression. Funny thing is, I actually bought it to build up as a 650b conversion for a friend, but it turned out to be smaller than thought- he's quite tall. But it's my size, so I've built it up for myself. Your frame would be more his size..

ehcoplex 

thumpism , curious what the BB on your frame is. As far as I can tell, '87 was the only year with the '3 main tubes 531' and solid, sparkly dark blue (red & black being the other option), so I assume ours are the same year. Mine has a Hatta BB, but it's got threaded studs that take a nut.....

Ah, but just now I'm thinking maybe yours is a 400D, while mine's a 400T, which might explain it...

dmark 

86 400 Elance was also 3 main tubes 531 with a tange fork and 4130 stays.

ehcoplex 

Yup- though the '86 had a contrasting head-tube color.

Pompiere

A Technomic stem is about 40 mm taller than a normal stem. I measured mine and it is 150 mm from the minimum insertion line to the top, so it might be enough to put the bars at saddle height.

I agree, a larger frame would be the ideal solution, but a Technomic might work while you are searching.

The Golden Boy 

Think of where the bicycle tubing industry is in 1986. Reynolds/TI used to be so worried about counterfeit 531 tubing that they made their decals impossible to steal from one bike to another- in 1985 the 531 label was just a sticker. Steel tubing was quickly losing cachet. Of course it still meant something-

Look at the difference in the 1985 and 1986 catalog. (very loosely figure- 700 series bikes were more prestigious and expensive and went down from there). In 1985 there was:
700 series bikes (531 main frame with 531 stays and fork),
600 series bikes (531/Reynolds CrMo),
500 series bikes (501/Tange Mangalloy),
400 series bikes (True Temper CrMo/Tange Mangalloy).

In 1986 that changed to:
700 series bikes (531 main frame with 531 stays and fork)
500 series bikes (531/Tange CrMo)
400 series bikes (531/Tange CrMo)
300 series bikes (IshiwataCrMo/Ishiwata CrMo)

They cut out 600 series bikes- but the bikes that were essentially the same bikes were moved down in precedence to the the 400-500 level. A 'Tre-tubi' 531/CrMo bike was a step above entry level for Trek. While it speaks of the adage "Trek's entry level bikes were better than most companies' mid level bikes," it also speaks of the perceived value of 531.

ehcoplex The simple real-world difference between 531 and CrMo- is that it's stronger per it's weight. A CrMo tube would need to be drawn thicker, and therefore heavier to have the same strength as a 531 tube.

RiddleOfSteel

Exactly. Trek and others were moving to aluminum etc, so I think there was also an "Everything [steel] must go!" mentality, especially as many 'lower level' Treks (the Elances and left over '85 frames) had some version or amount of 531 in them. They're good frames, the Elances, but there is no mistaking the extra weight of the non-531 tubing used and resulting less supple ride. We're talking an approximately 350g difference in a 25.5" frameset between a 700-level frame and anything below that, at least from the many that I've had and weighed. Put some true 35mm tires of quality at an appropriate pressure, and that will overcome the 'lesser' tubed frame's stiffer ride. Though I suppose if you have nicer roads that Seattle proper, it's not as needed. Glass smooth country roads with 25mm Gatorskins at 100 psi doesn't feel bad at all.

brewerkz 

1985 Trek 660, 531 Reynolds tubing w/Cinelli BB, Superbe Pro components, more photos here:
https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/1985-trek-660-47601

thumpism 

BB pic. Really haven't had a moment to do much more on this thing. Did find a spot to hang it up.

mhespenheide 

I'll try it, but (like any quill stem), as you raise the stem, the handlebars also move back. I'd want to raise it up 2-3cm higher but keep the same forward extension. Can't really do that, though!

ehcoplex 

I've found it handy to have a quill-to-threadless adapter stem (VO has a reasonable one, Soma has a longer one) and a couple different cheap treadless stems to mess around with on a new build and figure out more-or-less what works/is comfortable and then replace it with a quill stem of the right length.