jPrichard10 

I am curious about the comparison of the 510, 710, and 910. I'm sure there's a thread about it and everyone has their favourites.

Rooney 

There are certainly some here much more qualified to answer, but here's what I've learned:

The frame sets shared the same geo with the difference being the tubing. 5XX = Ishiwata, 7XX = Reynolds, 9XX = Columbus. I believe the tubing thicknesses were incredibly close, if not the same. I'd argue the greatest difference between these frames is the aesthetics of the tubing decals. This all pertains to the early TX series frames. The first number represented the tubing, the second number the style/geo of the bike, and the third signified the bike's groupset. This becomes clear as you look through the 77-81 Trek catalogs. Once you get to 82, they still adhered to that general system, but it became more nuanced as more models were added.

My comment about the 910 is solely based on the fact that I've seen far fewer 910s than 710s or 510s.

jPrichard10 

I was aware of this, but I mostly wanted to see how people liked the different tubing given the same size, geometry and builder. Basically: all other factors the same, which tubing do people like more?

I'm holding on to my 910, but I've wondered if I might prefer the ride quality of the Ishiwata or the 531. Hard to find them all in my size though, but I currently have all three in different sizes.

One last difference that does matter to me: the fork crowns. I love the nicer fork crowns on these, and I know later Ishiwata frames got the "death forks" with the unreinforced crowns. Not sure if those made it on 510s, but definitely on some 4xx and 6xxs that I've seen. Plus, they just don't look as nice without the cast "Trek" on there!

Gary12000 

My 1983 500 is Reynolds 501 tubing, and the brochure says ishawata forks and stays..
The two 1982 Trek 614 & 613 I have are Reynolds 531 main tubes and Ish Forks and stays.
i think your correct the mixed and matched for price point from 1982.

jPrichard10 

I always forget the 500 exists.

​​​​​​I am mostly talking about pre-1983 41x, 51x, 61x, 71x and 91x.

JohnDThompson 

710 and 910 are the same frame except for the tubing. You'd be hard-pressed to find any difference in ride quality.

jPrichard10 

I know the above, but since the actual expert is here: My 910 is a 25.5", which I had read was Columbus SP instead of the regular specced SL. We're the tubesets that Trek used for the largest sizes of 510s and 710s also thicker Ishiwata or 531 (or longer butts, etc)?

I can definitely see that the middle sizes of 510, 710, 910 would have very few perceptible ride differences, I wonder if that's true at the extreme sizes. Unless maybe 25.5" 510s used Ishiwata 025, for example.

albrt 

I am not a long time Trek expert, but I've had several '79 - '82 Treks in the past few years. All are 24", which is slightly on the small side for me, but I felt like they rode bigger.

The first two were a 500 and a 600 series that was probably sold as a 614 but the serial number is ambiguous. I liked the 500 better. The 614 is a decent bike, but to me it basically feels like many other solid, not particularly light mid-range bikes with 531 triangles. Definitely nothing special.

Within the last year I bought a 710 and liked it so much I bought another one three weeks ago. They are light and flexy, so I wouldn't necessarily want to ride one down a steep incline with 60 pound pack, but lightly loaded they are a joy to ride. Completely different bike than the 500 or 600.

Haven't tried a Columbus model yet.

JohnDThompson 

No, Columbus frames larger than 60cm used SP tubes, but the Reynolds and Ishiwata frames used the same gauge tubing for all sizes. So a large 910 frame like yours would be slightly stiffer and heavier than the same size Reynolds or Ishiwata frame.

jPrichard10 

Wow, thank you.

​​​​​​Always a treat to have your insight, and I truly mean that!

Sounds like I should track down a 710 or 510 in size NBA and give them a whirl. I like my frames noodly.

I think it's looking like I'll strip the 19" and sell just the bare frame. Frames in the "extreme range" might need a bigger market.

The 24" needs quite the cleaning, but I'll probably keep it all together, save the Phils.

dddd

Is there no difference in chainstay length?

I have a 710 and the chainstays always seemed to be on the long side for a road bike.

I would have thought that a 910 would be more close-coupled, ...or was it intended as a sport tourer?

JohnDThompson 

930 was the close-coupled frame design.

dddd

I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the 900-series bikes, I've never come across one!

jPrichard10 

Forgot to check earlier but looked again and saw the 24" frame has a Framebuilder's mark "A". I don't remember who used that mark but I know there's a thread about it in her somewhere.

Haven't checked the smaller frame, but it has the new style serial number and not sure if Framebuilder's marks were ever added to those.

Maybe Mike Appel JohnDThompson ?

jPrichard10 

Finally cleaned up (almost). Some of the electrical tape has seemingly liquefied? Don't know how else to explain it, but there's nothing physical to peel off, almost like the tape has become paint. Rubbing alcohol, acetone, goo gone, scraping have all done nothing. Not sure what the next step to take is.

Other than that, this sure cleaned up nice.