Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Trek 750 Good for Touring?

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Trek 750 Good for Touring?

Old 07-09-14, 05:01 PM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Trek 750 Good for Touring?

I've been looking for a bicycle to use for touring. I plan on building the bike, so I only need the frame, but with so many options out there it's overwhelming! I'd like to find a relatively inexpensive, but sturdy frame. I've ready plenty of great reviews about the Trek 520, and while searching for one came across a Trek 750 frame for $200. The person selling it says the geometry is identical to the 520 of the same year (he/she didn't give the year, though). Anyway, I'm just looking for advice/input: Would this frame be fit for touring; if so, is this particular one worth the money?

I appreciate any help!
Mozzy is offline  
Old 07-09-14, 06:25 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Cyclebum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NE Tx
Posts: 2,766

Bikes: Tour Easy, Linear USS, Lightening Thunderbolt, custom DF, Raleigh hybrid, Felt time trial

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here is link to a picture of a 750. Least the poster says so.

A 'good' touring bike is one that fits you well(Fit is First)with decent pannier heel clearance(chain stay length.) As to what it's worth, lots of variables. Condition, age, demand. Your call.

Unless you already have the needed components that will cross over to the 750 frame, a build out is gonna cost a bunch. Most will say a ready-to-ride bike is nearly always less expensive.

Oh. Welcome to BF. Have fun.
Cyclebum is offline  
Old 07-09-14, 06:34 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
The early 90s lugged Multitrack 750s have the same touring geometry as the Trek 520! The later TIG welded Multitrack 750s were based on a hybrid geometry.
NormanF is offline  
Old 07-09-14, 08:46 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
corwin1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 32 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Mozzy
I've been looking for a bicycle to use for touring. I plan on building the bike, so I only need the frame, but with so many options out there it's overwhelming! I'd like to find a relatively inexpensive, but sturdy frame. I've ready plenty of great reviews about the Trek 520, and while searching for one came across a Trek 750 frame for $200. The person selling it says the geometry is identical to the 520 of the same year (he/she didn't give the year, though). Anyway, I'm just looking for advice/input: Would this frame be fit for touring; if so, is this particular one worth the money?

I appreciate any help!
$200 is pretty steep for just a frameset. I would go to Vintage Trek Bikes- Information on Steel Road Bicycles made by the Trek Bicycle Corporation, bike and figure out what year the bike was and look at the geometry and tubing specs for that year. All of the catalogs are there and there is a handy feature that tells what color each specific year of a given Trek model was. It should be pretty straightforward to figure it out. If you have a photo you can attach, I don't mind helping.

I checked and the 1991 Trek 750 had the same geometry as the 1995 version. The chainstays are only 42.9 - 43.0 cm in length, which would probably be considered on the short side for touring. The 1991 520 also had 43.0 cm chainstays so they may well have had the same geometry. I didn't look at the other numbers because chainstay was the one measurement I thought most likely to differ and the one that most bike tourers are most concerned about.

Last edited by corwin1968; 07-09-14 at 08:57 PM.
corwin1968 is offline  
Old 07-10-14, 10:29 AM
  #5  
Nigel
 
nfmisso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,991

Bikes: 1980s and 1990s steel: CyclePro, Nishiki, Schwinn, SR, Trek........

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
A lugged 750 is very desirable; BUT $200- is way too much for the frame and fork. As noted above, the lugged 750 (and 790) have the same geometry as the lugged 520 of the same years. $100- is more in the ball park for a 750/790/520 lugged frame and fork. Even more desirable are earlier 620 and 720 (pre 1990) which were also touring bikes that Trek ranked above the 520. The 720 name got recycled into a hybrid in the '90's.

What kind of touring are planning? Would you be better off with 559 wheels and tires; and thus a mid '80s MTB frame and fork (look for those with rack mounts half way up the for; Schwinn Sierra and High Sierra are examples made by Giant)?
nfmisso is offline  
Old 07-10-14, 10:52 AM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,598

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,357 Times in 863 Posts
Any bike you can ride for a couple weeks is a (touring, adverb) bike .. a tool not a particular one

Most of Europe tours on what we call Hybrids .. just make sure its the right size ..

Frame Up Builds are more expensive, you may actually save by Buying a new, built up, bike.

Last edited by fietsbob; 07-10-14 at 10:56 AM.
fietsbob is offline  
Old 07-10-14, 12:41 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
LuckySailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 660

Bikes: Trek 520 total custom build, Cannondale Mountain Tandem, Oryx Mountain Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Mozzy, you don't indicate that you already have the parts for the build. Assuming that you do not, it is not cost effective to build a bike cheaper than buying new. Generally speaking. I recently finished a build on a 520. I paid less than $400 (Canadian), taxes in, for the brand new frame.
LuckySailor is offline  
Old 07-10-14, 06:47 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Doug64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,495
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked 842 Times in 438 Posts
Originally Posted by LuckySailor
Mozzy, you don't indicate that you already have the parts for the build. Assuming that you do not, it is not cost effective to build a bike cheaper than buying new. Generally speaking. I recently finished a build on a 520. I paid less than $400 (Canadian), taxes in, for the brand new frame.
+ 1

I picked up a nice used Long Haul Trucker for my daughter for $400. I put about $200 more into it and she has a first class machine.

Look around on Craigslist.
Doug64 is offline  
Old 07-10-14, 07:34 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,473
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 23 Posts
What everyone else said. I have a 91 750, which does have the same geometry and tubing as the 520 of that year, and it's fine. Personally, my next bike will be something more modern with stiffer tubes and a threadless headset, but if you like older touring bikes then you'd probably think it's just great. As to what everyone else is saying about the price, I paid $60 for mine and it's in good condition. You're not in Madison WI, are you? I might be selling my frame-set in a couple weeks once I get my new one built up.
3speed is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vins0010
Classic & Vintage
19
01-24-23 12:46 PM
Qaw
Touring
2
08-02-18 06:44 AM
dbg
Touring
2
03-19-12 10:04 AM
tarwheel
Commuting
0
05-05-11 02:20 PM
smith
Mountain Biking
2
03-01-10 04:28 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.