Originally Posted by
denada
so i have a bike i'm happy with but it's fun to shop craigslist. i found a trek multitrack 7900, only it's 20" instead of my current 21" mulitrack 700. i'm 5'10. 21" works great as i'd much rather go with the big of the end of the spectrum than feel the slightest bit cramped. still, i figured what's an inch.
then i googled and stumbled across this:
https://store.bicycleczar.com/51cm-T...p/05130073.htm
5' 5 to 5' 8? they those heights wouldn't even clear the top bar, right (except maybe, 5' 8 barely)? or because it's a different model, do things change?
assuming 20" is likely fine for 5' 10, is the multitrack 7900 a significant upgrade from the 700? i carry my bike up and down my apartment stairs, so weight is of some importance to me.
what should i offer? the post is asking $600. it says posted 13 hours hours, but seller keeps reposting it and it's been up for months.
of course i'm not buying anything without riding. want to make sure it could be worthwhile before even going that far.
seen here:
https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/b...935613848.html
thanks!
7900 was top of the line in the few years they were produced. Aside from the carbon main tubes, it had an Easton (this was THE name in Al back then) rear, and the geometry was more like a contemporary mountain bike than the road oriented 7xx series.700 was the base model for Trek's hybrid
Weight is listed as 23.9 lbs stock, which is decent. 700 is listed as 27.4lbs for '96.
Reflecting its MTB influence, the 20" 7900 has a top tube length of 574mm, where the Multitrack at 21"=565mm
It would be a massive improvement IMO over the base 700 with a sportier ride and more offroad ability. 3.5lbs less is very noticeable. These bikes are not that common, and I'd readily buy one if one turned up locally but not at that price. 600 can get you something much nicer in the used market.