mr,grumpy 

pretty aggressive riding position, no?

Compared to my Tricross and Roubaix anyways.

J.Higgins 

The 400's were made from what, '83 to '92? Something like that.

I have an '85 460, and its a sweet bike. Other than them being a diamond-framed steel bike, what characterizes them (for you) to be aggressive riding?

mr,grumpy 

In my un-profesional opinion and on my rather short ride, I found the bar level really low and the handling super sharp. It's a little too big for me at 60cm (I like a 56/58 in old steel and 54/56 in New Money bikes). I guess it could be pipe steel but it's light. Of all the bikes I have kicking around here it is lighter than all but my Trek FXs4 and my carbon Specialized, and its pretty much a push wiht the FX. I would need a scale to tell which is lighter. Oddly, the frame literally just says "400series" on it. There is no specific numerical model designator.

francophile 

If still intact, the black chain guard sticker will sometimes reveal the model. Other than that, it's either using the serial# to look it up, or trying to guesstimate date based on decal cues and cross-ref with the components to figure it out.

I've ridden both the 460, 560 and 660, all mid-80s. I didn't enjoy any of them. I've owned multiple 80/81 Ishawata bikes, didn't like them either. Couldn't get comfortable for the life of me. I do love the mid-80s TrueTemper 410 I have. I'm sure there's probably something else out there in Trek I can get comfy on, I just didn't find it in the mid-80s x60 series or the Ishawata framed bikes around the turn of the 80s.

J.Higgins 

Its simply too big for you, and it sounds like you are reaching too far forward to be comfortable. When I was younger, I rode a 58, but as age occurred (yes, it just occurred!), I started feeling more comfortable on a 56. My Bilenky is a 56 and it fits very well.

As far as the model type goes, it was always printed on the chainstay protector. Helluva bad place to put it imho, but hey I'm just a crazy Irishman.

thinktubes 

I've owned several Trek 400s. I find then to be utterly neutral in the handling dept.

madpogue 

Actually, no, it wasn't. Prior to 1984, there was no chainstay protector. There was no model designation in the livery at all. The only text was the TREK brand and what was on the frame material decals. Model designation was by inference, based on geometry, frame material, color way, features/components, etc. It's not unique to Trek; none of the Peugeots I've seen have had model designations as part of the livery.

In this case, the fact that it uses the "x00 Series" scheme means that it's most likely an '85 or '86. We're fortunate to have the vintage-trek web site to guide us, using both serial numbers and color / livery schemes shown in the yearly brochures.

Chr0m0ly 

There are 400 series frames that are racing and touring and sports geometry.

Chris_in_Miami

I think the truth is somewhere in between. Some models had the designation on the chainstay protector, and some didn't. My '83 640 is the only early-80s Trek that I've owned that did have it:

francophile 

This is why it's bad to deal in absolutes. There's always an exception hiding somewhere. That's why I was pretty vaguely-specific with "If still intact, the black chain guard sticker will sometimes reveal the model."

Seems the model number slapped off or rubbed off pretty easily on some models. I've seen more than my share of 80s models with the chain guard stickers that didn't have it anymore, or maybe they never came with a number on it. All I know is the bikes look better when it's removed

madpogue 

... Absolutely?

francophile 

Sometimes.

mr,grumpy 

This is her. Campy components, Chromo frame and stays.

mr,grumpy 

mr,grumpy 

mr,grumpy 

francophile 

Likely a 410. Did you run the serial number under the BB shell through the Vintage-Trek site?

Edit: I suspect it's an '85, but here are the serial number ranges for 84/85/86:

https://www.vintage-trek.com/SerialNos84.htm

https://www.vintage-trek.com/SerialNos85.htm

https://www.vintage-trek.com/SerialNos86.htm

francophile 

PS - I have the twin to it, converted to a 6spd index-shift in-town cruiser. Was gutted of the Campy stuff when I got it. Used Campy Veloce sealed 115 BB, Veloce crank. Super fun to ride! Very light bike. Literally the only Trek bike I've owned that put a smile on my face!

Pics: https://imgur.com/a/ezztPaO

Road Fan

The x60 models were all intended for racing. Steep frame angles, not much fork offset, short chainstays, all lead to a less cushy ride and faster handling - the steeirng response could be too quick if you're not acclimated to it. You're not the only person not to warm up to it.

The x10 models were called "sport-touring" which means a compromise between a non-racking fast bike (the "sport") and a non-touring comfy bike. I have a 610 which is pretty darn comfortable. The geometries (tube lengths, frame angles, fork offsets) are pretty much the same across the x10 levels.

Trek used butted tubing across the board: double-butted top tubes and down tubes, with single-butted seat tubes. Tubesets were different, and this can make a difference.

The most comfortable Treks were the touring models, x20. In the '80s "touring" meant comfort (frame designed to give and absorb energy) and to be stable when carrying extra stuff. The best models were the 720, 620, and 520. 520 of the early/mid '80s had Reynolds 501 tubing for which the wall thicknesses (also called butting profiles) were .9/.6/.9 for the top tube and down tube, and .9/.6 mm wall thickness. My 610 and the 620 had Reynolds 531, with .8/.5./.8 TT, 1.0/.7/1.0 for the down tube, and .9/.6 for the seat tube. Note that for the 531 the TT is thinner-wall and the DT is thicker-wall. This in my opinion made the 610 (and possibly the 620 as well) a stiffer-riding bike than the 520.

You can nail down (with a few exceptions) the year, size, and model of a Trek frame based on the serial number.

dedhed

My previous 87 and my current 91 400 were sport touring with longer chain stays and rack braze ons.

mr,grumpy 

1985 24inch 410.
i think

madpogue 

Okay, a fastback. That, plus the decal style, makes it most likely an '85, and the "Scarlet" color and the Campag Triomphe bits are consistent with a 410.

mr,grumpy 

Yep. Twins, other than the bar tape.

J.Higgins 

Well, I'm not rushing down to the shop to take a pic, but the one on my 460 is faded and chewed up badly. One of these days I'll get around to removing it and putting a new one on.

francophile 

The 410 in the album above was the same way. Managed to get it and all adhesive off in about 10 minutes at a cost of $7 in product. This is what I did, in case it helps:

• Didn't bother with a heat gun, just put the frame in full sunlight to heat it up
• Peeled the chainstay sticker off
• Got some Turtle Wax sticker/adhesive remover for $7 at my auto parts store: https://www.amazon.com/Turtle-Wax-T-.../dp/B004M3F5CO
• It's non-corrosive. Spray on chainstay where adhesive is. Wait 2 minutes and enjoy the nice orange citrus smell.
• Take a credit card or other stiff card and scrape across the adhesive while holding at a 15° angle to the surface.
• Repeat that process until all goo is gone. Took me two treatments. Spray one last time, then buff with a terrycloth.
• Admire your hard work while cracking a beer. Wax chainstay. Let dry. Buff one last time.
• Finish beer. Then ride it like you stole it.