rossiny

A Trek 620 , blue, came up for sale locally. I already have a Schwinn Passage ,almost all updated. I just need some good touring pedals and seat to finish off,
Now reading through this , should I pick it up the 620. I always wanted a Trek USA tourer made with 531 ?? It looks good in the pics and original.
Price is reasonable $350. Do I need another touring bike 😎

rekmeyata

If the price appeals to you then get it quick...IF that 620 is all original, not sure what year your 620 is but go to this site and check the components to make sure the one listed for sale is all original, if it's not I probably wouldn't waste my time or money! See: 1983 Trek Bicycle Brochure Part I - Racing Bikes That particular page I gave is for a 1983, the Trek Vintage site has all their vintage years listed so if it's a different year just look for in the Trek Vintage site ad click on Trek Brochures tab.

Some people believe that the Trek 620 is the holy grail of touring bikes back in the day, but Schwinn Passage was darn near that status too.

Road Fan

Actually I thought the 720 was top-regarded, but the 620 is not far behind. I think a 620 is very worth it! Nothing wrong with having several bikes of the same genre!

justcynn

Picked up this ‘87 520 recently. Paid top dollar as the paint is very good. Rides well. But in the heavier side at 27 lbs (including rack) but I need to get better pedals on it and maybe swap out the rims for lighter 700c. I don’t plan to do any cross country touring but it’s a cool ride. What are the differences between the 620 and 520?

The Golden Boy 

That one is totally worth it-

It looks clean and relatively unmolested. I don't know what's going on for the wheel situation- but that's a nice bike- if it's your size. And much less than Jay and I paid for ours.

About the 620- the fork and the rear triangle are Reynolds CrMo and were brazed together in Japan, final assembly and paint was done in Waterloo.

The Golden Boy 

By the way- this thread, and the accompanying blog series are still one of my favorite things on the internets.

I got my 85 620 the same week Jay got his.

I totally took tons of inspiration from him when I redid my Trek 720, and it took more than 9 years, but I'm finally doing the whole 'restomod' thing with my 620 right now in very most similar fashion.

Back then, I was so thrilled to have the bike, I didn't understand why anyone would want the bike to be any different (ie: "vintage-y built"). It took a long time for me to jump from 6 to 10 speed.

rekmeyata

No, the 720 was too flexible to be regarded as a serious touring bike, it was more of a lightweight long single day comfortable riding bike, rather than a bike that could take heavy loads. It was more ideal for credit card touring then loaded touring, which back in those days a lot of people, including myself, did credit card touring, not sure if that's still a thing or not these days. Anyway, the 620 was the holy grail of touring bikes meant to take a load.

The other thing was that the 720 used Reynolds 531c tubing, c stood for competition, it had thinner drawn tubing and butts, it was the same tubing used on the 760 which was Treks top of the line racing bike which I test rode and declined it because I could get the front derailleur to rub both sides of the chainring, and at the same time the rear brake pads would rub both sides of the rim when I cranked it as hard as I could, it was a noodle of a bike. I ended up with the 660 because I could not do that do that bike, and the 660 use Reynolds 531cs which had thicker tubing and butts, that 531cs was used on the 620. cs stood for Club Sport.

I always felt that the Schwinn Voyager with the Tenax tubing (made by Columbus) was actually more suited for loaded touring than the 620 was because the cs tubing was their second from the top of line racing frame which would be too light, in my opinion, for loaded touring. Having had a Schwinn Le Tour Luxe (1985) that came with the Tenax tubing and I used it for loaded bike camping with about 70 pounds of gear, it not only rode wonderfully but it never shook at any speed, and it never flexed enough to rub stuff, I seriously doubt the cs tubing would handle that. In fact, the true touring tube set made by Reynolds was the 531st, st stood for Special Tourist, and later the same st stood for Super Tourist.

Maybe I'm not 100% clear on that stuff, and someone with a better memory can correct me.

The Golden Boy 

It makes sense that the 620 is the heavier, more stout machine- given that it's made from a 531CS tube set. I think the first couple years of having the both of them, I thought that way. At some point I started realizing my 620 felt lighter- if not quicker. I already knew that my 620 flexed more than my 720- I could ghost shift the 620 by standing and pedaling- and I'm not a strong rider. Part of the reason I looked for a 720 was to to see about a little more compliance in the ride- because I was sure that the 720 flexed more- partially because people said so, partially because it would make sense that it would. But after a few years of riding them back to back I guess I just always felt that the 531C frame on the 720 just resisted flexing because 531 stays are stronger than the CrMo stays on the 620. My 720 is stiffer than my 620. But that didn't explain the perceived weight difference. But they're both great riding bikes and I don't really care a whole lot.

Then this thread pops up and I revisit some of the stuff posted here... Particularly the tube set weights- and I got to thinking. The 85 620 and 720 are really close in geometry- the 85 720 is listed as being 531C. The 720 is identical between 84 and 85 with the exception of a different crank and decals (and the early 84s had dual eyelets on the fork ends). But if you look at the serial numbers- you'll notice there are very few (I only see one) 720s that were made in 1985. It looks like the last 720 built in 84 was in Sept. That would kind of make almost all the 85 720s leftover 84s. The 84 720 is actually listed as the main frame being made from 531ST. If most of the 85 720s were rebadged 84s- that would make them 531ST and not 531C as proclaimed in the catalog and on the sticker. Which would absolutely result in a much thicker, stiffer (and consequently heavier) frame than 531C.

Just something to think about.



1985 Trek 620:

85620Yard by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr



1985 Trek 720:

85720Yard by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

Road Fan

As always, back to Trek tubing confusion. How do you know that the 720 has (let me call it) "conventional" 531c? In the Trek catalogs from 1982, 83, and 85 through 1985 the 720 has 531C, which Trek defined each of those years in the catalog as TT 858, DT 10/7/10 ST 8/5. The only exception is 1984 where it is called out as 531ST, but the tubing table at the beginning of the catalot files does not define what they think it means. Interestingly, in 1985 they define 531CS and 531C as TT 858, DT 10/7/10 ST 8/5. So I don't see anything FROM TREK that says any 72x frames used anything lighter IN THE MAIN TUBES than the Trek tubing mix I've cited. If some of those Trek terms really mean "the tubes are the same as conventional 531c, which I undrstand is lighter, I can't see it.

If you claim the 720 has lighter tubing, I'd love to see the evidence.

I have a 610, and I don't consider it flexy. I also have one of the first batch of 720, but it's not built up yet so I can't really say. I got it because of the long chainstays.

So, I know what Trek said and I know what Reynolds said, in addition to Reynolds employing alphabet soup in some years to mix you up as to just what is in each tubeset product over the years. Bottom line, the two houses do not match, and it seems Reynolds may not match from year to year. So I tend to doubt claims such as yours. Besides, Trek says pretty explicitly that all 720s were made with a 10/7/10 downtube. That's not a part of a lightweight 531 db set, like the 531 Competition you were talking about.. That tube is listed a a part of the Super Tourist (ST) tubeset.

Have you done any tube replacement repairs and measured the bad tubes before junking them?

rekmeyata

I need to correct something I said in my earlier post. The 760 I test rode, which I said used the 531c could have been using the 531p tubeset if the Vintage Trek site is correct for an 84-year model, but it could have been an 83-year model I tested and that one used the 531c, I just can't remember anymore, that was back in 1984, so it's been a while, and they were having an 83 closeout sale; I do remember that the 531p had a rider weight limit of 175 pounds because the frame was light and would be too flexible under a strong heavier rider. I do know that I got the frame to flex so maybe it was the p series.

The cs tubing was actually 531c main tubes and 501 Chromoly stays. But again, either the C or the CS tubing I don't think is suitable for heavy loaded touring, unlike the 531st.

https://www.bretonbikes.com/homepage...ourists-friend

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...g&action=click

This site doesn't even mention that 531c can be used for sport touring, instead, they say cycle cross, which makes more sense than sport touring. https://gravelcycling.wordpress.com/...n-bike-frames/

As you can tell from reading those above sites the 531c should not be used for loaded touring, sport touring is ultralight touring or credit card touring.

Chr0m0ly 

Just to pull up an old thread

Another consideration is the 620 geometry change between 84 and 85. The 84 620 has 45.5cm chainstays while the 85 620 has 47cm chainstays (and accompanying longer seatstays) of the 720. So there’s a good possibility that you’re both right. The 84 620 probably feels stouter than either the 720 or the 85 620? Wouldn’t the geometry have more an effect than the tubing anyway?