1998 Trek OCLV Carbon Series
 

I have been told that carbon bikes absorb shock like no other.
I do not want to spend a lot of money and thought this bike at $500.00 would be a way to get into Carbon.

Do you think the frame is " worn out" ?

I know that tennis racquets made of similar material wear out.

Bike look to be in VERY good condition.

Sorry , I have no pictures
Appreciate any and all advice

Generally carbon bikes do not take impact well, braking down resins can lead to failure; absent that they do not generally
deteriorate.

I'm still riding my 99' Kestrel, no problems. If it's in low use condition then $500 is in the ball park. Ultegra 9?

$500 USD? Take their hand off.

Unless there's visible damage, e.g. a crack, the frame is certainly fine. I've no idea what they ride like, but to me there's a very high "cool factor" in those OCLV frames.

Thanks for the info!!

Yes...ultegra 9


Price down to 400.00 !!!

States he is moving

How stiff or compliant something rides is usually more about how it's built than what it's built with. Just like steel/aluminum/titanium, a carbon frame can be built to be very rigid or very compliant, or anywhere in-between. So no, IMHO, carbon bikes don't absorb shock like no other---the answer is almost always "it depends how it's built." Carbon can be more tuneable, allowing more/less stiffness in different planes/areas than can usually be accomplished by metal, which can give a more targeted design. But it's all about how it's built.

"Shock absorption" is more about tire width/quality/pressure than anything else. Unless we're talking suspension designs.

'98-era OCLV was designed as a performance road race-oriented frame, so it's not a plush ride. And tire clearance isn't great, not sure you'd fit actual 28mm width, likely no wider. The carbon dampening effect might take a little edge off of the big hits, but a skinny-tube lightweight steel/ti frame that fits 32mm tires will have a smoother, more compliant ride.

If you want compliant/plush vintage carbon, a skinnier tubed Trek 2500, or one of the early Specialized Epics, with bonded carbon tubes, would probably be more comfy.

Layered/bonded carbon can unfortunately have defects not visible to the eye, and is also more susceptible to abrasive damage than most metal frames. A fall on a sharp rock can leave a tiny exterior mark on an OCLV frame, but start inner carbon layers delaminating. Dropped chains sawing through outer carbon layers can make them unrideable---I trashed my first OCLV frame dropping the chain just tooling around a parking lot, checking out my first build. A true JRA mishap. We had folks leave their frames inside cars in Arizona-type summer heat and had tubes debond. Excess UV exposure can break down the bonding resin.

So nobody can tell you the condition of the frame you're looking at without seeing lots of detailed pictures. And even then, there could be something lurking. Most of those issues aren't likely going to lead to catastrophic failures, but carbon is trickier to evaluate than metal.

In terms of "wearing out," carbon bicycle frames are supposedly more fatigue-resistant than metal frames. Absent crashes, extreme shock/abrasion or environmental issues, carbon should crank along just fine without "wearing out." FWIW, the metal tubing in a bike frame rarely fatigues to failure or "wears out." Crashes, falls, sub-optimal brazed/welded/bonded joints are the usual sources of failure.

I couldn't tell you if $400-$500 was a good price for a clean '98 OCLV bike, not something I follow. Check out completed ebay auctions for actual selling prices. I'd be surprised if anybody's paying a premium out there for 20yr-old+ OCLV frames, except maybe for Y-Foils.

I have a couple of carbon fiber bikes, besides my Ironman.

My early '90s Trek 5900 OCLV isn't much different from the Ironman, which is exactly what the fellow I bought it from told me. It rides like a diamond frame steel bike, only a bit lighter on climbs. No real adaptation needed. It's a bit stretched out like steel road bike, without extreme drop from saddle to handlebar. The main difference? The fatter tubes resonate like bongos, so the original downtube index shifters were LOUD. I switched to brifters and the bike rode much more quietly. And my riding buddies don't give me the stink-eye on group rides when I'm shifting and going CLACK!-CLACK!

I showed it to my local Trek dealer, who's been a Trek dealer almost since year one. He was happy to chatter about the bike and said they seem to be nearly indestructible. He tends to push for sales but didn't try to talk me out of that bike and into a newer Trek.

That '93 Trek 5900 was their flagship model that year, set up with a mixed group focused on minimal weight, not on being matchy-matchy: Dura Ace downtube shifters to save weight for mountain stages, while the other 5xxx series OCLV models had brifters; Ibis titanium stem; Chris King titanium headset; White Industries titanium BB; some American made titanium seat post; a mish-mash of Dura Ace, Dia Compe, etc. In original trim it really looked like a custom bike rather than an off-the-shelf model. Very eclectic, and made only that year. It always tickles me to ride it. Or maybe it's the saddle, I dunno. :innocent:

I also have a Diamondback Podium 5, circa 2014 or so. Very different feel. The bottom bracket is much stiffer and while it technically feels more efficient on climbs I'm not consistently strong enough to demonstrate any improvement in efficiency. The one exception was last year, before a long grinding illness, when I did manage to set some personal bests on local climbs.

And that was with older aluminum rim Mavic CXP-21 and Ultegra hubs -- pretty nice wheels but not as light as carbon fiber. I am kinda curious to try lighter wheels and my favorite tires and latex tubes to see if I can improve on some local climbing segments before the window of aging closes. I suspect I'd do just as well with the Trek 5900, which was only a couplafew seconds behind my best times on the Diamondback.

On the down side, my 63 year old busted up back, neck and shoulder don't care much for the more aggressive position of newer road bikes so I mostly use the Diamondback for speed rides of 90 minutes or less. It's not fun for all day rides unless I take plenty of rest breaks off the bike to stretch. And I really need to swap that bike's 175 cranks to 170. Technically 175 fit me, but my aging legs can't find a smooth cadence with longer cranks anymore.

TBH, of my three road bikes -- the '89 Ironman, '93 Trek 5900 and 2014 Diamondback -- I like the Trek 5900 best by a slim margin over the Ironman. Mostly because it's just enough lighter on climbs to make long, fast rides less tiring. But I still prefer the Ironman for longer casual pace rides. And most of my Strava PRs on longer segments from 2017 were set on that steel bike and still hold (although I've lost most of my top tens to younger, stronger riders -- as I should, since there's no way a 60something y/o cyclist should hold any top tens in any region with lots of cyclists). Over the length of 5-10 mile segments on our typical roller mixed terrain, I don't see any advantages to my carbon fiber bikes over the Ironman. But that's probably mostly engine limitations.

The experience of those three bikes over very different generations of design persuaded me that I'll never need to worry about buying a new carbon fiber bike. No point. I'll never get enough good from one at my age in my condition to matter. That's a relief. I'll save thousands of dollars.

But I'm always tempted by every 1990s-2000 era top of the line Trek OCLV I see because they really are a sweet ride and excellent transition between old school steel and state of the art crabon fibber.

And if I had to choose just one? Probably the Ironman. But eventually I'd switch from the original Suntour GPX group with downtube shifters to brifters, which are way more convenient and a bit safer on sketchy roads and in heavy crosswinds -- I'm spoiled by keeping both hands on the handlebar in tricky conditions, including being able to shift while standing to climb or sprint.

WOW!!!


Thank you pcb and canklecat !!!

That's more than enough information!!!

Really appreciate your time and effort !!!!


I have several Columbus steel bikes that are AWESOME 🚴‍♂️🚴‍♀️🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️🚲🚲🚲🚲🚲🚲!!!!!
never rode a carbon bike. Not really looking, but if I could get one for under 500.00 I would try it out🙂

Thanks again


Stay/be safe my friends 🙂🚲🚴‍♂️🚴‍♀️🚴‍♀️🚴‍♀️🚴‍♂️🚴‍♂️🚲🚲🚲🙂🚲🚲🚴‍♂️🚴‍♂️🚴‍♂️

Thread moved from C&V to Early Brifter Bikes.

Sounds like a good deal! When you go look at it, look closely for cracks. Check all over including flipping the bike over and looking at where the tubes meet the bottom bracket shell and where the downtube meets the headtube.

I got me this winter 2007 Trek Equinox TT bike, OCLV CF and I am the same age you are :D also my rides are mostly 60-90 min at reasonable clip that keeps my heart rate and some sweating up. I wonder if I will find the TT style bars acceptable.

You talk about maybe changing from 175 cranks to 170, how tall are you? I am 5'9" or more exactly 5'81/2" with inseam 33" and I have always ridden 175 cranks, don't know how it might be with shorter ones but don't feel the need to switch.

The way I see it, when it comes to still buying some nice new bike, it is all about the feeling of sitting on a race bred horse that can perform as one. So what if you can't justify it performance wise, probably 99% of people who buy a Ferrari can't take it anywhere near its limit or performance and most use it in a pedestrian fashion. On bike you probably can do better than that. :speedy:

It's worth a try. I have ridden with aero bars and was significantly faster every ride. But due to old neck injuries I can't get comfortable enough to use aero bars for more than a minute or two at a time, then I have to sit up and stretch my neck.

I have a good early 2000s era TT/tri-bike setup, with bullhorn bars, the correct brake levers, Profile carbon fiber aero bars and Dura Ace 10-speed bar-end shifters. I'm planning to try that on the Diamondback Podium after I install shorter cranks. I'll need shorter cranks to open up the hips, otherwise my thighs will be crowded against my torso even though I don't have much of a gut.

5'11", 33" inseam. 175 cranks used to feel fine a few years ago. But with age and loss of strength and flexibility the longer cranks feel awkward -- what some folks describe as "pedaling squares."

I didn't realize what I was missing until I tried a road bike with 170 cranks. Felt much better, smoother cadence, easier to spin.

Lab tests run by various cycling publications show that *some* cyclists, particularly with longer legs, may get some benefit from longer cranks for sprints and surges. But I'm a mediocre sprinter at best. On the few segments where I do sprint for 30-60 seconds I see no advantages to the bike with longer cranks.

The problem will be finding cost effective shorter cranks. The Diamondback has a really nice Ultegra crankset. I'll probably have to settle on a Shimano 105 crankset in 170 to stay within budget, unless I luck into a good used Ultegra setup.

It's easier, or more cost effective, with square taper cranksets. Just swap the arms and spider, no need to replace the chainrings too.

The bike I got has all original parts (Ultegra shifters, Bontrager cranks) and it would be a shame to mix in different makes. I have already checked if I could get shorter cranks, or maybe more importantly smaller small chainring, but the gears are easier than on my old bike, just not very much easier, but I think it will prove OK, same with crank arms length. It is red and like in the picture here but the bars do not point up as much as on the photo, I suppose that is what you call 'bullhorn bars' when they stick up like in the picture on that website or even if they don't?

Also looked if I could get shorter stem, the bike has 90 mm which makes it the same 'reach' as I have it on my old bike and I think it could be shorter. But again, nothing on eBay except what I already have.

Because of the covid situation, I wait till I fly back to EU with the bike, where I do all my riding. It is probably best to ride it first for some time before deciding if something should be changed. It sure will be fun to ride.

I wouldn't worry about maintaining factory spec unless it was a collectible groupset. I'd rather set up the bike to suit me than to match OEM specs.

As I mentioned about my '93 Trek 5900 OCLV, it's a mish-mash of top shelf components from various manufacturers: some Dura Ace, some Dia Compe, and titanium bits from Chris King, White Industries, American Classic and Ibis. Trek could easily have specced the entire frame with all Dura Ace, but instead they went for the lightest available components regardless of maker or cost. In retrospect an all-Dura Ace bike might have been considered more collectible. But in terms of making a high end road bike for serious mountain stages, they took the smart choice by going for the lightest bits and bobs available.

It's the sort of thing you'd see nowadays only on bikes custom built for short, steep hill climbs, like the British hill climbing competitions in autumn, Everesting, chasing KOMs (actual mountains, not KOMs on flat terrain, downhills and that 100 yard segment between city stoplights), etc.

I don't view it as a collectible but rather as integrated, in the sense that it was made for certain use. I will look around for a shorter stem and it can be different make, as long as it will be black anodized or basically something that won't spoil the esthetics of the bike. I know that in the end, the utility must win but I don't want to sacrifice the esthetics. But I will give it some time riding it and see how it is with the stock setup.

Now the situation in EU is still kind of crazy, unsettled, I am not sure I can even fly there without vaccination or some covid pass...

Before buying this secondhand bike, I was looking to buy new and it is not easy to pick a bike from all those crazy bike frame shapes they make nowadays, never mind that their utility is in all respects at a high standard, I am sure. But the esthetics of how the nice bike should look are simply not there. I don't like the modern trend to down-sloping top tube (good for downhill sitting on it but that is probably banned in pro races now), flare in the stays or fork (when they widen at one point, maybe to allow for better flex or big tires, as seen from behind).

For a while, Trek Emonda bike model looked almost OK but still not quite there for me to fall in love with it. Among other it would force disk brakes on me...
But for now anyway, I opted to spend much less on a used bike.

Compact frames make way more sense. Shorten four tubes, longer and flexier seatpost = lighter bike with better weight distribution and a softer ride.