View Single Post
Old 06-09-21, 04:06 PM
  #32  
RiddleOfSteel
Master Parts Rearranger
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,403

Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present

Mentioned: 221 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1556 Post(s)
Liked 2,024 Times in 989 Posts
Originally Posted by retroshifter
I have this bike in 22.5” and am pretty happy with it, but do have one complaint. I bought the frame on eBay because it was designed for “standard” or “normal” reach brakes so I thought I could put fatter tires on it. Well as this thread shows, the fork length is kind of between a standard and a short reach brake. (Because this is the C&V forum I can call these standard/normal reach versus short reach right?) The rear one is okay. I have the standard reach ulterga brakes and I had to file the underside of the calipers to clear the 32mm Clement tires I have on the front and it still rubs occasionally when I stand on the pedals. Maybe Trek outsourced the forks and it was too late correct by the time they were received. Even with this defect, I wouldn’t say this bike sucks.
A number of lower-end 9/10-speed era Campagnolo brake calipers (among other eras) are what I'd call Short Reach Plus, where instead of the normal 39-49mm range that defines short reach, it's 39-52/53mm. That has helped me out a few times. Otherwise, a standard reach (47-57mm) caliper is the ticket. Trek, like all manufacturers at some point, had weird dimensions or features on their frames/bikes. So it goes. Ebay sellers often are rubbish for accurate information (just like CL and Offerup), but Trek was weird with their 700/600/500/400 bikes. Different companies' 32mm tires measure differently, on different 700C rims, so that's a bit of a crapshoot when you're exploring the limits of, say, tire clearance.

As to the "this sucks" title, it's a misnomer. He parked his bike in front of a wall that had graffiti with the phrase "this sucks" on it. The 700 is one of his favorite bikes, but in my opinion, his title of the thread was/is completely misleading. For those that paid attention for a little bit longer and caught the graffiti, it makes sense in a "This is a painting in an art gallery" sort of way (as far as titling things goes). Otherwise to 99.9% of everyone else [edits editorializing], it makes no sense. He isn't bothered by the accidental clickbait title, though it seems I am enough to re-state things, even though it's already been sorted out earlier in the thread (if one bothers to read it all).
RiddleOfSteel is offline