OldsCOOL

My lovely (sold) '85 460.....

repechage

I do Hold that against them.

Way back, the start up Trek came by hoping to land the shop I worked for as a dealer. The bikes looked reasonable, but the aesthetics were lacking. Centurion and others just looked better. The metallic paints were dreary, the graphics timid. The spec looked good though.
Little did I know that the shop could not afford to place a stocking order, the other brands all had warehouses close enough that bikes could be will called, faster and saving on shipping.

tmh657

As far as splainin, hmmm... I like them because they are fun. I lost count how many that have gone through my garage. I loved the '84/85 green 660 that was 1 size too small. 9 speed bar end shifters.





I have settled on a '81 716 that was set up like the photo but has been robbed of it's parts and will be built up again soon. Maybe as a grocery getter/single speed.



I have only seen 1 of these. I sold it to a hipster for his girlfriend.




On the group ride this morning a guy showed up with his new Project One. Di2, custom paint, his name on it. I had to take a picture of it. He let me ride it. Electronic shifting is pretty sweet. That little motor noise when you go to the big ring was something I had never heard on a bike before. He wasn't that fast. I was the only one with a steel bike. We are all 50 something so nobody cares or even notices for that matter.

Bikerider007

I have wondered the same! About Specialized as well. Also not trolling, it's just from the outside looking in; they just seem so big box.

repechage

The Big S started out on a shoe string importing stuff from Europe. Started to hit it bigger when they gambled on tires with their brand name on them. Smart, cunning and later bullying.
And that bike called a Stumpjumper should not be forgotten, TA cranks and Mafac brakes at the beginning!

NukeouT

They made a lot of bikes and a lot of good quality bikes on their rise to one of the top 4 bike manufacturers. This means that they ended up flooding the North American used bike market with a lot of high-mid quality bicycles that can be bought at reasonable prices.

Thought goes like this, if youre looking at an 80's or early 90's Trek-branded bike it will likely ride as good or better than many other bikes from the same time period. It may also ride as good or better than most modern steel bikes at 1/4 the cost, depending on the kind of riding you have in mind.

Are there low quality old Treks? Sure. Are there broken Treks that will take more time and money to repair than they're worth? Sure. But if you were to reach into a pile and pull one out theres also a good chance that it will last you a long time and ride great for many years, kind of like the cast iron you pass on to your grand kids.

rekmeyata

I think a lot if not all bike manufactures did that from time to time, my 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe called for 36 spoke wheel front and 40 for the rear but mine came with 40 on the front as well. The only thing I can think of was at the time of production they ran out of 36 hole rims so they grabbed a 40, and like your situation my bike was the last year of production for the Luxe version.

The Golden Boy 

the "back in the day" nomenclature system made total sense up until 1986.

If X is the variable number:

X00 is the tubing.
0X0 is the type of frame (geometry type)
00X is the component level.

Go to the 1978.5 Trek catalog: https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/Trek2.pdf

The left column is the model number- They're grouped by component level so the components are all in a line.

5xx is Ishiwata 022
7xx is Reynolds 531
9xx is Columbus SL/SP

x1x is a sport touring frame
x3x is a racing geometry

For components, it looks like:

xx2 is Suntour VXGT and VX components with Weinmann brakes
xx4 is Suntour VXGT and VX components with DiaCompe brakes
xx6 is Shimano 600 Arabesque
xx7 is Campagnolo GS
xx8 is Campagnolo NR

Around 1982 they tweaked the model (geometry) line a bit.
Very generally:
x0x, x1x was sport touring
x2x dedicated touring
x3x racing

There were other specialized racing frames like the 170 and the 959... but those were VERY specialized bikes that were above naming convention standards.


Generally speaking until 1986:

200, 300 and 400 series frames are going to be either hi-ten, hi-ten mixed with CrMo or manganese alloy.

500 series frames are going to be CrMo- either Ishiwata 022 or Reynolds 501

600 series frames are going to be 531 main tubes and the stays and fork are CrMo or Mangalloy.

700 series frames are going to be 531 frame, fork and stays.

900 series frames are going to be Columbus frame, fork and stays.

Around 1984 they introduced 800 series bikes as ATB/MTBs


You'll see 600 series bikes that say the "frame fork and stays" are made of 531CS. 531CS means 531 main triangle and CrMo fork and stays: "REYNOLDS 531 CLUB SPORT transfer, a cycle bearing this transfer has top seat and down tube BUTTED in REYNOLDS 531 and head tube, BUTTED steerer. TAPER GAUGE forks, seatstays and chainstays manufactured from specially cold worked chrome Molybdenum tubing. Designed for fast sports and touring."


In 1986 they started using 531 in 400 and 500 series bikes, and then in the early 90s they started reusing numbers that had been assigned to high level road bikes and assigning them to hybrid and MTBs. I don't know a whole lot about the nomenclature system then, but I assume the higher the number the nicer the bike...

The Golden Boy 

Don't think about now- think about *then*

Specialized made their name contracting out component manufacturing. Their first bikes were REALLY good. The Stumpjumper and the Allez were SERIOUSLY badass bikes for their day. Specialized followed them with quality all the way- when they got big enough to branch out into the lower price point market- that's when they became "the borg."

jimmuller 

Nice. Thank you.

The Golden Boy 

Jim- what are the other American bicycle manufacturers that produced a large volume of high quality bikes across the lower-mid to high and ultra high level spectrum?

I know you've got a Peugeot... If someone says "I have a Peugeot" it could be anywhere from a gas pipe tank to a very nice bike. If someone says "I have an old Trek" you know it's going to be at the very least a mid-level or better bike.

Me, personally- I live about 50 miles east of Waterloo WI- the headquarters and original Trek factory- it's sort of "local" to me.

Again, me, personally- I like the aesthetic of the old bikes, the decal schemes, the model naming convention totally makes sense to me...

It seems to be very hard for some people to recall the time before Trek became "the Borg" or associate Trek with Armstrong and that somehow taints everything...

jimmuller 

I know of none. But then, Trek came along when my only involvement with cycling was riding, not paying attention to builders or even component makers except for when I needed something (like when I upgraded the derailleurs on my UO-8 to Suntour). I couldn't afford much then anyway. An entire generation of bike culture passed me by. That was intentional because it struck me that, to judge by the pics I saw in magazines and the faces I saw on other riders, few people in cycling actually enjoyed what they were doing. When I finally returned to paying attention I found that Shimano had invented a new language whose words were foreign to me, like Ultegra or Tiagra or Exage, and sometimes using 4-digit number to replace words. My later knowledge of Trek was from seeing a friend riding a TREK!TREK!TREK!TREK!TREK! At least I think that's what it said. I may have left out a few TREK!'s because I couldn't count that high. I learned of Specialized when they started selling 1 1/8" and then 1" high-pressure tires as compared to the 70psi Michelins or Hutchinsons I was familiar with. Much later (and even now) I noticed SPECIALIZED!SPECIALIZED!SPECIALIZED!SPECIALIZED!SPECIALIZED!SPECIALIZED! bikes.

I prefer the elegance of the classic European designs, and of course similar design regardless of country. I never saw an elegant Trek until I met some BF members.

seedsbelize 

Thanks, GB

The Golden Boy 

Jim- I'm not arguing with you- we have a different view of it. I guess I see that early history of Trek as being much more 'slightly hippie, riding enthusiast' than 'suffer fest.'

I could be totally wrong, but anecdotally- I seem to see more old Trek sport touring/touring bikes than the racing bikes. That leads me to believe THAT'S where Trek's core was- the racing thing was there, but it flowered later.

While there's scores of European manufacturers- as well as the French constructeurs like Herse and Singer- When I think "European bike," I think Italian race bike.

You were there- I wasn't, I was a kid back then and bicycling is a pretty new thing to me within the past 10 years.

Pemetic2006

Very succinct, thanks.

SJX426 

GB has done a great job of summarizing what I have learned over the years of investigation and reading.

I think it is worth mentioning that there are exceptions to the list, which is a great guideline! Of course you would not expect to find a 318! So there is an expected filtering of the configuration of numbers based on the first one.

I happen to have a 1984 760 which was configured with Suntour Superbe. Don't' know what the last number should be but that is what the catalogue specs. Or 0 is Suntour Superbe as the base for the 760 series

mstateglfr 

Thanks, that helps. It also helps to know that I havent been nuts for not understanding a lot of the numbering, it ends up thats due to mixing pre'86 and post'86 bikes model #s together. Knowing the whole system went out the door in the late 80s and on makes my confusion make more sense now, at least to me.

rekmeyata

My 84 Trek 660 was just a frame and fork which I had configured to the Suntour Superbe group just like the 760 had, there were slight changes I did, I went with the Superbe Tech rear derailleur because it shifted a bit faster but it could also shift under power, but everything else was Superbe Pro, I got the whole groupset which included Superbe seatpost, pedals, and headset but I kept the Stronglight headset that came with the frame and fork, and I had a lighter weight 3TTT seatpost I used instead and just saved the other stuff. I can't recall the wheels maybe Mavic Mod E's, but they weren't the ones that came with the 760, plus I had gone to clinchers by that time.

jimmuller 

He! It's easy to have a different view from mine when I have, or at least until now had, no view at all. Which is why I asked.

scozim 

Nice color scheme

OldsCOOL

What about COLNAGO!COLNAGO!COLNAGO?? You cant look hardly anywhere on the bike and not see a little billboarding going on.

obrentharris 

Jim, I think I know what you are talking about. This is one of those great divides in perception that is hard to bridge.

Those of us who race and ride competitively like to "suffer." Thus the prolonged expressions of fatigue and pain on our faces. Witness the fact that thousands of us plop down $30 to $50 every weekend during the cyclocross season so that we can ride through mud and cold for half an hour to an hour at the very limit of our abilities, beating ourselves into exhaustion. Strangely enough it's not just the winners of these races that participate in this exhausting ritual: Those of us who habitually finish in the middle or back of the pack pay the same fee week after week as the winners.

As strange as it must seem to those who do not share our love of extreme exertion we are actually having a fine time!

I am finally, in my sixties, learning the joys of a leisurely ride with stops for photographs and coffee, but it's a very different pleasure.

Brent

dailycommute

Steel treks have always been some of the nicer and easiest to flip projects for the average rider/hobbyist. Having said that the prices seem to have dropped, I see examples of very good 531 treks going for 200 and less now though 1990s treks seems to be picking up. I personally like the late 80s road bike era and early 90s mtb era treks best--my two keepers over the years are 1988 560 and 1993 920 which are both actively enjoyed.

crank_addict

My first recollection of Trek was around 1978-79. I'd consider this near the end of the bike boom era. I was readying for some long distance touring and visited my camp stockist. It was a relatively new store but a specialist in mountaineering, ultra lightweight camp gear.... the good stuff. But I don't believe the owner was much into cycling or had long time experience with lightweights. I hadn't seen much of any other brand bikes at his store other than Trek and Fuji. Nor did he have anything used, fine Italian or French bikes.

Kind of fuzzy though thinking back why I picked a Fuji S12S-ltd. It was a lot of money for me and probably the Fuji offered more for the buck. It had things like sealed bearing hubs, good Suntour stuff, a more handsome look with chrome, two tone, etc.. There was no doubt both company's offered a decent quality product, each had good warranty but the Fuji company had history. I dressed it with racks and Cannondale panniers (this before they made bicycles).

But, maybe it was a year later one of my brothers purchased a Trek 400 series. He wasn't into touring but did hammer some miles out on it. To me it felt less lively, kind of doggy. Could have been the wheels / tires (read on). Maybe I was wrongly biased by trying to justify my Japanese bike or fine Colnago. Because at the time, US products were rather junkie and the Japanese stepped up their quality big time.

Fast forward some years, my brother left the State and I rediscovered his old Trek in the family barn. It was put away wet and looked bad. I had completely stripped and repainted, upgraded components, built a nice lightweight wheelset with Superbe hubs, Galli tubular's vs. the Truk 27" clincher set. Turned out pretty nice and had respectable ride. When he came to visit and reclaim his '65 Caddy, I had his fresh built Trek in the trunk. He recently told me had left it behind at his last home. Now gone.

Anyways by the late 1980's, road cycling seemed to be on the way out, the cage driver road mentality, lax laws or protection for cyclist, no significant effort by states for bike lanes or routes. Road infrastructure or maintenance just didn't seem bike friendly either. Regardless of what cyclist think today, riding the roads back then was rather crap. Bike touring in the US was lagging. It was common that dealers had three and four year old NEW road bikes in stock.

Enter the mountain bike boom. At the time it seemed so much safer being off the roadways and think this was a savior for bike manufactures. I went back to that same camp stockist and purchased a new 8000 ally framed with bonded joints, DX equipped, Matrix rims and splatter paint- lol. Believe it was the first of its kind for a mass produced bike. Mid-upper end model. A good bike, never had an issue. The following year, suspension forks came onto the scene. I modded mine with a Showa made air / hyd. sold by Trek. One of my brothers still has that bike.

Onto today. Providing things stabilize on the homefront, I've the itch and plans are for some long haul touring again. Both with group and some solo including occasional camping. I acquired an '87 520 / Cirrus frame and fork only. No rush in the build but keeping it fairly retro, some parts older and some later than the frame.

The more I look at the design of it, I'm amazed at what Trek offered back then for the money. Even more so today if seeking an early model.

Terrific quality and the thought they put into it. I'm not fully up on their investment cast lugs but I dig the different look and it looks appropriate utilitarian. Fastback cluster, braze-ons throughout. The cast dropout is pretty cool. Small details like the chain holder but mostly it has room to use a wider range cog without having to modify spread the rear. Internal guide on the chainstay, also has pre-drilled and grommet for lighting wire. Fork has mid-mount, threaded through bosses and canti studs.

Curious if Trek knew they had to step up the game to remain competitive in the touring line because here they made just enough marketing buzz with a R-531 decal placed low on the seat tube near the bottom bracket. Its a mid level model. Only the main tubes are Brit 531-c, the stays I believe are USA True-Temper and the fork is Japan / Tange. My project has some chips but after some minor touch-up and wax, the DuPont Imron looks very presentable. No loud graphics. Perfect for my not too picky nature

The Golden Boy 

That is not what was said.

I said, over and over (and over) again that a stock 600 series bike would not have come with a 531 fork.

When I suggested that the 531 fork in question did not come as a part of your 660 frame from the factory- the poster said: "Your nuts!!!!! It has Trek 660 all over the bike. Never mind, you know more about my bike then I do, now I'm done playing, can you see that?"

For whatever it's worth- The information that's presented in these discussions get referenced as information by people sometime in the future. I, in fact, got the above quote off a mirror site. Thus proving that this stupidity will live on the internet forever.

When people post non-factual things, other people in the future take that non-factual information and regard it as fact.

The reason I'm so stubborn about this is because it's clearly, demonstrably factually untrue information being posted in a very authoritative manner, and I'm sure there have been people that have used those non-factual posts as reference to a somewhat convoluted subject. However, non-factual information about this subject continually gets repeated by this poster saying that Reynolds is "confused" and that Trek is "lying" about the 531CS tubeset despite repeatedly dispelled by Reynolds material, Reynolds employees, as well as other verifiable resources. It goes beyond misinformed- it's willful ignorance.

I'm now also exceptionally stubborn about this because the poster is lying about what I said.