jamesj

So this year I wanted to try doing a brevet.

I was thinking about buying a another TREK and adding different parts to it, spreading the frame for different hubs, adding fenders, basically just customizing it. I might have an opportunity to buy either a 1982 412 or a 1989 400, is there a major difference in geometry? I know as the years went on the geo changed? I also know the 400 used true temper and the 412 used ishiwata 022. I don't mind the ishiwats as my other trek is a 1980 412 and is basically the 82 version but with added top tube braze ons, and a pair of water bottle mounts. Also the 400 is in better shape than the 412.

What do you all think?

mountaindave 

I just went through this process trying to find a bike to stash at the in-laws and came up with an 81 or 82 410 because they are mid trail. An ‘89 400 will be high trail. If you are Rando-riding and want a bar bag, the mid trail bike may be a better choice as they aren’t as affected by the front load as a high trail bike would be. It’s not a primo frame as the fork and stays are simple HiTen, but with an Ishiwata main triangle it’s going to be a good workingman's ride.

In fact I spent the afternoon tearing down the bike and started building it back up in the desired build: a rando-style bike.

Plus, I just love the earlier Treks more.

SurferRosa

I've had one of each, and it's a no brainer to go with the early '80s Treks. I've failed to see what's special with the later '80s 400s.

fliplap

The head and seat tube angles of the late 89 400 were steeper, and the chain stays shorter, than those of the 82 412 so you could call the 89 a more aggressive geometry. You might not want that for long brevets, though plenty of people rando on race bikes. Another factor is that the 82 was sold with 27” wheels, while the 89 would’ve worn a more modern 700c set. Converting to 700c might be something to budget for, the 82’s stock brakes will reach a 700c wheel.

I used an 82 412 for one rando season. It was fine, but the top tube was simply too long for me. Here’s mine 700c converted.




But if you’re buying wheels, 650b is an option. A big plus to the 1982 412 was that it 650b converted very well with 75mm reach center pulls. It fits 650x42b tires with lots of room left for fenders. Here it is 650b’d, minus fenders.

mountaindave 

Forgot to mention that was a prime consideration for choosing my 412. I get old high quality 700c wheels whenever I come across them at the co-op just for this purpose. 700x38 is a sweet ride for light gravel and Paselas are just under $28/ea.

Oh, now that’s temping...

jamesj

mountaindave Thanx for the response! This is exactly the info I was looking for, I was going to try to compare the geo charts but wanted to ask the opinion of the group.

SurferRosa I do love my 1980's TREK! My TREK 412 is awesome even without the water bottle and cable brazeons.

fliplap I was hoping you would chime in, I was looking at your bike when doing research. Are you here in the valley? I am leaning more toward the 82 at this point. I feel like I can do more with it in the long run.

Chr0m0ly 

Just for an alternate take on the '89, it's an all Chromo frame where the '82 has hi ten fork and stays. The '89 has 73.5 ST angle and 73 HT angle, not crazy steep, and a midish trail of 5.6cm.

And it sounds like you already own a 1980 400 series trek, maybe the newer one would offer more variety?

jamesj

When I was comparing the charts I noticed the same thing about the geo. I believe that the 1982 is the same as my 1980 in regards to steel used. I was wondering if the 89 would offer something different than what I have.

fliplap

I am, though I no longer have the 412, it moved on earlier this year.

mountaindave 

Clearly the answer is n+2, then later it can be n-1 which results in the net of n+1 - still an acceptable outcome.

Chr0m0ly 

*edited to show the correct geometry charts for the 400*




Sorry about creating confusion! Here is the correct chart. The ‘89 significantly racier than the ‘80 or ‘82 models.

fliplap

You’re looking at the 420, OP is looking at a 400, different bike.

mountaindave 

The difference between the ‘89 400 and 420 is negligible. The difference between the ‘82 and ‘89 is more significant - mostly in the fork offset difference of 10mm. That changes the trail number from mid-high on the ‘89 to solid mid trail on the ‘82. Those two bikes will handle differently.

nlerner

This thread gives me an excuse to post the receipt from my purchase of a Trek 412 in Dec 1982. That was my first ever brand new complete bike and also the last as long as you don’t count framesets.

fliplap

I suppose it depends on the purpose. Those 2cm shorter chain stays might not be negligible for the OP's brevet usage. Longer chain stays usually mean room for bigger, more comfortable, tires. It would be a bummer to buy the 400 thinking it had the same 43cm chain stays as the 89 420 and the 82 412.

The 420 came with 28mm tires and what appears to be lots of room to go bigger. At least 32mm. Could probably get fenders in there too.



Here's the 400 on the stock 25mm tires. Hard to say it would clear anything bigger than that. The tire is snugged right up against the front derailleur and seat tube. The OP wanted fenders, the 400 doesn't look like it would fit them, and doesn't have eyelets anyway.




Also, depending on what the OP was planning to change, components will make a difference. The 400 came with a double with traditional (aka huge) chain rings, while the 420 came with a half step plus granny triple. The 400 runs a short cage derailleur, while the 420 and 412 both feature long cages, though the 412 came with a double.

@jamesj: The 400 will offer something very different than your 1980 412. If you're looking for an entry level skinny tired road racer, the 400 is that. If you're looking for another wire tired and fender capable sport tourer, the 82 412 is your better bet.

mountaindave 

@flipflap; - I think I probably just assumed the ‘89 would have tighter clearances as that was de rigueur for the day. But good to articulate that and include the important consideration of tire/fender clearance with regard for the chain stay lengths.

I believe we are arguing the same point. 1982 412 for the win!

jamesj

In the sellers images I had noticed that it had fenders mounts in front and rear also rack mounts, I thought it was a Elance at first.

SurferRosa

Even though the early ones were made with hi-ten forks and stays, they didn't feel heavy/dead to me like some other manufacturers that did the same. I'm thinking of the lower mid-level Japanese (Fuji, etc.) and Motobécanes.

jamesj

Looking back at the catalogs just now I think its a 1988 Trek 400T.
It has the same color scheme and mounts.

mountaindave 

Which would make the chain stays 43cm instead of 41. However, still a high trail bike.

Chr0m0ly 

Well that decides it, He just needs both.

N+2 = For the Win.