Bikedued

They probably just got some paint the wrong color and said well what the hell shoot it.

polymorphself 

I like that explanation best.

madpogue 

Or it could be our cameras rendering the colors differently....

polymorphself 

There are definitely two different colors for 83, a google search or looking through Flickr photos shows one as more brown and one more gray. In the light the difference is more stark.

kroozer 

Congrats on a great score! Campy triple crank, lots of swanky parts. It is a bit baffling that they didn't make clearances for larger tires, especially considering the long chainstays. But nobody built a true expedition tourer in the 80's, even though these were advertised as the ultimate touring machines. When I started touring in the 70's nobody built tourers at all, so these 80's models did represent an advance, at least with the brakes and gearing. But manufacturers still seemed to be in a road bike mentality, and these models were not really made for rough roads or heavy loads. I think the mountain bike revolution really spurred manufacturers to build tougher and more versatile tourers, and that greatly opened up the possibilities for traveling on the backroads. My 1992 Trek 520 was basically a mountain bike with 700C wheels, probably heavier but way more capable than the 80's 720 models. Most of the long-distance tourists I see coming through Mexico these days are riding MTB's, and my own two current tourers are also vintange MTB's--a Diamondback Apex and a Trek 950. I have often thought about getting a classic 80's tourer like aTrek 720 or a Miyata 1000 for paved road/light load tours, because a tourer and vintage buff like myself should in theory have one. But I haven't pulled the trigger yet, My Raleigh International has just as much tire clearance (700x35), and with wide-range gears and Koolstop brake pads it fills the role just about as well.

Road Fan

I can't see that from the pictures that are up.

The Golden Boy 

You bring up a really interesting point- kind of a conundrum about 1980s tourers and, in my mind, a big consideration of why vintage tourers are still popular.

These days the true "expedition tourers" are big c***** bikes with oversized tubing, and they weigh a good 30+ pounds and are not exciting to ride. (that blocked word is c*h*o*n*k*y)

I think the purpose of the tourer is to be a comfortable and stable platform to haul a decent sized load over long distances. As the 70s progressed "touring" was as much of a marketing buzzword as anything- and to that end, tourers evolved- longer wheelbases, dedicated rack mounts, dual and triple bottle mounts, cantilever brakes for stopping power and fitting around fenders, wide range gearing, triple cranksets... and then when ATBs showed up- a lot of those components shared the same characteristics and filled the same needs. What happened here is you run into that conundrum about 'what is a good bike?' In the 70s and 80s- a good bike was lightweight and was made of good, prestigious and lightweight tubing. A tourer is supposed to be stable and strong- weight is a secondary factor. But a good bike is supposed to be made with 531 or Columbus or some other high end tubing... So you have bikes like the 720 with the thicker 531C (or 531ST) tubing- but it's still 531. Those "gentleman tourers" with the high end tubing and high end parts- cost a fortune, when a good tourer might have served better with thicker and heavier stays and such...

The touring think kind of crashed around 1985- Trek discontinued their touring bikes for 1986. Schwinn combined the Voyageur SP and Voyageur into one program, other companies similarly scaled back their touring programs- but I think that actually resulted in "better," but less "prestigious" tourers.

My 1990 Miyata 1000LT is a much more stout and stable (and heavier) bike than my 1985 Trek 620, 720 or 1984 Voyageur SP- and it rides better under a heavier load. I've never gotten the "death shimmy" going down hill on any of these bikes- but I'm much more confident on the M1000- it does feel more stable... confidence inspiring. BUT- it does feel less lively, and it's much less fun to ride unloaded as a result. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the other bikes aren't good tourers- just that the M1000 is more confidence inspiring under a heavier load.

The other bikes- they're pleasing to ride- that long wheelbase, 1972 Cadillac Eldorado type ride. Even if I never take a bike out on a trip again- I still love riding these tourers as daily drivers. To me, that's why these bikes are still popular and have such a legacy. They're made for the 'man of leisure' it's still badass for it's time, some of the best components of it's day, it does what it does well and it's a pleasure to ride.

The Golden Boy 

Post 19:

Bikedued

I only had a little time this evening to take that horrible big honking hybrid saddle off, installed my honey B.17, And got the tires seated with a little soapy water. Fabulous ride, and predictable in a very nice way. Toe clips are too short, so those have to be changed.,,,,BD

Bikedued

I had a Miata 1000 and I had to ride it with 32's and aired down to get a decent ride out of it. It was harsh unless fully loaded I imagine. I sold it about the time I got done with the refurb.

Bikedued

Welp, sadly I'm going to have to change the bars on this thing. I had forgotten how much I hate Cinelli Giro De Italia bars. I have a set of Maes bend Grand Cru bars on my 84 520, I guess those will get robbed. They've been on one 10 to 15 mi ride and that's it and have been sitting in the garage on the bike since the front hub broke.,,,,BD

Road Fan

Ok, yes I see the blue cage now. I don't think I've ever seen one before.

The Golden Boy 

It would be pretty easy to confuse them because they are so similar- if you've had or seen one, you'd have a better idea of what you're looking at.

Here's a Titane with an Eco, both of these are from 1984/5 from 1985 model year bikes:

Sachs/Huret Duopar by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

Sachs/Huret Duopar by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

Trakhak

Agree that lighter-weight steel touring bikes are fun to ride in the unloaded state. But touring bikes built with Reynolds and Columbus tubing or the Japanese/Taiwanese equivalents weren't the only choice in the '80's - not in the U.S., anyway. Cannondale's aluminum touring bikes were rated highly in Bicycling! magazine tests (both for comfort and for stability under load - no wallowing while climbing out of the saddle!) and continue to be beloved by many Bike Forums regulars.

You don't see any aluminum expedition touring bikes for sale in U.S. bike stores these days, of course, because U.S. touring riders disapprove of aluminum (for frames or forks, anyway), but European bike stores have no problems selling them. Koga-Miyata's "trekking" bikes, for example, have aluminum frames and are available with aluminum or carbon forks. No steel frames, no steel forks.

Road Fan

Thanks, I have several of the Eco models, but now I realize, none of the Titane.

Road Fan

As well, the portfolios of both Reynolds and Campagnolo had tubes with nominally thicker walls (1.0 mm) versus "normal" (0.6 mm in the case of Columbus) and thin walls (down to 0.4 mm for both Columbus and Reynolds). These were options available to the framebuilders of the day. The stiffness was the effective variable - want a stiffer frame, get a tube with a thicker wall, just basic engineering. Much more to it, though: how much thicker, butt v belly, butting profile for each tube, are head and seat tube angles affected, and what do we do beyond the main triangle? While Trek's catalogs on the 5xx, 6xx, and 7xx identify tubesets used in those series of frames, you didn't get an actual build sheet when you bought a 610 back in the day. So there is no confirmation of "what is my frame made of?" However, the docs on Vintage Trek seem to indicate that most 531 tubesets used by Trek had 10/7/10 DT profiles, rather than 7/.56/7. The 710 may have been an exception. My '84 610, at least in the Vintage Trek site seems also to be DT 10/7/10, and though I have ridden it off and on for years, it's not my favorite ride.

For the 720s, at least 1982, Trek claimed (again, inferring based on the catalog information) the 531 TT was 8/5/8, DT was 10/7/10, and ST was 9/5. For 531SL, TT was 7/5.6/7, DT 7/5.6/7, and ST was 7/5.6. My 1982 720 was claimed to be "Main Tubes Reynolds 531 Double-butted Manganese Molybdenum" and "Forks & Stays Reynolds 531" with Reynolds sstickers claiming fully double-butted tubes, fork, and stays, however they phrased it. At different times Reynolds claimed the butts/bellies profiles of their tubesets, and usually the "standard" one had a 9/5/9 DT rather than a 10/7/10. That's the only difference between the two spec sheets, so it is reasonable to assume that there is some stiffness difference between a 720 in 52 cm c-c versus, a Reynolds based bike build to the Reynolds spec sheet. There may have been more "framebuilder tricks" BITD to make a stiffer bike. So it's not unreasonable for the 720 to ride stiffer than some bikes, but also remember the extra-long chainstays ...

So I'm not sure it makes sense that the Trek 720 was intended to ride with the stability of what is now considered to be a serious touring machine, and can be reasonably compared to one. I haven't built mine yet, it still needs alignment and cold-setting, and I need to decide if it's getting repainted, 650b conversion, canti posts (82 was NOT made with canti posts), yadda yadda yadda. I expect it to be a good, comfortable, get on and go 40 miles bike. It'll be getting an old Campy 8 or 10 triple or compact group, so we'll see how it works out!

polymorphself 

At the risk of derailing the thread:

- If the 80s true expedition tourer was the first, as you say, then doesn't that indeed make it a "true expedition tourer", sans the advancements that come with age with any product? Race cars go faster and handle better now but weren't they still race cars in the 1960s, fully capable of racing?
- Tourers were definitely built in the 1970's, seeming to have become more popular in the second half, though far from what we consider a tourer today, and even far from their mid 80s counterparts.
- How are they not made for carrying heavy loads? The geometry intended for carrying heavy loads and staying stable is there, the strength of the tubes is there, the eyelets for racks is there, the necessary gearing is there.
- Rough roads, perhaps not. Touring was road touring.

Countless people did cross city, cross state, cross country, and intercontinental tours on these things with little fuss, and still do today. And arguably more people did this back then than do now, as touring is less popular.

I think your actual thesis is that riding off-road on tours wasn't in the American psyche yet, so tourers maintained some road sensibilities, as tours were done on the road. This, of course makes them no less capable of road touring. Also, the French would take issue with all of this, as they had a strong tradition of 650b bikes with ~42mm tires for about 50 years with their tourers, campeurs and randonneurs.

If I were to buy another touring bike today it would be one with enough clearance for 42+mm tires. Otherwise I feel the technology for touring has been all that it has needed to be for decades.

Trakhak

Stellar post! Quoting your post and tagging JohnDThompson in the hope that he can shed some light on the issue of which mid-'80's Trek touring frames used which gauges of Reynolds (or Ishiwata) tube sets. (I think there's at least one other regular here and in the Framebuilders forum who worked on the line at Trek back then; maybe unterhausen ?)

The shop I worked in from about 1979 to the late '80's began carrying Treks soon after I started there, back when Trek shipped their bikes to their dealers with the frame and fork in one box and the wheels and other components in another box, but it never occurred to us to ask for tube specs.

AdventureManCO 

With this bike likely being an ‘83, does it have the unilug headtube? My ‘83 600 does and I’m curious how far up the line it went.

Bikedued

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that the head tube and the head tube lugs are the same piece or what?

The Golden Boy 

The head tube being cast with sockets- so the tube doesn't have to be mitered so precisely.

In the 1985 Trek catalog it's mentioned for a "cleaner, more precise braze"

Page 2 on the right side:

https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...troduction.pdf


And I don't think it was in place for the 720 until 1984. The 82 and 83 look like normal to me.

Road Fan

I don't know about those headlug modules or whatevers. I don't see any outward sign of non-genuine lugging on my 610, the 600 I formerly ride, the 620 I had, or the 720, so I can honestly say I'm clueless. I have trouble seeing how those lead to any sort of structural deficiency or misalignment, unless perhaps they invite a lower level of craftsmanship?

Bikedued

Ahhh, I tend to like my Treks older than 85... black 1979 510, taupe1984 520, and now the grey/black 1983 720. The black 510 I have the most miles on. It's freaking magic on wheels!! LOVE it deeply, haha. It got turned into a single speed when I put the Campy group on the 1981ish Raleigh Competition. I need to rebuild the 510 to its former glory. It was old and raggedy paint, but throw a Brooks Pro on it, and it would fly....

Wow, lol!! Just got the Pasela Pro tite or whever they called them now, on the 720 tonight. It is going to be glorious!! I got 1 1/4", and they dwarfed the cheapo Bontragers that were on it. c*h*o*n*k*y, haha. Still looks like there's room for fenders, so I may go ahead and try it.

Bikedued

So far. Haven't had time to do anything except get the ugly tires off, and swap the saddle. Still in mockup stage. Bars have to go, as they're racing style Giro De Italia, and I've never liked them, ever. I have some Velo Orange Grand Cru maes bend bars on another bike. Maybe this weekend I can get them swapped out. The brake hoods are starting to fall apart, sigh... big crack in the inboard right lever. Are The replacements still only available in Europe mainly?

The Golden Boy 

I don't think they're "bad" or anything- I think they're just not "traditional" which irritates some people.