Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

1986 Trek 700 Tri Series: "This Sucks"

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

1986 Trek 700 Tri Series: "This Sucks"

Old 02-28-21, 08:59 AM
  #26  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 15,964

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1480 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times in 302 Posts
Originally Posted by Clang View Post
False content warning: where's the "this sucks" part?

Cool bike and I hope you kept that white Concor around!
It’s in the thread title. It is making me look through the whole thread. All I can see is he likes the bike, which he thinks is “whippy,” maybe whippy means it planes? I have a 1984 Trek 610 in smaller size (21”) and I have not felt the frame to be whippy. Perhaps it planes, a least with supple tires like Strada Bianca.

The main tube specs are the same.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 02-28-21, 09:10 AM
  #27  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 15,964

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1480 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times in 302 Posts
Originally Posted by Clang View Post
False content warning: where's the "this sucks" part?

Cool bike and I hope you kept that white Concor around!
It’s in the thread title. It is making me look through the whole thread. All I can see is he likes the bike, which he thinks is “whippy,” maybe whippy means it planes? I have a 1984 Trek 610 in smaller size (21”) and I have not felt the frame to be whippy. Perhaps it planes, a least with supple tires like Strada Bianca. The St and TT are standard 531 double butted profiles. The DT is identified as 10/7/10, which is the same DT as in the 531 db Super Tourist tube set.

The main tube specs are the same for the 610s, 620s, and 720s, and nearly all of the Reynolds bikes through their early and classic eras. Not my definition of flexy tubes.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 03-01-21, 09:01 PM
  #28  
The Golden Boy 
Extraordinary Magnitude
 
The Golden Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 12,980

Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked 961 Times in 568 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
That bike has slack angles? I would just assumed it's 73 seat and head angles based on the look and how it's marketed.

Really nice looking frame colors.
My 86 Trek 400 Elance (which shares the same geometry) is my most aggressive bike- more aggressively angled than my 78 730 "go fast" bike.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*

Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!

"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
The Golden Boy is offline  
Old 03-01-21, 10:59 PM
  #29  
RiddleOfSteel
Master Parts Rearranger
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,111

Bikes: 1989 Davidson Impulse - 1985 Trek 620 - 1982 Trek 728 - 2014 Trek FX 7.3 - 1989 Trek 420 - 2008 Trek 1.5 - 1986 Univega Viva Sport

Mentioned: 207 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1341 Post(s)
Liked 1,272 Times in 675 Posts
One can have a "whippy" bike that is constantly out of sync with its rider and a rubber noodle of a thing (done that). A "stiff" bike can plane or be in sync with its rider. It can also be rubbish (done that, too!). 1983 Specialized Expedition (3500g frame/fork/headset, 63.5cm CTT size) "planed" with me at speeds as low as 7 mph, and it was not some soggy thing. Incredibly rapid and free-flowing at speeds above that. Epic frame/bike (this is with decent/nice 700C wheels and tires--no boat anchor components need apply). 1981 Trek 716 (65.5cm size) was whippy, and amenable to out-of-saddle efforts. Planing wasn't really a thing, but we got along well.

I think, for someone to come to a conclusion that a bike really planes, that rider must decently explore the performance envelope of said frame/bike. Not some foolish kamikaze downhill effort, but certainly out-of-saddle efforts in conjunction with the rider's size/weight and strength (aka ability to ascertain). I am of the mindset that a bike can plane while in the saddle, as well as feel at least a little whippy, but unless the frame is given enterprising wheels and tires, in combination with harder (out of saddle) effort, full context is never realized, and thus a complete explanation is curtailed.
@ctak 's 700 series is likely a lot like my 716, but focused a little more due to 24" (61cm-ish) size and tidier chain stays. Focused flow, especially with aero wheels and supple tires (to say nothing of his general fitness, endurance, and ability to probe the capabilities of said frame/bike).
RiddleOfSteel is offline  
Likes For RiddleOfSteel:
Old 06-09-21, 01:51 PM
  #30  
ctak
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
ctak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 223 Times in 123 Posts
Update time: I currently have 2,043 miles on the Trek 700, which has established itself as my go-to choice for most rides. Several adjustments have recently been made to better accommodate Seattle hills and bad pavement. Still waiting on the arrival of white brake cable housing. Total weight: 21.1-lbs.
  • Dura Ace 7900 downtube shifters
  • Ultegra 6600 long cage RD
  • Deore XT m771 11-32t cassette
  • Spécialités TA Alize 38t chainring
  • 32mm GP5000s
  • Berthoud Aravis "open" saddle






ctak is offline  
Likes For ctak:
Old 06-09-21, 02:22 PM
  #31  
retroshifter
too many bikes
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 4 Posts
I do have one complaint about this bike

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.
retroshifter is offline  
Old 06-09-21, 04:06 PM
  #32  
RiddleOfSteel
Master Parts Rearranger
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,111

Bikes: 1989 Davidson Impulse - 1985 Trek 620 - 1982 Trek 728 - 2014 Trek FX 7.3 - 1989 Trek 420 - 2008 Trek 1.5 - 1986 Univega Viva Sport

Mentioned: 207 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1341 Post(s)
Liked 1,272 Times in 675 Posts
Originally Posted by retroshifter View Post
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  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.