I think your experience with Trek, while presented as negative, points out one of the benefits that bikes like the 770 had in their day. If your wife had bought a Colnago, or Merckx, or whatever, in 1985 and ridden it for four years, the paint could quite likely have begun to fail. Four years is a long time in the life of a race bike, and no European production frame builder would have given you two cents for a paint problem, or a tube failure for that matter. Trek repainted her bike (although poorly) and when that wasn't satisfactory they gave her the market value of the stock one color / no clearcoat paintjob. Sounds like excellent customer service to me. My point is that you didn't necessarily get the finest product, but they did back it up. Comaprable Euro frames at the time cost more and were a little flashier, but the finishes weren't any more durable and no warranty was extended. I think the only frames that could or can be reasonably expected to be free of finish failures are botique bike like Sachs and Baylis. You get what you pay for, I guess.
In todays world of throw-away aluminum race bikes, a good warranty from Trek, Cannondale or Bianchi is worth even more. A superlight DeRosa or Colnago is super cool, but I'd settle for a slightly less cool (and less expensive) Bianchi knowing that if I broke three frames in two years, each would be replaced.
Tom Dalton
> I tend to agree with David here, although Mark's
> points about paint and
> consistency are well founded and seem to track with
> David's impressions of
> where Trek was in the late '80s. The '85 770 that
> I have was bought in
> Milwaukee, WI by my wife when she worked at a shop
> called Rainbow Jersey.
> When the paint began to bubble around the BB shell
> in about '89, we sent it
> (through the shop) back to Trek for a repaint. When
> it came back, the paint
> was worst than the original. So thin as to be
> transparent in some places
> and thick with runs in others. Trek eventually gave
> us money ($150 maybe)
> toward having it painted on our own. I gave the
> frame to a friend who was
> painting racing motorcycles at the time. His
> instructions were that he
> could do whatever he wanted as long as he
> accentuated the lugs, which I
> thought were nice but lost under the heavy original
> paint. What I got back
> can be seen here:
>
>
http://albums.photopoint.com/
>
> What was interesting though, was seeing the frame
> stripped. The workmanship
> was actually quite good. Nice clean welds and
> finishing. Nothing too
> fancy, but good solid work. Remember, we're talking
> about a production-run
> frame, not a boutique builder. There were some
> pretty rough production
> frames being pumped out during this era.
>
> Just adding fuel to the fire.
>
> Wayne Bingham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Feldman [mailto:feldmanbike@home.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: WBINGHAM@imf.org; Mark A. Perkins
> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]Trek serial numbers
>
>
> My experience with Trek started ca. 1978; there was
> a very large improvement
> in quality from that time to around 1982. The prime
> years were, in my book,
> from 1982 to 1987 when they started abandoning
> steel. The first years of
> aluminum Treks were terrible--steerers that bulged
> with a stem tightened in
> them, and that had a big sleeve on the outside so
> you couldn't get a crown
> race seat mill down them to make the headset work
> right, rear dropouts so
> soft you could spread them on bread--the aluminum
> bikes didn't have the bugs
> fully worked out until about 1992! Steel from '82
> to '87, I'll call those
> the underrated classics.
> David Feldman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark A. Perkins" <bicyclemark@juno.com>
> To: <WBINGHAM@imf.org>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Trek serial numbers
>
>
> > I remember seeing a few of the first Trek road
> bikes come into the shop
> > around 1980 I think. They left me with a bad
> impression, which hasn't
> > gone away much since then. They had paint that
> was peeling off, and you
> > could see that there was no primer underneath.
> One (or was it two?) in
> > particular had a bad crack through the seat lug,
> and their owners were
> > having trouble getting Trek to fix it. There was
> nothing about these
> > bikes for me to be impressed with. In fact, I
> think I would rather have
> > a Viscount with the aluminum fork, even today. My
> impression back then
> > was that Trek was following a long standing BMA-6
> tradition of cutting
> > back on quality in favor of lower prices. Sure
> they were lugged frames,
> > and made from quality materials, and they had
> decent components, but
> > quality materials, by themselves, don't make
> quality bikes. It takes
> > skilled workers, and from what I saw, Trek didn't
> have any of those. If
> > my words seem too harsh, I'm sorry, but that's
> what I saw. I will say
> > that Trek seems to have improved over the years,
> but I still don't want
> > one yet.
> >
> > "Bicycle Mark" Perkins
> > Visalia, CA
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:56:15 -0500 "Bingham,
> Wayne" <WBINGHAM@imf.org>
> > writes:
> > > Jeff -
> > >
> > > Please keep us (I know there are several Trek
> fans lurking here besides
> > me)
> > > informed on any serial number, dating or model
> information you're able
> > to
> > > come up with. I tried, unsuccessfully, to get
> anything out of Trek.
> > They
> > > only seemed interested in being recognized for
> their industry "firsts"
> > that
> > > had everything to do with aluminum and carbon
> frame construction and
> > nothing
> > > to do with their lugged steel frame origins. As
> the owner of an '81,
> > two
> > > '84s and an '85, I'd really like to gather as
> much information as I can
> > on
> > > the early frames. What is the "Trek historical
> book" anyway, and if
> > it's
> > > historical, why does it only go back to the
> early '90s when Trek was
> > > building frames for 15 years prior to that?
> Anybody know what year was
> > the
> > > first for Trek? '76/'77?
> > >
> > > Wayne Bingham
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Archer [mailto:firstflight@abts.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:36 PM
> > > To: Classic Rendezvous
> > > Subject: Re: [CR]Trek serial numbers
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been talking to the guy who put together
> the Trek historical
> > book.
> > > The book only goes back to the early 1990's but
> has complete info down
> > to
> > > spoke lengths, bb lengths..... He is supposed
> to be trying to round up
> > some
> > > catalog copies for me. I have emailed him and
> asked him about the
> > serial
> > > number system. If I hear anything positive from
> him, I will let you
> > know.
> > > Jeff Archer
> > > First Flight Bicycles
> > > 216 S. Center St.
> > > Statesville, NC 28677
> > > 704.878.9683
> > > firstflight@abts.net
> > > http://www.firstflightbikes.com
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "KCTOMMY" <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>
> > > To: "Classic Rendezvous"
> <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:41 PM
> > > Subject: [CR]Trek serial numbers
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This may have been asked before, but does
> anyone know how to date
> > Treks
> > > >from their serial numbers? Is it possible to
> deduce any further info
> > such as
> > > >model or style from the numbers? Anyone have a
> contact at Trek that
> > could
> > > >elucidate the Trek system?
> > > >
> > > > Tom Adams, waiting for snow in Kansas City
> > > >
> > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/