Re: [CR]Trek Questions

> Thanks for the info. Went home for lunch to check the brake reach. It
> turns out to be an odd duck. The front reach is 52 mm center of brake hole
> to center of rim on a 700c wheel. Isn't that almost directly between short
> reach and standard reach brakes? (Perusing catalogs show that current short
> reach brakes only drop to 49mm, but didn't the old Campy NR calipers go a
> bit deeper?) Making more difficulties, the fork takes nutted brakes,
> meaning I've got to find a nutted standard reach front that may or may not
> fit. What a fun hobby!
>
> One possible theory is that the bike was made for 27 inch wheels AND short
> reach brakes. There certainly is lots of clearance over a 28 mm tire on a
> 700c wheel. The close clearances would indicate a racing style design in
> harmony with the short chainstays, but why make a racing bike with 27 inch
> wheels? Back then, 700c tubulars ruled the racing world. As soon as I find
> a 5 speed rear, I'll check the rear reach.
>
> Tom Adams, conflicted in Kansas City
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Diane Feldman <feldmanbike@home.com>
> To: KCTOMMY <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>; <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Trek Questions
>
>
> > That sounds like the earliest Trek 700 series, about 1976 or 1977.
> > It will need very long reach brakes to work with 700c wheels, either 730
> > reach sidepulls or Mafac Racers. They were designed for and sold with 27"
> > wheels originally.
> > David Feldman
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "KCTOMMY" <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>
> > To: <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:28 AM
> > Subject: [CR]Trek Questions
> >
> >
> > > I've got an old Trek frame that raises some questions for me.
> > >
> > > What year and model is this? The bike is all 531 db, has the semi
> wrapped
> > > seat stay cluster with TREK engraved on the end caps, and has absolutely
> > no
> > > braze ons, except for the downtube bump for clamp-on shifters and fender
> > > eyelets. The color is dark metallic blue. There were no panels painted
> > on
> > > the frame, although the seat tube appears to have had a "wrap around"
> > decal
> > > on it (it's hard to say, there's so little of the decals left). The
> > decals
> > > are the old block letter style. The drop outs are Campagnolo, and the
> > drop
> > > out attachments are the "chisel" style. Lugs are long pointed without
> > > frills. Rear spacing is 120mm, chainstays are 16.25 inches. Any
> guesses
> > as
> > > to year, model and original equipment?
> > >
> > > I got the frame cheap because of the condition. The paint is bad, touch
> > up
> > > paint having been slathered on large abrasions, untouched bare spots
> > abound
> > > and in general it's not an attractive bike now. The decals are barely
> > > legible and the head tube badge is gone, leaving only two rivet holes.
> > > But - - - there doesn't seem to be any significant internal rust, nor
> any
> > > crash damage. I had Cyclart do a powder coat refinish on a frame is
> about
> > > the same shape and she ended up a beauty. So I could get her fixed up
> > nice
> > > for a couple of hundred dollars - - - .
> > >
> > > My intention on first seeing it was to caniballize the fork for another
> > > bike and dispose of the mainframe. After all a new Reynold's fork with
> > > ample fender clearance and wide tires is a custom order affair, and runs
> > at
> > > least $200 dollars from a reputable frame builder. I paid much less
> than
> > > that for this frame and fork. But the recent flurry of discussion on
> > Treks
> > > makes me feel these old Trek lugged frames have some historical
> > significance
> > > and deserve to be preserved. I don't need it to ride, but it bothers me
> > to
> > > break up the set. And thanks to a helpful list member, I've got a good
> > set
> > > of Trek seat tube decals. Any discussion on what the right thing to do
> > here
> > > is?
> > >
> > > Tom Adams, conflicted in KC