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
> 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