Once upon a time, I had a mid-80's Trek 660....and you are right, it was heavy. I think it was all the investment casting: seat lug, bb shell, fork crown, brake bridge...even the dropouts as I recall. I had friends who refered to it as the 'cast-iron" bike.
Skip Sinatra
Frog Level VA
>From: Bianca Pratorius <biankita@earthlink.net>
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: [CR]Trek heavyweights???
>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:06:09 -0500
>
>There is a lovely Trek 330 on Ebay, that looks like it might go for
>very little. It is Ot in that it is probably from the late 80's and
>has Suntour indexed 7 speeds. However this brings up an on topic
>subject. If you look up the Trek catalogues from the 80's you will
>see that Trek has unashamedly quoted their bike weights at 23.6 to a
>low of 23.2 lbs. Now these frames are 531 db tubing with special
>trek seat, fork and chainstays. These bikes have lightweight alloy
>parts to boot. My understanding is that if you have a 531 frame with
>Reynolds fork stays, chainstays and seatstays and equip the bike
>with even fair quality alloy groupos, the result is a bike that
>weighs under 22 lbs in all the normal sizes. How was Trek able to
>produce these bikes with frames that weighed in at least one or two
>pounds more then you would imagine? How much weight additional could
>the chainstays and the like make in a Trek bike? How much money
>could be saved by specing Trek stays over Reynolds?
>
>Garth Libre in Miami Fl.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------ MSN Premium helps protect against viruses, hackers, junk e-mail & pop-ups. ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/