Trek mtb steel frames: frame quality

12345

Dirt Disciple
Hello,
what are your opinions on frame building quality of Trek frames from three different production periods which are exemplarily represented by three different bicycles:

1. 1986 Trek 850
2. 1991 Trek 950
3. 1995 Trek 950

How is the quality of old high-quality mtb frames compared to modern steel frames from Surly or Salsa?
 
I had a 97 trek 930 or 950. I can't remember just now. I want to say 930. It was a very well made frame. I enjoyed it more than the aluminum GT that I also had at the time. With old trek steel it isn't a question of quality. It's more of a question of condition. They can rust so a good inspection is important. If they all check out just use the one you like.
 
Re:

As far as I've experienced the tig welded 1995 930 / 950 / 970 is a nice ride and well built. I must say I also like the detailling of the early '90's Trek frames.
 
Re:

I have a welded Trek 8?0 frame which I found abandoned on the street many years back, and since internettting, have found to be likely an '89 model.

I'll go right ahead and obliterate what's left of my 'Retrobike' credibility by admitting that it is the only mtb I've ever owned or ridden, and I've never demanded much of it performance-wise, so I cannot say whether it is likely to survive bike-acrobatics.

I do remember checking it's alignment soon after acquiring it, and found it to be pretty much perfect, (which counts for a lot with me, especially with vertical 'one position only' dropouts.) If it had been otherwise I might have returned it to where I found it.
 
Re:

I can only talk about number 2 (1991 Trek 950), since I have 3 950's (2 from '91, 1 from '92) and I briefly had a '93 930. My wife has a '93 820.

Bikes are light, well made, very tough paint, and quality forks (The 92 had a Tange Big Fork, the others a copied version by Trek). Material is True Temper Comp II, double butted, and for the Tange fork, triple butted. Top routed cables, possibility to add a rear rack and mudguards, plenty of clearance for at least 2.3" tires... Lugged frames (the 9xx series) if you like that.

The "not so good" is that they have no cable stop for the front derailleur (included on the '93 frames), the casing goes all over to the derailleur where a special piece did the job. Bear that in mind if you're buying the frame only. Plenty of after market solutions for it though.

I haven't had a Salsa or Surly to compare, but Trek frames are pretty good and you can get a full bike for 150 EUR, or for 300-400 if you want it super-mint. For that price, you can't even get a frame+fork from Surly (or any other brand). And if you are into lugs, unless you get a Rivendell for 5x the price, you are nearly out of options.
 
Thanks. Why did aluminium become mainstream frame meaterial? Because of customer demand or lower production costs?
 
I think at the time aluminum meant lower weight and a stiffer frame which equated to better power transfer to the wheels. Basically people thought they would make faster bikes.
 
Re:

12345":2uhyz13k said:
Why did aluminium become mainstream frame meaterial?

Once the technology catched up, it's just cheaper to make. As Sheldon Brown explains, to get similar stiffness, aluminium tubes need to be bigger in diameter than steel ones. Being bigger, it's cheaper to automate the job and give it to robots. Therefore, it's easier to give it to some factory in Taiwan and make thousands of frames every day.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

For steel to be competitive in weight, the tubes need to be very thin, which requires a lot of skill in the welding, and therefore makes it expensive (for the good ones, the thick hi-ten steel supermarket bikes are still cheap to make).

That's why big brands produce mostly in aluminium, and custom builders with small production work mostly in steel that allows for more creativity.
 
Back
Top