# Who's on bonded aluminum treks?



## rootfreak (May 17, 2007)

I just picked up an 89 trek 1100 FOR FREE. I put about $50 on it getting it into good shape. As I have ridden it so far, I have noticed that the suntour edge shifting is less than presice. Also, when I got it, it didn't have a binder bolt. Trek doesn't make them any more  so I had to retrofit something. However, it is quite a smooth ride. I don't know why aluminum has a bad rep for being uncomfortably rigid. Anyways, I wanted to see who else is on old aluminum bikes. I am amazed by the frame on the trek. The bonding process leaves no seams, just smooth curves, awesome.


----------



## jordan (Feb 2, 2002)

I rode one of those frames for a while and they are surprisingly comfortable for an aluminum frame,but don't feel as efficient/stiff as say a Cannondale of the same vintage.It seems aluminum frames that avoid the use of fat diameter tubes usually have a fairly comfortable ride but are not as efficient for climbing or racing as the frames with large diameter tubes.


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

This spring I had to warranty my wifes 1989 bonded Trek aluminum frame, please inspect every seam carefully. I don't know if there was any real problem but every seam between lugs and tubes had a crack in the paint all the way around the joint. I mean every single one! Not abused, and the bike probably had less than 500 miles in 17 years time. Trek was great in that they warrantied the frame no questions asked.


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

*Rough Aluminum*

I don't think the material has any bearing on the "ride quality" of a bike per se, it's how the material is used and designed. Is the bike for long distance rides? Aluminum got a bad rap because Cannondale, at the time, were making criterium style bikes which tended to favor stiffness over comfort (hench the large diameter tubing).


----------



## Old Yeller (Feb 5, 2005)

WheresWaldo said:


> This spring I had to warranty my wifes 1989 bonded Trek aluminum frame, please inspect every seam carefully. I don't know if there was any real problem but every seam between lugs and tubes had a crack in the paint all the way around the joint. I mean every single one! Not abused, and the bike probably had less than 500 miles in 17 years time. Trek was great in that they warrantied the frame no questions asked.



What did Trek replace the frame with? A current welded frame?


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

Old Yeller said:


> What did Trek replace the frame with? A current welded frame?


Instead of getting a new frame, shop took the frame credit from Trek and I bought a new Trek 1000 for her. It has about 6 miles on it. But it came out a few bucks shy of $500.


----------



## Old Yeller (Feb 5, 2005)

My 1987 1500 is still going strong. Bought it while in college and never could part with it. It's been updated with 105 9spd components and new Mavic Open Pro wheels.


----------



## grandis1988 (Jul 30, 2007)

*late 80-early 90's cannondale*

I had a cannondale critirium with huge tubes
it nearly rattled me to death.
it was fun to buzz around town but thats it.


----------



## ckilner (Oct 4, 2004)

I had an 1100. The bonded frame tubes and lugs were designed by Trek to mimic the ride of a steel frame - Klien was busy suing those who made them stiffer. I liked the ride of my bike and upgraded to RSX STI shifters before giving the bike to my nephew. 

My downtube shifter lugs delaminated and the shop epoxy/screwed new ones on under the lifetime warranty. A friend with a bonded CF 2300 got a new frame (5000 series?) when his tubes came unglued.


----------



## juy_socal (Mar 8, 2007)

I still have my Trek 2000 frame i built with ultegra 600 back in 88-89. It is white and red decals with internal cable routing. The only problem i had with it is the rattling noise the calbe makes when i hit pot holes but the frame was really strong even i had a couple of minor crashes with it. Now i'm was thinking of putting a new wheel (130mm) on the rear, i checked that it will fit but spreading the rear stays but i'm weary if the stress on the frame will break the rear stays. Anyone here have tried using an 130mm width hub rear wheel?


----------



## forced induxion (Dec 31, 2006)

i got a wicked good deal on a trek 2000 with dura ace derailleurs just last week. I think it might be an '87 model. anyways i only test rode it, paid the guy, and then took it home to take apart and clean right away... i actually liked the ride better than my aluminum orbea. No cracks on any of the seams. I just need to finish cleaning and then re-tape the bars and do a few cable adjustments but I'm real excited about it. I'll post after a few real rides and give a better review.


----------



## Old Yeller (Feb 5, 2005)

juy_socal said:


> Now i'm was thinking of putting a new wheel (130mm) on the rear, i checked that it will fit but spreading the rear stays but i'm weary if the stress on the frame will break the rear stays. Anyone here have tried using an 130mm width hub rear wheel?


I spread the rear stays on my yellow 1500 to fit the 130mm hub and have had no problems. I do check the frame often just to be on the safe side.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Old Yeller said:


> My 1987 1500 is still going strong. Bought it while in college and never could part with it. It's been updated with 105 9spd components and new Mavic Open Pro wheels.


That is one beautiful bike... well done


----------



## ckilner (Oct 4, 2004)

While many of the stays on Treks bikes during this period were intentionally spaced at 128mm to be able to handle 126mm and 130mm hubs (I still have a steel 330 spaced this way), I would only recommend speading the bonded aluminum stays if they are spaced this way (i.e., only a 2mm spread). Otherwise, follow the conventional wisdom of not spreading aluminum stays - my brother spread the stays on his Cannondale 3.0 and the frame cracked (inside driveside chainstay at the BB) about 2-3 months later.


----------



## Old Yeller (Feb 5, 2005)

My 1500 has been spread to 130mm for 7 years without a problem. Maybe it was spaced at 128 originally. It doesnt take much to slip the 130mm hub in.


----------



## drdiaboloco (Apr 10, 2010)

Old Yeller said:


> My 1500 has been spread to 130mm for 7 years without a problem. Maybe it was spaced at 128 originally. It doesnt take much to slip the 130mm hub in.


Resurrecting a thread here...

I measured the dropouts on my '94 1200 a couple of weeks back and was perplexed to see 129mm. I assumed that the (original) hub was somehow a 130mm hub but measured it at 126.

I'd presumed that a 130mm hub would fit fine in a 129mm space, but it's good to see that someone has already made this determination. 

Not that I'm in any rush to change my wheelset and entire drivetrain to upgrade... That would just be silly. *cough cough*


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

*The bonded Al and CF Treks*

were some of the strongest bonded frames ever made. I worked in a Trek shop, and never saw a broken one, even 15 years after they quit making them (for cost reasons, not because they were failing.)

Aluminum's reputation for a harsh ride is, I think, due to two factors:

1) The bike industry's insistence that frame flex "wastes energy". It doesn't, but that's what they settled on, marketing wise, and the trend was to make frames that were just too stiff. Couple that with the (also incorrect) that skinny tires are more efficient, and you've got a recipe for a nasty ride.

2) This is more of an opinion, but I think that there is a resonance factor at work with large-diameter aluminum frames... they ring like a bell, and that stings the hands. It's similar to the feeling of a four-cylinder motorcycle. They actually vibrate less than a twin or triple, but there's something about the nature of the vibrations that the human hand doesn't like. It's not geometry... my "3.8 Series" Cannondale touring bike is a nasty beast with skinny tires, and it's not a short frame by any stretch. it just takes more tire to tame the high-frequency vibes through the frame. It can't be a damping issue, no metal is a good damper.. it's got to be a resonance problem.

I really like the bonded Treks. It's a shame that the technology got such a bad rap back in the early 90's, it could have been developed into some really nice bikes, I think.

--Shannon


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

A gf with an old 2300 recently upgraded to a 6.5 Madone. Words fail her trying to describe the difference in ride quality. The 2300 will see winter use according to her.


----------



## drdiaboloco (Apr 10, 2010)

TWB8s said:


> A gf with an old 2300 recently upgraded to a 6.5 Madone. Words fail her trying to describe the difference in ride quality.


So all I have to do to get this great ride quality is spend around $6000?

Hmmm... Pay off wife's car or get self new bicycle... That's a tough one.


----------



## fatsteelfreak (Jun 28, 2007)

Old Yeller said:


> My 1987 1500 is still going strong. Bought it while in college and never could part with it. It's been updated with 105 9spd components and new Mavic Open Pro wheels.



Gorgeous


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

One of my ex-wives (I have several) had a top-of the-line bonded aluminum Trek with 7400 Dura Ace back in the '80's. Custom built for her as she thought the Ironman was within her reach.

I wrenched that bike and rode it (even though it was too small for me) and was always impressed with the combination of ride quality and efficiency (yes, it flexed a bit but it felt like a good steel frame).

I just remember Rebecca Twigg kicking everybody's a$$ on the uphill prologue to the now defunct Idaho stage race on one of those "bonded Trek aluminum" bikes.

By the way, I personally detest oversize tig-welded aluminum frames. Good for demolition derby crits but not much else.


----------



## sum gai (Jul 1, 2012)

Old Yeller said:


> I spread the rear stays on my yellow 1500 to fit the 130mm hub and have had no problems. I do check the frame often just to be on the safe side.


Hi, all. I'm an old guy who's new here. Have been off the bike a few years, now it's time to get back on.

Have an old co-motion fillet brazed frame w/8 speed DA.
Have an 86 or 7 Trek 2000 I got back 6 years after it was stolen, 

It was the most comfortable bike I'd ever ridden AND it was stiff while remaining livlely. It showed its true colors on a 900 miles in 8 days sagged "tour" / training ride. What a joy to ride!

So, I want to put it back on the road. With a 126mm rear axle spacing, that could be difficult, yes?.

If the forthcoming shop inspection doesn't become a warranty situation, It looks like old parts are hit and miss.

Are there negative consequences from forcing the chainstays apart the required 4 mm? Would that void the frame warranty?

Thanks and Cheers!

sg


----------



## Winters (Dec 4, 2011)

re: "126mm rear axle spacing"
...
Actually some new wheelsets have 126mm spacing, though they advertise as 130.
.
I got a set with Shimano 105 hubs on Mavic rims at Performance for aout $225 total.
All the specs said "130mm" but the rear measured 126mm and fit right in my '89 126mm Cannondale rear.
...
Try some new wheels on your older ride. If needed, work out the cassette spacing, i.e. putting 6 or 7 speed cogs on a 8/9/10 freehub.
.
"Afterall, bikes are essentially two wheels ... the frame just holds them together." A well known frame builder.


----------

