# question on trek 7000 from 1990-1991



## bcaronongan (Nov 8, 2006)

i've still got my trek 7000 from 1990-1991.

does anyone know the geometry on this bike? what the frame weighs?

i've got a zero offset seatpost on it and a spinner fork. 

it has the original lx cranks. i think the rest of it has been upgraded throughout the years.

anyway, i just wanted to know if it's worth keeping. i can still ride it. it's very functional. i used to race it until about 1996. 

thanks,

brant


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

You might find your info here:

http://vintage-trek.com/index.htm


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

you won't get much selling it, so if it's got any sentimental value, just keep her and use it as a commuter/fun/singlespeed/whatever bike. 
The geometry doesn't appear to be in the vintage-trek.com catalog scans, so I can't hep ya there.<add- rumph="" beat="" me="" it...="" i="" had="" to="" hide="" firefox="" while="" doing="" some="">
the 7000 was the lugged/bonded alu frame?

edit:
<add rumphy="" beat="" me="" to="" it...=""></add>Rumphy beat me to it.... I had to hide firefox while doing some "_real"_ work =) 
</add->


----------



## bcaronongan (Nov 8, 2006)

logbiter said:


> you won't get much selling it, so if it's got any sentimental value, just keep her and use it as a commuter/fun/singlespeed/whatever bike.
> The geometry doesn't appear to be in the vintage-trek.com catalog scans, so I can't hep ya there.<add- rumph="" beat="" me="" it...="" i="" had="" to="" hide="" firefox="" while="" doing="" some="">
> the 7000 was the lugged/bonded alu frame?
> 
> ...


LOL!

No, I don't plan on selling it. I just wanted to know the geometry. I have a 100mm fork on her now and I'm sure the the geometry is wasted. I just wanted to know specs on the frame.

I plan on doing some minor upgrades. Shimano 752 XTR cranks would be great and a Rock Shox SID of old (This might help the geometry a little...otherwise, I'm thinking of getting a rigid fork just to get the geometry back to it's original; unfortunately, I can't find the original fork...probly left it at one of the houses we lived at in college). Got some Avid SD7's also. I'll slowly put new/used parts on her and I might race her again next year!

Thanks!


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

The steering geometry would be something like 71 degrees with a 390mm axle to crown length fork. The bonded Trek frames didn't get suspension corrected geometry until 1994.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Sounds like the right plan for that bike.

63mm SID would be better...though your geometry will still be slackened a bit.

Lots of Treks out there that ran full rigid. With some searching and patience, I'm sure you could find the correct replacement...if you wanted.


Full rigid single speed would be good use of bike IMHO.


----------



## bcaronongan (Nov 8, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Sounds like the right plan for that bike.
> 
> 63mm SID would be better...though your geometry will still be slackened a bit.
> 
> ...


i just can't bring myself to a singlespeed. i've ridden with guys who have them and it just doesn't appeal to me. maybe one day.

right now, i'm still trying to get fast on my daulie. been on hiatus since 1996 and got back into it july of 2006. wished i wouldn't have stopped riding...would be racing expert now probly...oh well.

i'll look for that 63mm SID. didn't know they made them that short. although my xc400 only had 1.5 inches of travel? is that right? still got it with the stem. just needs another set of seals. geez, here i go again...


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

bcaronongan said:


> i've still got my trek 7000 from 1990-1991.
> 
> does anyone know the geometry on this bike? what the frame weighs?


I had an 89 or 90 (white with greenish decals), definitely not sus corrected. These frames sure weren't light, Trek used fairly small diameter tubing with thick walls. I rode and raced the snot out of mine and it cracked where the seatstays joined the seattube lug. Deadest feeling bike I ever owned.

The handling must be a bit off with the 100mm fork


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

bcaronongan said:


> i'll look for that 63mm SID. didn't know they made them that short. although my xc400 only had 1.5 inches of travel? is that right? still got it with the stem. just needs another set of seals. geez, here i go again...


It's not just the travel, it's the axle to crown length. Example: a Rock Shox Mag 21 with the long travel kit installed (63mm) has a 420mm A-C length.


----------



## bcaronongan (Nov 8, 2006)

azjeff said:


> I had an 89 or 90 (white with greenish decals), definitely not sus corrected. These frames sure weren't light, Trek used fairly small diameter tubing with thick walls. I rode and raced the snot out of mine and it cracked where the seatstays joined the seattube lug. Deadest feeling bike I ever owned.
> 
> The handling must be a bit off with the 100mm fork


it's not just a bit off...it's wayyyyy off!  it feels aweful! the thing is i had no idea a bike could be this bad until i bought a bike last year.

those frames have lifetime warranty's...you could('ve) gotten a newer frame possibly that is/was suspension ready...

i can't comment on the feel of a frame...but come to think of it...it does feel dead compared to my new bike(s)!

hmmmm...


----------



## bcaronongan (Nov 8, 2006)

Zanetti said:


> It's not just the travel, it's the axle to crown length. Example: a Rock Shox Mag 21 with the long travel kit installed (63mm) has a 420mm A-C length.


this is the part of bicycling engineering that i get confused about. 

please explain. :madman:


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

bcaronongan said:


> those frames have lifetime warranty's...you could('ve) gotten a newer frame possibly that is/was suspension ready...
> 
> hmmmm...


It cracked at the end of the first summer. Got a warranty frame, put it back together and sold it. Went back to steel for a few more bikes.


----------

