# The worst Trek ever!



## AOK (Jan 25, 2004)

Pinkbike ran an interview recently with John Burke which featured this Q&A:



Pinkbike said:


> Making mistakes and bad choices is all part of the learning process, but is there anything in Trek's 37 year history that, if given the ability, you'd like to go back and be granted a do-over?
> 
> Ha! You're right about mistakes. I'll tell ya, my least favorite bike in the history of Trek is the 1990 6000. It was neon-yellow bike with black splash paint. It was perhaps the worst bike that we ever produced. It didn't shift well, the brakes sucked. I kept the bike for about 20 years as a memory to never do anything like that again.


http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Trek-CEO-John-Burke-interview-2013.html

So this got me to wondering if any of you VRC types actually have (or had) a lowly 1990 6000? Worst Trek ever? A hidden gem? Let's hear some stories if you have them.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

When I bought me yellow with black splash Trek 830 in 1990, I drooled over the 6000 that was way out of my price range. 
Rode the 830 hard for quite a few years, and still have it, so maybe I got the right bike after all.

I do find it hard to believe he called out the 6000 though and not the ridiculously horrible riding dual suspension bike that came out around the same time, or the Y bikes.



Steve


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

The carbon aluminum composite was my worst bike ever...


----------



## AOK (Jan 25, 2004)

eastcoaststeve said:


> I do find it hard to believe he called out the 6000 though and not the ridiculously horrible riding dual suspension bike that came out around the same time, or the Y bikes.


Ha! Y-bikes were the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the question I quoted. Burke actually said in the interview that the Ys were "amazing bikes". I can only hope he was thinking of the carbon frame and not the suspension performance.


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

Hard to do worse than the Trek VRX or the 9000 series.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Picking on a midrange workhorse, that has brothers on both sides all sharing the same geometry?

Sounds about like the elitist tripe I'd expect to dribble out of the mouth of someone who participated in the biggest doping scandal of the century but let the team riders take the fall for. 

Trek, the best part of you dribbled down (oh wait, kids read this....)

Yep, the Y5, there's an embarrassing POS if ever there was one, save only the donut FS thingy.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

_It was neon-yellow bike with black splash paint. It was perhaps the worst bike that we ever produced. It didn't shift well, the brakes sucked. I kept the bike for about 20 years as a memory to never do anything like that again._

I don't get that. I mean, the shifting and braking was crap, well, wouldn't that be an easy fix if they just specced it differently? The frame itself didn't have any crazy cable routing or anything so I can't see why he would blame the whole bike. Unless of course he isn't capable of turning a spanner and doesn't realise that stuff can be adjusted.

Still, I'm no fan of Treks myself so I don't really care what he thinks. But Y-bikes aside, the worst Trek ever was that woeful 9000 dual suspension, commonly referred to as the Trek Ejector Seat. Yech...

Grumps


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Picking on a midrange workhorse, that has brothers on both sides all sharing the same geometry?
> 
> Sounds about like the elitist tripe I'd expect to dribble out of the mouth of someone who...


I don't think geo was the issue....

"It was perhaps the worst bike that we ever produced. It didn't shift well, the brakes sucked."

How dare he spew elitist tripe. We get all we can take right on this forum.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

bing! said:


> I don't think geo was the issue....


Point being, picking on the middle of a group of bikes for really silly complaints is well, silly, especially in lieu of the question asked.

As Grumps already noted. bagging on a bike that shifts or stops poorly, when you're the leader of the company that spec'd and produced it?

All speaks ill of your product managers, your skills as a mechanic, or ability to seek out a good one.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

I don't think there ever was a worse performing dualie than the 9000.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

Wasn't it right around this time that Trek had the "Jazz" spin-off line, which consisted of crappier versions of Trek 800's? 

And that 6000 had Suntour Xpress shifters didn't it? Those things were definitely one of the nails in Suntour's coffin.


----------



## djmuff (Sep 8, 2004)

This thread needs photos. Stolen from retrobike.


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

I dig that 6000


----------



## djmuff (Sep 8, 2004)

ameybrook said:


> I dig that 6000


I'm with you. It's not a bad looking bike. I have two similar ones, same era, both 7000s. I'll have to ride them and see what I think.


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

If it is the same geo as the 900-series lugged steel bikes of the early 90s, they should ride quite capably. Don't know how he could pass on the donut stack full sussers or the Y-bikes for the crown of Dreck.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Even that pic makes my back hurt 

Holy seat height Batman.....


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

I like trek's. Some of them make great donor bikes.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 27, 2004)

Can't see how calling out the 6000 is any different then other bikes in that range/price. 

The pre y bikes dullie was by far the worst. 

Y bikes were not bad for the time, especially when you look at other mass produced bikes of the period. Heck the specialized bikes were probally best of the time, but Lordy those bushings wore out quickly and loads of slop insued. The y bikes, despite their issues actually performed not bad. 

Just my opinion. 

Bill


----------



## bradkay (Apr 9, 2013)

It is not a mountain bike, but I always thought that the worst Trek ever was the R200 recumbent. It had a single chainring but added a mid-drive cassette and rear derailleur - giving it two cassettes and rear derailleurs!!!!!


----------



## crossracer (Jun 27, 2004)

Stole r200 pic off google. Wow that is a beast


----------



## OchoCero (Jan 1, 2009)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Sounds about like the elitist tripe I'd expect to dribble out of the mouth of someone who participated in the biggest doping scandal of the century but let the team riders take the fall for.


Well said.

That really is a bizarre bike to single out as Trek's worst, because how could he possibly forget this bike, that didn't shift well, had crappy brakes, was equipped with an ejector seat, and had a rubber band for a chain...


----------



## surlytman (Nov 9, 2005)

The 6000's were ugly, spec'd with crappy components and at the wrong price point. We maybe sold one of them that season. The steel 930 killed it with better spec and colors that did not burn your retinas. The 6000 series also had heavier aluminum than our best seller, the 7000. Alcoa vs Easton if I remember correctly.


----------



## Bandaman (Jan 21, 2014)

Hilarious... I just stumbled across this thread.. I actually still have my original owner 1990 Trek 6000. Worst Trek ever? Should be worth some $$$ then. Ha ha


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

I came to work one day and my boss was giving me this weird stare, we had just had a batch of these 6000s arrive a week or two earlier and he decided to build one.

Well, like Burke said they had the worst brakes and the even worse shifting, I had built three by the time my boss got around to one so I knew that stare meant something, and nothing nice about Trek in this case either.

He gave up trying to build it after three hours, the brakes were his undoing. As much as I liked the frames, they went seriously downhill compared to the '89 7000 which was dream to ride. Suntour botched the group so badly there was no saving this model unfortunately.

Great thread, brings back memories for me for sure!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

OchoCero said:


> Well said.
> 
> That really is a bizarre bike to single out as Trek's worst, because how could he possibly forget this bike, that didn't shift well, had crappy brakes, was equipped with an ejector seat, and had a rubber band for a chain...
> 
> View attachment 844712


LOL
When I read the title of this thread this exact bike came to mind. My brother inlaw had one in the same color. And it was just that, an ejector seat waiting to happen. The suspension design was so bad with rubber donuts it acted like a spring board.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

OchoCero said:


> Well said.
> 
> That really is a bizarre bike to single out as Trek's worst, because how could he possibly forget this bike, that didn't shift well, had crappy brakes, was equipped with an ejector seat, and had a rubber band for a chain...
> 
> View attachment 844712


I would love to see a side by side ride comparison with the klein mantra, videos are a must as well..., because the mantra was literally an ejection seat. It is hands down the most horrible biking experience I've ever encountered on anything but flat and up...


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Not technically a Trek, I suppose, but I had a Fisher XO...I swore off full suspension for a decade after that.


----------

