Should I ask more or less do you think? would appreciate any input!
I bought this bike earlier in the spring with the intention of restoring to it perfection as a touring bike. Time constraints and an ill family member {I must relocate to SC very, very soon...} have conspired to deprive me of this joy. This 24" touring Trek was created in July of 1979 in the founders barn/work shop. Their output was still relatively small and each was painfully handcrafted as they gained their reputation. The following year their manufacturing plant was built in Wisconsin.
The 24" Frameset: The model 510 used Ishiwata 022 Chrome-poly double butted tubing throughout, (Japanese) comparable to the most expensive European tubing of the day. All this was silver brazed in the more time consuming and expensive manner to provide superior strength and flexibility. The Frame alone today is worth it's original price of $249.00 {Taken from a 1980 price list, a 1979, still has not been located! <Gee I was in 11th grade.>} The frame includes water bottle bosses, top tube cable guides and bottom bracket cable guides. The color of this amazing touring bike is slate.
The Component Package: Was known as the "Suntour special", package #5 and consisted of a 12 speed with a Suntour Ultra-6 freewheel and SR forged cotterless crank. Also includes Dia Compe 500g brakes, an Avocet I saddle, Laprade bottom-adjust seat post, Suntour VXGT dérailleur, (Sr) Sakae custom road champion handle bars and Shimano wheels.
This bike has not been ridden in 10-15 years. It was nicely stored in a dry area and protected from the weather. If the wire tires had air you could easily ride it away...all components are in great condition as is the frame. It has some slight rust spots where the paint rubbed off, but only surface stuff, slight dulled in need of a wax, all very easily remedied. Oh and the handlebar tape has dried and needs replaced.
All parts are original, This is a CLASSIC PORTLAND GEM!!! YOU RIDE THIS AND YOU WILL BE COMPLIMENTED EVERY DAY AND BE UNIQUE, WHICH IS DIFFICULT, BICYCLE WISE, AT THIS PRICE IMPOSSIBLE!!!
You can check out the original brochure here with all the specs
http://www.vintage-trek.com/
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>wrote:
> Rich, often touring bikes have long chainstays to allow heel to pannier
> clearance. That need doesn't go away with a small rider. The foot MIGHT
> get smaller, but it might not.
>
> I think it's still valuable to see if your chainstay tells us anything.
> But
> there's a problem, what to measure to. I measure from the BB center to the
> intersection of teh seatstay and chainstay centers. No CS measurement will
> be perfect due to the slot, but that technique gets me within a cm of what
> Trek put in their frame specs.
>
> I'm very surprised by your Super Course short chainstays. Are you sure?
> It's really really short. If the seat tube is laid back in the same frame,
> I think they most likely have to be longer. My 53 cm 1973 Super Course has
> a 73 degree seat tube and 44 cm chainstays. My 51cm (c-c) Masi has a 75
> degree seat tube and 40 cm chainstays. Yours at 38 cm are tiny.
>
> On my Woodrup with a Blackburn rack and Madden packs, I got heel strike,
> and
> it has 44 cm stays with a 73 degree seat tube. I don't have big feet, 8.5,
> so it can still be a problem with smaller bikes and riders.
>
> Ken Freeman
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM, r cielec <teaat4p@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > hi,
> > i have yet measured stay length (or i've forgotten what i did measure)
> but
> > the frame is small approx 48-49 c-t and, this, i assume, will
> geometrically
> > force relatively smaller stay lengths that may or may not synch-up with
> rule
> > of thumb guidelines. example, not witcomb: my raleigh super course mkII
> has
> > a chain stay length of approx 380 - 385; yet, i don't think this was
> > marketed as a race oriented model.
> >
> > as an aside, i realize i tend to ask some peculiar questions regarding
> > frames and fitments but with smaller frames, "all bets are off" and much
> of
> > the common wisdom and fixes don't hold. in my limited experience, it is
> > indeed rare that one sees a smaller frame that was actually constructed
> with
> > sensitivity. thank goodness for craftsmen such as ernesto colnago and
> brian
> > bayliss who inherently understand small frame requirements. i'm sure
> there
> > are others but, my knowldege is quite parochial.
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > richard cielec
> > chicago, illinois; u.s.a.
> >
> > --- On Sun, 8/9/09, John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CR] Witcomb Giro d'Italia Information Anyone ?
> > To: oroboyz@aol.com
> > Cc: teaat4p@yahoo.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 12:04 PM
> >
> > Richard,
> > Regardless of frame angles, simply measuring the chain stay length will
> go
> > a long way to determining it's intended use.
> > > 435mm indicates a more touring oriented frame, < 435 indicates a racier
> > model.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM, <oroboyz@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <<?My particular bike S/N 2040 578 is fitted with a TA triple but,
> >
> > because the steer tube was cut without spacer for a Campag road head set,
> > center
> >
> > pull brakes are out of the question thereby ruling out a proper touring
> > build. >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There is always the option of drilling the stem for the center pull cable
> > stop... Some may tremble at the thought but it has worked very well in
> many
> > instances....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dale Brown
> >
> >
> >
> > Greensboro, North Carolina USA
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: r cielec <teaat4p@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> >
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:46 am
> >
> > Subject: [CR] Witcomb Giro d'Italia Information Anyone ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ahoy !
> >
> > Re: Witcomb Giro d'Italia, 1979 (U.K. built)
> >
> > Anyone have any information on this model ?
> >
> > Regret to admit, I do not know how to measure frame angles so, I cannot
> > deduce
> >
> > the intended use of this model.
> >
> > I was told it was their top model but, I have not been able to confirm
> > this.
> >
> > Incidentally: My particular bike S/N 2040 578 is fitted with a TA triple
> > but,
> >
> > because the steer tube was cut without spacer for a Campag road head set,
> > center
> >
> > pull brakes are out of the question thereby ruling out a proper touring
> > build.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Cielec
> >
> > Chicago, Illinois; U.S.A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> >
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >
> > http://www.bikelist.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> >
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >
> > http://www.bikelist.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Wood
> > Missoula, Montana, USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > http://www.bikelist.org/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/
>
--
John Geoghegan
Sent from Portland, OR, United States
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/