Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PomPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79

    New question here. "Garage Queen" find

    I was in a LBS today and found a beautiful 1995 Trek 7000 SHX. This bike looked like it had not been used since it was purchased. It was in that good of condition. And it was a sweet ride for the test ride. The LBS had it marked at $325.00. No, I didn't buy it. (Payday isn't until May 4th, and I'll still have bills to pay first ).

    Besides, I don't really need another bike. But this one sure was sweet, and I'm tempted to try and fit it into the budget.

    Someone, please, talk me into (or out of) buying this 'garage queen' once the bills are paid.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bermluvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    683
    Haha, I appreciate an older bike, but I wouldn't have a problem not buying it because I now know what a good, modern bike rides like. I just ugpraded my 1997 Gary Fisher last year to a Trek 8000, and now upgrading to a 2007 Fuel EX8. The differences are huge.

    Hope that helps :P haha
    2013 Cannondale F29 2
    2013 Giant Seek 0
    2010 Specialized SX Trail
    2009 Cannondale Rize 4

  3. #3
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,399

    Nothing Special

    That's just a cookie cutter bike of which tens of thousands (if not more) were made. It was a fair bike when new but unless it holds some nostalgic value I'd pass on it.

    I disagree on the old vs. new argument though. I think the differences are marginal at best. I would buy a stock 1990-1991 Trek 950/70/90 before I would consider any of their current offerings.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne
    I disagree on the old vs. new argument though. I think the differences are marginal at best. I would buy a stock 1990-1991 Trek 950/70/90 before I would consider any of their current offerings.
    Unless you happen to fit WSD geometry, it would be best to avoid a 1990-1991 950/70/90...

  5. #5
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,399
    Why's That?
    *** --- *** --- ***

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    118
    An 18" 1991 900-series bike has the exact same top tube length as an 18" 2007 6700 WSD.

    Remember, 150mm stems were the norm back then, as were frequent endos. Bicycle geometry and handling has come a LONG way since then.

  7. #7
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,399

    Yes, That's True, But...

    Long toptubes come and go, riser bars come and go, etc. Angles have changed for the worse (IMO) to favour more recreational type riders.
    Look at road bikes. They're going to short toptubes and long stems. It's all just a cycle that repeats.

    I'd have a hard time setting up a bike I bought off the showroom floor today. There is a lack of nice long stems and even with the slightly longer toptubes most bike are setup with a 20mm+ shorter stem than I'd run.


    150 was hardly the norm, but they were common.
    I don't own a stem shorter than 135mm.

    Frame design was not really even a factor in my first statement though, it was overall quality of the build and durability of components.

    Edit: after reviewing the geometries, it looks like an early 90's 9xx would fall squarely in between a 2007 6700 and 6700 WSD in terms of tt at 580mm.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Shayne
    Edit: after reviewing the geometries, it looks like an early 90's 9xx would fall squarely in between a 2007 6700 and 6700 WSD in terms of tt at 580mm.
    In terms of top tube length, the two are identical.

    According to the 1991 Trek catalog, an 18" 900-series frame has a top tube of 22.2".

    According to the geometry charts on trekbikes.com, a 2007 6700 WSD frame has a top tube of 22.2".

    In choosing the best bike, most people agree that fit has to be taken into account. Considering that virtually no manufacturers are producing non-WSD frames with such proportionally short top tubes, it's very clear that people are speaking with their money and communicating their preference for bikes that FIT.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PomPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79
    Let's ignore the whole frame geometry thing. The bike felt comfortable to ride. Besides, it hadd all the original componets (Shimano SXT), and it looked like it had only recently been unboxed. There was note any evidence of wear on the gear teeth or chain, and all of the shiny parts were still bright and shiny.

    If I part with the greenbacks, I'm thinking of using this as my 'work' bike, for when I have to do bike patrol duties at the fairgrounds for fair (of course ) and concerts.

    The thing that is really slowing me down is that this bike has a bonded (not TIG welded) frame , and I'm wondering if it would hold up to the abuse of being a patrol bike for a few years. Maybe I'd be farther off spending another hundred dollars or so on a Trek 4500 or a Raleigh Mojave 5.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,621
    I have a '94 7000 fully rigid. I can't imagine that "fair patrol" is going to put much stress and abuse on the frame compared to the trail rides that mine has seen.

    With that being said, I think I would still go for a newer bike.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •