I think my first step might be to find out what trail my current bike has and how it handles a bag up front
I can't imagine the criteria one would have that narrowed the choices to only a Wolverine or Grand Rando. That would make me think that person is unaware of a lot of bike choices out there.
Ideally, I would get canti mounts brazed on the frame, get a new fork with canti mounts and powder coat. I havent been able to find any production low trail 1" forks.
Although, I don't wanna spend $200 on a fork then $200 on powedercoating and braze-ons and come up with something I don't like and I can't resell.
If I could find the trek in a the books that certainly help put me on the right track.
Do you have a photo of your old Trek? I'm pretty good at figuring out what they were based on pictures.
alex
Send me a photo, I'm curious and can probably figure it out. Try to take it pretty square on, and also take a photo of the fork crown and tops of seatstays. I've owned a lot of old Treks, including some models that weren't in catalogs.
If it takes 57mm reach brakes with the pads at the bottom of the slots then it may already be moderately low trail (most of those bikes made until 1984 were made with 55mm offset).
Trek catalog sizes are center to top, 53cm C-C is a 22.5" frame, which is their most common size. The 1985 catalog lies about how they measure, but 1984 and 1986 both get it right.
1985 Trek 410 came in scarlett red, 73 degree HTA, 45mm offset. You could re-rake to 65mm offset for low trail, but will lose a few mm of tire clearance. It'll still fit 650B x 38 nicely after re-raking, and those bikes don't fit 650B x 42mm with enough clearance in the rear triangle anyway.
1985 bikes had the model number on a sticker on the chainstay, so it isn't uncommon for it to be gone. You may still have a tubing decal though, which helps you figure it out. The first number is the general quality level (400=entry, 500=mid, 600/700=higher end), but second is a clue towards the purpose and geometry (00 = road, 30 = touring, 10 and 20 are more all purpose, 60/70 are racing bikes). Even the 400 series bikes rode nicely.
alex
I would love to retake the fork to achieve a lower trail, I didn't really know you could do that tbh. I don't forsee myself running tires larger than 38 any time soon, so that's not too much of a concern.
If you Google 1985 trek 510, the black frameset with red decals seems to be exactly the same, just with different colored decals for some reason
The short head tube also makes me think it is a 21" frame.
You can save your money on cantis, since the rear brake doesn't do a lot of work there isn't much reason to switch instead of just using the long reach brakes that you are using today.
The Reynolds 501 that Trek uses is 9/6/9 tubing in standard diameter (1" top tube, 1.125" downtube). Tubing specs are listed in this part of the catalog:
http://vintage-trek.com/images/trek/85TrekIntroduction.pdf
I can't tell what the diameter of the Soma GR tubing is from their product photos.
alex
I'm also considering what you said about altering the rake on the current fork. Can it be safely raked further to achieve a ~40mm trail or should I just spend the money on a new fork?
40mm is a lot to add. The Trek forks that I've reraked started with 55mm of offset and I re-raked them to 65mm of offset (dropping trail from about 50mm to about 40mm).
Using a large radius bender adding 10mm of offset to the 1983 Trek forks resulted in about 2mm of clearance loss. There are some photos here:
https://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Fixtures/Fork-Re-raking/i-wztKv38
The grey and gold forks started out identical, the one was from a 1983 Trek 620 and the other a Trek 630.
alex
The Soma, in smaller sizes, uses 8/5/8 while my current 510 (Reynolds 501) uses 9/6/9. I think that might be a noticeable upgrade in tubing from my current trek.
I also called that local co-op that I mentioned earlier. Apparently they aren't doing any extra services anymore. No more brazing, no powdercoating, no classes whatsoever. Theyre probably going under soon. Sad day in Eugene, OR.
It's looking like the Soma GR, or the Velo Routier, might be my entry into low trail. I'd probably be more excited about the Velo Routier, I just don't like the blue.
Also, that fork has the wrong size steerer for the wolverine. The Soma low trail fork would fit though
My commuter bike has a low trail fork with the same 72 degree HTA as the larger Wolverines. It works well. I intentionally built it with a little slacker head tube angle to support a larger porteur rack. The slacker HTA moves the front wheel forward and farther under the load.
The Soma disk fork with 65mm offset looks like it would be a good match. I can't find the A-C of the stock Wolverine fork, but the through axle one is 403mm (vs 398mm for the low trail disk fork). The slightly shorter fork will increase the HTA a hair (probably around a quarter degree), which won't hurt.
If possible I'd measure your bike first to see if the angles meet the specs. The only Soma that I've bought had very different measurements than specs, but that was a long time ago.
alex
Ill be in Portland in a little over a week, so Ishould try and find a grand randonneur and a wolverine to test ride
Seems most 650B frames below ~56mm go to slack head tube (~71 degree) and steep seat tube (~74 degree). The frame geometry on the Raleigh Redux (https://www.raleighusa.com/redux-135658) is very interesting as unlike most other frames, it maintains a 72.5 head angle / 73 seat angle across all sizes and on the small frame it has a sweet 70mm BB drop.
This might be a case where the small frame has the best frame geometry?
The wolverine, in the size I need, would have a 71 headtube. You don't think that is too slack? There was a separate thread where people were pretty strongly against it.
Are there any other good frameset options for less than $1000? I went to my LBS and rode a Soma double cross today and it felt pretty stiff and lifeless. If the GR is similar, I think it'd get the itch to upgrade pretty quickly and I still feel like there are a lot of options that I don't know about.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.