I heard that some of the vintage Trek MTBs had the same geometry as the 520 touring bike.
- Thread starter 8mph
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
Some of those old Trek MTBs weighed a ton, though. But the geometries were quite similar. Planning a drop-bar conversion? I did a conversion with trekking bars so I could use the old Deore shifters and brakes on a Raleigh Technium I have, 26" conversions work pretty well on the older Trek MTBs as well. Ride more like a Surly LHT than a Trek 520, though.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I don't know any of the geometry of the 520 but I'm currently rebuilding my old 850. These are some of the figures for my 18" model:
Head angle = 70.5
Seat angle = 72.5
Effective top tube = 570
Chainstay length = 430
BB height = 295
Offset = 43
Wheelbase = 1048
Trail = 72
Standover height = 738
Edited to add: Weight = 12.4kg (27.3lb)
Last edited:
Ah, that's all interesting to note, thank you. I have drop-bars and 700c wheels on a Dawes Ranger mountain bike frame. I've sold the Galaxy and now tour on that.
Thanks, I'll compare.
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
Most rigid MTB from the late 1980's up to the late 1990's have geometry that looks very similar to a touring bike or even a 3 speed roadster.
Generally you will find the head angle is in the range of 70-72 degrees and the seat angle is anywhere between 70 and 73 degrees. For example I have a brazed Raleigh MTB frame made of Reynolds 501, which has 71 degree head and 73 degree seat angles, and IIRC, the chainstays are 435 mm long. I also have a lower-spec welded Raleigh hi-tensile MTB frame which is 70 degree parallel geometry with, IIRC, 455 mm chainstays. Both ride in a stable and predictable manner and could easily be converted into low-cost tourers by fitting mudguards, rack, and suitable tyres. They are always going to be a couple of pounds heavier than a purpose-built tourer, because the frames use a slight oversize ATB tubing and the forks are significantly wider to clear the wide 26" MTB rims. On the plus side, a 26" rigid MTB is a pretty bomb-proof bike for rough surfaces, with touring-friendly gearing.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I was surprised to find that my old 850 at 12.4kg / 27.3lb is a bit lighter than the current 520 at 13.08 kg / 28.84lb but there's not much in it.
Plus, my 850 doesn't have the rack mount points on the forks.
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
Are you comparing like for like sizes though? I scrapped a 850 Mountain Track for parts a few months ago, and yes it was pretty light with a cro-moly frame and alloy parts - but this one was tiny, only 16 1/2" even though it was on proper 26" wheels. I don't think I've ever seen a 850 with a large frame. My Raleigh Highlander weighs around 32 lbs, which I don't consider that heavy for a large 21" MTB frame with a tall head tube. It's really based on the 23" frame with a sloping top tube. My 23 1/2" Pioneer hybrid weighs 1 lb less and both bikes are Reynolds 501.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I'm comparing my 18" 850 with the 57cm 520, which would be the frame size for my height.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Ah, the Dawes Ranger, that was a sign of a missed opportunity. Dawes were offered the chance to build licenced copies of the Cleland Range Rider, but turned it down. Their refusal letter is published in Geoff Apps website. Anyway, having turned it down on the basis that they didn't see a future for MTBs the craze suddenly landed here. Dawes were left with their proverbial ***** in their hands and had to do something, and quick. They knocked together the Ranger and, it is often claimed, semi-nicmed the name of the Range Rider. So quite a historic bike in terms of UK MTG development you have there.
Last edited:
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
I think I've only ever seen one Ranger in the flesh, they must be super-rare, and were probably super pricey new as well being 531 frames. I notice they have an exceptionally large wheelbase; even by MTB standards they look long.
Dawes seem to have tried to go slightly more mass-market afterwards with less pricey offerings with lugged Reynolds 500 and 501 frames. I've got one of their 500 plain gauge frames which I would guess dates from 1990-ish, and it's quite nicely made, IMHO. but you don't tend to see many Dawes MTB's around. I suppose the problem was, Dawes core customer base tended to be mainly Tourists, and to a lesser extent, Clubman sports cyclists - neither of whom were probably that interested in MTB'ing.
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
This was on Gumtree, if I was o'er there I would have bought it, as they do seem quite rare.
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
That's the biggest framed 850 I've yet seen. Well worth buying at the right price as they have a cro-moly frame and decent quality components fitted. My objection to small bike frames is it usually means a short head tube, which in turn means you have to suffer with having the bars set lower than ideal for max comfort, even if you can make the rest fit by having an extra long seatpost. Both my Raleigh MTB frames made from 501 have a 182 mm tall head tube, so I can get the bars something like 41" above ground level, a dizzy height at which some stem-slamming roadies would need extra oxygen!
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
I need a large frame as well, I liked the Raleigh Technium City just for that reason. And the weight. I think forks and stays are CroMoly, the rest bonded aluminum.
(Mine's the 22" frame which is rare too)
The Dawes Wildcat looks very similar.
Last edited:
