Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just finished building up an old Reynolds 531 steel Trek 560 (the frame fits very well, rides smoothly, and when set to a chainstay length of 40.25cm climbs surprisingly well for all its heft). I put on a Mavic Cosmos wheelset I got on the cheap from Ebay. The wheelset is true and round. The tires are Vittoria Open Corsa CX 23s.

On my first ride, I was hearing some rubbing/zippy noise that was not necessarily related to the pedaling/cadence but could be made louder by pedaling hard... so i made sure all was tight (I just finished building it up last night.) After some close inspection, I see that there is only a 2-3 mm gap between the tire and the fork crown (original steel fork) and that the tire has some scuffs as if i had been skidding.

Well, crap... I don't want to run 20mm tires... the whole reason i built up this steel frame was for comfort and a change of pace from my klein. Skinnier tires are going to negate the goal. I was even planning on getting 25s once these vittorias pooped out.

Are Vittoria 23s taller than other brands' 23s? Who makes a 23 with a less "tall" profile yet still has enough volume for comfort? Anybody else have a similar issue with an old school steel fork? There's not a great margin of error here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,832 Posts
Big bounce?

jeebus said:
I was hearing some rubbing/zippy noise that was not necessarily related to the pedaling/cadence but could be made louder by pedaling hard... so i made sure all was tight (I just finished building it up last night.) After some close inspection, I see that there is only a 2-3 mm gap between the tire and the fork crown (original steel fork) and that the tire has some scuffs as if i had been skidding.
That is close clearance, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the wheel/tire could deflect enough to cause contact. Are you seeing rubber on the bottom of the fork crown? Also, have you looked at the fork tips to see if they were filed out, causing this small clearance. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever made a fork that couldn't run a 23 mm tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
here are some pics...

Here are some pics. I don't see how it could be bent fork blades unless they were originally straight blades (not the case). The blades seem very parallel with no irregularities suggestive of a crash. (Yes the paint is scratched up but that's from locking it up at bike racks over the years.) It's not a 650c fork or frame.

You can see on an upside down photo of the underside of the crown is a wear-apot where the tire rubbed the metal shiny.

Kinda weird. Am I missing something? A 23 should fit nicely. Where's that guy with the old trek he was building up?
 

·
uhhhh, what?
Joined
·
222 Posts
dremel, file...

you've got plenty of crown there, get out yer cuttin' tools and remove the excess. whoever built that fork was retarded, brake hole is way too high, bottom of steerer & crown is way too low. time to fix their mistake, it will still be plenty strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Something looks wrong.

I have two '85 560s--one is 57cm (mine) and one is 48 cm (my son's). Photos attached. It does look to me like either a defective fork or some damage to your bike, though carving away the steer tube might make some more space. Hvae you had a shop look at the bike?


In my photos one (red-sided tires) is running Specialized Turbo 23mm tires, the other (yellow) Michelin Axial Carbons, also 23 mm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,832 Posts
OEM fork?

My first thought is that this can't really be the factory fork that came with the bike. It looks like a pretty poor build. However, that's a moot point now. As others have said, you can grind/cut off all of that protruding steerer tube, then just paint it with some automotive touch up paint.
 

·
Cipo's long lost cousin
Joined
·
975 Posts
Got the exact same bike...

You have the exact same bike as me (see picts here in the Retro forum). I went out to the garage and took a look at my '87 Trek 560. I'm running 700x23c Michelin Carbons and have maybe 3-4 mm of clearance (and this is with a tire with several thousand miles of usage). I could see where a newer tire with a slightly different profile would rub.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I've got an 87 560 that had the same issue, but mine was solve with me going through and truing the wheel some more. I am runnin 25 mm tires and there is very little clearance, Performance ST2, I don't know if they are made anymore. When I go for a tire change I am planning on going to 23 to give me a little more room.

I think Sheldon Brown or someone has a site about cycling computer calibration and they list the outer circumference of several tires. Find that site and pick one that is on the smaller size of circumference and you should get better clearance as the diameter will be smaller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,555 Posts
As an aside . . .

For 1987, Trek made a 560 and a 560 EX. The EX came with 700-20C clinchers and was pitched to triathletes. The sales brochure calls the 560 fork "Chrome-Moly w/ Sloping Crown," but calls the 560 EX fork "Chrome-Moly w/Trek Fully Sloping Crown." It seems very possible that there were two 560 fork versions.
 

·
Chili hed & old bike fixr
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
jeebus said:
I just finished building up an old Reynolds 531 steel Trek 560 (the frame fits very well, rides smoothly, and when set to a chainstay length of 40.25cm climbs surprisingly well for all its heft). I put on a Mavic Cosmos wheelset I got on the cheap from Ebay. The wheelset is true and round. The tires are Vittoria Open Corsa CX 23s.

How about a side view with the bike pointed straight(no turn in the bars) showing the front wheel, head tube, down tube and BB. Any bend in the fork will be obvious..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,492 Posts
Agree, it's a job for Dremelman.

To be honest, it would make me a little nervous to grind on the fork, but it does look like you've got plenty of beef there. Arcing it over the tire a couple of mm shouldn't hurt anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
No...

wim said:
For 1987, Trek made a 560 and a 560 EX. The EX came with 700-20C clinchers and was pitched to triathletes. The sales brochure calls the 560 fork "Chrome-Moly w/ Sloping Crown," but calls the 560 EX fork "Chrome-Moly w/Trek Fully Sloping Crown." It seems very possible that there were two 560 fork versions.
Looking at the catalog (see www.vintage-trek.com), the EX claims the same geometry as the 560. The main thing differentiating the bikes seems to be color, and (on that basis) the bike in the photos is a 560, and not a 560EX.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top