>>1108724With the power of Google (and the vintage trek website), you've got a '92.
But $250 for this thing? Yeah the lugged Trek frames are nice I guess, but they aren't rare at all (like, say, the Bridgestones). And Exage 400LX is a seriously budget group.
It looks like someone has taken nice care of it and it has newer tires, but a few minutes of searching turned up five similar bikes with nicer components for about half the price my local craigslist.
Unless it had that brand new Brooks when you bought it, in which case most of your money went towards the meme saddle.
>>1108729Yeah that's fuckin' weird. Why does the sheath mount so low, and why does the cable run down to the bottom bracket and back upward?
I've seen frames with a pulley down low to allow a bottom-pull derailleur to be used with top tube routing, but the pulley usually isn't that low and the cable sheath mounts further up in the normal location.
>>1108754>mountain bikes have advanced so much that I can't imagine riding on anything other than perfectly smooth dirt without several thousand dollars of suspension and carbon to help me.>>1108773>If you find handicapping yourself to be fun then fair enough.I love the looks on MTB bros faces when I come flying down a gnarly hill on my rigid steel bike with drop bars, and then blow past their carbon fredsleds on the climb back out.
