Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thinkly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    273

    1998 Trek 930 Geometry

    I am trying to locate geometry information on my "new" trek 930 frame. I just bought this frame and built it up. Can't find any info for the geometry online anywere including the vintage trek site.

    I emailed trek a couple times and they have never responded.


  2. #2
    Lionel Hutz, Esq.
    Reputation: Thirdrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    545
    Here ya go. Straight from the 1998 catalog:
    1998 trek 930 geom.jpg
    And, so you know which measurement is what:
    1998 trek mtb reference.jpg
    Hope this helps.
    2007 Trek Fuel EX 8
    1999 Trek 7000 --- Dragonfly Green = Sexy
    2002 Trek 2100
    2008 Felt New Belgium Cruiser

  3. #3
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    I was also going to say 71* head tube, 73* seat tube...BUT

    That would have been with an RS Indy S which was running about 63mm of travel. It appears from the picture that there is a fairly recent RS Judy J3 on there which would be at least 80mm of travel which would knock it back about 1/2 of a degree.

  4. #4
    Lionel Hutz, Esq.
    Reputation: Thirdrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72
    I was also going to say 71* head tube, 73* seat tube...BUT

    That would have been with an RS Indy S which was running about 63mm of travel. It appears from the picture that there is a fairly recent RS Judy J3 on there which would be at least 80mm of travel which would knock it back about 1/2 of a degree.
    I thought about mentioning that his new components would change at least two of those readings. But, I figured that he knew adding length to the shock would slacken the head angle.

    In any event, the original spec was a 50mm RS Indy S. I'd say he slackened the HA at least a degree - probably closer to two. But, I'm sure he was aware of that when he deviated from original spec.
    Last edited by Thirdrawn; 10-14-2008 at 04:06 PM.
    2007 Trek Fuel EX 8
    1999 Trek 7000 --- Dragonfly Green = Sexy
    2002 Trek 2100
    2008 Felt New Belgium Cruiser

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thinkly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    273
    Thanks for the info. I wasn't fully aware that the fork with more travel would change the head angle so much. I am interested to learn that. I suppose that would mean this frame wouldn't require a suspension corrected rigid fork if i choose to go rigid with it?

    Somehow i was thinking this year of frame was designed for a 80mm fork. I'll do some further digging.

    Still i have a couple of questions regarding geometry. I bought this frame because i wanted a frame that was at least closer to my 07 Trek 6000. That frame is a 21.5" c-t and the Trek 930 frame is a 21" c-t.

    I knew the eff top tube length was a little shorter on the 930 but was hopeful it would put the Brooks saddle back almost as far as the 6000. It didn't turn out to be that way. I am comfortable on the 930 but am constantly wanting to push those saddles back more because the rails are so short.

    Can you discuss how the two geometries compare?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Thinkly; 10-14-2008 at 05:12 PM.

Posting Permissions

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