Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 312
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnybentwrench View Post
    Thanks everyone, The head tube is 650mm and the fork to crown is 16"-16"1/8. Doesn't a rigid fork lower the stand over height? I am not sure why the fork to crown is important as long as a 26" wheel fits right?
    Ironically I sold a GT last year and gave away an incomplete trek 990 frame with rigid fork, BB, Brakes and stem
    The head tube can't be 650mm . Is your axle to crown measurement sagged or un-sagged.?

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Smedley View Post
    The head tube can't be 650mm . Is your axle to crown measurement sagged or un-sagged.?
    Sorry, I typed the numbers wrong head tube is 164-165 mm unsagged fork to crown is 16" - 16" 1/8

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yo-Nate-y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,732
    Exactly--don't worry about the sag and measuring fork length. For rigid, you want something under 400mm for your era Trek. The current sus fork length doesn't matter.
    Somec is like the digital Zunow
    And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD5h3y0a9AU

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by yo-Nate-y View Post
    Exactly--don't worry about the sag and measuring fork length. For rigid, you want something under 400mm for your era Trek. The current sus fork length doesn't matter.
    I told him 18 post ago he needed a 395ish fork ............................, apparently that was not good enough answer and he posted his fork. Suppose he likes the way the fork handles?

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    26
    I have not built MTB bikes, but have built a few nice light weight road bikes and have learned the expensive way that not all bike parts interchange. I think I am just going to buy back the frame and fork I gave away last year. It seems cheaper than the rest of the alternatives. I appreciate everyone taking the time to post up what I need and how to take measurements.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yo-Nate-y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Smedley View Post
    I told him 18 post ago he needed a 395ish fork ............................, apparently that was not good enough answer and he posted his fork. Suppose he likes the way the fork handles?
    But suspension to rigid will change those characteristics anyway.
    Somec is like the digital Zunow
    And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD5h3y0a9AU

  7. #207
    Stokeless Asshat
    Reputation: jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnybentwrench View Post
    I have not built MTB bikes, but have built a few nice light weight road bikes and have learned the expensive way that not all bike parts interchange. I think I am just going to buy back the frame and fork I gave away last year. It seems cheaper than the rest of the alternatives. I appreciate everyone taking the time to post up what I need and how to take measurements.
    So how is buying back your old bike cheaper than buying a used 22 year old production fork? That's all you need. The fork and a cable hanger.
    Zip ties? Not on my bike!

    Want:
    650B rims or wheel set. 80's vintage 32 or 36 x 135mm

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    26
    I prefer to have the correct fork on the bike. There are no over sized forks to be had at auction. The frame and fork are about twenty dollars more than a hanger and fork and I will have a BB, stem, head set and frame to sell or trade off

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-img_0813.jpg

    I just picked this up off craigslist for $200, still had the reflectors on. It's an 18 inch 1999 930 singletrack (last year I think) tripple butted. Fork sucks I might put a Surly rigid on it.
    2013 StumpJumper FSR Comp 29er
    2011 Trek Sawyer 29er
    2000 Bianchi b.u.S.S.
    1999 Trek 930
    1997 Trek 850

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1

    ... and if we just ...

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-image.jpgMid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-image.jpg

    Hopefully the above pics have worked! It's my first post, and I'm a little computer illiterate when I comes to attaching pics!

    This is my 1996 Trek 990. Picked the frame up from eBay after searching for it for ages. The for is a Fox F80X with the Terralogic dampening cartridge. I love it. The wheels are XTR M950 hubs laced to Mavic 217 rims. I plan on rebuilding then to DT XR425. I also have the first generation Mavic CrossMax's on the way which are hardly used. Thomson Elite post and stem. Bontrager Race Lite Bar, and old Bontrager/San Marco Ti saddle that I also searched for ages to find!

    The drivetrain pictured on the bike is Sram X0 grip shifters with an X9 rear mech and XT front. Avid SD7 brakes with Speed Dial Ti levers. I've just changed all that. I went to XTR M952 rear mech, and XTR M952 shifters/lever with XTR M951 V brake. I took the optical gear display off to give it a cleaner look. The cranks are RaceFace Turbine. they are lighter than the M952, and the rings shift great! The brakes are way smoother than the Avids, and always stay centred! I can also really back off the spring tension, and make the feel ultra smooth with true single finger braking. The total weight is just under 11KG and will drop with different wheels and tyres.

    I also have some Cane Creek Ergo 2 bar ends, but only put those on when I know I'm doing super long climbs, or spending a lot of time in the saddle. I keep them off when I know I'm going to be on singletrack lots.

    I love this bike, as its a bike I had in the late 90's when I was having my most fun riding. I love riding with guys who have super swag and bling bikes and I just absolutely put the hammer down and watch them question whether they should really be concentrating more on their riding to go faster, over having the latest and greatest..

    Well, this bike definitely isn't the latest, but it sure as hell is the greatest. It'll also always be the coolest bike in any group I ride with! Ok, I know, that last comment was a bit arrogant! But it's true! :-)

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumpfy View Post
    Because their owners are generally pains in the ass. See: "turn an old trek 850 into cyclocross" bike thread.
    Same with anyone the has ridden a klein!!! $H!T 101!!!!

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    740
    Do you actually ride these bikes or do you side and stare at them like a ****ing sitcom?

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    740
    Make the bike how you want. Ride and enjoy it. Most of these guys here the will tell you the bike sucks. I will tell you no bucks sucks unless it is ridden. There are fanboys on here that will not ride their bikes to preserve them like it is some kind of classic car. Their obsession to this is great. They want the bikes they drooled over as a poor college student or in high school even though they will now not ride them FOR FEAR OF WRECKING. I say ride, enjoy, mod, paint, wreck, bend, thrash and enjoy your bike. As for the bike....good frame....the welding tech is different than the standard aluminum you see today. Those were mostly TIG. It takes about 10 minutes to weld 8 inches. Very precise and a skill that is tough to master. Kind strange now isn't it how aluminum frames are now cheaper than a Tange Cro-mo frame.

  14. #214
    velocipede technician
    Reputation: hollister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,861
    take your meds
    looking for 20-21" P team

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    27
    Who gives a crap about what someone does with their bike. Why does it matter? Just trying to assert how badass hardcore of a mountain biker elitist you are lol. Smoke a joint man. just some old treks.
    2013 StumpJumper FSR Comp 29er
    2011 Trek Sawyer 29er
    2000 Bianchi b.u.S.S.
    1999 Trek 930
    1997 Trek 850

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    424

    Re: Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............

    You do know every alloy bike ever, has been welded by the tig process right?

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chefmiguel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,511
    Signing up for this train wreck

  18. #218
    ...
    Reputation: ameybrook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalayon View Post
    There are fanboys on here that will not ride their bikes to preserve them like it is some kind of classic car.
    Just pointing out this quote so that it doesn't get lost.


    Why would you own 100 Yugos when you could own 1 Porsche? - Rumpfy



  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Federline View Post
    You do know every alloy bike ever, has been welded by the tig process right?

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2
    Process is not the same as technique used previously. Steel frames with Trek were done by hand until 1999.

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    424

    Re: Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............

    Still the same.

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk 2

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chefmiguel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,511
    Sounds like elitist fanboy talk to me.

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by chefmiguel View Post
    Sounds like elitist fanboy talk to me.

    LOL....Call it fanboy of "VALUE"!!! I think the same today as I did back then when these bikes were made. Hell, I could not even afford one of these mid range Trek bikes even back then. I pumped gas for a spring and summer in 1992 just to barely afford my Haro Escape. But man the trails were fun back then.....less people riding!!! However I did like the old bonded Aluminum frame lugged frames Trek was dabbling into at the time in terms of how light they were. But when I rode a few I thought they were garbage on how they felt. My body told that to me. Could have been something different for others though. Everyone is different.

  23. #223
    Phobia of petting zoos.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalayon View Post
    I pumped gas for a spring and summer in 1992 just to barely afford my Haro Escape.
    Sucked in some fumes, huh?

    We had self serve by the mid-80s. But you know, we also had the metric system officially since 1970.

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalayon View Post
    But man the trails were fun back then.....less people riding!!!
    Nah, less people ride now. Apparently they just talk crap on forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by digitalayon View Post
    Could have been something different for others though. Everyone is different.
    Amen to that

    Grumps

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,271
    Some great bikes in this thread. Here's mine, got it for my 16th birthday. It still makes me smile at least once a week, and gets me to work pretty often. Wonder how many of the cars other kids got do that

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-10456796306_9a41879c4f_b.jpg
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    148
    [QUOTE=blak_byke;7707236]Why don't they have a cool factor to them? I mean they are good ol' American made True Temper steel frames right? They offer a great ride, hard to kill, and spec'd nicely for their time. Is it more or less because they come from a large manufacturer and not a boutique builder? I mean I know the welds look like crap but I can't see them when I ride so that doesn't bother me.






    I don't see a lot of them pop up here either restored or modernized so I was just curious.

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E @ DB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-trek-990-1.jpg
    Here's my 1989.5 990. I say that because the frame is painted in the '89 color scheme but the component spec is not SunTour but rather, all XT as was spec in 1990.
    I like it just fine.

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 70sSanO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    700
    I'm new here. I have been lurking around for a while checking things out. I've just started mountain biking after a lot of years on the road so I don't know better. I'm also 61.

    A neighbor gave me an old GT (non-butted) with a Mag21 but I recently picked up a very lightly used 970 frame that I have decided to build up.

    I like the ride of the old steel GT and hope the Trek rides as well if not better. I picked up a 80mm Marzocchi Bomber fork and a bunch of parts pretty cheap. I'll probably start putting everything together in a couple weeks.

    John

  28. #228
    gobsmacked Moderator
    Reputation: girlonbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8,720
    Quote Originally Posted by 70sSanO View Post
    II'm also 61.
    Congrats! That's super awesome and impressive.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 4trax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7

    '95 930

    STX,Alivio,Judy XC
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-5-28-12-ride-top-010.jpg
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-006.jpg

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Drummerboy1975's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    544
    Here's my 1990 930 I decided to pull out of hibernation yesterday. I put a huge set of 2.30 Tioga's on it. I'm thinking they are gonna be to big for the rear. We'll see.


  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10
    Reserved for pics of my '96 990 rebuild...
    - Chris
    '96 Trek 990 SHX / '08 Gunnar Crosshairs

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    234

    Smile

    OH WOW!!

    This thing is still going! I'll reserve space for my 970 rebuild
    "Just remember, all bikes have front suspension once you put your hands on the handlebars!" - 1SPD

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 70sSanO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    700
    I'm running a 970 with a Marzocchi 80mm Bomber and it is a great combination.

    John

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975 View Post
    Here's my 1990 930 I decided to pull out of hibernation yesterday. I put a huge set of 2.30 Tioga's on it. I'm thinking they are gonna be to big for the rear. We'll see.

    I've got that same bike, a 1990 930 that I use as my commuter. I'll post a pic of it soon.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    234

    Well hell...since I started this thread....

    970 pavement pounder...

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-rsz_dsc00153.jpg

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-rsz_dsc00149.jpg

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-rsz_dsc00150.jpg
    "Just remember, all bikes have front suspension once you put your hands on the handlebars!" - 1SPD

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2
    Well, I'm still in love with those old steel bikes. My first MTB was a 920 in the nice forrest green color. Years ago. Sold it last year. By that time I was already riding a smaller one, same model, in purple. Replaced several components to keep it in shape and every weekend it is going out for a ride. There are situations that I do miss front suspension but 95% of the time it is just fine. Had a modern Canondale with all new stuff but did not like it at all. The old steel fits me better since it steers much more direct. Climbs without loosing energy. Just bought another 920 wich is triple butted. Good shape but I doubt if the Taiwan frame is better than my older double butted one. Will see if I can post a nice picture of my current bikes.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2
    This my latest 920. Just finished cleansing. Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-image.jpg

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    234
    "Just remember, all bikes have front suspension once you put your hands on the handlebars!" - 1SPD

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1
    I picked up a used 990 frame for $50. Seems to be fine except i see rusty brown surface inside the tube. Is this okay?
    I am also thinking about buying another used bike with xt components for $300 and strip the parts and rebuild the 990. Do you think it's worth it?

  40. #240
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Christov View Post
    I picked up a used 990 frame for $50. Seems to be fine except i see rusty brown surface inside the tube. Is this okay?
    I am also thinking about buying another used bike with xt components for $300 and strip the parts and rebuild the 990. Do you think it's worth it?
    $350 for an xt bike is not a bad deal. Just make sure you won't have to replace rings, cassettes, chain, rims, tires, brake pads or those 350 will grow into 1000 bucks really easy.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,271
    I've had the bike since I was 16, maybe outgrown it a little. The drop bars seem to have opened up the cockpit just enough.

    IMG_20150115_074731178_HDR.jpg
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

  42. #242
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    806
    bumping an old thread. OG 26+

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-p1080864-1024x575-.jpg
    ptarmigan hardcore

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Co-opski View Post
    bumping an old thread. OG 26+
    What tires are those?
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

  44. #244
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    806
    not a true 26+ but they are Nokian Hakkapeliitta 296 studded sized 2.1 on 44mm wide snowcats from All Weather Sports in Fairbanks befor 616 fab started making them. The Nokian 336 Freddiez Revenz 2.3 only worked on skinny rims and rubbed when I put the snowcats on. The 2.3s fit on snowcat wheels on my Gary Fisher HKEK.
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-winter-2014-2-small.jpg
    ptarmigan hardcore

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,271
    Cool thanks, always wondered just how much tire I could fit in the back of mine and you seep to be as close to the limit as anyone I've seen
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

  46. #246
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexCuse View Post
    Cool thanks, always wondered just how much tire I could fit in the back of mine and you seep to be as close to the limit as anyone I've seen
    I have some pretty big 2.5" tires I run on my 1991 970 in the winter on some i22 rims. Big tires that run just about 27.3" in diameter. Not much room to left on in fork arch, but still have room in the rear.

    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 1874
Size:  155.7 KB
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  47. #247
    Kick Start My Heart
    Reputation: davez26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    441

    My 1994 930SHX.
    Ice Red, swapped the Quadra for a Mag21, and swapped on Bontrager Select wheels after I wore the first set out.
    I had totaled my first bike, (Lotus from Sears-fell down a canon), and experienced my first 'how much for a bike!?' I was in college, but made it happen, and have never looked back. It was worth it!
    I put that bike through a lot, and still have it.
    Nowadays, I ride it as more of a path bike, it's comfy, and do my trail work on a 2013 EX8.
    Sometimes I put them side by side and just ponder all the differences.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Woodpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    65
    Hmm. Inexpensive US-built lugged construction, durable and by most accounts a nice ride. I sorta want one now.

    Agree with the posts about dream bikes from younger days being affordable now, for the most part. I got into bikes in 93/94, and my grail would be a Ti Mojo. I've got two steel mojos now. They're very nice and the Ti is still too expensive. Maybe someday.
    'Tis better to bail and not to hurt, than not to bail and eat much dirt!
    -unknown

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Henry Chinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    252
    I built up a ton of these when I worked in shops, even owned a 950 for a short while in the early 90s (Trek employee discount). I always thought they were the best bang for the buck out there. But the thing that killed them for me was the geometry was just so "meh" and the handling so sluggish compared to something like the Bonty Race I replaced it with. But they would still make for a great Craigslist score for a cheap beater.

  50. #250
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodpuppy View Post
    Hmm. Inexpensive US-built lugged construction, durable and by most accounts a nice ride. I sorta want one now.

    Agree with the posts about dream bikes from younger days being affordable now, for the most part. I got into bikes in 93/94, and my grail would be a Ti Mojo. I've got two steel mojos now. They're very nice and the Ti is still too expensive. Maybe someday.
    The steel mojos are even better than the Titanium frames.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I have some pretty big 2.5" tires I run on my 1991 970 in the winter on some i22 rims. Big tires that run just about 27.3" in diameter. Not much room to left on in fork arch, but still have room in the rear.

    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 1874
Size:  155.7 KB
    What tires are those? Would you mind posting some pictures of the rear triangle to show the clearance?

  52. #252
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Chinaski View Post
    ...But the thing that killed them for me was the geometry was just so "meh" and the handling so sluggish compared to something like the Bonty Race I replaced it with....
    Never heard someone describe the geometry of a 90's bike designed for aggressive riding as "meh" or "so sluggish". The trek singletracks geo is just about identical to the Fat Chance Yo Eddy and other MTBs from that era built for aggressive trail riding. The singletrack had the exact same chainstay length, top tube, Bb height, head angle, rake and wheel base as the Yo Eddy. This geo, the lugged true temper framer made in the US, ability to run large tires and price is why I bought one back in the early 90's. No way I could afford a Yo Eddy working min wage jobs while in high school.

    Comparing the bonty race to a bike with geo like the singletrack or Yo Eddy is kind of an apple to oranges comparison since they were designed for different types of riding. Treks more XC oriented line (6500 to 8000 models) would be better to compare the bonty race to. The trek 6500 to 8000 models used pretty much the exact same xc geo as the bonty race with the same chain stay, wheel base, head angle, top tube and BB.

    Quote Originally Posted by molf View Post
    What tires are those? Would you mind posting some pictures of the rear triangle to show the clearance?
    I am running some ITS (intense tyre systems) Edge 2.5" wide tires, but I think company went under a year or two ago. However, these are huge tires and run about 2.6" in width knob to knob so pretty much any 2.5" tire will fit. Here is a pic and as you can see there is plenty of room for 2.5" wide tires.

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-image.jpg

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-image.jpg
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  53. #253
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Never heard someone describe the geometry of a 90's bike designed for aggressive riding as "meh" or "so sluggish". The trek singletracks geo is just about identical to the Fat Chance Yo Eddy and other MTBs from that era built for aggressive trail riding. The singletrack had the exact same chainstay length, top tube, Bb height, head angle, rake and wheel base as the Yo Eddy. This geo, the lugged true temper framer made in the US, ability to run large tires and price is why I bought one back in the early 90's. No way I could afford a Yo Eddy working min wage jobs while in high school.

    Comparing the bonty race to a bike with geo like the singletrack or Yo Eddy is kind of an apple to oranges comparison since they were designed for different types of riding. Treks more XC oriented line (6500 to 8000 models) would be better to compare the bonty race to. The trek 6500 to 8000 models used pretty much the exact same xc geo as the bonty race with the same chain stay, wheel base, head angle, top tube and BB.



    I am running some ITS (intense tyre systems) Edge 2.5" wide tires, but I think company went under a year or two ago. However, these are huge tires and run about 2.6" in width knob to knob so pretty much any 2.5" tire will fit. Here is a pic and as you can see there is plenty of room for 2.5" wide tires.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	237 
Size:	144.7 KB 
ID:	999428

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	237 
Size:	113.4 KB 
ID:	999429
    Everything you said geometry wise is plain wrong. Your mix of Yo Eddy, Bontrager and Trek series is a joke. I won't even bother bringing the details but I admire your self assurance while distilling so much nonsense. Did you have special training? Are you a politician?
    btw.. i had a trek 8700 and it rode like crap.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  54. #254
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1 View Post
    Everything you said geometry wise is plain wrong. Your mix of Yo Eddy, Bontrager and Trek series is a joke. I won't even bother bringing the details but I admire your self assurance while distilling so much nonsense. Did you have special training? Are you a politician?
    btw.. i had a trek 8700 and it rode like crap.
    No special training, but I used to drool over the team yo Eddy and remember looking over different bikes geo and the singletrack being very close to the yo Eddy and I could afford it.

    Since this is a mid to late 90's trek singletrack thread let's look at the '95 team yo Eddy and '95 trek singletrack geo.

    1995 Yo Eddy Team Fat Chance size L:
    HA: 71 degrees
    Chain stay: 16.9"
    Top tube: 23.6"
    Wheel base: 42"
    Rake: 1.5"
    SA: 72 degrees

    1995 trek singletrack size L:
    HA: 71 degrees
    Chain stay: 16.9"
    Top Tube: 23.6"
    Wheel base: 42.4"
    Rake: 1.5"
    SA: 73 degrees

    There were slight differences in things like top tube length, rake and wheel base over the years, but for the most part as I remember the geo was very close.

    1996 trek 8000 series 19.5"
    HA: 71 degrease
    Chain stay: 16.7"
    BB: 11.7"
    Wheel base: 41.9"
    Top tube: 23.4"
    Rake: 1.5"

    1996 Bonty Race 19"
    HA: 71 degrease
    Chain stay: 16.74"
    BB: 11.75"
    Wheel base: 42"
    Top tube: 23.4"
    Rake: 1.25"

    Other than the rake, that's pretty darn close.
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 07-03-2015 at 12:45 AM. Reason: Spelling and SA
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 70sSanO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    700
    I am relatively new to mountain biking, roadie in the 80's/90's, but I have a Trek 970 and a Serotta T-Max. In comparison to the Serotta, the Trek steering is kinda slow and some may call it meh. But the Trek is still a much better overall bike and is what I'll ride for where the conditions are more demanding, at least for me and not necessarily for the rest of the world. That said, the Serotta will definitely out perform the Trek and is a blast to ride.

    I've never ridden a Bontrager race, but I can understand why the Bontrager, which is a pretty legendary frame, will outperfrom a Trek 970. I can't say how well the Bontrager compares to the Serotta in terms of all out performance in the hands to someone who can take both bikes to their limit. I think at the end of the day, the Bontrager would be preferred over the crit mountain bike.

    As for the 8700, I think that was one of those glued carbon fiber to aluminum lug frames. I never felt that the glued together frames were very good road bikes so I would think the mountain version would be even worse.

    John

    Edit added: I will say that at least the Trek doesn't have that a headtube that will only accomodate a 1" steerer. Except I thought Trek built some Bontragers in the late 90's with 1-1/8" but I guess kind of brings this whole discussion full circle.
    1995 Trek 970 - 80mm Atom Race
    1992 Serotta T-Max - 70mm Z3 Light
    1993 GT All Terra - 46mm Mag 21
    (STOLEN)

  56. #256
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    I've never ridden a Bontrager but i 've had Trek and Fat Chance among others. They ride VERY different from each other. I assume a Bontrager w/ a short rake fork, steep seat angle, short diameter tubes, low bb, short wheelbase.. will also ride very different but that's me. I know guys who love Bontrager handling and others who stay away. Maybe there is even that rider who feels anything w/ fat tires will ride the same but i have not met tht guy yet.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  57. #257
    half-fast rider
    Reputation: kpomtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    184
    I would add there is not much comparison between the lugged steel Treks (900 series) of the early 90s and the bonded aluminum models (7000,8000) of the same era. Those bonded bikes were turds.
    A wise man once said: "Always Ride"

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    184
    My buddies dad had one of the early 90's trek singletracks and I remember it had the same geo as my late 80's stumpy, but rode so much better. Though I would never admit that back then. It was lugged, but I think it was the larger diameter tubbing with thinner walls that made the ride so nice. Both bikes had identical HA, SA, chain stay, BB and rake. I always liked the way my stumpy handled and the trek handled the same, but the feel of that trek was so nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by colker1 View Post
    Everything you said geometry wise is plain wrong. Your mix of Yo Eddy, Bontrager and Trek series is a joke. I won't even bother bringing the details but I admire your self assurance while distilling so much nonsense. Did you have special training? Are you a politician?
    btw.. i had a trek 8700 and it rode like crap.
    I am a little confused by this because the geo of the 4 bikes he posted seem to support what he's talking about. Also, what's up with accusing him of being a politician and then not being able to be bothered to bring the details? Making claims without any details sounds a lot more like a politician to me.

  59. #259
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    I am a little confused by this because the geo of the 4 bikes he posted seem to support what he's talking about. Also, what's up with accusing him of being a politician and then not being able to be bothered to bring the details? Making claims without any details sounds a lot more like a politician to me.
    I didn't "accuse" anyone.. It was a joke. You may believe you know how a bike rides by reading a geometry table but you don't know.Have you riden a Yo Eddy or a BOntrager? So how can you say they ride the same as a TRek 950? Just because you liked it? Henry Chinaski rode those bikes and said how he felt about them. Then someone decides he can't say it because geometry numbers tell it otherwise.. So i can also decide you are all politicians, ok?
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1 View Post
    I didn't "accuse" anyone.. It was a joke. You may believe you know how a bike rides by reading a geometry table but you don't know.Have you riden a Yo Eddy or a BOntrager? So how can you say they ride the same as a TRek 950? Just because you liked it? Henry Chinaski rode those bikes and said how he felt about them. Then someone decides he can't say it because geometry numbers tell it otherwise.. So i can also decide you are all politicians, ok?
    I get what your saying and I don't doubt that you carbon bonded trek 8700 rode like a turd. But you said everything he "said geometry wise is plain wrong", didn't bother to give details and then asked if he was a politician. The politician thing was a joke, all good. But what he said about the geometry seemed to be right on. He was pointing out the geo differences/similarities in the first place in reference to someone saying the bike's steering was meh or sluggish, which is directly related to geometry. A yo Eddy's steering will feel more sluggish than a bontrager race because the geo is different, not because one is better than the other or one has a better ride.

    I have ridden a bontrager race and the steering was quicker than my old stumpy which is great at lower speeds on tight trails, tricky climbs and xc type riding and not so great for high speed riding on rough singletrack or going down hill. Not better or worse, just different.
    Last edited by tahoebeau; 07-04-2015 at 10:23 PM.

  61. #261
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    I get what your saying and I don't doubt that you carbon bonded trek 8700 rode like a turd. But you said everything he "said geometry wise is plain wrong", didn't bother to give details and then asked if he was a politician. The politician thing was a joke, all good. But what he said about the geometry seemed to be right on. He was pointing out the geo differences/similarities in the first place in reference to someone saying the bike's steering was meh or sluggish, which is directly related to geometry. A yo Eddy's steering will feel more sluggish than a bontrager race because the geo is different, not because one is better than the other or one has a better ride.

    I have ridden a bontrager race and the steering was quicker than my old stumpy which is great at lower speeds on tight trails, tricky climbs and xc type riding and not so great for high speed riding on rough singletrack or going down hill. Not better or worse, just different.
    Yeah.. not better but different.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    17
    Hey, can anyone tell me what the a axle-to-crown measurement of the stock rigid fork on a 1996 trek 970 is?

  63. #263
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilGau View Post
    Hey, can anyone tell me what the a axle-to-crown measurement of the stock rigid fork on a 1996 trek 970 is?
    Should be about 408mm I think. Take a look at the bottom left of page 4 in this link where it talks about "suspension ready geometry" http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...manualTrek.pdf

    It says the 1996 930 series and up was designed for a axle to crown length of 408mm to 430mm.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Should be about 408mm I think. Take a look at the bottom left of page 4 in this link where it talks about "suspension ready geometry" http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...manualTrek.pdf

    It says the 1996 930 series and up was designed for a axle to crown length of 408mm to 430mm.
    Great info Thanks!

    I'm planning to replace the stock quadra 21r with a rigid Surly 1x1 80mm corrected fork. That's an axle-to-crown of 413mm.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1
    Scored a 1992 950 on CR for $10.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinian36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    61

    Just finished this little 930, not sure of the year... maybe 93'?

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-dscn2170.jpg
    Made in the U.S.A.
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-dscn2174.jpg
    Urbanized.

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    184
    ^ nice singletrack! Looks clean and the lugs on those late 80's / early 90's treks are really nice. I see you got the townie thing going on, but it would look a lot better with some proper mtb tires though.

    Quote Originally Posted by fattybikejones View Post
    To ride a 900 series TT OX framed Trek from the early/mid 90s is to love one.
    And that is why I have been looking for one in my size for a while now. I would like a 970 or 990, but they are surprisingly hard to find.




    Quote Originally Posted by fattybikejones View Post
    The 800 series from that era used pretty much off the shelf straight gauge Hi Ten and cro mo mix frame sets, if I'm not mistaken.
    Quote Originally Posted by unicrown junkie View Post
    I don't remember any of the 800 series having lugs. Maybe the pre-89 models, but that is a guess.
    As the poster before mentioned, they were constructed of cro-moly, and in the case of the 800 and 820, I think those were a mix of cro-moly and hi-tensile steel.

    Actually, from my experiences riding the 830 and 850s, they didn't ride that bad. In the case of the lugged 930s, 950s, 970s, and 990s, I think they ride like bricks. I suspect its the True Temper tubing from that time frame. Take my '86 Stumpie Sport, it's lugged, but has way more compliance and a smoother ride quality than any of the post '89 steel Treks ever had. Apart from that, the build quality was impeccable on the Trek line made in Waterloo, so they had Special Ed really beat there.

    I still would love to have a black 930 or white '89 950 for a town/XC mess around bike.
    I remember the 800 series frames being on the same level as a rockhopper or stumpjumper which is why unicorn junkie may have liked their ride since it he likes the compliant ride of his 86 stumpy. The team stumpjumper frame was more on the level of the 900 series treks, but not lugged and I am guessing made in Taiwan, but not sure. I didn't have a team stumpy, but the quality of my stumpy frame was not even close to that of the American made lugged single tracks. It made my stumpy look like a low end frame with nice components. As for the ride quality, that is a lot of personal preference and has a lot to do with where and how you ride.

    I see some describe the singletrack to ride like a brick. For me I would describe the singletrack frame as "lively" and "responsive" when pushing the bike hard and bikes they might call compliant like my stumpy I would describe as "noodly"" and "dull" when riding hard or on rough trails like here in Tahoe.

    I can say for me the singletrack was on a completely higher level when it came to liveliness and quality when compared to my stumpy.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1

    1990 Trek 970 Single Track

    Here is a 22" frame 1990 Trek 970 Single Track:

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-1990_trek_970_single_track.jpg

    I admire the sturdy construction of the frame and the reliability of the vintage components. With the exception of the thumb shifters, everything is easy to overhaul and maintain.

    I was seeking a durable, large-frame commuter bike that would not be ruined by pot holes or feel unstable on roads covered in sand and gravel.

    The ride is steady and smooth. The bike is perfectly suited to my needs.

  69. #269
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    ^nice pic up. And yes, that is a very well built and durable bike. I have a 1990 930 (same frame as your 970) and a 1991 970. They are some of my favorite bikes to ride. I really like the singletracks from '89 to '93 as those were built with those really nice lugs 

    Edit: I forgot to add (since your concerned with pot holes) that those years is when trek had a lot of the matrix house brand components. Those early 90's matrix wheels are really nice. Extremely strong and the ones from 1990 have a nice wide internal width of 20mm or 21mm. Significantly better in durability and performance than the skinny rims with road wheel widths that were the unfortunate fad in mtbing for the next 2 decades to follow.
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 09-18-2016 at 09:57 AM.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    anyone running 100mm forks on their 930's?

    thinking about upgrading mine






  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    Also, what is the BCD of these STX-RC cranks?

  72. #272
    Stokeless Asshat
    Reputation: jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by CBR_TOY View Post
    Also, what is the BCD of these STX-RC cranks?
    Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Crank/Chainring Bolt Circle Diameter Crib Sheet
    This should help.
    Zip ties? Not on my bike!

    Want:
    650B rims or wheel set. 80's vintage 32 or 36 x 135mm

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    146

    Trek 930 dusted off SS conversion

    Finally built up one of my orig steel rides, '93 into an SS, for local training, street and fireroads. Simple but smooth with v-brakes and Fat Franks running low pressures, 15 to 18 lbs. I'm about 150.



    Last edited by aohammer; 11-28-2016 at 11:12 AM.

  74. #274
    Clever Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    430
    Nice. Very tasteful color combo.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    146
    Thanks! I wanted the controls area and drivetrain to be black to offset the silver wheels. Of course the tan and green for the rest of the theme. Those tires are my 'suspension'

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Awesome thread and great pics.

    I just won a local auction for $20, and now own a 1990ish intense blue 950. Still haven't seen it in person but the pictures suggest its a very dusty but in good shape bike. Hopefully I'll be posting pictures of it once I get it cleaned up. I'm still not sure how rideable it will be for me either; I currently ride a 1990ish 19.5" Trek 820 that I never realized was "way too big" for me since I'm only 5' 7" with a 29-30" inseam. I know the 950 is smaller, and it might even be a 16.5. But at $20 I couldn't resist.

  77. #277
    High Plains Luddite
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBlue950 View Post
    Awesome thread and great pics.
    +1

    Thanks to all who take the time to post in here.

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    I put a few more purple parts on mine. Purple nips, sealed jockey wheels, skewer set, cable crimps, pads, pedals, and 680mmx25.4mm riser bars.




  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    Nips and silver big ring aren't pictured. Damn rain is keeping me indoors and stir crazy.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by CBR_TOY View Post
    Nips and silver big ring aren't pictured. Damn rain is keeping me indoors and stir crazy.
    Trade you some rain for some snow and temps in the teens...

    That's a beautiful purply ride, nips or not!

    I will pick up my new-to-me 25 year old 950 on Friday. I'm going to want to put a suspension fork on either it or my same-age 820. What do I need to know before shopping for a fork? Being incredibly poor, I will probably try to find an old or used fork because I know I can't afford a new good one.

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    from what I hear don't go over 80mm of travel. My forks are the original units with 63mm of travel. The elastomer stack is still in great condition so I haven't upgraded yet. One day I might try for a set of 80mm forks or just buy stiffer elastomers for this setup.

    Can't wait to see your 950!

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 70sSanO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    700
    I am running an older 80mm Marzocchi Bomber oil bath fork on my '95 970. It is a 2001 fork and it works fine, and pretty bulletproof.

    John
    1995 Trek 970 - 80mm Atom Race
    1992 Serotta T-Max - 70mm Z3 Light
    1993 GT All Terra - 46mm Mag 21
    (STOLEN)

  83. #283
    Clever Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    430
    Got my 950 down from the ceiling this weekend and remembered I had done a bunch of stuff to make it ridable: ugly steerer riser thing, newesh wide handlebars, one chainring becuase old deore dx shifters were fubar'd and couldn't get stripped crankarm off. Rapid rise (GAH!) xt derailleur.

    Now I'm considering finding a donor/parts to make it more original again.

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 70sSanO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    700
    I built my 95 970 as a 2x7. I run 24/34 chainrings and the 7 speed cassette is spaced for 8. I don't get any cross-chaining so I get all 14 speeds. For me it is the perfect setup. I run the 24 for situations with climbing or a lot of ups and downs. The 34 is for mostly flat or downhill runs.

    As for rapid rise, I setup my wife's bike so it would be the same shifting on right and left. I really liked the triggering to drop to easier gears and thumbing up to go faster, so I set my bikes up that way. With my 2x, I am running a Suntour thumb shifter for the chainrings. My derailleurs of choice are the XTR 960 or the XT 760.

    John
    1995 Trek 970 - 80mm Atom Race
    1992 Serotta T-Max - 70mm Z3 Light
    1993 GT All Terra - 46mm Mag 21
    (STOLEN)

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Well I picked up my new blue baby yesterday. Serial # indicates its a 1989. Still remains to be seen if I got a great bike or a money sink. But overall impression was its not bad for $30 including tax and shipping.

    The tires are toast but I knew that. I think the mountain LX thumb shifters can be salvaged (though I'm not sure I will like them...). They were quite stuck but some WD-40 is starting to loosen them up a bit. They may need to be disassembled for a real cleaning. The cables are clean and free and derailleurs seem clean, straight and free to my amateur eye. The rims, hubs, headset, BB parts all seem snug quiet and in good shape. The frame is fine, some paint scratches but that's expected. A bit heavier than I expected. The seatpost moves, lol.

    The cassette definitely has some uneven wear so that and chain may need to be replaced. But I have only ridden it around the living room so far so I don't really know. The seat indicates it belonged to a woman, so this marks the closest my crotch has come to a woman's in an awfully long time. I hope this means my luck is about to change. The intense blue with dainty pinky borders is also slightly feminine, but I like it! I'm not afraid to show my slightly feminine side.

    Overall I'd give it and 8.0 out of 10 for $30, and will begin to see if I can bump it up to a 9 or better without spending too much. Pictures once I get some work done on it.

  86. #286
    Clever Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    430
    Need pics!

    Also be easy with that WD40 - it's a solvent and not really a lube. Get some triflow or something. Be very careful if you choose to take them apart - It's been years since I worked on one but if I recall they tend to go !SPROING! once opened and good luck getting them back together.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Yea I'm only using WD40 to test the theory that the shifters are sticky, its not a long term solution.

    Forgot to mention the best thing: it an 18" and it fits! In fact It may be the first MB that is the proper size for me in the 21 years I've ridden MBs. I'm only 5 7 but mostly leg, and bigger bikes always felt better when I was younger. Now they feel big, especially off road.

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    146
    Let's see more pics of your rides.....

    Just tooled around on my Fat Franks 2.35 with not-so-thin tubes at low 15-17 lbs, nice cushy suspension, my gravel SS bike now




  89. #289
    bipolar-roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    838
    Love seeing all these old, great Singletracks! There sure are a lot of the early 90's lugged beauties showing up on this thread so here is another one.

    Picked this one up over the summer and is pretty much all original except for a replacement non-drive side crank arm that you can't see in this pic. Being a 1990 this bike has the thinner diameter tubing than the newer years. I couldn't pass this up, especially with the blacked out components. Just needs a black seat post

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-trek-930.jpg
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    Went for a ride today







    Merry Christmas


  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scoutergtg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Love seeing all these old, great Singletracks! There sure are a lot of the early 90's lugged beauties showing up on this thread so here is another one.

    Picked this one up over the summer and is pretty much all original except for a replacement non-drive side crank arm that you can't see in this pic. Being a 1990 this bike has the thinner diameter tubing than the newer years. I couldn't pass this up, especially with the blacked out components. Just needs a black seat post

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Trek 930.JPG 
Views:	237 
Size:	344.0 KB 
ID:	1109688
    I finally found the same exact 930 in my size (22"). I wanted this specific model because of the all Suntour components. I'll post some pics soon.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBlue950 View Post
    Awesome thread and great pics.

    I just won a local auction for $20, and now own a 1990ish intense blue 950. Still haven't seen it in person but the pictures suggest its a very dusty but in good shape bike. Hopefully I'll be posting pictures of it once I get it cleaned up. I'm still not sure how rideable it will be for me either; I currently ride a 1990ish 19.5" Trek 820 that I never realized was "way too big" for me since I'm only 5' 7" with a 29-30" inseam. I know the 950 is smaller, and it might even be a 16.5. But at $20 I couldn't resist.
    OK, here she finally is. Took it in to the shop and showed them the worn cassette, they measured the chain and replaced the dr cables and housing instead for $29. Took it back a week later and they got to replace the cassette for free, since they were wroing. Apparently someone replaced the chain in the past but not the cassette. I'm still having some minor skip problems but its on the road and riding well otherwise. Took it for a 45 minute ride today and it did fine. Took the tires off my Trek 820 thats too big for me anyway, bought it a 15 dollar Outerdo mountain bike seat (which is way more comfy than $15 suggests) and I now have a pretty decent $65 bike. Now I just need to get the 820 back on the road, although its too big for me I like it anyway.

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-img_0324.jpg

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    11
    looking good man. I want to see more Treks!!

  94. #294
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoutergtg View Post
    I finally found the same exact 930 in my size (22"). I wanted this specific model because of the all Suntour components. I'll post some pics soon.
    I'm looking for one in 18". Was my first mtb

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    49

    Hope Re:

    I have a 92" 9500 full suser which was always compared to a pogo stick. It's a quirky bike no doubt, but I like I from a sentimental perspective as it was the first purpose-built MTB I bought versus cobbling other components together from a hybrid perspective. I rode it a few times, mothballed it and bought myself a Zaskar. It may have 50 miles on and just sits in my basement for amusement. All original, bone stock (down to the tires and chain) and full M900. A waste...

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-cbgy4y.jpg

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-hunebx.jpg

    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-avqvj9.jpg

  96. #296
    Clever Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    430
    Super cool. I never rode one as my stint of working in bike shops ended right when that came out but in my mind it was the first full sus that was widely available (even though it's probably not). Looks like it is in really good shape.

  97. #297
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,183
    Quote Originally Posted by smithjss View Post
    All original, bone stock (down to the tires and chain) and full M900. A waste...
    At least you have some value in those pristine looking xtr and answer bits. I remember drooling over one of these in my local shop. Pretty sure they came with Matrix tires, but your smokes look pretty mint too.

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by 92gli View Post
    At least you have some value in those pristine looking xtr and answer bits. I remember drooling over one of these in my local shop. Pretty sure they came with Matrix tires, but your smokes look pretty mint too.
    Definitely came with Matrix tires and I have them on hand but swapped them for the smoke/dart combo.

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    27
    I've had this 990 Singletrack frame hanging in my garage for 25 years, and finally got the time to do a build on it.
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-img_0817.jpg
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-img_0824.jpg
    The frame was hanging in the back of Wheatridge Cyclery (Ron Kieffel's digs) and I picked it up for $100.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    27
    I wanted to upgrade it with disk brakes so I fabbed up a brazed/bolt on caliper mount for the rear, and burned off the old cantilever brake mounts.
    Mid to late 90's Trek 9xx series (930,950,970,990).............-img_1036.jpg

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 54

Posting Permissions

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