Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Latest bargain score: Trek 9700 SHX (96)

5K views 23 replies 7 participants last post by  fatchanceti 
#1 ·
Not perfect, but pretty good for 24 years old (and $200). Nothing too rare - but was exotic enough in its day.













Even though the guts look great, the fork is binding (dry wipers?) - I plan to swap it out to an AMP B3 anyway. My ten year old will hopefully move into this when I can pry his Islabike away from him.

I think tires are the only non-original thing on it, those will likely be replaced by some fresh tanwall Schwalbe Nobby Nics or similar.
 
See less See more
6
#4 ·
There was a 9800 and a 9900 model that year above this one. From what I can see in the catalog the frames are the same. I don't think it's super light (1300g or so?) compared to current stuff but probably was back then.

Catalog weight was 25 lbs - which feels about right. I'd like to end up at 21-22 lbs, which should be pretty feasible considering it's also the smallest size they offered. The LX/XT equipped 9800 was listed as 23.5 lbs with a Judy XC. It was 1996 and the 9900 did have Shimano parallel push XT V-brakes offered, so those are at least period correct as a canti upgrade.

It received my last set of gumwall First Flight Repop Ritchey ZMax tires this AM.
 
#6 ·
Not bad with all the reflectors and the dork disc still installed (a pound lighter than how it supposedly came off the showroom floor):



judging by how heavy the seatpost and saddle are, there's lots of low hanging fruit here - I think I can get it to 21 lbs or so, period correct-ish fairly easily. It's already looking better with my last set of First Flight Zmax repops on it.
 
#12 ·
Not too bad, considering the nearly 3 pounds of AMP out front! I've never ridden one, how do the compare to standard tube shocks from back in the day?
And the Manitou weighing 3.5 pounds makes me want to weigh my Spesh FutureShock (their version of RC21). Gotta get that thing back together...
 
#13 ·
Plan B if the AMP is still too stiff for him with the soft springs:



Fun fact: Mach V (the pink) and Manitou 4 (the yellow) elastomer/MCU stacks are completely compatible


Even though the Mach platform doesn't use a skewer, the elastomers have the same center bore and O.D. as the M4.

Also odd: The red (standard ride) elastomers in the M4 were completely melted and crumbled, the yellows (firm) look and feel fine. So either they are better at aging or they were swapped in more recently. Impossible to know.
 
#21 ·
Ah yes, I believe the M950 used the V1 octa-link like the road groups did. I know the road BBs are easily obtainable but they also held up much better to the abuse than the MTB octalink stuff did IMO.
A more frugal option might be to unscrew those chain rings off of the STX crankset and find a single ring to bolt in place. I couldn't promise you anything but it might be a 94mm BCD, same at the LX and XT cranks of that era.
Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with the RF cranks. I've always had an affinity for the looks and heck, they might fit onto the existing BB.
 
#22 ·
Honestly the wheels are the likely place that this will "cheat" on the period correct theme by at least a few years. Nothing from this era even vaguely approaches the weight and performance of the Mavic Crossmax SL SSC (I have a set on my 94 Slingshot and they are lovely) - I haven't found a set of rim brake, UST compatible for this bike yet, but it's the one area I'll likely turn the other cheek.



 
#24 ·
Got both forks up and running "softly": new "soft" elastomers from rva off retrobike for the M4 and a soft green spring swapped from another retrobiker for the AMP.





and "new" pedals



The Manitou 4 @1360 grams weighs about 60 grams more than the AMP - not much.
 
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