Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Can I turn this old Trek into a suspension hardtail?

2K views 14 replies 10 participants last post by  DeeEight 
#1 ·
This is a '94 Trek Singletrack 930. It came with a rigid fork but was supposedly designed to accept front suspension. For some reason I'd like to resurrect it and I'm undecided about whether to set it up as a fully rigid SS for road use, or a suspension hardtail for singletrack use.

How can I figure out how much travel this frame can use? I'm pretty much unfamiliar with this issue. It does have a 1 1/8 HT, by the way. Thanks.
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#3 ·
Should Be Good With 2"

Some versions of that frame came with Quarda 48mm forks.

Your best bet is to find a good condition fork from the era.

If you get something current make sure it has adjustable travel and run it with as little travel as possible.
 
#4 ·
1994 was the first year for suspension corrected geometry --and Waterloo built TIG welding too.

You should be able to run up to 63mm of travel before the steering feels slack, and if you're willing to put up with a bit of wheel flop, 80-100mm would work.
 
#6 ·
I'd forgo the suspension and ride it as a full rigid... with the right tires it could serve some double duty as a commuter and singletrack machine.

The Trek 930 is a great frame especially when you can find the pre '94 models with those gorgeous double butted and fully lugged frames...
 
#7 ·
A follow-up

Thanks for the input. I'm leaning toward leaving rigid for now (maybe SS) and then adding a suspension fork later if I feel like it. I'm going to have it painted as well.

So why would the steering get screwed up with more travel? Just trying to understand the physics here. Is there a website where I can learn more about this stuff?

Thanks a lot.
 
#8 ·
The older frame geometry can work well with a low travel fork (60 mm ) but with a higher travel (80-100 mm) fork combined with the more upright position will put your ass in the air and the rest of you over the bars when that fork compresses to 80 or 100 mm.

This kind of frame really will perform best with a rigid fork and turning it into an SS would be a worthwhile project... you'll probably find that with the weight you save by going rigid combined with the frame geometry will give you a bike that climbs like a mountain goat on speed.

If the paint is still good I'd leave it as it is... it's unique and funky.
 
#9 ·
Thanks. I get it now, maybe. Essentially, the extra compression on the front end just lowers it too much relative to the back end...is that it?

I'll keep it rigid, at least for now. It could make a cross bike, SS....who knows.

The paint is nice, I agree, but it's pretty dinged up and hard to match for touching up. So i'll probably have it painted.
 
#10 ·
llama - I was test piloting my son's new ss this afternoon and came across a 930 exactly like yours... they are a pretty bike and if I find a lugged model for myself (like I need another bike) I'll be making an ss out of it.

You have it right in that when you take a bike that was made for 60mm forks (and what's the use in that?) and fit 80-100mm forks you'll have a lot of front end dive relative to your rear... this can happen on a modern mb frame too but their geometry is more forgiving of such things.

If you want a plusher ride on a rigid ht you can always play with different tires and run lower pressures to take out some of the harder bumps... I do this with my '87 Kuwahara Cascade which pouts the R in rigid but is still an astoundingly nice bike to ride.
 
#11 ·
llama said:
Thanks for the input. I'm leaning toward leaving rigid for now (maybe SS) and then adding a suspension fork later if I feel like it. I'm going to have it painted as well.

So why would the steering get screwed up with more travel? Just trying to understand the physics here. Is there a website where I can learn more about this stuff?

Thanks a lot.
The more travel a sussy fork has, the taller it is. A taller fork raises the front end of the bike. This reduces the frame angles (slacker), raises the BB and the bars. This (usually) makes the handling slower, the front wheel "floppy" on the climbs, moves the rider's weight back and changes the fit of the bike (if no other changes are made).
 
#12 ·
I just did one of these.

It was small frame. Obionespeed gave it to us with a good BB, ders, seatpost adn a really nice seat. I happened to have a whole slew of good parts to throw on it from our High School Team supply and we had a kid who needed a bike. Tossed on some nice rims, new tires and tubes, shifters, cables, housings and brake pads, with an old school short travel fork. We will turn it over to a High School in Sacramento that really has very few bikes. Some small newbie is gonna be pleased.

Yours looks like it is in pretty nice shape. If it were my size I'd turn it into a 1/7 townie.
 
#13 ·
I just resurrected my '93?, double butted, lugged 930. I thought the best way to get use out of it was to single speed it. I was right! FUN!FUN!FUN! I took it for a little ride in Pisgah a couple days ago and it was a blast. Coming from a fully suspended rig it was quite an eye opener.

My first thoughts were to put a suspension fork on but the geometry does not lend itself well to that.

You will love the simplicity of the SS for trail or towny or commuter.


Enjoy!


Wode
 
#14 ·
llama said:
This is a '94 Trek Singletrack 930. It came with a rigid fork but was supposedly designed to accept front suspension. For some reason I'd like to resurrect it and I'm undecided about whether to set it up as a fully rigid SS for road use, or a suspension hardtail for singletrack use.

How can I figure out how much travel this frame can use? I'm pretty much unfamiliar with this issue. It does have a 1 1/8 HT, by the way. Thanks.
I know an owner of a '96 Trek 970 who uses '02 bomber. His bike looks quite normal. I think any fork of 455 mm or shorter will do.
 
#15 ·
By 1996 companies were taking the increased length of suspension forks in mind in frame geometry, and they were using the then standard travel of XC forks, which was up to the 2.5" for most brands. The difference in length between a modern 80mm fork (as most XC forks are at now) and a 1996 vintage 63mm fork (2.5") is actually less than the difference between the same 1996 fork and a 1992-94 vintage XC fork (typically 1.5 to 2") BECAUSE early suspension forks majorly lacked in tire clearance as well as they'd been designed artificially short in length to have less of a geometry changing effect on non-suspension corrected geometry bikes/frames. A 1992 Manitou 1 or Rockshox Mag-20 fork (both at 1.8" travel) were pretty damn short at 15.9" crown to axle. But if you ran a 2.35" tire (such as a Ritchey Z-Max) in one, bottoming the fork would be accompanied with a buzzing noise as your center knobs contact the underside of the fork crown. The 1996 Judy SL at 2.5" travel was 16.8" long though, so the length increased a full inch while the travel only increased 0.7". The extra 0.3" ? Tire clearance. I have a 2002 Judy SL at 80mm travel... its 17.7" in length. So another 0.9" in length for an about another 0.7" of travel... again the difference is for tire clearance as the fork makers continue to expect fatter tires to be run by a lot of owners and nothing triggers a liability lawsuit better than a fork which stops the tire when the suspension bottoms out at speed.
 
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