# 1993 Trek 930 Singletrack SHX worth updating?



## dgoak (Feb 19, 2007)

So I'll be moving out of the city soon and hopefully able to get back into mountain biking. With 2 kids, job, etc...it's been hard to get and ride out living in the city. I used to race when I was younger and had taken very good care of my Trek and upgraded most of it. It's still at my parents house and I've been thinking of picking it up when we move. 

I know I need to to fix a few things, BB, shock elastomers, cables, lube etc. Just wondering if it's worth fixing or selling it and buying something new. I know I can fix the shocks from a vintage shock site that sells refresher kits. but the rest not sure on, for example anyone know what size BB this bike had? I know this needs to be replaced, brakes were cantilevers and since I'd be running all new cables was thinking of upgrading them as well as the wheels.


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Not worth a whole lot. Elastomers can be a *****. I'd do cables, lube. tires, etc and ride it for a while. If mountain biking takes, think about getting something newer then.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

If you don't have a bunch of cash to blow, that's a hard bike to beat. Double butted True Temper frame, STX components, it's a blue collar trail beast if ever there was one. 

If you have a bit of discretionary income, buy a better 100ish mm fork, replace what else doesn't work, put at least some V brakes on it, perhaps a disc on the new fork along with a new wheel, and beat the crap out of it. 

In a few years, you'll either want a new ride, and have saved for it, or you'll appreciate it for what it is, a great tool to relax and unwind, and say it's good enough. Too many folks out there thinking they need the latest thing to have fun......


----------



## dgoak (Feb 19, 2007)

thanks for the info, I have a Manitu 3 on it now. would a 100mm fork work with the frame geometry? For $45 I can get new inserts for the shock as opposed to a few hundred for a new shock all together.

thanks for the advice.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

If you're being price savvy, sure, you could do that. But a 2 year old RS Reba will be fairly cheap, and way better at the job you're asking it to do. Effectively taking your perfectly functional, no need to upgrade because a new one would do the same thing, bike, and fix the one thing that modern bike technology has really improved on a massive scale....

Of, stick the bumpers in, and ride it as a "classic"


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

dgoak said:


> thanks for the info, I have a Manitu 3 on it now. would a 100mm fork work with the frame geometry? For $45 I can get new inserts for the shock as opposed to a few hundred for a new shock all together.
> 
> thanks for the advice.


I think 100mm would be too much for that bike. You may be able to get by with a modern 80mm but even that is questionable. If you can get new elastomers, that may be your best option. There's no way your old fork will perform as well as a modern one, but it'll get you back out riding, and then you can decide where to go from there. Get some new tires and brakes (at least some new kool stop pads), and go ride.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

trailville said:


> I think 100mm would be too much for that bike.


Not being argumentative here, but I'd disagree. A 150? Sure. that's a big old lever, but it'd handle 100 fine. It's a well built, sturdy, good name tubeset, etc. If he were a bruiser who wanted to dirt jump it, I'd concede to your point.

In reading your thoughts though, I was struck with another thought.

Simply pick up a travel adjustable version, It'd be in the 115 to 85 range, so you could find just right.

I mentioned the slightly slacker 100 fork initially, as it will make the bike a bit more capable of handling the higher potential speeds going down hill, made possible by a fork that actually works


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Between the two, I'd say 80mm too, especially for a 93. And you are more likely to find a nicer fork used than a 100mm.

Between the three, I'd go rigid and get some fat tires on it. Maybe even single speed.


----------



## dgoak (Feb 19, 2007)

wow, I feel so old. I'm only 31 and I actually just caught myself thinking........."in my day we had 2 inches of travel and we were thankful for that"......

Last time I rode seriously....RS Judy's were the rage, full suspension was for downhillers only, onza bar-ends were mandatory, disc breaks were conceptual, what the hell is a 29er....( I Know what it is, just saying)...  

damn, it may be easier to just pick up a new rig......


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Not being argumentative here, but I'd disagree. A 150? Sure. that's a big old lever, but it'd handle 100 fine. It's a well built, sturdy, good name tubeset, etc. If he were a bruiser who wanted to dirt jump it, I'd concede to your point.
> 
> In reading your thoughts though, I was struck with another thought.
> 
> ...


I don't know the exact specs on that bike, but when I see a low to mid-level bike from '93 with a "shx" and a rigid version, I suspect the frame itself is probably the same as the rigid version (not suspension corrected), so you're essentially starting with a frame designed around an axle-to-crown under 400mm. A typical 100mm fork has an axle-to-crown of 470-480mm. Even when you take sag into account, that's a pretty big change in geometry. I've had no problems using 80mm forks on '95 or later suspension-corrected frames, but that's about where I draw the line. I'm not saying he can't do it, but I wouldn't. Plus, the affordable forks these days tend to be boat anchors, and I hate to see 5-pound forks on old-school XC rigs. I think he's better off keeping his investment in that bike to a minimum, and if he enjoys riding, think about buying something newer (still keep the 930 though, it's always nice to have more bikes)

And no Mendon, I'm not trying to be argumentative either. I know you're very knowledgeable on these old rigs, I was just a little surprised by the 100mm recommendation.

I'd also second yo-nate's option of going rigid and putting some fat tires (at least a fatty up front) on it. If that bike had been the non-shx version, I was going to ask if he still had the original fork laying around. Though if he can get new elastomers for the fork, that's not a bad option either. Since he hasn't ridden a modern fork, he'll never know what he's missing


----------



## stubecontinued (Mar 14, 2007)

I'll third the rigid fork and fat tires option.. I also agree with Mendon on the comment about not needing the latest thing to have fun. A frame of that caliber would cost a whole lot more if it were being produced now, enjoy the classics because they represent value and quality we won't see again.


----------



## momosgarage (Jan 11, 2010)

I actually statred a very similar project. I got a number or good craigslist give aways and ended up with a Trek 950 and 930 (looks like the same frame, but some years didn't triple butt the 930's and below). However mine came with a Showa made "trek mogul" suspension fork and Trek DS-2 fork which I think is a rebadged Rock Shox RS-1. Both still seem to be in good working order. I had Manitou 3 back in the day and somehow these feel a little more modern in comparison, but I may be wrong.



> If you have a bit of discretionary income, buy a better 100ish mm fork, replace what else doesn't work, put at least some V brakes on it, perhaps a disc on the new fork along with a new wheel, and beat the crap out of it.


V-brakes don't fit on my 930 or 950 and I can't figure out if its the bosses location or that the V-brakes won't fit over the bosses.

What quality forks could he buy that have adjustable travel and can be set for 80mm? I am also curious because I am tied up in the same kind of project.


----------



## dgoak (Feb 19, 2007)

momosgarge said:


> What quality forks could he buy that have adjustable travel and can be set for 80mm? I am also curious because I am tied up in the same kind of project.


I'm not even going to bother with buying a new fork. My Manitou 4 is just fine for this bike. If I can work it into my schedule to ride regularly like I used too then I'll just buy a new bike altogether. But in the meantime I'll probably order these for the manitou 4.

Manitou 4 Elastomer Refresh Kit


----------



## Rad Rider 415 (Nov 20, 2010)

Does anyone out there know what year the frame design switched on these trek 930's? I have a 1991 single track version with the lugged tubes and I was told the rigid fork is made to stay on and I cannot put a suspension fork on. I have seen later models with just modern day steel look to them but what year did trek switch?


----------



## 1 cog frog (Dec 21, 2004)

*Check here...*

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/Default.aspx

or here:

http://www.mtb-kataloge.de/

Good luck!

frog


----------



## Rad Rider 415 (Nov 20, 2010)

The only difference between the regular model and shx was the shx came with a suspension fork and 1994 looks like the frame changed. Could have been before that but it only shows back until 94'.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

I picked up what looks to be a stock 1993 Trek 930 SHX Singletrack at the flea market. After some online digging, I learned that this is a virtually bombproof bike, with solid Shimano Altus components. I'm a big fan of vintage bikes, especially lugged steel frames like this one has. Looks like the only real issue with this bike is the suspension fork. Not overly familiar with suspension forks (I'm originally a road bike rider), but looks like the fork is locked up. Any suggestions on how to proceed?


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

PaulCoffeeFreak said:


> proceed?


Light on fire. Ghost jump.

More helpful: If its the original Shock Wave fork, the elastomers are likely smoked. The fork isn't worth replacing. It wasn't worth owning for that matter. You could upgrade or find a rigid fork to get that thing back out there.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

It's the original Shockwave fork, and yes, the elastomers appear to be toasted. If I'm not mistaken, this fork only allowed 1.5 inches of absorption. How much room, and what kind of shock fork am I looking for? I don't plan to ride too aggressively, mainly tooling around with the kids, some singletrack, basically trying to get fit again.

I've been out of the cycling loop for 5 years or so...what's a decent suspension fork for this bike run these days?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

like ameybrook said, rigid would be best.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Go rigid....


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Yeah, that's the conclusion I'm coming to. Any suggestions on a rigid fork that will work with the brakes? I'm demonstrating my ignorance, but I think they're cantilever. It's the stock setup, because the triangular plate with the brake cable stop says TREK. Looks like it was made specifically for this fork. Ok, so...rigid. Next step?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

I see rigid 26" forks all the time at local shops that sell used bike stuff. There's also ebay and cl. TONS of forks out there. I really like the Ritchey Logic forks and those come up for a good price fairly often.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

I have the same bike. My understanding is that 94 was the first year with suspension corrected geometry. You will want a 395 MM fork with a 45 mm offset.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Fred Smedley said:


> I have the same bike. My understanding is that 94 was the first year with suspension corrected geometry. You will want a 395 MM fork with a 45 mm offset.


Am I understanding you correctly that these measurements are for a rigid fork?


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

girlonbike said:


> I see rigid 26" forks all the time at local shops that sell used bike stuff. There's also ebay and cl. TONS of forks out there. I really like the Ritchey Logic forks and those come up for a good price fairly often.


The Ritchey Logic is a carbon fork, right? How well will they hold up under a Clydesdale? I'm not planning to do a bunch of jumping and real rough riding, but I see curbs and ditches in my future.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

PaulCoffeeFreak said:


> Am I understanding you correctly that these measurements are for a rigid fork?


yes, for a 93 or older non suspension corrected fork.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Fred Smedley said:


> I have the same bike. My understanding is that 94 was the first year with suspension corrected geometry. You will want a 395 MM fork with a 45 mm offset.


The Surly 1x1 Mountain fork

CroMoly tubing, butted blades
Suspension-corrected for 80mm travel forks,
fits wide 2.7" tires with clearance
FK0003 has ISO disc tabs and removable canti pivots
Fork Rake: 45 mm
Steerer Tube Length: 260 mm
Wheel Size: 26"
Weight: 1030 g
Steerer Tube: 1-1/8" Threadless
413mm axle to crown

Any reason why this fork wouldn't work, other than the too-long steerer tube? I guess I want to make sure I understand your measurements.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

PaulCoffeeFreak said:


> The Surly 1x1 Mountain fork
> 
> CroMoly tubing, butted blades
> Suspension-corrected for 80mm travel forks,
> ...


It would slow down your steering because the axle to crown is 18 mm's to long. 395 trek forks are a real easy find if you have a bike co-op. A GT or specialized fork with the same length, and 1 1/8 headtube diameter will also work . Look for something with double butted tubing, it will ride much nicer than that stiff Surly fork.


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

No photo of your 930? A-la before & after.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Ah, I understand now. No bike co-op that I know about, but 3 very solid reputable LBS nearby. I'm sure between the 3 of them, somebody's upgraded a stock bike, leaving the stock fork behind. I'll keep those numbers in mind, see what I can dig up.

Hopefully this won't happen: If they try to talk me into a suspension fork that they've taken off something else, what do I want to avoid? Any sketchy suspension forks I need to know about?


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Mtn-Rider said:


> No photo of your 930? A-la before & after.


Soon as I can get them. I had to let the air out of the tires and remove the wheels, just to get it in the minivan. Didn't plan on buying a bike that day, don't you know. I haven't reassembled it yet, but plan to ASAP. Not really a fan of electric plum paint, but I couldn't ignore a solid Trek cro-moly lugged frame that was rideable. Especially not with the Rapidfire Altus shifters. Always liked those better than the gripshift.


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Pics coming as soon as I can get them uploaded!


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

*1993 Trek Singletrack SHX*





































Here are some pics I grabbed tonight. Sorry about the quality, the sun was headed down fast, so I pointed the headlights at it. I rode it around the yard a bit this evening, after I made sure the tires were pumped up. Such a different feel from my Schwinn Traveler road bike. Geometry will take some getting used to. Oh, and yes, I'll be pointing that saddle down just a bit!


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Grrr! What am I doing wrong? Pics should have shown up!


----------



## PaulCoffeeFreak (Oct 31, 2011)

Let me try it this way...

Trek MTB - a set on Flickr


----------

