# Any differences between old Trek 930, 950 and 990 frames?



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

I have the chance to buy a vintage Trek 930 frame for $30. I know little about these frames, but am curious enough to have done some online trolling to see what they are about. Is the same frame used for the 930, 950 and 990, such that the difference between models are the original components spec'd, not the frame?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

I believe steel is different... not a big difference though. at 30 bucks it's a good start for a vintage bike.


----------



## Johnny Alien (May 15, 2010)

I think in some years the 930 and 950 were the same with the exception of the fork but I am not 100% positive of that.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I think Johnny is correct. Same with Colker. For $30, it's worth it.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Definitely a decent frame for $30, they are bombproof, fairly light and ride nicely. I thought only the 990 had better steel, the difference between 930 and 950 being the addition of a suspension fork. Here's a pic of my old 950, now owned by a friend of mine. Still going strong, it has been raced within the last 2 years.


----------



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

There are old Trek catalogues you can peruse online. Pretty sure they had tubing listed too, at least for the old stuff.


----------



## blak_byke (Jun 21, 2006)

Is the 930 lugged or like the later 950 pictured above?

930 and 950 were the same (TRU OX COMP II) and 970 and 990 were the same (TRU OX COMP III) I believe. Later 970's were even stamped 990 on the BB shell. Now that I have to sell my GT Lightning frame, I'm transferring the parts to my 970 frame.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

The 970 and 990 always had nicer tubes. The TIG welded versions were easy to spot even without decals due to the gusset at the top/head tube junction.


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

blak_byke said:


> Is the 930 lugged or like the later 950 pictured above?
> 
> Its lugged. I'm now the owner. Thanks for the insights.


----------



## blak_byke (Jun 21, 2006)

GottaGo said:


> blak_byke said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 930 lugged or like the later 950 pictured above?
> ...


----------



## blak_byke (Jun 21, 2006)

Zanetti said:


> The 970 and 990 always had nicer tubes. The TIG welded versions were easy to spot even without decals due to the gusset at the top/head tube junction.


I so badly want a 970/990 in the matte silver ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

So the plot thickens.... 
I got around to looking at the frame more closely this morning and learned the fork is a GT one, not a Trek. I also notice the decals are, in fact, replacements, and realize the frame has been repainted with what looks like Krylon from the hardware store. 

From my prior nosing around the internet, I saw the vintage Trek website and looked up the serial numbers. I don't have and 930, I have a 970 frame!

Wooo wooo! From online pictures, where I have been able to see the lugs, it looks like it's a '96. It isn't TIG welded anywhere. It has a 1 1'8" headset.

I am a happy guy! rather than start building it up, I think I'm going to look into getting the frame stripped and repainted.


----------



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

'96 wasn't lugged anymore was it? Should be TIG welded after 1994.


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

Yo Nate,

Below is a link to a picture of what the lugs on my frame look like. I looked on Bikepedia and 1993 is the last year of the lugged frame. But according to Bikepedia, that bike should be equipped with a 7 speed rear wheel and a pre-threadless headset. My frame has a 1 1/8" threadless fork and a 9 speed rear wheel slides right in - suggesting the frame is designed for a 8 speed rear cassette. FWW, the Bikepedia website does not seem to have all the years the 970 was produced, so maybe take its info with a grain of salt.

I checked again the serial numbers on the vintage Trek website with what I have. While it doesn't shed any light on the year, clearly it is a mid-90s 970, 20" frame.

Whatever it is, I like it! I'm thinking about maybe repainting it in an anodized burnt orange.

https://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/trek9905.jpg


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

GottaGo said:


> Yo Nate,
> 
> Below is a link to a picture of what the lugs on my frame look like. I looked on Bikepedia and 1993 is the last year of the lugged frame. But according to Bikepedia, that bike should be equipped with a 7 speed rear wheel and a pre-threadless headset. My frame has a 1 1/8" threadless fork and a 9 speed rear wheel slides right in - suggesting the frame is designed for a 8 speed rear cassette. FWW, the Bikepedia website does not seem to have all the years the 970 was produced, so maybe take its info with a grain of salt.
> 
> ...


I saw that exact bike yesterday. The Tour of California rolled through my town yesterday and one of the spectators was on a minty DX equiped Trek 990. I offered cash and a ride, but was denied.


----------



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

Hm. Can you post a pic of your bike? If it has lugs like that then it is not early 90s but mid-90s. And 135mm rear spacing will accommodate 7 speed as easily as 9 speed, the only difference is in the hub/cassette.

They are nice frames to be sure. My dad has a minty '92 970 that I've posted here a while back. Some years didn't have both the 970 and 990. If I recall the frames were the same but the 990 got full XT spec while the 970 had mostly DX with some XT bits--shifters, etc.


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

Hope this works?


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

Hope this works II.


__
https://flic.kr/p/4631825042


__
https://flic.kr/p/4631825188


----------



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

Nice lugs. The staggered top tube cable stops are cool too.


----------



## mtnbeer (Jul 2, 2007)

Different Front Derailleur setups between the pictures. The Red 990 uses a Bottom Pull Front Derailleur with the cable routed from the Top. This works by fixing the cable to the Chainstay stiffener and running the Front Derailleur off the cable housing. You can see that in the picture of the red bike
The Blue 930 or whatever it is has a Cable stop on the back of the seatube. So it's setup for a top pull FD. So it looks like you have a 1993 Trek 900 series. 
Forks are different between the different 1993 900 series bikes.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

GottaGo said:


> Yo Nate,
> 
> Below is a link to a picture of what the lugs on my frame look like. I looked on Bikepedia and 1993 is the last year of the lugged frame. But according to Bikepedia, that bike should be equipped with a 7 speed rear wheel and a pre-threadless headset. My frame has a 1 1/8" threadless fork and a 9 speed rear wheel slides right in - suggesting the frame is designed for a 8 speed rear cassette. FWW, the Bikepedia website does not seem to have all the years the 970 was produced, so maybe take its info with a grain of salt.
> 
> ...


Seven speed hyperglide is 135mm spaced.... the same as eight, nine, and now ten speed.

Trek started using threadless headsets one year after they were introduced -1993, and 1 1/8" head tubes were standard on all the upper end MTB frames from 1991 and up. And the lugged frames with OS tubes were made from 1991 to 1993. 1994 and up frames were all TIG welded.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

It could be a 930 SHX, as they came with a threadless headset that year. It would explain the replacement GT fork as the Shockwave fork was worthless.










Remove the BB and fork/headset and check for paint that would indicate its original color.


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

Good suggestion. According to Vintage Trek (VT), the color of the 1993 930 SHX is electric plum. I pulled the fork and there is what I would say is basic fire engine red paint inside the headset. That's consistent with the '93 970 mountain bike (non-suspension) which, according to VT, is simply "red with black decals".

Still nothing conclusive. The 1 1/8" head tube, rear wheel spacing and lugs don't add up. In the some of the stuff I found online, there are suggestions that the Trek employees were allowed to use the company tools to build their own frames. Maybe this is one of those?

Thanks for all the suggestions and insights, its fun. Now, on to the next phase of the project - refinishing the frame.


----------



## mtnbeer (Jul 2, 2007)

*1993 TREK 970 everything adds up.*

1993 TREK 970 everything adds up.

You have a color match, Lug match and 
Did you look at the picture 970 in the1993 catalog?
http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/93/Trek93.pdf

Trek use 1 1/8 headtube from 1991 on (Just checked stem from My Brothers 1991 970, Versus my 1989 and 1990 Treks), 
Lugs up through 1993, 135 mm rear spacing on my 1989 950 and my 1990 930. 
Seat Cluster Lug and Front Derailleur routing puts your bike at 1993.


----------



## GottaGo (Sep 29, 2006)

Mtnbeer, we have a wrap! 
I hadn't checked out the 1993 catalog. The picture confirms what I've got. Thanks as well, for confirming the details on the rest of your vintage Trek herd.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Here's my '92 990 that I just built up. It rides really nice. I bought a used Marzocchi fork off eBay and went through my boxes of old parts to complete the bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^Nice bike! I have a 1991 970. Extremely well built frame with beautiful lugs like yours. The bike oozes quality and not only is the frame bullet proof, but the paint job they did on those bikes is extremely durable. It does a great job of protecting that true temper OX tubing they don't make for bikes anymore. 

I have been looking for a '95 990 and want to do the same with the brakes and use a Rockshox Recon 80mm that I have laying around. How is the rear braking with that set up and what brakes are you running? They look like BB7s, but can't tell for sure.

Also, what is the head and seat angle with that fork and the travel? One reason I want a '95 is because it is suspension corrected, but it does not have lugs. The years with lugs are not suspension correct, but I really like the lugged frames.

Oh, you might be able to remove the v-brake posts on the fork since you don't need them on.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I agree, the paint on these bikes is very nice, even 24 years later. My '92 came stock with with a Showa suspension fork so the geometry works fine for the 80mm fork I installed. It handles nicely and doesn't feel like a chopper when riding it. Here are some specs for my bike. It rides very well for a hardtail. I really like this frame and how it was made. It is pretty to look at!
https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/1992/1992TrekBikecatalog.pdf

I'm pretty sure my brakes are BB7's. I've had them for a long time and the rear disc mount was something I bought off eBay years ago. It fits well enough and the rear brake works fine and doesn't rub. I had this same adapter on a different frame and drilled a hole through it to mount to the drop out. I'm likely going to have to drill another hole so I can line up with the existing fender/rack boss on the 990 frame. I'll have to use a shim to keep the adapter plumb with the rotor but it will then be a little more secure. Right now the quick release clamps it to the drop out which is how its designed but a small bolt will keep it in place when you drop the rear wheel. I still need to secure the rear brake cable and like you saw, remove the V-brake posts from the fork. : )


----------



## Doug (Jan 12, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> .... remove the V-brake posts from the fork. : ) .


Don't. Those hold the fork together and function as brake bosses/mounts. They made bolts you could put in there when using disk brakes.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Thanks for the warning! After reading your post I looked at my fork and could see the seam between the parts and how the posts held it together.


----------



## theMotoMan (Feb 21, 2008)

I’ve recently got back into the bike scene since being out ill for several years. Still not fully recovered, but putting together a low-budget project bike is just what the doctor ordered to get me moving forward.

Looking at doing a 90’s Trek 950/970/990. From other posts I see they are lugged from 91-93 and tig welded from 94 and up. I see the frame specs have changes slightly between the lugged and the tig welded groups. I love the look of the lugged frames, but am wondering if the newer tig welded frames are lighter and have better/refined geometry. Any opinions here? BTW, I live in Colorado and like to do single track and mountain rides. TIA.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Trek, Fisher, Klein, Lemond bike catalogs, bicycle brochures

The technical manuals list the geometry here if that helps you.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

theMotoMan said:


> I've recently got back into the bike scene since being out ill for several years. Still not fully recovered, but putting together a low-budget project bike is just what the doctor ordered to get me moving forward.
> 
> Looking at doing a 90's Trek 950/970/990. From other posts I see they are lugged from 91-93 and tig welded from 94 and up. I see the frame specs have changes slightly between the lugged and the tig welded groups. I love the look of the lugged frames, but am wondering if the newer tig welded frames are lighter and have better/refined geometry. Any opinions here? BTW, I live in Colorado and like to do single track and mountain rides. TIA.


One thing to note is that the lugged frames were not suspension corrected. So if your planning on using a sus fork over 40mm or 50mm of travel or so the lugged frame might not be the way to go.

As well as being suspension corrected, the Mid 90s geo had a slightly longer top tube and wheel base vs the early 90's lugged frames.

If using a sus fork, even on the suspension corrected frame, you might not want to go over 80mm as that was considered "long travel" back then. Anything longer might throw off the handling and, IMHO, these are some of the best handling bikes from the 90's.


----------

