# Component compatibility for an old Gary fisher frame



## pokerphrog (Nov 13, 2011)

I was able to get an old Gary Fisher Tarpon for $50. I just like it. It being so old, it has nothing I can take on single track, or really anything off road.

I recently bought a Rock Shox Recon 120mm travel for my other bike, but starting to think I want to fix up the Gary Fisher. i am fairly new to the game and need to know how I tell if they are compatible before I screw something up. 

i also plan to replace all the components and make it a disk brake system, so any insight on those future endeavors would be appreciated as well. Thanks.


----------



## coopdad (Nov 6, 2010)

Welcome to the board!
Being pretty new to biking myself I too was tempted to do the same, buy a cheap bike and add great parts to build a great bike at half the price. BUT, if you do some numbers you will realize that concept doesn't really hold water. 
For instance, the first upgrade is a decent fork. That will take at least $300. But most good forks don't have V-brake ability. So you will need disk brakes... it will cost say $150 for the brake parts. But you will also need wheels that are disk compatible at say another $150 min. With just those few upgrades you are at $600. You could have a better bike with all newer/better parts for the same $600 off Craigslist.
Yes, it sux but there are few monetary shortcuts to our hobby.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Coopdad is spot on about the fix up. It's going to cost more to retro fit old bike than buy a cheaper and newer bike. You can always use your GF for commuting


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

As mentioned above fixing up an old frame generally is not cost effective. But if you want to do it here are the things you need to know:

1. What size is the headtube, 1" or 1 1/8". No decent forks are available in the 1" size anymore.

2. What is the fork travel. You need to get a fork with similar axle to crown measurements as the exisiting fork, or the geometry will be out of whack.

3. Does it have rear disc tabs? If not you are not going to be able to run a rear disc unless you can find a suitable adapter.

A pic of the bike would also be very helpful as well as the model year if you know it.


----------



## pokerphrog (Nov 13, 2011)

So I also have a stock Trek 4300 that I bought before I really had my first off road ride and really enjoyed the actual sport. I have had it about it a year and decided to start replacing the components, since I am doing more and more technical stuff. That is what I originally bought that Recon fork for and also some new Avid BB7 disk brakes. THEN I got the Gary Fisher and thus this discussion if I want to/can put these parts on the Gary Fisher instead. 

That being said, it sounds like before I even go too deep I need to measure the head tube, and see if it disk brake compatible. Might a mute point.


----------



## Crash Test Dumby (May 3, 2011)

According to Bikepedia the Tarpon came out as a 2001 model so I would definitley think the head tube would be 1 1/8. But the 01 and 02 models had rigid forks and the 03 to 08 models had 63mm RST forks. Either way the geometry wpuld no doubt be ruined by a 120mm fork.


----------



## pokerphrog (Nov 13, 2011)

Crash Test Dumby said:


> Either way the geometry wpuld no doubt be ruined by a 120mm fork.


I apologize for my ignorance. So are we talking like maybe 80 - 100 mm would work, or no suspension fork at all?

And to claify, I understand building a bike is going to cost money, but there are a couple of factors at play
1. I want to learn how to work on bikes. Namely my own right now (and my wife's once I figure my sh** out)
2. And I just enjoy acutally working on it. Seeing it all come together.

So I appreciate the info you guys are putting out. Helps alot.


----------



## Crash Test Dumby (May 3, 2011)

I don't have first hand experience here, but have read that the best rule of thumb is stay within 20mm of stock. A member here named Marpilla has a thred in the GT forum about his GT Aggressor build. The Aggressor was designed for 63mm and he first tried 100mm and found the handling totally unacceptable. I have read about, but can't confirm, snapped head tubes from forks too long putting way too much stress. Marpilli went down to 80mm and was very happy there. But your stock geometry is not exactly the same as his so your results may vary.

What year is your Trek? If its older than 2008 then its also only an 80mm fork so your replacement fork might be problematic there also. There are different Recons, coil and air versions, and it might be able to be modified down to 100mm.


----------



## Crash Test Dumby (May 3, 2011)

Below is a link to Marpilli's thread on his Aggressor build. It is a kinda long thread but could be a worthwhike read. Many of his problems/experiences/solutions could apply to your situation. Building does not make sense economically, but can be a fun and very rewarding experience. Another member named Getagrip has several threads here in the Beginners Forum about his Trek 820 build, turned Leader 510 build. Lots of great info to be found here.

Good luck and keep us posted.

http://forums.mtbr.com/gt/gt-frame-build-up-2005-aggressor-694461.html


----------



## pokerphrog (Nov 13, 2011)

My Trek is 2010, so it's gtg. That's why I went with that Recon in the first place. And now it looks like it will still be going on the Trek. The Recon is a air/coil version. 

Next step is to see if the frame is disk brake compatible. Have to look tonight.

I'm definitely going to read through that thread. Thanks.

Updates coming.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

All you really need from a bike is that it goes, stops, shifts, and doesn't do anything weird.

For an off-road bike, that plus fat tires.

For a singlespeed bike, that minus shifting.

You do NOT need disc brakes or suspension. I find both to be welcome additions to my mountain bike, but I also get a fair amount of saddle time with neither.

Since this is a second bike and it sounds like something of an impulse, I'd say start by assessing the damage. parktool.com has a new bike build checklist. If you worked your way through that, you'd figure out what, exactly, is screwed up. A lot of old bikes really just need a new chain and some air in the tires. A lot of old bikes need a whole new drivetrain and all the bearings replaced. You need to figure out what you've got. Anyway, once you know, you can start thinking about what you want this one to be. The more screwed up it is, the more freedom you have. Which is a silver lining, but whatever.

Post some pics. The main compatibility problems with older vs. newer mountain bikes are going to be suspension travel, if any, and head tube standard. You still have to do your due diligence with any component purchase because most have sizes and versions that will not work with all bikes. But the fork's the only one where availability of parts for old standards will really influence your build.

Since you already have a mountain bike that works, ideas that come to my mind are a commute/utility bike, a 'B'/loaner bike, or a singlespeed conversion.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

We have a 2003 Tarpon in Very Good shape sitting in the garage. We were looking to getting rid of the stock fork for a rigid. Do you really need a suspension adjusted fork?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Need is a funny word.

It will make a really big change in the character and handling of your bike if you reduce the axle-crown height by more than about 20mm. So I wouldn't do that to a bike I liked, especially since I think a fork with the right height is available.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Need is a funny word.
> 
> It will make a really big change in the character and handling of your bike if you reduce the axle-crown height by more than about 20mm. So I wouldn't do that to a bike I liked, especially since I think a fork with the right height is available.


I'll have to measure. Thanks


----------



## swingset (Oct 14, 2010)

coopdad said:


> Welcome to the board!
> Being pretty new to biking myself I too was tempted to do the same, buy a cheap bike and add great parts to build a great bike at half the price. BUT, if you do some numbers you will realize that concept doesn't really hold water.
> For instance, the first upgrade is a decent fork. That will take at least $300. But most good forks don't have V-brake ability. So you will need disk brakes... it will cost say $150 for the brake parts. But you will also need wheels that are disk compatible at say another $150 min. With just those few upgrades you are at $600. You could have a better bike with all newer/better parts for the same $600 off Craigslist.
> Yes, it sux but there are few monetary shortcuts to our hobby.


All that's true if you pay top dollar or buy only new parts.

Closeouts, fleabay, etc. you can put a bike together really cheaply even using top end take-off parts.

I'm cobbling together a Haro V4 frame and I've gone all disc, good air fork, hydro brakes and light wheelset and I haven't broken $400 yet just by buying gently used.

That said, once your frame shows signs of obsolescence (wrong geometry for modern forks, for instance), it's really only worth doing for resto or fun.

I absolutely love bringing a bike or machine back from the dead, even if it's not the latest/greatest. Afterall, 15 years ago people were riding and having fun on these bikes.


----------



## pokerphrog (Nov 13, 2011)

[/QUOTE]
That said, once your frame shows signs of obsolescence (wrong geometry for modern forks, for instance), it's really only worth doing for resto or fun.

I absolutely love bringing a bike or machine back from the dead, even if it's not the latest/greatest. Afterall, 15 years ago people were riding and having fun on these bikes.[/QUOTE]

That's is kind what I'm trying to do. Bring this thing back from the dead. I recently began to transfer parts from a newer bike to the GF and got all the way to the rear and realized this frame is not set for rear disk brakes. 
Bummer.
However, I plan to go disk in the front and V in the back. Is this a major logistical issue? What things should I consider when going this route. I plan to use Avid BB7 mechanical disk in the front with Avid speed dial 7 levers.

As for an update, the fork is good. I fits perfectly with 80mm travel.

Pictures still coming. Having trouble uploading them to the forum.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Disc front/V rear was never especially common, but I saw a few of them around for a while a couple years ago. It's supposed to work fine, and you shouldn't have any problems.


----------

