AdventureManCO 

Hmmm...methinks I need to now post the 1997 930 I picked up the other day if we are doing show and tell

3speedslow

2old

Great buy. I think those Treks are a victim of their popularity and durability. There were too many sold and too many still around. I had a lower spec 830 that functioned well for years. Vintage of your bike seems to be early 90's with elastomer forks. Are the elasromers still "working" and/or do you know where to get replacements?

AdventureManCO 

Ask and ye shall receive





And the frame for cleaning -



The bike weighs every bit of its 27+lb weight and then some. Most of the components on it are lower end junk, bulky and heavy. I'd like to turn this one into a single speed, get some riser bars and a shorter stem on there and see what it does. While I like the idea of originality (which this bike is almost completely original), it is actually holding back the frame's potential.

I'm curious to see what the frame alone weighs. The top of the line '94-'96' Trek steel frames (OX III heat treated) I think are somewhere around a 4.6lb weight for an 18" frame. The '99 technical manual lists the 930 frame (which appears to be identical to this one) at 3.6lbs! I'm thinking for sure that has to be a typo.

In any case it is a solid, made-in-USA triple butted cro-moly frame and second to the last year of the USA steel Treks. Gonna have some fun with it! Next up on the list will be either a lugged '90 or '91 990, then I'll have one from each generation.

2old

You may get lucky with a magic ratio for single speed; happened twice for me at 32/19 and 32/20 with a 2000 GT Zaskar and early 90's (AFAIK) Diamondback Axis.

AdventureManCO 

Using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator, it looks like that comes out to a gearing of 3.0 to 3.2 with a 26 x 2.125 tire size. I have a single speed conversion kit with a 16T rear sprocket. If I was going to go for that ratio, using the same tire, and based on the gear calculator, I'd want a front chainring to be 26T or 27T. I feel I'd be spinning a lot with that combo, but who knows! Half the fun is playing around with this stuff.

AdventureManCO 

So to follow up on my previous post about the '98 930, I got it stripped down to a bare frame. The tech manual lists this particular bike at 27.7lbs. Let's just say a LOT of that weight is in the components. The crankset + bb is over 1200 grams. The seat + seatpost combo was over 800 grams. The grips were almost 300!!!

For anyone interested, and as a data point, here is what a 1998 Trek 930 OX II triple butted 18" frame weighs: 5.24lbs/2370gms





What is funny is that Trek, in their '99 tech manual (1 year later), claims their frame (both '99 and 98' frames look identical, OX III triple butted) weighs 3.6lbs. I have no idea how they arrived at that number.

BengalCat

I had a model 800, (they had a fixed rigid fork), and it lasted me until it was stolen last year. The only problem was the frame broke in 2011 near the rear close to the gears. It was welded in in about two minutes and was solid thereafter. It was cheap, sturdy, reliable, heavy and a get around town bike. After the theft, I got a Trek FX series bike for about $600. It rides way better and is more versatile with its huge gearing range.

Ancly

I've just done a moving job for a friend and came home with a nice Singletrack 930. How high is that up the food chain?

I'm 6' and it's probably a small but I might make it work.

A lot of interest in these, Stumpies and GT bikes on the xbiking sub******.

DMC707

you need a Large but can make a Small work?

interesting

curbtender

Adding to the mix, XL

Bianchigirll 

what year is your 930? Interest in Stumpjumpers is usually for the first year or two. I would be interested in an older, say mid ‘80s 930 with a lugged steel frame. Some of the earlier ‘90s bike had nice colors but not as interesting frames

I think in steel ATBS and MTBs Trek had two tiers of steel the 800 and 900 line. The 900 were nicer and the 930 was I believe the middle model. A nice respectable machine

It’s like shoes. You might wear a 7 but if it is a really nice looking good quality shoe at an attractive markdown you can make 6.5 work

bikeclub

That looks really nice, a XL like that is hard to come by. Ping me if you ever decide to sell it!

cyrano138

Maybe a little off topic, but I always look twice at steel, rigid mtbs when I'm browsing.

I have a GT outpost that's been out to Alafia near Tampa (a pretty legit trail if you overlook the lack of mountains in Florida), and it kept up pretty well with the full suspension bikes. Honestly, I think these bikes get overlooked even as trail bikes because there are so many people out there telling new cyclists that if they don't spend 4k on a bike with full suspension they're going to die just riding through the parking lot on the way to the trail.

I also have a Trek 970 (89 I think) that I'm thinking of making into a single speed.
*Edit: nm on the single speed conversion. I just looked at it and saw it has vertical drops.

DMC707

2 words

Chain Tensioner

Amazon.com: Bike Chain Tensioner Single Speed Adjuster Converter for MTB, Road Racing Bike : Sports & Outdoors

cyrano138

I know, I know.
Something inside me will always hate the way those things look. I can't explain it.
In my brain it's:
Single/fixed > geared > single with tensioner
I might try it this time though. I'll see if I get lucky with chain length (or a half link) first, though.

DMC707

Completely understand --- i also hate the stack of cassette spacers ive used in the past too.

cyrano138

What do those look like?

DMC707

This would be the elegant looking store bought solution, but ive made mine by dismantling 2 cassettes and using the plastic spacers before for a low dough setup

cyrano138

Id like to try that. It looks pretty sweet. Sorry to the op for the hijack.

Ancly

Well it's not unrideable. I rode an 18" fire mountain for a few years in the 90s.

I reckon get it all cleaned up and working, and use it as my shopping /pub bike till I find a larger frame.
I think it's 1991. Black with yellow and silver lettering.

A good base to build up then transfer to a larger frame when one comes along.

Lots of complete trek bikes from that era for £200 plus, but sold prices are a lot lower.

Ancly

Exactly. I was looking at gravel bikes early in the pandemic ended up building up an old Peugeot frame I had rescued from a skip and have done quite a few miles on it so far

Cycling is extremely faddy.

Ancly

hmmm....I actually have a pair of crocs one size too small because they are hard to come by and after wearing them for half an hour the plastic warms up and they stretch a bit. So cool they're worth it

Ancly

Sorry, answered above I think. It seems to be 1991.black with yellow and silver lettering. Tange chromo double (?) butted lugged frame. Forks are the same diameter all the way down rather than the tapered ones which I think were earlier (and nicer)

I have nothing special but I have n+ n+ n+ etc.

cyrano138

Amen