helibg

Hello,

I am getting a trek 930 in good condition for a couple hundred dollars but don't know much about it. Would appreciate some feedback about the market value of the bike and if it is worth buying. I am new to cycles and will just ride it around town and on trails. I am attaching the pics. Would like to know if it is worth buying at this price.

Thanks

RoadGuy

That's a mountain bike with a BIG frame. How tall are you? Properly size, with that style of mountain bike frame, standing over the top tube, you should have a minimum of 4-5 inches of clearance. I'm about 5'10" with shorter than average legs (and a longer torso). I ride a 16.5" Trek 930 (properly sized to ride off-road). To ride that size bike frame if properly sized, you'd have to be 6'5" or so. Road bikes of the period are sized differently with 1-2 inches of clearance being the minimum. Many people choose mountain bike that are too large.

Have you ridden to make sure that it fits?

Does it have a 7 or 8 speed cassette on the rear wheel? I bought my 2nd 94 Trek 930 SHK (same model as the bike in question but different year) for $30 last year in excellent condition (bad right shifter). Old mountain bikes do not hold much value. Most people that are interested in collecting old Trek mountain bikes are looking for the earlier lugged steel bikes, not the 1990s TIG welded models.

For $200, everything on that bike should be in perfect original working condition. My 94 930s came with Shimano STX shifters, derailleurs and brakes, and STX components have aged very poorly. I had to replace everything on my first 930 when I got it, and many of the component on my 2nd one are worn-out the same way. The Rock Shox Quadra front suspension fork that came on these bikes are often frozen/not working. Have you checked the shifters and the front suspension fork to make sure that they're working?

I guess what I'm saying is first of all, make sure that the thing fits correctly. Then see what works and what doesn't work. Don't trust the looks of the bike in photos to tell you how/what it's condition is. If the shifters, derailleurs, and brakes are not working correctly, but the frame is in original condition, figure $30-$50. If everything is working perfectly and original, it's probably worth the $200, but don't expect to be able to resell at that price. And if the bike is somewhere between needing a complete overhaul and like-new it worth between $25-$200.

oddjob2

IMHO, the rigid bikes without a spring front fork are preferred. I have sold refurbished 930s without the fork for low $200s.

$125
Men's Trek 930 Single Track Mountain Bike

$180 - rigid
Trek Singletrack 930 21 inch

If the OP's prospective bike fits, mid $100's would be FMV.

helibg

Thanks for the detailed reply. According to the seller it is in excellent condition but I will certainly check it in person before buying. However, the seller has listed it as 21.5" and suitable for people around 6 feet. Since I am 6 and I have ridden 21.5" walmart bikes before I was assuming that it would be fine for me. But if you are riding a 16.5 at 5 10 than this will certainly be large. I will check the size but are these bikes sized differently? Also I don't know if it matters but I would not be taking it off road but using it as a road bike.

Thanks. I am not sure I know the difference between the two but I am assuming mine has the spring front fork. I will try to negotiate and offer around $150.

elmore leonard

If the wheels are good and true and the front shocks are good, it's a decent buy in my book.
The frame should be perfect for you.

RoadGuy

Many suspension forks made during the 1990s used elastomer (plastic) blocks to supply the spring for the forks. Elastomers wear out (shrink, harden, and sack-out) with age and use. I don't even know if replacement are available for the old suspension forks. The 94 Trek 930s came with Rock Shox Quadra 10s which used elastomers. They didn't seem to age very well, and I haven't seen a working Quadra 10 suspension fork in 10-15 years. I replaced the Quadra 10 on my first 1994 Trek 930 when it was four years old (1998). I got my 2nd 1994 Trek 930 early last year, and predictable, the Quadra 10 fork is sagged, without any spring left (even though it looks near new).

Don't trust what people say about frame sizes. Sellers are wrong, more often than they are right. With road bikes I can make a good guess at frame size, based on the appearance of the head tube, down tube and top tube. On mountain bike not too much. I mean I can tell if a frame is small, medium, or large, but not to the accuracy that I can on a road bike. The Trek 930 you are looking at is a large frame. Based on my own experience on mountain bikes, to ride a 21.5" mountain frame, you are going to need at least a 35"-36" bike inseam. Bike sizing is a puzzle, a 18" Trek Mountain bike with front suspension is actually taller than my 21" Schwinn 754 road bike. Mountain bikes are much taller (standover) than road bikes with the same frame size. And remember that you are looking for a minimum of 4-5" clearance over the top tube on a mountain bike that you are going to ride off-road.

You need to jump on any bike that you are planning to ride and see for yourself how it fits.

dailycommute

Looks like a 96 model, tig weld steel frame vs lugged. It does look like the xl frame (22.5in), may fit at 6 but more like 6'2, just depends on your inseam but long stem too. Do not buy if too big. Otherwise with old suspension fork I would keep it at 100-130 outlay and do not hesitate to mention why (size and likely fork swap). The steel 930 trek mtbs are nice riders though for casual trail, gravel, fire road, etc.

RoadGuy

The bike in the photo you submitted has a Rock Shox (looks like a Quadra). For riding on the street, a rigid front fork is preferable, as the suspension is not necessary, and the rigid fork is at least 3 -4 pounds lighter than a suspension fork.

I used to ride my 930 primarily on the street when riding with my then young children (they were on children sized mountain bikes and later, on inexpensive full-size mountain bikes. The low gearing and wide tires make street riding at slow speeds for short distances (5 miles or less) very comfortable. Longer than that, the short gearing makes putting on the miles an exercise in frustration (seems like I was pedaling like crazy and not getting anywhere). Heavy, wide off-road tires used on pavement also wastes energy.

helibg

Thanks for the replies everyone. I didn't go for the bike because the owner was not willing to negotiate on the price and the condition was not good enough for me to pay 200$.

Since I am on the lookout for a budget trek bike, I found another one on craiglist. What do you guys think about this one? I know the picture is blurry and I will check out the size and condition but is 200$ a fair price if the size and condition are ok? Sorry for asking the same question again and again but I don't know much about bikes and don't want to get conned on craglist.

https://fayar.craigslist.org/bik/5303947504.html


@RoadGuy , @oddjob2

Thanks!

oddjob2

The 1400 is a nice road bike and the price is FMV. The 930 is a MTB.

Unless your aim is to have a falsetto voice, that is a 63cm frame and likely too large. You and your package would be much happier with a 58-60cm road bike.


Fuji
https://fayar.craigslist.org/bik/5243310920.html

Raleigh Team
https://tulsa.craigslist.org/bik/5307393036.html

Raleigh Technium
https://tulsa.craigslist.org/bik/5271257799.html

Lotus
https://tulsa.craigslist.org/bik/5236969486.html

Specialized Sirrus
https://tulsa.craigslist.org/bik/5280095470.html

Hardrock MTB
https://tulsa.craigslist.org/bik/5267563907.html

Bridgestone Mountain
https://fayar.craigslist.org/bik/5294710408.html

Rockhopper - too far?
https://springfield.craigslist.org/bik/5265269593.html

helibg

Thanks, I will ask the owner about the frame size and check it in person. Otherwise will just keep checking craiglist for something suitable to pop up.

helibg

Thanks a lot for these!

I don't know much about good bike brands so I was only looking at treks. Will check these out if they are close enough.

exmechanic89

Glad you passed on that bike, it was WAY to big for you..

RoadGuy

The blurry photo makes it hard to come to any conclusion about the Trek 1400.

But it does look like a 58cm frame to me, not 63cm. And it looks like the front wheel has very little wear on the rim braking surface, while the rear wheel is very well-worn.