So, I have this clunker thats been hanging in the garage for a while and I'm thinking about ripping it apart.

For a start, I need a recommendation on a rigid fork for it. The rest is easy.

Its a 2002 Trek 4300.

https://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...4300&Type=bike

I plan on making a commuter/touring bike out of it if I find it to be worth it. Otherwise, its going to Goodwill.

Any Advice on the Fork? Frame size is 22.5" is that makes a geometric difference.

I recommend the Surly 1 x 1 rigid fork. It's a 1 1/8" threadless fork, which is what you need, it's "suspension corrected," meaning it's long enough to not screw up the steering geometry of a bike that was originally designed for a suspension fork, it comes with cantilever brake bosses that will work with your linear pull brakes, and it's relatively inexpensive. It's also black, so it will look pretty good with most any color.

https://surlybikes.com/parts/1x1_fork/

Thanks for the heads up.

One more question. If I want to use Hollowtech II on this frame which has the old spindle type BB are there any things I need to know on spacing or fitting of the cups?

Also, Trek sent me the spec sheet so I have the Existing BB info:

BB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cartridge
Shell x axle, mm 73 x 116, Square

You need a 73mm, external bb with crankset...

If you decide to scrap your plans, I'll take it off your hands

For a fork recommendation, I'd recommend getting a rigid fork that has disc mounts in case you later decide you want disc brakes. It's a cheap addition when buying the fork but if you didn't get them and later wanted disc brake mounts, you'd be buying another fork.

The Nashbar rigid MTB fork is fine if you want to save few bucks. It does have disc mounts, btw. Oh, and keep in mind that it'll require some special tools so may want to have LBS do this.

Adam

I wouldn't recommend the Nashbar fork for the OP's bike. The Nashbar fork is unusually long (453mm axle to crown) for a rigid fork. It must be suspension corrected for something like a 120mm travel fork. The OP's bike, according to the spec, has about 70-80mm travel. The Surly fork I recommended (413mm axle to crown) is suspension corrected for a fork with about 85mm travel. "Suspension corrected" isn't an exact science, but again, the Nashbar fork is unusually long, and the OP's suspension fork is definitely not. Best to stick with something similar.

I replaced a 120mm suspension fork with it and it's shorter by a couple of inches. Still, from what you say it may be too long indeed.

Adam

A suspension fork's compression is factored into a "suspension corrected" fork's axle to crown length. That's one of the main reasons it's not an exact science and it can't be. But the Nashbar fork is an unusually long suspension corrected fork, and the OP's fork is an unusually short travel suspension fork.

So would a 409mm axle to crown would be even better or am I going the wrong direction?

4mm isn't much difference from the 413 wellbiked recommended, but don't know what the current fork's axle-crown measurement is, either. Good bet would be measuring the axle-crown measurement of the current fork, deduct say 15mm for some sag for an idea of the axle-crown length you'd need in a rigid fork. At a guess I'd say an old 63mm travel suspension fork had an axle-crown in the range of 430 or so. In the other direction, a slightly longer rigid fork would be the 425mm Surly Big Dummy.

Just got more info from Trek... Question answered...Posted in case someone searches down the road....

FORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RST Capa CL
Travel, 63mm
Axle-crown length, 435.5mm

410-420 it is.