haven't read thread but fork seems bent?

The provenance of the bike notwithstanding, it's all speculation, in both camps, without removing the fork and inspecting it. It would be best to have a good frame shop measure it, OFF the bike.

Wouldn't that be speculation too?

If the frame shop doesn't have the factory dimensions for the fork (assuming that visual inspection is irrelevant), any judgement call on the fork would be as much of a guess as any other guess in this thread.

-Kurt

If the shop doesn't have dimension info on something as common (historically) as a '90s Giant Iguana, then they're not a "good frame shop".

It's hard enough to find fork rake specifications for brand new bikes, much less a hybrid/MTB made in the 1990's. Where would they get such data? Genuinely curious. I can't even find anything other than a Dutch 1991 catalog and the '91 Cadex (carbon) catalog.


-Kurt

A shop that's been around long enough would have the info from when the bikes were on the market. You know, back when service enterprises actually bought and shelved and read paper manuals. Not everything that's ever been printed is online.

In, say, 1992, would you have trusted your car to a body shop that didn't have the specs for the unibody alignment? Would you have trusted your bike to a shop that didn't have the equivalent? There were obviously shops that did, and they didn't all get pushed out by palaces of black carbon and GU. The OP needs to find such a shop.

This isn't some obscure rarity. It's a Giant Iguana. The Ford Taurus of the MTB world in its day.

Thought we were talking about framebuilders, not bike shops. Now you have to hope that the bike shop has mechanics on hand competent enough to properly measure a frame and hope that the shop kept these paper manuals. Providing, of course, that they were a Giant dealer back when these were new. And that these geometry manuals were actually provided by Giant.


The possibility of all this lining up is so slim that I really don't think it's a feasible option. But since this is nothing more than a guess, I'm going to try something - I'm going to reach out to both local Giant dealers (Cycle World and Mack Cycle) to see what their replies are. I know the staff at both pretty well, so I know they'll make the effort rather than feed me a canned salesman's reply.

TBH, I've never seen or heard of the Giant Iguana until now. In my region, Trek MultiTracks and the Jamis Boss Cruiser reign supreme for anyone considering a bike similar to the Iguana. Bought by recreational bicycle riders who'd buy another if they smashed up the first, mostly because that's what LBSs tend to do - mock your crashed bicycle and point out how much better the new one is on the floor.

-Kurt

Thread’s bent. 🤪

Frame shop does not need dimensions. OP is claiming one inch of rake. No similar bike of era would have had one inch of rake.

Bent at steerer/crown. Those don't get repaired or re-raked. Plain dangerous. That fork gets replaced. Before or after failure.

It sure would be easier to take a proper photo and post it up, than look for manuals and go to bike shops. Just saying. :)

It would be, but then we all could clearly see..............Fork's bent.

Already suggested, two days ago, in post # 8. But I doubt it would satisfy the "it's not bent" crowd.

On that note, I spoke with one of the two local Giant dealers - biggest in the county for volume, I believe.

They do not keep documentation on any model after 4 to 5 years, with exception to some of the road bikes. And if the Iguana did not spec the geometry in the consumer catalog, then they didn't have any documentation in the first place.

Mind, these things are not like a car which have a chassis/unibody manual with all the frame points measured out. Closest thing you'll find are high-end road frames that spec geometry, including trail and rake. Sure, there are a few odd exceptions, but that's when you have a Grant Peterson type heading your marketing department.

-Kurt

I couldn't find the other fork, so I ordered a generic cro/mo mtb fork in the right size. I'm assuming Giant used generic parts, for the most part, in 1987. Worst case is I'll have a spare fork.

That’s the high trail version of that model, made to rectify the wheel flop issues during low speed maneuvering. It just LOOKS like the fork is bent, but it’s all in the design. Note the lack of brake ons for low riders, since loading this would negatively affect the handling.

Good stuff! Make sure the notch for the washer on the replacement fork does not extend so low on the steeer that it's near where the stem wedge will be. If so, have it filled and smoothed, or it might split.

This example is extreme.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c4c89decce.jpg

-Kurt

Agreed. And...a bent fork does not have to actually fail (by breaking) to be dangerous. With insufficient rake, your front end can rather quickly develop a wicked high speed shimmy, especially if you have one hand on the bars by the stem and the other hand reaching for a water bottle, nearing bottom on a steep descent. Which is what happened to me after I collided with a big labrador.

The lab was OK but my light steel criterium fork was not. The onset of the high speed shimmy was so fast I could not regain control, and took a bad high speed tumble. OK handling at low speed does not necessarily extrapolate to high speed stability. Am now accepting Darwin Award nominations for a) riding with a bent fork and b) bad refreshment timing.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...cd1ff075ad.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e69fd22bbf.jpg
Well, the final (I hope) iteration is shown here. I took the OEM fork to the local Giant place, and they couldn't tell me anything. They did find an NOS fork they said was an alternative "upgrade" from around 1990. It was straight as an arrow through the crown with larger diameter tubing. The only rake and trail was accomplished by the drops being mounted on triangular metal pieces at the bottom. The wheel was only about an inch or so ahead of center on the NOS fork. In fact, they put it into a frame to act as a jig and did some measurements, and the offset (for rake and trail) were within 2mm of identical for both forks. Even THEIR mechanic said that usually there would be stress cracks or bulges in the paint at the crown if it was bent, and there are none. As to instability, I have ridden it down some long (paved) downhills in New Mexico, where I have exceeded 40 mph, and it never shimmied, or even weaved. However, I did leave the generic fork on the bike. I had to pay the shop to seat the crown race with a slide hammer thing. Most all of my riding these days is on pavement, so, maybe the additional rake and trail will be more comfortable. If it gives me any problems, the original goes back on. I also ended up just servicing the cantilever brakes and putting them back on. The inventor of the V brake should be castrated with a plastic fork.

Ahhhhhh, looks better!, but you missed your chance...

:roflmao: Post of the year, at least so far.

Why? V-brakes are a breeze to set up. When I get a bike with good cantis I keep them but replace the shoes with V-brake style as they're easier to adjust. If they're cheap crappy cantis or need replaced I go V-brake if it's something I'm building for myself.

I didn't know that the Giant Iguana featured a "funny bike" frame, nor would I have expected.

Looks like the frame is suspension-corrected for a 5" travel fork(?).

I don't think there were any suspension forks in 1987. The long seat tube is due to my 34" inseam. Lowered top tubes were still in the future, too. This one is now a hybrid/city/whatever. I couldn't make the v brakes work. They either rubbed or I had no brakes. Occasionally, I'd get them just right, then the heat/humidity/karma/witchcraft would affect them the next day and then they'd either rub or I'd have no brakes. After a month I said to hell with 'em. The original cantilevers (Deore XCM) work fine.

Well since you have good cantis and they work might as well keep them but it piques my curiosity as to why you were having issues. I've never had an issue converting to V's except my first time and that was on my 22" TREK 820. I had to add a brake booster on the rear because the long seat stays flexed and I couldn't get a solid lever feel on the rear. Put the booster on and problem solved. It's the only one I've had to do that on every one since has been a "set it and forget it". Please don't be offended but you DID swap brake levers, right? I have to ask, I've known more than a few people that didn't swap the levers too and were cussing the V-brakes.

Those look like the thickest seatstays I've seen on a steel bike.

How did you make the seat tube longer? (I didn't know that sloping toptubes were "a thing" on 1980's mtbs!)

Yeah, V-Brakes definitely require V-Brake levers to get sufficient clearance at the rim, since the cable needs to move about 50% further..