Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi everyone, I thought i'd start off this thead on a positive note.

First the good news - two days ago and right outside my front door, i caught a local teenager riding my (then mint) blue 1994 GT tequesta, stolen from my garden almost a month ago. The kid squealed his ignorance and I got my bike back. The bad news? It's beaten up, scratched and needs a respray. The ugly news? The British Met police cannot and will not press any charges. Typical.

OK. Can anyone tell me the exact fork dimensions for those 1990s GT steel hardtails like the Tequesta and Karakoram? I think the same fork was used pretty much throughout the range, although the design was changed a little when they switched over to O/S (usually Reynolds 525) tubing in 1999 for the last 2 years of production. I need to know the axle-to-crown height, and the rake & trail. I am considering fitting one of those carbon MTB forks (Winwood, Mosso, Ritchey etc.) but i want to choose one that accurately matches the orginal frame geometry; the original Cr-Mo forks were very low IIRC.

Any help or advice will be gratefully received.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you for your reply GT_Guy. I must say 15.5 inches is sub-40cm, and that makes it a VERY short fork.

The lowest carbon forks out there come in at around 42cm, and many guys fitting them are already moaning about how short they are, and how come manufacturers cannot make them a taller fork.

It therefore looks like it's gonna be very difficult to obtain an off the shelf carbon MTB fork that suits the GT geometry. But we shall see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
chrisnarozny said:
Thank you for your reply GT_Guy. I must say 15.5 inches is sub-40cm, and that makes it a VERY short fork.
Yeah, not a lot of clearance on those old forks. Back in the day, even a 2" suspension fork really jacked up the front end. Those bikes have short top tubes and came with long. low stems and flat bars. Quite a difference from today's standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Chiming in late . . . I've recently acquired a GT Tequesta that appears to be '94. Its black with blue irredescent smears, all STX. Its pretty beaten up, and came with a Manitou fork.

Originally I was looking for a non-suspension mtb for trail riding. Now that I have this Tequesta I'm considering switching out the Manitou front suspension fork (its frozen/worn out) for a rigid steel fork. My mechanic says it needs a suspension corrected fork, which as far as I know is somewhere around 400 to 440 mm from crown to axle.

From what you guys are saying above, it sounds like the Tequesta '94 does not require a suspension corrected fork.

Perrry
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,989 Posts
Chris....90's doesn't say enough about what size you need. Most of the Early like 91-92 GT's were 395-400 axle to crown depending upon the frame size....mid 90's rigid forks from what I have measured on higher end models like the Zaskar and Xizang were around 405 axle to crown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Perrry said:
From what you guys are saying above, it sounds like the Tequesta '94 does not require a suspension corrected fork.
Perrry
Yes, it does not. However, finding a compatible one may be more difficult than i would have expected as apparently the rigid forks came in different sizes according to the model year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Can someone tell me what forks had the GT stamped into them right above where the wheels mount? I have a Karakoram I think is a 91. I like that stamped logo look. The stem on my bike has the stamped logo. I just wish the fork did.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top