Trek 830 (1998): replacing RST 281 with hi-ten steel rigid fork

[E2024]

Hi there,
I'd welcome your expert views on the below......
I'd like to replace the RST 281 susp. fork (a-c 440mm) mounted on the red trek 830 with a rigid hi-ten fork (a-c 400mm). Can I consider the rigid fork to be suspension corrected with a length of 400mm? Both forks are 1 1/8 and the the steel fork's steerer tube length (200mm) should do the job (the rst fork has a steerer tube length of 180mm.

Is a fork length of 400mm sufficient to not affect the geometry of the frame?

Will the longer steerer tube of the steel fork allow to partially correct the loss in fork length (if this was to help remedy the frame geometry impact?)

The RST fork works well however I simply prefer rigid forks. Wondering if I should try the above option or simply forget it given finding 26"suspension corrected rigid forks (420mm) does not seem easy, even the most expensive ones (surly & more) being sold out....View attachment 845720View attachment 845719

 

[bikeworkshop]

A 400mm fork is possibly a little short, (not suspension corrected) although it depends on the frame angles.

Up to mid 90s frames built for rigid generally take a 390- 400.

Once suspension came in on new bikes, the frame geometry lifted the head tube, and 420/440 is a better a2c... usually.

As a rule if thumb you can go 20mm different without spoiling things - and of course a suspension fork has a little sag.

is it cantis/ahead you're fitting?

Over the last 15 years, longer forks for 26 canti became harder and harder to source - we keep a variety in stock, but sometimes you need to hunt them down on ebay.
The late 90s project 2s are the right sort of length i would think.

 

[E2024]

Thank you! Indeed..hard to source I ended up sourcing a new rigid CrMo fork with eyelets from Intec 410mm.... looks good.....however let s see how it will ride. Kept some extra steering tube length to adjust position etc.

 

[E2024]

With the Intec fork, 410mm.