trek 4100 specs

• ALL MOUNTAIN
• ACCESSORIES
• ALL (130 Forums)
• WHEELS & TIRES

Trek 4100 2003 Hardtail

• USER REVIEWS

This bike is a tank, incredibly durable.

Heavy, and 10 years later it's a little old and outdated.

I've owned this bike for about 10 years. Brought it home new from the store. I've replaced the obvious parts like break pads and cables. I've replaced the seat and the pedals and recently the pedal arm. This bike has held up through everything from dragging it through the woods to Porcupine Rim trail and Moab last year. I ride it on a regular basis and I don't take it easy. The fork has been missing an end cap for 4 years and it still rides great. Sure you could have a better, lighter bike with much better suspension, but ten years of heavy use for this price can not be beat.

Strong frame

front suspension is bouncy

Owned since 2008 its been a great bike for getting around town. I don't have to worry about locking it up in the city. I like it a lot and I plan to keep it for years to come.

Good frame worthy of upgrades. The stock components were not terrible for XC either. I just killed the original deraileur in a race with several hard rock strikes. Honestly, I bent it back with pliers and it still worked pretty good! But it wasn't perfect and gave me an excuse to replace it with XT. The original wheels never gave me a problem, but I didn't do big drops either.

Most components. The original pedals were garbage. The stem and handlebars were practically wrought iron. The front fork bounced like a pogo stick up every climb.

This is a follow-up to my review from years ago. Over the 5 years that I have had this bike I upgraded when I found the right parts on sale, and now I have a machine that I am very happy with. The only original components that I need to replace are the cranks and front deraileur, which still work like new. When they die, I will replace with lighter stuff and have a super light, super durable machine, that cost very little. And if I decide to go FS, I'll just swap my parts to the new frame, and I'm good! Thanks Trek for making a durable, affordable bike.

Similar Products Used:

Junky bikes growing up.

Strong Aluminum frame so it's lighter than the 820 and when you push down on the cranks you'll feel the bike respond. Don't let the die-hards fool you, there really is nothing wrong with the stock components on this bike assuming you are of average weight and riding ability (with the exception of the pedals, they really should be of some type of metal). It is easier to upgrade as you're riding ability gets better with components that fit your budget and your objective than it is to buy the higher end 4000 series and be essentialy "stuck" with those components. The saddle is moderately comfortable (if you sit further back on it) and once broken in the shocks have good response (obviously not for 6 foot acid drops!) and the rims and tires will get the job done. As earlier noted: The black and red frame is way cool!!!

Pedals and I wasn't crazy about the stock grips (too small and kinda hard). Other than that nada.

Great Value and quality parts. This is an entry level bike so when you review it, you take that into consideration. A much better value and deal than the Specialized "Hardrock" in my opinion. The frame is going to last as long as any new upgrades you might make.

Frame is thee same one as they use across the range, decent components

Pedals are rubbish, grips not great

I moved from road racing, and having tried far more expensive cycles, I stuck with this - it is a great bike

only far more expensive OR cheap garbage

Light frame, nice red colours, ez fire shifters, matching clr fork, matching clr seat. Got it on sale (no tax) so good deal for me. Feels like this bike is a head turner. Maybe because i bought the red one as opposed to the silver one... It's my first real mtn bike and I'm quite happy with the ride.

The shocks seem to be 'sticky'. It won't come back up if you press it down about an inch. You gotta pull the front of bike off the ground for the shocks to become unstuck.. Will need to ask the bike shop WTF is going on tmrw...

Good quality at that price.. I almost got the Trek 820 instead.. but that was a steel frame and would have been too heavy for me to lift over my head. I have a bike rack on my car, and i have no problems getting it up and down the car. I'm not a very strong guy either... So all the guys who think this bike is to heavy are either girls.. or just weaklings.. no one can be weaker than me!

First bike.....unless you want to count my crappy old Huffy Firemountain POS that i got from Toys r us.. I have that to my sister and she is happy with it....

new to cycling. seemed like a lot for the money when I shopped around

pedals are barely better than nothing. seat was so-so

I rode a dime store 20 years and thought I would get on another bike but decided to try again for health reasons. I thought I got alot for the money compared to the wal-mart specials and have been pleased with it. I did not want to spend a lot of money on a bike if I didn't like riding but have had a great time riding with my wife and her new bike also. After riding it a while i have found some things that were not top notch but I am getting familier with bikes and will upgrade in another year and still keep this one for the trail that goes through my town. We ride mostly on rodes out with the deer and coyotes but ride the trail. I have been pleased with this purchase and what I got with it .You get what you pay for so there will be upgrades in both bike but was a good choice for a first bike

Great light, durable aluminum frame. I like the EZ fire shifters as opposed to gripshift. Great value for the quality Shimano components you get. Good, quality bike for beginners (like myself) who don't want to spend a lot of $ for a bike they don't need (yet.) Nice color and I like the subtle touches like the black spokes, which make the bike look more expensive than it is.

Front InSync fork seems to be OK so far, but I am upgrading to a Judy C which has longer travel and is adjustable. The plastic pedals definitely suck...those will eventually be changed.

Great for beginners who want a quality bike for a low cost.

Old Trek Mountain Track 800.

It is a good price for a decent bike. The frame is pretty good.

The pedals are bad. The Shimano components aren't that good. The fork is a brand I have never heard of, and doesn't seem to do that much except slam down and bottom out when I do about a two and a half foot drop.

This is a good bike for anyone who just rides around town or like in a little nature park. I wouldn't recommend doing any drops over 3 or 4 feet. It's alright, but I'm getting a Jamis xlt 1.0. This is a great all around bike for someone who isn't jumping off cliffs yet.

This bike takes a lot of abuse. I thinks its a great bike for the price. Even though I will be upgrading soon I'm keeping this bike as a backup (And for guests)

Pedals are plastic, InSync shocks are ok but RockShocks would be better.

Great fist mountain bike.

Department store junk.

Get the latest mountain bike reviews, news, race results, and much more by signing up for the MTBR Newsletter

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

• CLASSIFIEDS
• TERMS OF USE
• PRIVACY POLICY
• ADVERTISING

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2024 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.

Trek 4100 2004 Technical specs and features

General specs of trek 4100 bicycle, wheels and breaking system, frame and body specifications, gearing specs, trek 4100 fork system data, other specs of trek 4100, trek 4100 picture, 4100 bike comparison.

Trek 4100 VS VooDoo Wanga (36)

Trek 4100 VS Peugeot Hurricane Creek

Trek 4100 VS Cannondale F9

Trek 4100 VS KHS Team/XT

Trek 4100 bike review

Trek produced the 4100 bike in 2004 and can be classified as a Mountain bike bicycle, this exact model costs in american market arround $319.99. 4100 bike is available in many sizes such as 13 (inches), 16 (inches), 18 (inches), 19.5 (inches), 21 (inches), 22.5 (inches) and womens 16 (inches). Trek Mountain bike 4100 can be found in a few colors, among these colors Black Chrome and Ball-Burnished and Black and Red . This bike is equiped with 26 x 2.00" Bontrager Connection tires and Stainless steel spoke wheel while the rims are manufactured by Matrix 550, 32-hole. Trek equiped this exact model with Aluminum linear-pull brakes, Shimano ST-EF29 EZ Fire STI levers braking system and Aluminum, Q/R hubs. To guarantee the comfiest ride Trek used Aluminum material for the frame. Aluminum, 1.25" rise high strength material is used on the handlebar of this 4100 to ensure the perfect handling while the stems are made of Aluminum threadless. For the smoothest biking experience Suntour XCC-100, 28/38/48 teeth is used on this bicycle linked to 1/2 x 3/32" chain that is easily replaceable as stated by Trek , the whole system is connected to a high reliability Shimano ST-EF29 EZ Fire STI gear shift levers.

• Get The best price of Trek 4100
• Find Trek 4100 parts and accessories

Trek 4100 competitors

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Core Warning

Message: PHP Startup: Unable to load dynamic library '/opt/alt/php54/usr/lib64/php/modules/i360.so' - /opt/alt/php54/usr/lib64/php/modules/i360.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Filename: Unknown

Line Number: 0

Submit Search

• Utility/Hybrid
• Kids/Junior
• Bicycle Czar collection
• Electric Assist

Back to top

• 2003, Trek, 4100

2003 Trek 4100

• Specifications
• Description
• Value Guide

Frame & Fork

Bicycle condition guide.

•  Bicycle Database
•  Compare Bicycles
•  Product Catalog
•  Shop Categories
•  Spoke Calculator

Copyright © BikePedia 2017 | Design by BikePedia.com | All rights reserved

Trek 4100 Mountain Bike

About 18 years ago we bought a pair of Trek 4100 hardtail bikes. The image at the top of this page is taken from the 2013 Trek bikes catalog.

These were our first mountain bikes. Our intent was to get out in the open air and enjoy the trails.

We had no idea how to choose a mountain bike or what to look for, what’s important and what’s not so important.

These were entry level bikes, but they had an alloy frame and a very nice red and black paint scheme. The drivetrain was a basic Shimano 3X7 speed drivetrain, the 26″ tires were 1.95″wide and the front shock had as a 70mm travel.

About two years later I started to upgrade and replace all kind of bits and components on my bike. This first wave included the following: 

• a new rear wheel with a 9 speed Shimano freewheel
• a new 9 speed Shimano Deore drivetrain - shifters, rear derailleur, chain, 11-34 cassette
• a new set of Avid SD5 brake levers

This setup worked very well for me. The bike handled all trails and any ride I attempted. After a while i noticed my wheels are not true anymore, and I realized I need better wheels given my weight and riding style.

A pair of Sun Ringle 36H rims and a set of Shimano Deore wheel brackets became my net set of wheels. More or less bombproof wheels, they stayed true to this day.

About one year later I retired these bikes in favor of a full suspension bike. 

For about 12-13 years my old Trek bike was rarely used. Nevertheless, whenever I upgraded or replaced a component on the bike I used day in day out, the old part found it’s way to the Trek. 

About 2 years ago I finally switched to a 29er. I took the wheels, the RockShox Reba and a Shimano Deore crankset (originally installed on my Genesis touring bike) and installed them on the old Trek. And, I also replaced the v-brakes with the Avid BB7 mechanical disc brakes that came off the touring bike as well. I used an A2Z frame adapter to mount the rear caliper, it works very well.

The second bike kept it’s original configuration for many years, only the handlebar was replaced with a new one after a bad crash. Eventually I did upgrade the drivetrain to a 3X9 setup and the wheels to a new set, hand built wheels with fantastic Ambrosio rims.

Today both bikes are fully functional, very well maintained and ready to hit the trails if needed. 

This is how my Trek looks today:

Going back to 2013, this is the first year I joined a bunch of experienced riders in my first bike touring expedition. I did not have a touring bike at the time, so I used my old Trek. A rear panniers rack, slick road tires and a set of bags was all I needed. 

It was a very good experience riding about 500km in 8 days, no major mechanical issues.

To summarize, in my own personal opinion, these Trek frames are fantastic. They are lightweight, climb very well and are very stable going downhill, comfortable riding position and most of all, very reliable. Real fun playing around and upgrading components on these bikes.   

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Crosscountry
• Rider Notes

2003 Trek 4100

A 26″ aluminum frame hardtail crosscountry bike with modest components and rim brakes.

For This Bike

View more similar bikes →

A bike with lower gearing will be easier to ride up steep hills, while a higher top end means it will pedal faster down hills.

Similar Bikes

(descending)

Add custom gearing

Last updated June 29 Not listed for 2,495 days

• Mountain Bike Review

Friday, December 8, 2006

• Mountain Bike Trek 4100

Thanks for that,very informative

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

• Mountain Bike Trek 7000
• Mountain Bike Trek 7200 Review
• Mountain Bike Trek 4500 Review
• Mountain Bike TREK 820

• Trek 4100 2004
• Crosscountry

Bike summary

Bike components.

Alpha SL aluminum

Rear Derailleur

Shimano Acera

Front Derailleur

Shimano C051

Shift Levers

Shimano EF29

Shimano HG40 14-34, 7 speed

SR XCC100 48/38/28

Nylon platform

Alloy hubs; Matrix 550 rims; 14G ss spokes

Bontrager Connection Trail, 26x2.0"

Alloy linear pull w/alloy levers

Bontrager, 25 degree

Aheadset, semi-cartridge, sealed

Bontrager Sport

Bike geometry

About this model.

4100 is a Trek 4100 model. There are 2 bikes that carry this model name.

Make sure you wear a helmet on every ride, and that your bike performs well. In short, this means checking the tires, brakes, and chain to make sure everything is in good working order.

Average price for Crosscountry bikes

According to our calculations, the average cost of a Crosscountry bike that is reliable is 1905 $ . However, even though the average price of a Crosscountry bike is lower, you might still be able to get a top-quality bike. In conclusion, always check bike reviews and their components before making a purchase to make sure you don’t overpay.

Overview of components

Wheels size.

When leaving the production line, the 4100 model has 26″ aluminum wheels. Being a little smaller, these wheels will fit both small and tall riders. However, they are less forgiving when riding over obstacles such as bumps and roots.

When you want to stop the bike in time, the brakes are vital. The 4100 has Rim brakes. Rim brakes are cheaper than hydraulic brakes, and also easier to maintain. However, you could spend a little extra and get a bike that has hydraulic brakes.

Trek 4100 models from 2003

Not sure what's your riding style?

Find your ideal bike in seconds!

Take our 30 seconds quizz and find out which bikes suit you the best.

Handy tools

Tools to help you even more.

Brochures | Price Lists and Values | Trek History | Trek Timeline | Serial Numbers Component Dates | Gallery | Contact | Buy/Sell Suggestions Refurbish/Upgrade | Bike Resources | Home

*Trek is a trademark of Trek Bicycle Corporation, Waterloo, WI

All copyrights in the TREK brochures, pricelists, owner's manuals and photographs displayed on this website are the sole property of Trek Bicycle Corporation, Waterloo, Wisconsin.

All materials in this site not copyrighted by others are Copyright © 2001-2015 Skip Echert Web Associates , All rights reserved.

Accessories

Moskva-Class Cruisers

Separate design teams often attempt to meet a set of ship specifications with completely different, although equally valid, strategies. To fulfill the requirements issued in April 2169 for the successor (NX-223) to the Daedalus class, which was introduced at the end of the Romulan War, Prosser & Ankopitch proposed a ship with an extremely large, spherical command hull attached to a nearly vestigial engineering hull. The proposal from the Mikoyan-Tupolev-Dassault Bureau used a long narrow command hull with a minimal frontal silhouette counterbalanced by an equally long engineering hull.

The engineers at Tezuka-Republic decided that the division of ship's functions between a command/crew hull and an engineering hull was arbitrary and unnecessarily restricted design options. Therefore, rather than gathering all the specified facilities in a single hull, their design TR-223A spread them across two hulls, as in Daedalus , and segregated the SSWR-IV-C warp core to a "bustle" at the extreme aft end of the secondary hull. This bustle could be separated easily and quickly from the rest of the engineering hull in the event of a warp core breach. The now-unpowered warp nacelles would then be shed. In this way, the demands of safety would be met without warp dynamics being degraded either by an excessively large frontal silhouette or by longitudinal warp field imbalance.

Although the Ship Specifications Review Board praised Tezuka-Republic for its creative solution to the problem of admittedly contradictory requirements for extreme safety and improved warp performance, they were forced to disqualify design TR-223A for not precisely meeting contract specifications. Therefore, in October 2171, construction contract NX-223 for Starfleet's new cruiser was awarded to Prosser & Ankopitch for what would become the Wasp class .

However, almost no one was happy with the new Wasp ships. Even before the contract was awarded, voices within Starfleet and within industry had strongly criticized the specifications of April 2169. These critics charged that they would lead to a mediocre, albeit safe, fighting ship. Two separate classes were needed, not a single class that was neither a proper explorer nor a proper warship. When Wasp was finally launched in 2173, her performance during precommisioning trials clearly showed that the critics had been correct. Although the performance problems were related in part to the continuing unavailability of the more powerful Tezuka-Republic Hiryu ("Flying Dragon") mark III warp nacelles, Wasp was obviously not the ship Starfleet had hoped for.

In a second attempt to obtain a reliable and capable warship, new specifications (NX-374) were issued in September 2175, little more than a year after USS  Wasp had entered service. Adding to this sense of urgency were intelligence reports suggesting that the Romulans had either developed or otherwise acquired matter/antimatter (M/AM) reactors. This time the specifications put less emphasis upon safety. The original requirement for completely separate command and engineering hulls was eliminated; instead, any hull configuration was allowed as long as the warp core could be quickly separated from the rest of the ship. Furthermore, requirements for speed, acceleration, and maneuverability both under impulse power and under warp power were increased, as were performance levels for target acquisition, tracking, and servicing.

These new specifications were a clear, albeit belated, admission that the critics had been correct all along: one class could not be expected to serve as both an explorer and a main battleship. In fact, starship technology was not considered sufficiently mature for a single ship to adequately fulfill both mission profiles until 2245, when the Constitution -class heavy cruiser was launched. (The controversy continues even today in the wake of the problems of the Galaxy -class explorer.)

Luckily, the designers and engineers at Tezuka-Republic had not been idle since their disappointing loss of the Wasp contract in 2171. Instead, they had spent their time refining design TR-223A so that their new entry (TR-374A) was markedly superior to what had been submitted 5 years earlier. In particular, the new SSWR-V warp reactor allowed the bustle to be made smaller, lighter, and even more easily separable. Therefore, it was hardly surprising when in November 2176 Tezuka-Republic was awarded the production contract over designs from Shimata-Dominquez, Prosser & Ankopitch, Mikoyan-Tupolev Dassault, Monarch R&U, and Thornycroft/Ebisu for what was to become the Moskva class.

However, engineering prowess may not have been the only factor in Tezuka-Republic's winning of the contract. There were accusations that the delay in delivery of the Hiryu warp engines was an attempt by Tezuka-Republic to prevent Wasp from reaching her designed performance levels. While no conclusive incriminating evidence has come to light, the delivery of the long-awaited engines shortly before the scheduled launch of Moskva in December 2177 is certainly suspicious. Tezuka-Republic maintains that if their submission of 2169 had been selected, its performance would also have not have met design specifications without the Hiryu engines. However, critics charge that TR-223A was not as reliant as Wasp on the type of engine used. Furthermore, once the Wasp contract was awarded, and even after Wasp was launched, Tezuka-Republic certainly made no efforts to accelerate delivery of Hiryu.

These controversies were soon rendered moot as the new Moskva class was recognized as a significant advance in starship design. The most important new feature was Moskva's discoid primary hull. Earlier designs had chosen a spherical primary hull for reasons of economy. Simple geometric relationships dictate that a spherical hull has the smallest surface area for a given volume. Therefore, construction costs are lower and shields are more efficient. Furthermore, institutional inertia had led nearly all exploratory cruisers originating until that time from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Astronautics Agency, the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and its successor organizations to have spherical hulls.

The designers of USS  Moskva employed a biconvex disc for several reasons. Their initial motive was to increase hull volume while minimizing both frontal and lateral silhouettes. A warship with large frontal and lateral silhouettes would be at a greater disadvantage in most tactical situations than would be a ship with an increased superior silhouette. However, the discoid hull allowed the traditional radial layout of command hulls to be retained.

More important than these tactical advantages were functional advantages. As was shown with the Wasp class, warp field geometry would have been awkward if a spherical hull with its relatively large frontal area had been used. The discoid hull was also found to channel warp field flow across its upper surface towards the bussard ram scoops of the warp nacelles. This channeling effect improved field efficiency at all power levels and speeds. As the understanding of warp field mechanics was refined, the trend towards saucer-shaped primary hulls would be intensified in later Starfleet vessels.

In most respects, the Moskva class continued design and engineering trends established in the Comet and Daedalus classes introduced at the end of the Romulan War. As in these classes, ship functions were clearly divided between a command/crew hull and an engineering/propulsion hull. The bridge was returned to its customary position atop the command hull and the shuttlecraft bay was again placed in the secondary hull. The fusion reactor was centered along the longitudinal axis of the ship, and impulse thrust ports exited immediately in front of the warp bustle detachment seam.

Weaponry was the then-standard mix of fusion-warhead missiles and lasers. New to this class was an early type of ultraphased pulse laser cannon, two of which were mounted in the chin of the primary hull. Although the on-target energy output of this new weapon approached that of early phasers, its power requirement was higher and its range was substantially less. However, subsequent refinements lead to steady improvement and, ultimately, to the development of true phasers in 2202. Although Moskva -class ships were the first to be fitted with phasers in 2204, lasers were still carried by the Moskva class and later classes until the 2220s. Finally, warp capability was supplied by the long-awaited Hiryu mark III drive units.

The first ship of the new class, USS  Moskva (NCC-374), entered service with Starfleet in April 2179. An additional 30 ships (NCC-375 to NCC-404) joined the fleet through 2183. Moskva -class ships gained immediate popularity with officers and crews. First, total laser firepower was increased some 75% over that in the preceding Wasp class. Second, because the ship's mass was more equally distributed along the longitudinal axis than in the Wasp class, Moskva was significantly more maneuverable at both sublight and warp speeds. Finally, the more warp-dynamic design allowed greater cruising and maximum speeds.

The Moskva class had an outstanding safety record. No ships were lost because of mechanical failures. However, an incident occurred aboard USS  Johannesburg in 2186 when a faulty nacelle flow monitor falsely indicated a runaway positive feedback power loop within the plasma flow governor. Believing that a catastrophic warp core explosion was imminent, Chief Engineer Roberta Bocharnikov ordered the warp nacelles and warp bustle to be separated. Although unnecessary, these maneuvers were successful in causing the separated warp core to initiate its automatic shut-down routine. The warp core, nacelles, and the rest of the ship were towed to Starbase 13, where they were successfully re-mated. Despite her supreme embarrassment, Bocharnikov oversaw the reassembly and relaunching of Johannesburg and retained her position as chief engineer.

Although most ships of the Moskva class had left front-line service by 2215, some continued to serve as auxiliaries and training vessels until the 2240s. After retirement from active duty, Moskva -class ships were used as testbeds for many emerging technologies owing to the similarities of their layouts to those of succeeding classes. USS  Moskva was the site of the first successful ship-to-surface transport of a Human being in 2206, and USS  Gato was the first ship to fire photon torpedoes in 2214. In addition, Taurus -class tugs, which entered service in 2182, and Sanford -class repair tenders, which entered service in 2185, were derived from the Moskva class and used the same primary hull and warp drive assembly.

The Moskva -class cruiser USS  Aurora (NCC-377), a participant of the Battle of Eohippus IV, is on display at the Starfleet Museum.

Standard displacement: 67,750 t

Crew complement: 160 (27 officers + 133 crew) Weapons: 8 Type VI laser turrets (8 × 1 mounts), 2 Type VII laser cannons (fixed mounts), 2 missile launchers with 36 Spartak missiles Embarked craft: 4 medium cargo/personnel shuttlecraft, 2 light personnel shuttlecraft, 5 fighter/scouts Warp drive: SSWR-V-A spherical cavity M/AM reactor with 2 Hiryu III nacelles Velocity: wf 4.0, cruise; wf 5.0, supercruise; wf 5.2, maximum Units commissioned: 31

• 1 Description
• 2 Dual Format
• 3 Operation

Description

The Moskva-5 (MOCKBA-5 in cyrillic writing) was produced by KMZ ( Krasnogorskii Mechanicheskii Zavod or Krasnogorsk Mechanical factory) in the 1950s. Earlier models of the Moskva were copies of the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C , but it makes more sense to call the Moskva-5 an adaptation. Unlike the Super Ikonta, its solid top plate has a built-in rangefinder and a dual-format viewfinder . The best thing about the Moskva-5 is the coupled rangefinder. A lever with rotating wedge-shaped prisms is fixed to the lens plate. Turning the lens to focus rotates the glass, thus adjusting the rangefinder: a very sophisticated device inherited from the Super Ikonta, with no mechanical linkage between the lens and the body. The two windows are 6.5 cm apart for accurate focusing. The separate viewfinder has a larger field of view, which helps composing the picture. As stated above, a sliding frame in the viewfinder selected on top of the camera can be set to 6×9 or 6×6.

The back of the camera showing the year of production (1958), two red windows for 6×6 and 6×9 numbering, the rangefinder window (left) and the separate viewfinder window (right). The symbol to the left of the serial number is the Krasnogorsk company logo.

Dual Format

Super Ikontas were made either for the 6×9 or 6×4.5 format. The Moskva-5 is a 6×6 and 6×9 camera. Since it has a fixed 105mm Industar lens, at 6×6 you have a mild tele at your disposal. To use the 6×6 size, you need to set the viewfinder to the square format. there is a lever to select the right window so you can see the numbering on the film back. The pressure plate does not need to be removed. The 6×9 red window is now blocked, so there's no room for confusion.

As a last step, the 6×6 mask has to be inserted. The camera locks right into its holes. Close the camera and you're ready to shoot.

The Moment 24c is a leaf shutter with speeds of B, 1 to 1/250s. To fire it, the film needs to be transported or the release button will be blocked, indicated by a red window on the top plate. The shutter isn't set by advancing the film; it has to be cocked at the lens by a lever. To take a picture, press the button on the left of the camera top. The button on the right is for unlocking the front plate when the camera is collapsed. Before folding the camera, you shouldn't forget to push down the lever with the polarised glass window.

• Moskva-2, -4 and -5 user manual at Butkus.org
• Tips for using the Moskva at Photosensitive
• Moskva 5 archived bulletin-board discussions, formerly at Robert Monaghan's Medium Format Photography Megasite (archived copy dated 8 May 2006, at Internet Archive )
• Locating light leaks in a Moskva 5 at Nelsonfoto forums (archived)
• Fixing light leaks (in french) at Dirapons'site
• Flickr image
• 6x9 rangefinder folding
• 6x6 rangefinder folding
• Soviet cameras
• Image by Dries van den Elzen
• Image by Siim Vahur

Navigation menu

Personal tools.

• View source
• View history
• List of Companies
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Random page
• What links here
• Related changes
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information
• This page was last edited on 31 December 2021, at 07:13.
• Text is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 ; other licenses apply to photos.
• Privacy policy
• About Camera-wiki.org
• Disclaimers

• Rocky Mountain
• Specialized
• YT Industries
• Allied Cycle Works
• Black Market
• DALLINGRIDGE
• Diamondback
• Early Rider
• EVO Bicycles
• Growler Bikes
• Guerrilla Gravity
• iGO Electric
• Intense 951
• Juiced Bikes
• View all brands
• Production Privee
• Rad Power Bikes
• Rambo Bikes
• Riese & Müller
• Soul Fast E Bikes
• Spark Cycleworks
• State Bicycle Co.
• Structure Cycleworks
• Surface 604
• Van Nicholas
• Vintage Electric
• We Are One Composites

• Cross Country

• All Mountain

Riding Style

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience possible. Learn more.

About MTB Database

Explore, search and compare thousands of the world’s best mountain bikes here on Mountain Bike Database.

Compare prices, components, suspension, reviews, images and more on current and past MTB’s. You can even share reviews, comments and questions on mountain bikes. View and compare a huge selection of bikes from brands such as Trek , Specialized , Giant , Santa Cruz , Norco and more .

We strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information for mountain bikes on MTB Database. If you’ve spotted any issues, please let us know . We also include helpful tools, such as our frame size calculator, to assist you in choosing the right mountain bike. Bear in mind that these tools serve as a guide and simply provide a general indication. Refer to information provided by your bike manufacturer for the most applicable information for your bike.

Want more MTB in your mailbox?

Bikes by brand, bikes by year, bikes by riding style, bikes by wheel size, popular bikes.

• 2022 Specialized Epic EVO Comp
• 2022 Trek Marlin 6
• 2022 Specialized Enduro Comp
• 2022 Specialized S-Works Epic EVO
• 2022 Specialized Epic EVO Expert
• 2022 Giant Fathom 29 1
• 2022 Trek Marlin 7

Latest Bikes

• 2023 Commencal SUPREME DH V5 SIGNATURE 70'S
• 2023 Orange Phase 29 Factory
• 2022 Commencal META SX V4 TEAM Frame
• 2023 Commencal SUPREME DH V5 SIGNATURE LTD
• 2023 Commencal META SX V4 - Frame
• 2023 Riese & Müller Swing4 vario
• 2023 Riese & Müller Swing4 silent