Just wondering...
69ers typically have the small wheel at the back, and the large at the front.
One of the main advantages of a large wheel is that it rolls better over uneven terrain. If you are using a suspension fork however, this advantage is to some degree negated.
Surely then, it would make more sense to have large wheel at the back of the bike, where there is no suspension, and the small wheel at the front?
Obviously this would look a bit ugly, but seems to make more sense to me.
So what are the main reasons the small wheel tends to be at the back, and the big at the front? Am I missing something?
or, once you've got the front wheel over something, the back wheel rarely causes a problem.
(i bet you've never been dumped on your face after your back wheel got stuck in a trap your front wheel floated over)
69'ers - is it just me or do they look stupid whichever way round you've got the wheels?
a pre-emptive 'fail' is awarded to anyone who says a miss-matched bike will accelerate quicker with the smaller wheel at the back...
look at pretty much all motocross bikes - bigger front wheel. I'm sure there's a good reason why they decided this and i doubt it's got much to do with suspension.
Large wheel for control i.e off cambers, larger footprint copes with small bumps.
Small rear wheel for acceleration.
[i]a miss-matched bike will accelerate quicker with the smaller wheel at the back[/i] when wheelying.
Yeah, but you have a suspension fork to stop you getting dumped on your face... why do you need a big wheel too? When pedalling seated over rough terrain the lack of rear suspension can slow you down significantly, and a larger wheel would surely help this?
To try and negate being awarded a fail I shall they this explanation.
Given the same cogs used in the drivetrain the smaller wheel provides an easier gear compared to a larger wheel.