Why didn't 69er (bikes) take off?

Home Forum Bike Forum Why didn't 69er (bikes) take off?

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 70 total)
  • Why didn't 69er (bikes) take off?
  • aphex_2k
    Member

    Seemed like a good idea to me.

    oldgit
    Member

    Don’t know. I had one, it was good apart from a problematic EBB.

    Does seem a good idea, accelerates and rolls.

    Premier Icon rOcKeTdOg
    Subscriber

    Take 2 tubes onto the trails? I love mine though

    Premier Icon mtbfix
    Subscriber

    Aesthetics? They did look odd and probably difficult to explain to the man off the street. I enjoyed mine for the time I had it.

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    Hated by both camps?

    Nick Clegg causing everyone to hate the middle way?

    More seriously until I saw one I assumed they’d make the unsuspended wheel bigger and the one that needs to be turned smaller 😳

    qwerty
    Member

    I really like the idea, especially for rigid, 15″ frames.

    PeterPoddy
    Member

    Half the advantages of both wheels sizes. Basically, I think they were to wean people into the idea. Is anyone still making one? I can’t see the point myself. Big wheels? Yep. Little wheels? Yep. Why mix them?
    Do. Or do not. There is no try. 🙂

    Premier Icon Napalm
    Subscriber

    Love my Trek 69er; it’s a keeper. Rolls & accelerates – great combination.

    tonto
    Member

    Oldgit – it must be you, that carver is still running well four years later 🙂

    Bing
    Member

    Lovin all of mine, everyone’s asking why would you – why wouldn’t you?

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    Funnily enough all the bikes I’ve ever ridden have rolled and accelerated

    One day I hope to build up a dinglespeed 69er, so when I enter events I can claim to be winner in the dinglespeed 69er class!

    wobbem
    Member

    Was seriously thinking about these, they will run fine with a 140mm, 29er fork (emaied them)150mm rear travel with short wheelbase


    [/url]

    Modified my Prophet to 27.5″ – 29″ instead.(cheaper)

    Premier Icon composite
    Subscriber

    I have a 29er ridgid fork on my P7. I have been toying with the idea of picking up a second hand 29er front wheel just to give a go. Not found one cheap enough yet though, to just satisfy curiosity. 😐

    Love my trek 69er as well, though I’m tempted to go the full 29er route at some point.

    sambob
    Member

    Because 29ers are just fine 😉

    Premier Icon Cheezpleez
    Subscriber

    I ran a 26in rigid SS Inbred as a 69er for a while. I liked it – funnily enough it felt like a halfway house between the 26 and 29 Inbred I have now. The front smoothed things out nicely but the smaller back wheel kept things a bit more nimble and fun. It didn’t roll like a 29er and it didn’t manoeuvre like a 26er but it was a happy compromise. Might go for another one if I get bored with the 29er.

    oldgit
    Member

    Oldgit – it must be you, that carver is still running well four years later

    Bugger 😐

    clubber
    Member

    I gave it a go. tbh it just didn’t feel different enough to 26″ to have any point. ymmv of course.

    withersea
    Member

    enjot my trek 69er and wouldn’t mind giving a full suss 69er a try out. I am hoping one day to find new old stock on a trek fuel 69er….shout if anyone has seen any knocking about

    I have a 29er ridgid fork on my P7. I have been toying with the idea of picking up a second hand 29er front wheel just to give a go.

    Its likely to work better with a 26″ rigid on a 26″ frame,

    a 29er fork and wheel are often more than the frame can handle in length. (Some will get away with it.)

    andypaul99
    Member

    What are the advantages of 69ers anyway? (Genuine question)

    What are the advantages of 69ers anyway? (Genuine question)

    Rolls over stuff nicely, accelerates quickly. Vs a 26″ and a 29er.

    Its just a fun bike,

    Premier Icon ahwiles
    Subscriber

    since it was established that 29ers really are better* – what’s the point of 26ers?

    (*well i’m convinced, and that should be more than good enough for you lot)

    bikebouy
    Member

    My mate had a white Trek 69er and he loved it to bits until it got nicked, I rode it around the Dinghy Park a few times and couldn’t quite get my head around it, and to be fair it was hardly the. Right place to play on it.
    And I’m a died in the wool 29erSS kinda bloke..

    Pigface
    Member

    because they dont have wings 😳

    IWGMC

    Premier Icon Andy R
    Subscriber

    I’ve got two Singular Hummingbirds (one SS, one Alfine) and a Trek Top Fuel 69er. Oh, and a Carver too, although my wife rides that more than I do.
    So I suppose the concept suits me, or else I’ve just convinced myself that it does. Either way, I enjoy riding them so that’s all that matters I suppose.

    I reckon it could be the solution for people who want more rear travel, like me.

    Premier Icon ir_bandito
    Subscriber

    I’m running my Voodoo D-Jab with rigid forks for the winter. Figured I’d try a big wheel on the front to give it some “give”.
    I love it, tempted to sell the bouncy forks (but I won’t)


    PB110048 by ir_bandito, on Flickr

    traildog
    Member

    I rode a Trek and thought it was great fun. I think they didn’t take off because it’s different and people need a strong marketing message to get behind something new and different.

    Many of the guys at Trek I spoke to thought it was their best bike but sadly didn’t sell so had to be pulled.

    And I still think they should be called 96ers, but then that doesn’t sound so cool. I guess they deserved to fail because of the name. 🙂

    will
    Member

    I don’t think i’d buy one. However as I was running a rigid 26″ it was a cheap and very easy way to get the feel of a 29er.

    I still ride it, although it did make me buy a 29er.

    qwerty
    Member

    What are the advantages of 69ers anyway?

    Everyones happy 😉

    Trimix
    Member

    Things take off due to Marketing, not due to it being a better product.

    The world is littered with shite things that are marketed well.

    jackthedog
    Member

    Hate to appear a fool by asking the obvious, but might someone be able to explain the reason behind the naming convention 69er?

    26 front / 29 rear = 69er

    All this stuff about rolling better is surely bullsh*t as the little dinky rear wheel that causes so many problems on 26ers will get sucked into big holes still causing rider fatalities etc?

    LMT
    Member

    Really wanted the brown one trek first did, looked a great piece of kit, everyday i have a nosy on ebay just need to find one in a small frame!

    Premier Icon psling
    Subscriber

    Or even 26 rear / 29 front 🙂

    Specialized did it with their Big Hit with a 24 rear / 26 front (to make downhill less steep?).

    I’ve got a Trek 69er SS, it’s a nice colour. It’s also a nice bike to ride.

    clubber
    Member

    I think that lots of people reckon that 69ers are a good solution because of the Trek version. I think that actually the Trek was just a damn good bike irrespective of it being a 69er and as such, it’s a bit misleading.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    The reasoning behind the Big Hit was to keep the wheelbase nice and short, and to make a stronger wheel that could survive casing jumps etc.

    I still think the bodges used to get a 29″ wheel into an MTB frame (like kinked seatposts) look a bit odd, especially on smaller sizes. However the aesthetic argument goes out the window when you look at the Trek 69er. It’s like a scaled-up version of a trophy awarded to the ugliest bike.

    Premier Icon roverpig
    Subscriber

    I can see the logic of a larger wheel on the rear. You could then get away with less (or no) rear suspension but without the slower steering that comes from the larger front wheel. Sticking the larger wheel on the front just sounds like a cheap marketing gimmick to me. It’s easy as you just take your existing frame and stick a 29er fork on, but it doesn’t make any sense. Of course, that doesn’t mean they weren’t fun to ride. Lots of bikes are fun to ride, even ones that don’t make sense.

    bent udder
    Member

    I’ve got a Singular Hummingbird, which came with rigid forks adjusted for a 29″ front wheel. I’ve run it as a 69er and a 26″ wheeled bike with suspension forks.

    One thing I noticed was that, in certain situations, the front would roll over something that the back wheel then hooked up on. Other than that, it was plenty fast – which persuaded me to get a 29er.

    Smaller riders (like me – 5′ 6″) don’t necessarily fit 29ers that well. Getting the wheels in the right place on a small frame is tricky, and you need to adjust your riding style. A 69er is a good compromise. That said, the On-One Scandal I’m riding alongside the Singular seems to be pretty spot on as a 1″ 29er frame.

    qwerty
    Member

    Really wanted the brown onetrek first did, looked a great piece of kit, everyday i have a nosy on ebay just need to find one in a small frame!

    I could be wrong but I thunk the Mark1 root beer version did not come in small due to the Maverick forks messing with front end techno geekery.

    Premier Icon composite
    Subscriber

    Singlespeed_Shep – Member

    Its likely to work better with a 26″ rigid on a 26″ frame,

    a 29er fork and wheel are often more than the frame can handle in length. (Some will get away with it.)

    I checked all that out before I bought the rigid 29er fork.

    I was coming from a 26er 140mm travel fork. Axle to crown height is still smaller with the 29er fork, even with sag taken into consideration. I wanted to try to retain some of the previous geometry but use a rigid fork.

    From my previous calculations a 29er wheel would bring the axle to crown height to approximately the same as the 140mm fork with sag.

    gears_suck
    Member

    I’m thinking of building a 67 1/2er. 😆 i bet it’ll accelerate and roll when I peddle it.

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 70 total)

The topic ‘Why didn't 69er (bikes) take off?’ is closed to new replies.