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

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

Does seem a good idea, accelerates and rolls.

Take 2 tubes onto the trails? I love mine though

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.

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 😳

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

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. 🙂

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

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

Lovin all of mine, everyone's asking why would you - why wouldn't you?

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!

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

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.ventanausa.com/bikes/el-chucho/ ][/url]

Modified my Prophet to 27.5" - 29" instead.(cheaper)

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.

Because 29ers are just fine 😉

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

Bugger 😐

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

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.)

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,

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)

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..

because they dont have wings 😳

IWGMC

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.

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)

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8057/8176565679_1a1e60af6a_c.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8057/8176565679_1a1e60af6a_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/ir_bandito/8176565679/ ]PB110048[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/ir_bandito/ ]ir_bandito[/url], on Flickr

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. 🙂

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.

What are the advantages of 69ers anyway?

Everyones happy 😉

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.

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

[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6715164357_3a24698918_o.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6715164357_3a24698918_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocketdog/6715164357/ ]Voodoo Wanga 69er[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/rocketdog/ ]rOcKeTdOgUk[/url], on Flickr

2[b]6[/b] front / 2[b]9[/b] rear = [b]69[/b]er

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?

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!

Or even 26 [b]rear[/b] / 29 [b]front[/b] 🙂

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.

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.

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.

[img] [/img]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Only when my Alfine broke.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/30189432@N00/5995240983/in/set-72157627584456627 ]Here[/url]

Is it on a conveyor belt?

hmm never knew Trek dealt with Maverick. that bike ^ looks odd only because of the colour and fork!

have thought about turning my 26er into one of these:

[img] [/img]

not sure how much it'd mess up geometry, already have an angleset in there i could reverse. might borrow a 29er fork and wheel and try it 🙂

69ers failed for one simple reason, no one threw millions and millions of pounds in to propaganda campaigns to sell the idea.

Possibly. Also because they're crap from a manufacturing POV - two rim sizes for each bike, two tyre sizes, etc.

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?

It's easy as you just take your existing frame and stick a 29er fork on, but it doesn't make any sense.

If the front wheel stalls against an obstacle, the entire mass of machine and rider pushing from the back will try to go over or around the front wheel. If the rear wheel stalls, the entire mass of machine and rider hauling from in front will try to pull it free. "Rolling well" is more important up front.

And, just to prove how much I like the whole 69er thing, I'm still on the lookout for a small Singular Hummingbird frame (for my wife), if anyone has one kicking about that they would consider parting with.
Pretty please?

All motocross bikes have a bigger front than rear wheel - enduro bikes even more so. Those manufacturers and riders think it makes sense.
If the front wheel stalls against an obstacle, the entire mass of machine and rider pushing from the back will try to go over or around the front wheel. If the rear wheel stalls, the entire mass of machine and rider hauling from in front will try to pull it free. "Rolling well" is more important up front.

Enduro bikes and MX bikes use the same size front wheels - 21".
But yes, it's like trying to push a loaded wheelbarrow up a step compared to pulling it up.

Enduro bikes and MX bikes use the same size front wheels - 21".

I still think it is a good concept although i have just replaced mine (well the ti framesits in my cupboard waiting to sell) with a Lynskey 29er.
This is more to do with the small frame size which is great in resorts like glentress where you can throw the bikes into things but less so for the marathon mtb races and 24hr races i have started doing ....

My carver 96er (same as 69er) is a custom ti that was set up as a 650b XC weapon but it was designed to be a 96er ... takes a bit of getting used to compared to same size wheel as the larger front seems to carve a wider turning arc than the back when leaned over - but this seems to make it carve corners pretty well ....
here is a tag link to the blog http://kitesurfbikerambling.wordpress.com/tag/carver-96er/

and a gopro shot of riding glentress chasing a mate on his blur

and this is on racing ralph tyres / very little grip ....

and the stranger looks coupled with a rohloff always made people double take [img] [/img]

The wheels of crossers are different sizes, but the circumference of the tyres is about the same.

Yet they do still roll and accelerate rather well...

Hi guys!

i'm writing here to ask for your opinions. I have the chance to purchase a Trek 69er SS in a mint condition for €650. Could you tell me please whether or not this is a good deal?
Thanks a lot!

[url= ]it looks just like this[/url]

Depends how much you want it really - if it's [b]truly[/b] mint (like NOS)and you've been looking for one for ages, then get it.
Otherwise you'll be kicking yourself for ever and a day for not buying it. It's only money, after all.

Much like I still am for not buying a minty 1988 Mercedes 230GE about 10 years ago. I still curse my indecision every time I see it driving around...

Back on topic - I've sold my Trek Top Fuel 69er and the Carver but I've still got my two Singular Hummingbirds and my wife has one to replace the Carver.

It's because they're a compromise between 26 and 29, just like 650b. Nobody likes a compromise.

659er - the next niche?

Until MTBs routinely have different sized front and rear wheels/tyres then I can't really believe that anyone is taking the [b]performance[/b] issues of wheel size seriously. But these ridiculous little toys are just for fun, for most of us, so no big deal.

(I'm actually thinking of going 69 when I replace my knackered fork - or 46, or 6650b! 😀 )

I always think it's a good idea- gave some thought to sticking a Pike in my Hemlock and 69ering it, it's still possible. But let's be honest, it looks goofy and who wants that? I don't care if a hammer is ugly but for most of us bikes aren't just tools, or rather they're tools that one of the jobs is to be nice to own.

Cool guys, thanks a lot for the replies!
As I only saw pictures of the 69er I'd like to buy, I will have to see it and try it one of the next days. What do you advice me to pay attention at? I am familiar only with racebikes and fixies, so I do need your opinions.

Thanks again!

I love mine, although I run it as a b9er now or whatever you might call it.

[img] [/img]

I'll shortly have a 69er clearance sale going on :O) (Naplam - yes, I know I said I'd never sell it and I know it's the best SS I've ever ridden but the next one MIGHT be better)

My Trek SS 69er and my geared 69er both need to go to make way for the emperors new clothes. I know I'll regret it but space is a premium at present in the shed.

Both sold as rolling chassis with forks, headset, seat clamps and wheels.

Both powder coated as the SS was one of the last ones and that paint job was just wrong, and the geared one needed some loving.

Email if interested for pics and details.

Tim

I was talking to my Grandad about these, he says he had one as a lad and they were quite popular back then... he got a photo out and showed me...

[img] [/img]

My home brewed 69r/96r depending on your pov suits me nicely but it was conceived as an answer to wanting to run my 456 rigid but with similar angles to when it was running 140mm / 26 up front.

The bigger wheel and a 26r rigid fork put the bars and head angle about the same as before.

I like how it rides. Is it the geometry, the big wheel, the tyre choice or any combination of the above, probably yes.

Would I have bought one off the shelf probably not and still unlikely to now if one existed despite how much I like this one.

I have a suspicion that in my current unfit state the easier to accelerate rear wheel may be helping on the slow stop start climbs.

If anyone has a small carver or trek ss kickung about let me know!

The concept doesn't seem like a bad one I believe Liteville are still in favour of it I think they called it scaled sizing.

When I replace the fork on my fulls suss then I will get a 650b fork and probably 650b wheel as it should compliment the geometry of the frame quite well.