Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62
  1. #1
    Where's Toto?
    Reputation: endure26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,196

    Trek 69er Prototype Pics

    From the cyclingnews website. Uses a 29" front 26" rear combination. Limited details, but a few pics...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Ah, new pics! Actually this forum had the world exclusive (again), thanks to loyal posters.

    I'm afraid it's more a once-but-never-again type of frame than a prototype-for-sometime-mass-production.

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Ah, new pics! Actually this forum had the world exclusive (again), thanks to loyal posters.

    I'm afraid it's more a once-but-never-again type of frame than a prototype-for-sometime-mass-production.
    Afraid or relieved?

    It is interesting the Brown still uses the guard rings on the rear cog. He started that when he was riding a converted frame and a ramped cog.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    123

    Ti rear cog guards

    At SSWC I recall T. Brown saying the rear cog guards were Ti! Also, I recall him saying this would be a production frame next year. The sliding drops with setscrews looks nice.

  5. #5
    Where's Toto?
    Reputation: endure26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    "Brown says he really likes the handling characteristics of mountain bikes with 700C (aka 29in) wheels, as well as the superior ability of the bigger wheels to roll over obstacles. But he prefers 26in wheels for their light weight and quicker acceleration. To get the best of both worlds, then, here's the 69er, with a 26in rear wheel and a 29in up front.

    The new machine also boasts some innovative sliding dropouts, avoiding the need for an eccentric bottom bracket to provide chain tension adjustment.

    Brown says the 69er will likely be a 2007 model year item in the Trek range, with Maverick fork and a standard rear hub with special cog guard/spacers"

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toddre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,182
    I don't get... Trek/Fisher will produce this bike (such a small market) but can't improve their fs 29er line (I would think a much larger market)
    Are they just trying it for the cool factor?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AteMrYeats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    804
    Hmmm...

    That thing looks like it's chock full of stuff I don't really think is necessary. Why not just go whole hog and ride a real 29er, Brown? If it works better for the front, then why not the rear too. As for excelleration, one could argue he has a point but why not just manipulate gearing and use light weight set-ups to get that snappy feel. I happen to believe that feel is all that is really at issue with the infamously slow 29er excelleration. I am not going to post about how great I can get the wheels spinning or how I leave my friends and their 26" bikes in my dust. Maybe for a racer guy like Travis Brown the feel of his cool Pink 96er (or whatever one wants to call it) is more important than the advantages he himself touts when talking about his front wheel. Tires might be another story all together, but I have not had any trouble finding relatively light and diverse offerings from half a dozen manufacturers. I guess TB might have some special, calndestine list of cool tires from which to choose to suit any and every particular course; hey, he's a racer, right? He needs the right tire. Why, then, can he ignore the great cornucopia of rubber he has used for years--fine tuned for every conceivable situation--and limit himself to a relatively miniscule population of tires for his front wheel? A tire choice which I would argue is the more crucial as far as braking and overall traction is concerned. Don't even get me started on a double crown fork on a cross country SS. I know, TB, stress out over which 26" rear tire to use for optimum ecelleration, and now slap a fork on that thing that significantly increases your turning radius. Good plan. Moreover, I wonder why he needs those cool-guy, ti chain guides if his innovative (unless one recalls that Paragon Machine Works already makes the things) sliding dropouts work so well. I think this bike is a monstrosity. It's not even cool. I don't want to offend anyone with a pink bike, but come on, TB, you missed the whole "pink is the cool color for single speeds" thing by a few years there. Poo poo, I say.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toddre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,182

    uuggghhhh

    What's going on here? Sliding drop outs... mostly (it seems anyway) single speeds... 96ers(?)... no more kevlar tires... only 3 FS bikes (please don't mention the Astrix Monk)... Fisher NORBA pros (non endurance guys) don't race the bikes, let alone anyone else... two suspension forks... availability problems...no wonder no one takes the 29er seriously

  9. #9
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    One fast rolling sub-55-g rear tire on the 29" market, and that bike is useless. Right now, I can see how it could roll faster than a 29"er.
    It's a solution for a temporal problem, someone at some point will make a 29" tire with knobs on it that rolls like a 29" wheel should.
    One day we'll say "69ers are SO 2005".

  10. #10
    what a joke
    Reputation: ozlongboarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    One day we'll say "69ers are SO 2005".
    I dont think a 69er will ever go out of date.
    blah blah blah

  11. #11
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073

    I don't like this idea.

    This idea smacks of compromise- not inovation. It's pretty funny, because I wrote my blog entry today on this very subject. Anywho, I think all this stuff about 29 inch wheels and accelleration has to be looked at as a matter of riding technique. Logically, wouldn't it make sense for everyone to use 24 inch wheels, if this "spinning up to speed" thing is that important? I would present that since 29 inch wheels hold their momentum better, and grip better, you won't need to brake as much, and therefore not need to regain as much speed.

    Also, wouldn't it make more sense to have a better gripping 29 inch wheel on the back of a bike, especially a single speed? I guess I just do not grasp what is so much better about having a smaller wheel in the back. It seems to me the advantages of the 29 inch wheel far outweigh anything a 26 inch wheel can give you. I'll say it here: Trek, DO NOT MAKE THIS BIKE! It's a very bad idea!

  12. #12
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205
    Quote Originally Posted by endure26
    From the cyclingnews website. Uses a 29" front 26" rear combination. Limited details, but a few pics...
    ...Things that make you go..."hmmmm"...

    Very strange.. doesn't make sense to me, but i'm not a top-class racer, so i'll just go sit in the corner and sulk.. again..


    R.
    It is inevitable ...

  13. #13
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,869
    Quote Originally Posted by toddre
    What's going on here?...no more kevlar tires...no wonder no one takes the 29er seriously
    At least with regard to folding tires and Bontrager, FisherGuy posted 5 hours before your post that it was not true - rumor only about folding tires from Bontrager being halted.

    Avoid the rumors and just get out there and ride.

    BB
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  14. #14
    mvi
    mvi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,236

    96 er

    If I had to compromize it would be a 96er, since I feel the decrease in rolling resistance is made in the rear, where the weight is.
    Again, if Thomas Frischknecht can have 26" 2.1 custom Dugast tubulars for Athens, anyone with a couple of hunderd $ can have the same in 29.
    The cyclocross guys are legal to choose smaller than 700C, do you think they even consider this bcause of quicker acceleration? No way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    This idea smacks of compromise- not inovation. It's pretty funny, because I wrote my blog entry today on this very subject. Anywho, I think all this stuff about 29 inch wheels and accelleration has to be looked at as a matter of riding technique. Logically, wouldn't it make sense for everyone to use 24 inch wheels, if this "spinning up to speed" thing is that important? I would present that since 29 inch wheels hold their momentum better, and grip better, you won't need to brake as much, and therefore not need to regain as much speed.

    Also, wouldn't it make more sense to have a better gripping 29 inch wheel on the back of a bike, especially a single speed? I guess I just do not grasp what is so much better about having a smaller wheel in the back. It seems to me the advantages of the 29 inch wheel far outweigh anything a 26 inch wheel can give you. I'll say it here: Trek, DO NOT MAKE THIS BIKE! It's a very bad idea!

  15. #15
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,437

    That's it! If 26 is good, 24 is better!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I think all this stuff about 29 inch wheels and accelleration has to be looked at as a matter of riding technique. Logically, wouldn't it make sense for everyone to use 24 inch wheels, if this "spinning up to speed" thing is that important?
    For every reason that someone might cite to argue that 26 inch wheels are better than 29- wouldn't make sense that 24 inch wheels would be even better than 26? Stiffer, less inertia, less rotating weight, less unsprung weight, more manueverable, blah blah blah- if it's true about a 26 compared to a 29, then it's true about a 24 compared to a 26.

    Hey! How about mountain bikes with 20 inch wheels! Talk about snappy acceleration! And boy, are those babies stiff and light...
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  16. #16
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458

    The other way...

    Quote Originally Posted by Appendage
    For every reason that someone might cite to argue that 26 inch wheels are better than 29- wouldn't make sense that 24 inch wheels would be even better than 26? Stiffer, less inertia, less rotating weight, less unsprung weight, more manueverable, blah blah blah- if it's true about a 26 compared to a 29, then it's true about a 24 compared to a 26.

    Hey! How about mountain bikes with 20 inch wheels! Talk about snappy acceleration! And boy, are those babies stiff and light...
    How long before the 29er board becomes the 36er board?
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26

    how about and open mind?

    Ok if you have tried this and dislike it then fine, but otherwise WTF. I built one up out of Trek 9.8 frame and a rigid 700c hybrid frok that had a tight axle to crown but still fit a 2.0 tire. the bikes headangle is 71.5 and it rides awesome.

    if it wasn't Trek and instead was a custom builder, would there be all this negativity? On this forum, I would normally expect a much more accepting point of view. the only negative i have is having to carry 2 diff size tubes. unless Trek makes a 27.5 x 2.2 tube(joke). Say what you want, but Travis is no dummy and loves this set-up. i was lucky enough to sit with him 2 weeks ago before the WSSC. he told me what he was going to race and why.

    disclaimer-i work for Trek/GF and admit my bias, but i also believe what i have tried and know it is a good working set-up. my reg bike is an x-cal.

  18. #18
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073

    Oh yeah, my mind is open.

    Quote Originally Posted by x-wing fighter
    Ok if you have tried this and dislike it then fine, but otherwise WTF. I built one up out of Trek 9.8 frame and a rigid 700c hybrid frok that had a tight axle to crown but still fit a 2.0 tire. the bikes headangle is 71.5 and it rides awesome.

    if it wasn't Trek and instead was a custom builder, would there be all this negativity? On this forum, I would normally expect a much more accepting point of view. the only negative i have is having to carry 2 diff size tubes. unless Trek makes a 27.5 x 2.2 tube(joke). Say what you want, but Travis is no dummy and loves this set-up. i was lucky enough to sit with him 2 weeks ago before the WSSC. he told me what he was going to race and why.

    disclaimer-i work for Trek/GF and admit my bias, but i also believe what i have tried and know it is a good working set-up. my reg bike is an x-cal.
    Look, this idea is obviously valid for some people. They are certainly welcome to try and convince me otherwise. I just do not see the benefit of going with this set up over a full on 29" wheeled bike. I have put forth my stand, and anyone else can too. In fact, I'd love to hear Travis' reasons for why he believes in that bike. Perhaps I'd be enlightened to his reasoning. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I believe it would be a marketing nightmare to boot. I stand by my comments until convinced otherwise: bad idea!

  19. #19
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Quote Originally Posted by x-wing fighter
    Ok if you have tried this and dislike it then fine, but otherwise WTF. I built one up out of Trek 9.8 frame and a rigid 700c hybrid frok that had a tight axle to crown but still fit a 2.0 tire. the bikes headangle is 71.5 and it rides awesome.

    if it wasn't Trek and instead was a custom builder, would there be all this negativity? On this forum, I would normally expect a much more accepting point of view. the only negative i have is having to carry 2 diff size tubes. unless Trek makes a 27.5 x 2.2 tube(joke). Say what you want, but Travis is no dummy and loves this set-up. i was lucky enough to sit with him 2 weeks ago before the WSSC. he told me what he was going to race and why.

    disclaimer-i work for Trek/GF and admit my bias, but i also believe what i have tried and know it is a good working set-up. my reg bike is an x-cal.
    Don't stress too much. The 96er concept is a very sore subject on this board. Besides, you can use a 26" tube in a 29er tire, and vice versa.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,279
    This is going to be my next bike!
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,833

    Wouldn't 29 in the rear make more sense?

    Rear or front doesn't matter for acceleration - you've got to get BOTH wheels moving, so it takes about exactly as much energy to accelerate either one, once we discount the cassette and hub, since they're pretty much the same for either 26 or 29" wheels.

    So with ONE 29" wheel, and ONE 26" wheel, we get exactly HALF of the acceleration advantage of a 26" bike. Half. Doesn't matter if it's the front or rear wheel.

    On the other hand, if you believe at all in the rolling resistance advantages of 29" wheels, the rear wheel is a very bad place to put your smallest wheel - because the vast majority of the rolling resistance of the bike comes from the rear. In using a 26" rear/29" front, you're throwing away a lot of a good thing (lowered rolling resistance) for half of another good thing (acceleration). Why not put the 29" wheel in the rear, where you'll get the same acceleration advantage without throwing away as much of the nice low rolling resistance?

    Given the race tire disparity, I can see how the bike would work ok for now - in the absence of decent 29er race tires. But it's hard not to notice that Travis got beat by a virtually unknown fellow who rode 29" front AND rear - and was reportedly getting his gains on the bumpy pedaling sections of the course. It's pretty much all rider, of course, but it's still worth noting.

    -Walt
    Waltworks Custom Bicycles
    Park City, UT USA
    www.waltworks.com
    waltworks.blogspot.com

  22. #22
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    944

    for rolling over stuff

    The 29er is on the front for rolling over stuff, and having less propensity to endo, obviously TB feels those are the most important advantages of a 29er for him. I don't think rolling resistance is his big concern, he's TB Having the stronger wheel in back is one advantage I can think of BTW. It's his bike, let him ride it and the results will speak for themselves. besides you never know, maybe he tried the 29er in the back with a 26 up front and didn't like it. Maybe it's primarily for use as a marketing tool for a new 29er Maverick fork? It draws more attention this way if that the reason for doing it... Just some late night thoughts. I can't wait to ride again in the morning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt
    Rear or front doesn't matter for acceleration - you've got to get BOTH wheels moving, so it takes about exactly as much energy to accelerate either one, once we discount the cassette and hub, since they're pretty much the same for either 26 or 29" wheels.

    So with ONE 29" wheel, and ONE 26" wheel, we get exactly HALF of the acceleration advantage of a 26" bike. Half. Doesn't matter if it's the front or rear wheel.

    On the other hand, if you believe at all in the rolling resistance advantages of 29" wheels, the rear wheel is a very bad place to put your smallest wheel - because the vast majority of the rolling resistance of the bike comes from the rear. In using a 26" rear/29" front, you're throwing away a lot of a good thing (lowered rolling resistance) for half of another good thing (acceleration). Why not put the 29" wheel in the rear, where you'll get the same acceleration advantage without throwing away as much of the nice low rolling resistance?

    Given the race tire disparity, I can see how the bike would work ok for now - in the absence of decent 29er race tires. But it's hard not to notice that Travis got beat by a virtually unknown fellow who rode 29" front AND rear - and was reportedly getting his gains on the bumpy pedaling sections of the course. It's pretty much all rider, of course, but it's still worth noting.

    -Walt

  23. #23
    a legend in his own mind
    Reputation: mtnpedaler.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    261

    Can't we all just get along?

    I remember a few years back when all this negativity was directed at 29ers
    "I think this is the worst thing you've ever done Homer."
    "Oh Marge you say that so much it has no meaning."

  24. #24
    JJT
    JJT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnpedaler.com
    I remember a few years back when all this negativity was directed at 29ers


    First try the bike, then draw your conclusions..

    JJ
    Singlespeed Central - European SS and 29" webshop

  25. #25
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Haha, I did! I built several 69ers. Much better than 26", but not a 29"er by long :-)

    Note that the WCSS bike race winner also had 100 or 120mm less suspension up front...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trek Warranty Department Weirdness
    By Hardtails Are Better in forum Trek
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-16-2005, 05:49 PM
  2. *Please* help me like my Trek, i'm thinking of selling it....
    By MacTech in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 04:30 PM
  3. Choices: Trade a Specialized for a Trek?
    By Kona0197 in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 03:21 PM
  4. Choices: Trade a Specialized for a Trek?
    By Kona0197 in forum Specialized
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •