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

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.

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.

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.

"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"

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?

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.

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

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".

One day we'll say "69ers are SO 2005".

I dont think a 69er will ever go out of date.

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

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...

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 (http://www.bikemania.biz/Coker_Standard_Red_Monster_Cruiser_Bicycle_p/coker_monsterstandardred.htm) board?

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.

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!

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.

This is going to be my next bike!
http://bikemecca.com/sickweird/chopper.jpg

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

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.

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

I remember a few years back when all this negativity was directed at 29ers :confused:

I remember a few years back when all this negativity was directed at 29ers :confused:

;)

First try the bike, then draw your conclusions..

JJ

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...

Wasn't the race winner of the SSWC05 on a 29er - front and REAR??

in bikes with 20 inch wheels! Talk about snappy acceleration! And boy, are those babies stiff and light...

The world is way ahead of your clumsy attemps at parody :D

http://burro-zvobikes.com/images/b1-Team(d)modified2x463w.jpg

The world is way ahead of your clumsy attemps at parody :D

http://burro-zvobikes.com/images/b1-Team(d)modified2x463w.jpg

Been there, done that. I sold it after a few months. The idea that those wheels roll over anything is laughable.

B

I'm a longtime reader, first time poster.

About a year ago, I experimented with a similar setup. I think my article's been posted here before, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, it can be seen here:
http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/brainfart.php?ID=119

I switched back to a full 26" setup with suspension fork at one point, then over to a Sibex Ti fork. But I really missed the big wheel. So after a couple months, I went back to the Surly fork with 29" wheel, and I've been loving it ever since. In fact, I rode the SSWC05 in State College with this setup and didn't stuff my wheel once. I had the standover my short legs require, and throwing around the rear wheel wasn't as difficult as with a full 29 setup.

Here's one reason I see a 29/26 setup as advantageous: the moto world has been doing it for years. We mountain bikers tend to forget that motorcycle folks have been doing this longer than we have, making the same experiments and mistakes along the way. When I can learn from them, I will.

I had the chance to ride Travis' setup and am quite happy he's persuaded the folks at Trek to make the prototype, especially knowing formerly anti-SS Zap is heading up the product management. While his bike was cool, I think there are some things to work out. Mainly, the travel. He knows his bikes, but it was set up in 120mm travel mode when i rode it. Admittedly, he liked the head angle the travel setting gave him, not the 120mm of travel.

To get back to the point: I'm into this setup for its performance advantages on technical trail, not its long distance rolling resistance advantage. I can understand walt's point about rolling resistance, but again, I'm into this for technical stuff. The 29" front with rigid fork rolls through things like a short travel suspension fork. I could see a 60-70mm travel fork doing wonders for a 29/26.

I am curious though, why the 29/26 concept is a sore subject on this board. what am I missing?

-Michael browne

I'm a longtime reader, first time poster.

About a year ago, I experimented with a similar setup. I think my article's been posted here before, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, it can be seen here:
http://www.dirtragmag.com/web/brainfart.php?ID=119
Here's one reason I see a 29/26 setup as advantageous: the moto world has been doing it for years. We mountain bikers tend to forget that motorcycle folks have been doing this longer than we have, making the same experiments and mistakes along the way. When I can learn from them, I will.

I am curious though, why the 29/26 concept is a sore subject on this board. what am I missing?

-Michael browne

With the tires mounted, the actual diameter of a motocross motorcycle front and rear wheels is pretty similar. This is due to the fact that the rear tire is much wider and has a much taller casing than the front.

As for why it's a sore subject...well, new ideas are often met with ridicule by those who have a significant stake in the old ideas...to wit, the way 26ers regard the whole 29er idea as nuts.

Maybe because I take every chance to slam the idea?

Nice first first BTW, welcome on board Michael!

If Travis likes the head angle but not the travel, he was riding the wrong fork in a wrongly designed frame. It's so much easier to have the Trek folks to just weld a lower placed chainstay on a Rig :-)
Then, even putting a 26" rear wheel in a Rig might work if Travis likes it slack, the BB is pretty tall after all...

By my figuring, I don't think 26" wheels steer/corner any better than 29" wheels. THis is based simply on the observation of trails local to me. Knowing there are very few using 29" wheels in my direction, I can only assume the riders local are using 26" wheels. Instead of steering around the bends and corners in trails, most riders elect to create a new trail that goes straight, thus avoiding all of that nasty cornering.

By that conclusion, I don't think 26" wheels steer any better.

I am glad you posted. Yours is the first one I have read in this thread that has any substantive elements that I can consider regarding the plusses of running the 29" front/ 26" rear combo.

I don't really take to the motorcycle related comparison solely because a motorcycle has a much more powerful engine than a cyclist. Spinning a rear wheel up to speed, or over trail obstacles is a mere blip of the throttle. Not so easy on the bicycle!

I can see the possible merits of this design for highly technical terrain. Much like trialsin. Many of the older trials bike designs were of this nature. As I stated in an earlier post, this idea must be valid for some. I just do not see it as an option that is better than a full on 29"wheeled bike for most types of trail riding. If that is seen as close minded hating, well then, you guys are welcome to your opinions too!

At Pedro's Fest this year, I was able to ride/demo 3 bikes on the same loop, on on the same day:
1) 26" Trek 8900 SS convert (mine)
2) 29" GF X-Caliber w/gears (demo)
3) 96er Carver w/gears (demo)

Loop consisted of typical New England terrain: lotsa quick up/ downs twistes and turns, a few long climbs, a coupla long descents, and of course rocks, and roots, and more of the last two.

All bikes are aluminum hard tails with a 3-4 inch travel fork.

I'm sold on the 29" wheel front and rear.
Here's why:
-Bike felt great on climbs, didn't feel sluggish
-Bike felt stable on descents, my weak area, and the big wheels rolled over everything
-I noticed no difference in the handling in twisty ST
-Big wheel in back was like having a few inches of travel, but it was still a hard tail.
This is why I will be selling my 26"wheeled 5" travel F&R as I feel this is too much for me.
-I didn't notice a inability to lift the larger front wheel up and over roots/rocks in comparison to my 26".
-The bike actually looked to scale while I was riding it, instead of the bear in circus

Why I'm not sold on 96er
-Lost the benefit of the big wheel smoothing out the trail in the back

Why I'm not sold on the 26" wheeled bikes anymore
-See above

Now I just can't decide on which 29er to buy!
There really are so many great frames out there.
Darn, it could be worse.

-Dan

Anything that gets more 29" wheels out there is good. More 29" front wheels = more market for tires and forks = more choices.

Yeah, I built up a 69r and it rode great. I had the moto setup with a big fatty in the back and a bonty up front. I lost the good climbing but I could bunny hop and wheelie a lot better. But YRMV...

Why I'm not sold on 96er
-Lost the benefit of the big wheel smoothing out the trail in the back

Why I'm not sold on the 26" wheeled bikes anymore
-See above

Now I just can't decide on which 29er to buy!
There really are so many great frames out there.
Darn, it could be worse.

-Dan

so here's my thinking:

I think a 29" wheel rigid fork feels like a 26" wheel with a little bit of suspension. yes, with a 29" wheel, you get a better angle of attack for obstacles allowing you to get stuffed less on rocks you didn't account for, but does that matter all that much in the rear? It seems like whatever my front wheel gets through, my rear wheel will always follow through. Have you ever been stopped dead in your tracks by your rear wheel getting caught on something? I haven't.

So if smoothing out the ride is your primary concern, why not try a short travel (like a Moots YBB) rear suspension bike?

Ooh... I like the sound of that. I think I just found a new dream bike.

-Michael

It's not as much the rear wheel getting stuck, it's the energy lost in the cause of the rear end enduring higher peak loads that make a 29" rear wheel make so much sense. BTW, a 29" ridig rear end is probably lighter than a 26" soft tail rear end. All that, and even on the road you get a good 3% lower overall rolling resistance from just that rear wheel alone.
Oh, and 29" adds traction and grip. All those traits for just a ~150g weight penalty, it's a no-brainer to me really. If saving that same weight to go smaller with 24" wheels isn't worth it, why not go bigger still?

If only bikes were good enough business for NASA to be concerned about them... (not that their rocket designs are so cleverly chosen)

It's not as much the rear wheel getting stuck, it's the energy lost in the cause of the rear end enduring higher peak loads that make a 29" rear wheel make so much sense. BTW, a 29" ridig rear end is probably lighter than a 26" soft tail rear end. All that, and even on the road you get a good 3% lower overall rolling resistance from just that rear wheel alone.
Oh, and 29" adds traction and grip. All those traits for just a ~150g weight penalty, it's a no-brainer to me really. If saving that same weight to go smaller with 24" wheels isn't worth it, why not go bigger still?

If only bikes were good enough business for NASA to be concerned about them... (not that their rocket designs are so cleverly chosen)

do you have any resources you could share that talk about this "peak load" you're referring to? I'm unsure of what you mean...

As for the traction and grip (same thing, right?), I can see your point there, but I'm fairly confident with my skills to properly transfer weight to get optimal traction with a 26" wheel. I find the 26" wheel accelerates much easier, and on the trails I ride most, I'm constantly changing speed. That extra bit of oomph outweighs the benefit of better traction.

but the SSWC race winner rode rigid.

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...

I ****ed up, that should read the number two.

Mbrowne,
I lack scientific data, but it's like this:
Imagine a square 2" obstable, and both a 26" and a 29" wheel.
The 26" wheel hits this obstacle with the axle a bit closer to it that when the 29" does. So, the 26" wheel takes shorter distance (time) to roll over it. This means the axle (your ass) will accelerate up more quickly to be lifted over it. Higher peak load.
The Fisher site has a nice animation on this, I think.
Only repeated larger bumps at slow speed seem to bug me a bit more sometimes, as the one obstacle/bump is still in pregress when the next one announces itself. But then, for each wheelsize a good or bad course can be built. Just IMO, most trails will favor 29", just the way nature works and trails are built.
Another thing of which I wonder if it has any effect...at the point 2" off the ground, in above example, the 29" wheel has more rubber measured horizontally between the upper edge of the 2" square to the rim. When sliding into an obstacle, or less that 100% braking traction, I can imagine that to take away even more from the already reduced peak load.
This "peak load" or whatever I should call (pardon my bad technical English) is why many people report that a 3" suspension 29" frame of fork feels at least as comfortable as a 4" travel 26" setup. Using more travel reduces peak loads on hands and ass in a different but similar way. I guess ridig 29" is like acting-boxing, you get the hit, it looks bad, but you don't have real pain and keep moving like Bruce Lee.

Check out

www.ridewithnickmartin.blogspot.com for more pics

www.ridewithnickmartin.blogspot.com (http://www.ridewithnickmartin.blogspot.com)

i am in the process of working out a design and builder for a 69er. my current plan is to build around a 430mm rigid fork, the sibex specifically.

did you not like the sibex ? too flexy ?? perhaps it is just a goofy choice, but worst case i reckon i can get another made down the road. my bike is gonna be a SS, and will stay rigid.

like you, the 69er idea to me makes total sense. i do not understand much of the opposition. i am deadset on making sure the bb stays low enuf - and the geometry stays spot on. in addition, short travel seatposts work well around here, and i figure that the smaller rear wheel "harshness" will be taken up by that, leaving the 26er rear stiffer, stronger, lighter, more compact, and the bike crisper than a dual 29er wheeled bike for w little guy like me.

any other insights you may have would be appreciated.

What gearing does Travis use on his SS?

If you need a suspension seatpost on a 69er, you end up with a heavier bike than a full-on 29" that rolls less efficiently.
People have these visions of huge weight on 29"ers, but really the rear wheel is only good for under half a pound. Rolling resistance outweighs weight, even under hard acceleration.

29" chainstays are only about 1/2 inch longer than standard 26"er, less if you only ride it SS. Seatstays may well end up the same length or shorter, so much for hugely long stays that flex all over the place.

Science vs. Mind.

I say : make sure someone makes custom rear dropouts for you, to take both wheelsizes, the 29" in a slot 31mm higher up, and 1/2 an inch out. You'll be able to swap wheels without any significant geometry change. It would be a first, and probably very nice to have too, even if you decide to keep the 29" slot for fat commuter slicks when it's the time for that.

I certainly appreciate the larger rear for roll over almost as much as the front.

My 26" SS was running a Mosquito 2.3 on the back [Stans, 25psi => SOFT] which actually measured 27". Not a bad start...but I sure wouldn't want to go back to that.

As has been REPEATEDLY reviewed in the MTB world, MX is NOT a good comparison. As a MX'er back in the 70's [yeah, I'm old!], I about got killed when I started MTB'ing in the early 90's, as the handling characteristics are so different.

Whatever...TB is a bit off the beaten path, AND has the talent to get the support from TRUCK to get what he wants That is cool in itself.

Just make me some pythons/mosquitos in 700c.

This set up looks ridiculous. And no, I don't care to elaborate.

All I will add is that a few weeks ago, I was riding with some friends at a local trail we ride every Tuesday. I'm on my Rock Lobster 29, and my friend Nate is on his 1x1. Nate is by far a stronger rider than me, in terms of conditioning, body fat, and consistent ride time. The boy is a teacher, and gets quite a few more rides in than me during the summer months. And he's probably a more motivated person than me.:) Anyway, we're probably pretty even on technical skills, but he's in better shape.

We have this climb coming out of a culvert crossing that starts right after a very sharp turn, and then starts fairly steep, then goes up, then less up, than up again. Probably 150' elevation gain, but a tough climb to make due to the steepness. On this particular ride, it's just a little slimy b/c it had rained a couple of days prior. Nate starts the climb ahead of me and spins out, as do the other 3 riders ahead of me (all on 26"). I was the only person on the ride to clean the climb. Not that I am some kind of glorious badass, but I sincerely think the big rear wheel in the back helps keep more traction on the ground during technical climbs. I don't have to shift as much weight back the rear, risking accidentally pulling the front wheel off the ground. That right there is definitive benefit of the big wheels for me, and that's why the only 26" bike I own is a trials bike.

I certainly appreciate the larger rear for roll over almost as much as the front.

As has been REPEATEDLY reviewed in the MTB world, MX is NOT a good comparison. As a MX'er back in the 70's [yeah, I'm old!], I about got killed when I started MTB'ing in the early 90's, as the handling characteristics are so different.

Just make me some pythons/mosquitos in 700c.
Good Point- Motorcycle comparisons are not really for for a number of reasons, some mentioned already and some not... for example, a motorcycle's rear wheel spins much faster than it's front wheel due to throttle input. We can never ride a bicycle in this fashion.

And I'll second the request for niner Hutchinsons!!!

:D GG

I say : make sure someone makes custom rear dropouts for you, to take both wheelsizes, the 29" in a slot 31mm higher up, and 1/2 an inch out. You'll be able to swap wheels without any significant geometry change. It would be a first, and probably very nice to have too, even if you decide to keep the 29" slot for fat commuter slicks when it's the time for that.
I have a friend intending to make that...

To me the 96er/69er/whatchamacallit is a great option for people who have an existing 26" frame that they love, and want to take advantage of some of the big-wheel benefits without spending a fortune on a new frame. Many shorter-travel 26"s can be converted to a 29"-front with a rigid fork, and longer-travel 26"s can be converted to 29"-front with a shorter-travel fork, without substantial geometry changes.

But to me, there are substiantial benefits fo having big wheels at both ends the bike and not just the front, and it's hard for me to envision this being an advantageous situation for very many riders (except possibly downhillers and riders even shorter than myself). More power to the guys who build one on their own, because I assume they've reasoned it out and figured out that it's the best setup for them.

Again, for a lot of the riders who do it, I see the big-small combo as a compromise to allow one to work with an existing 26" frame. When building up a new bike from scratch, I see less of a point in it for most riders, and it's especially disappointing to see that's the route being taken by the biggest player in our industry.

On the other hand, this does give greatly increased visibility to the 29" concept. And I'd bet that a lot of people who see or ride this bike will probably end up asking, "hmmm ... why not make make BOTH wheels big?"

> I have a friend intending to make that...
Hot! If you make a fork like that as well, the 29" wheel 6mm more offset (maybe a fork you need to turn around for the other wheelsize), you can do all 26" and 29" wheel combinations without altering BB height or trail figure.

they always say horses for courses and for this terrain i think mr. brown was right on.

you guys keep talking about momentum.... in this course there was almost none to be had on anything but the downhills. all the ups and ridgetops were pretty gnarly rock filled trails where momentum really wasn't a big factor.

i think the smaller tire mighta helped him kick pedal and jam through the rocks better than with a bigger tire back there.

and 29/26 on the downs musta been nice! especially at the end where it got real steep and nasty. i bet his nice wide rear tire helped him stop better than my toothpick thin (2.1 by name only) motoraptor.

Here's a few more pictures of the 69er... it is expected to be in the 2007 Trek line up.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/Trek_69er_sliding_dropouts.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/Trek_69er_side_view.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/Trek_69er_seat_collar.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/Trek_69er_bb_area.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/23404369er.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/Sick_Purple_Liquid/69.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

I must say it's one really nicely done long-travel 26" hardtail. Nice option that it still fits a 100mm 29" fork.

The slots for the sliding dropouts don't look long enough for ample adjustment, but it looks like there are two holes on the dropouts themselves. What kind of bars are those? Bonty I'm assuming...

To me the 96er/69er/whatchamacallit is a great option for people who have an existing 26" frame that they love, Yeah, yeah, I know this has been discussed before, but it seems logical to look at a bike from the drive side and, since we read and write from left to right, call a bike with a rear 26" wheel and a front 29" wheel a "69er." IMHO, a bike with a 29" rear wheel with a 26" front wheel should be called a "96er." People who have problems with a perceived sexual innuendo... well, they should spend less time watching televangelists and reading Playboy letters to the editor.

I tend to agree with the previous poster that any production bike which encourages the use of 29" wheel components is a good thing.

What kind of bars are those? Bonty I'm assuming...

Bontrager Big Sweeps...I guess Travis had a lot of input on the bars, as well as the bike. :thumbsup:

I can dig it!

I can dig it!


Yeah no kidding, that thing is sweet. I think I need one!

I think they'd sell more of this frame construction design if it were 29/29, and especially 26/26. Would it be a "limited edition" type of eyecatcher, or something they hope will bring them millions of extra turnover?

I think they'd sell more of this frame construction design if it were 29/29, and especially 26/26. Would it be a "limited edition" type of eyecatcher, or something they hope will bring them millions of extra turnover?

I agree with that. On another note: This bike certainly will not be a "budget" way to get yourself into a platform that may or may not work for you. Anybody who bites on this bait is going to sink a chunk of change into a mystery bike that they will have to like or get burned on.

A risky proposition not only for Trek, but for any potential customers as well. :rolleyes: