Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874

    Why no XC 69ers?

    Title pretty much says it all. Seems to me the ideal XC bike would be a 69er. You have the bigger front wheel to get you over stuff, the short chainstays/maneuverability of a 26er, and less rolling inertia than a full on 29er. I went from a 26 FS with 120 mm travel to a carbon Orbea 29er. Seems to me the big wheel helps a ton, even with 40 mm less travel, on rocky climbs. The back wheel doesn't seem to make much difference though except slow me down when accelerating. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    101
    Carver Bikes has an XC oriented 69er, they call it a 96er. There's an aluminum version and titanium.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874
    I know they're out there. I was just wondering why nobody races them?

  4. #4
    eschewing obfuscation
    Reputation: 44gnats's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    319
    i have a rigid trek 69er ss and love it. not as fast as my 29er, though. or stable. and harder on my kidneys after long hours in the saddle. you are right that the short stays are sweet; accelerates better and takes switchbacks a bit faster than my 29er but those advantages don't seem to overcome the virtues of 29 front and rear. just my experience.
    not sure i think the carver looks any good. in fact, i'm sure it doesn't look so great, but not b/c of the 69er format. i think siren frames in this format look better executed, if you're hell-bent on getting one...
    "Bikes have wheels." -Noam Chomsky

  5. #5
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    You be the first. Report back

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874
    I'm planning on a Moots Gristle YBB! ...in a few years when I'm out of college

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    132
    UCI rules, at least a few years back - both wheels must be the same size (seriously).

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by newtrailhead
    UCI rules, at least a few years back - both wheels must be the same size (seriously).
    Does it apply to mountain bikes? The rule definitely applies to time trial bikes (they used to use smaller front wheels).

  9. #9
    FTM
    FTM is offline
    ...
    Reputation: FTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by flargle
    Does it apply to mountain bikes?
    Yup, all bikes.
    Article 1.3.006 "The bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels of equal diameter: the front wheel shall be steerable; the rear wheel shall be driven..."

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874
    Once again, UCI ruins progress of bike development...

    guess that answers my question...

  11. #11
    CB2
    CB2 is offline
    Jam Econo
    Reputation: CB2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,214
    I have a friend, lets call him Kerry, who has 2 Carvers 96ers (1 Al, 1 Ti) and a Trek 69'er. He loves them. His favorite of the 3 is the Trek because of the Maverick fork.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob_co2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    564
    Not sure if they were UCI races, but a year or two ago J Bishop was running a 650b front wheel with 26 rear in some pro races.
    Unless its a WC race, I doubt they really check that closely in mtb, even among the pros. And at the amateur level nobody will care.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,233
    I've been racing a Moots Gristle-YBB for three years. Love the ride. Lucky for me the UCI could care less what a mid pack 40+cat1 is riding.

  14. #14
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,563
    I'm an XCer and I have no problem with a little 69ering.

  15. #15
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822

    Remember the old school Canondales...

    I think they were 26" front and like a 24" rear. They only made them for a couple of years remember. Maybe around 1988 or so..

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by FTM
    Yup, all bikes.
    Article 1.3.006 "The bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels of equal diameter: the front wheel shall be steerable; the rear wheel shall be driven..."
    UCI rules only apply when racing in a UCI-sanctioned event. For most of us, that's never.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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