Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Peg Leg Pedaler
    Reputation: FueledByPBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    31

    "noob" thrashing aside, what the hell is...

    A 69er?

    A 96er?

    a 650b?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,591
    69er and 96er are the same thing. A bike with a 26" rear wheel and a 29" front wheel.

    650b is what it is - an old wheel size, sort of reintroduced to the mountain bike scene in a diameter that sits in between a 26" wheel and a 29" wheel.

    Hope that helps.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,595
    There are a lot of other ways to say those things too. Just keep in mind there are now 3 different tire size choices for typical mountain biking.

    I currently prefer my B9er.

  4. #4
    Peg Leg Pedaler
    Reputation: FueledByPBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    31
    ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhh I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,595
    69er is more fun to say than 96er. No one should ask about putting a larger wheel in back than in the front, or risk having your membership revoked. B9ers are cool.

  6. #6
    I'd rather be riding!
    Reputation: kmacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding
    69er is more fun to say than 96er.
    More fun to ride too.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    No-Brakes Cougar
    Reputation: Gary the No-Trash Cougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding
    No one should ask about putting a larger wheel in back than in the front, or risk having your membership revoked.
    Like an old Schwinn Stingray? Mountain Muscle Bike!
    R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio ~ July 10, 1942 May 16, 2010

  8. #8
    @2whlfun
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    536
    After seeing my first 69er I thought it was strange because I don't like change! But it made me think of something else I have in the garage that has a 3" difference in the wheels

    <a href="https://s566.photobucket.com/albums/ss101/twowheelfunman/?action=view&current=HammondTrack024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss101/twowheelfunman/HammondTrack024.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
    2017 SPOT Brand MAYHEM (incoming) 2016 Spot rollik557, 2016 SPOT Brand Zephyr Adventure Bike 55c, Heller 27.7+

  9. #9
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by twowheelfunman
    After seeing my first 69er I thought it was strange because I don't like change! But it made me think of something else I have in the garage that has a 3" difference in the wheels
    As your picture shows, 3" difference in rims. Wheel diameter difference is about 1 inch, maybe no difference (I don't have a dirt bike near by to measure).

    Some rambling thoughts on optimizing wheel sizes (JMHO):

    Modern dirt moto bikes have acceleration nearly as powerful as braking power. Mountain bike has possibly over 1.0 g braking power (depending on traction), but only about 0.10 g acceleration (WAG). We mountain biker don't need fatter rear tires to lay the power down. We just have the trade off off compromises of lower weight, lower common gear rates, and greater nimbleness of smaller wheels verses easier rolling, conservation of momentum, and greater stability of larger diameter wheels.

    Same size wheels, or if downhill oriented then slightly larger front, seems optimum over the more recent decades for a balance of traction and rolling resistance. Early bicycles were all off road before pavement was invented for bicycles, and larger front wheels gave better traction to the front wheel driven early bikes.

    Bicycles are rear weighted biased so rolling resistance is affected more by the wheel size and tire resistance of the rear wheel. And the front tire needs more cornering traction than the rear for balance corner handling, and tire tread design difference is a lighter weight way to balance traction than using a larger front wheel size.

  10. #10
    Peg Leg Pedaler
    Reputation: FueledByPBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    31
    So is it truley worth it to have a 20" front wheel, or is it just a hipster trend among the bike crowd?

  11. #11
    Harshing my mellow, man..
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    369
    I don't know where you've been riding, but around here nobody has a 20" in front wheel, or any wheel, for off-road purposes. Very odd...

  12. #12
    Peg Leg Pedaler
    Reputation: FueledByPBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    31
    Lol, sorry I ment 29" I was one keyboard key off.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by FueledByPBR
    Lol, sorry I ment 29" I was one keyboard key off.
    It is a hipster trend. I'm not anything close to a hipster though. If you can make the geo work for you, then it is the way to go IMHO.

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
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.