http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?f=17
bike feels like total junk. sweet fork but dont like it.
bike feels like total junk. sweet fork but dont like it.
just tested a trek
- Thread starter pinkshirtphotos
- Start date
Please elaborate, many are eyeing this bike, but few get a chance to ride it before purchasing.
I think it looks great, apart from the rear wheel size, which is enough for me to be only interested in a test ride (21.5") and before that certainly no purchase. I built a 29" front on a 26" bike I loved, and hated the harsh rear wheel that time. Loved the front. Much fork travel in my mind cannot turn that around, au contraire. But a test ride would be good.
it accelerated really fast, but it was a somewhat muddy trail with lots of rocks. my rear tire kept getting that broke though ice feel. and my it was almost being forced into the ground where as the front floated over everything. the fork is really nice, but the 26" is bad. I would like to try a full suspension with the 26 rear maybe that will get ride of the stuck/ bumpy feeling. would have been really nice as a full 29.
Fox Fork?
More please!!
The Ito
More please!!
The Ito
ito - you'll see OEM fox forx on the 2008 Fisher 29ers and maybe some of the Trek 69ers too.
All part of the new Genesis 2 Geometry thing from Fisher (Trek).
Mark
All part of the new Genesis 2 Geometry thing from Fisher (Trek).
Mark
Hey, it is what it is. A 26 inch rear wheel we all have experienced before. No amount of "magic", (read big front wheel and the belief that it somehow changes the rear wheel characteristics) is going to mask that. Just think about it for a minute.
The front wheel is a 29"er, no surprises there for guys accustomed to the format. It is what it is.
I don't see any mystery here. When you pedal uphill, you have to grunt and manouver more because the 26 inch rear wheel just doesn't grip like a 29"er. Sure, it accellerates a bit more easily, but, (and this is the thing 69er folks don't talk about) it loses momentum more quickly as well. The 29"er rear wheel takes a bit more effort, but when you have better climbing traction and a momentum conserving, "flywheel" effect, you can learn to use that to your advantage on rollers and downhills where I feel the 29"er has a huge advantage.
Travis Brown told me, (as did a couple of other 69er advocates) that they like the 26 inch rear wheel because they can get shorter chainstays and have the rear wheel tucked underneath them more. I didn't hear anything about weight, acceleration, or other purported 69er benefits. My conclusion is that racers, elite level racers, like their bikes to feel a certain way, regardless of advantage/disadvantage in regards to the 29"er/26"er debate. It would be just too difficult for them to have to relearn a new platform.
They seem to be a little more flexible when it comes to front wheel size and since that bigger wheel is #1. more comfortable, #2 gives better control, and #3 doesn't upset the overall physics of pedaling a bicycle for them, ( ie: years of training on a specific wheel size, learning it's traits and tuning yourself to that) they seem to be okay with the 69"er. I am speaking purely from an elite racing standpoint, and that is what the Trek lineup of 69"ers is designed for, per Travis own words.
So, that leaves us "mere mortals" to determine if what they are using makes sense for our riding. My opinion is this: I'm not an elite racer and I don't have thousands of hours of fine tuning at risk if I choose a completely different wheel platform. So I look at what enhances my trail experience best. The 69er isn't it.
For me, it's the full on 29"er. At least that's my experience so far. I am in the works now trying to obtain a 69"er for testing, (not necessarily a Trek....actually probably not a Trek) to A/B test against a 29"er on my trails to determine if my hypothesis is correct. I am quite confident that I will find a 26 inch rear wheeled bike to be just that. A 26 inch rear wheeled bike, regardless of front wheel size.
Sorry about the rant!
Carry on now.
The front wheel is a 29"er, no surprises there for guys accustomed to the format. It is what it is.
I don't see any mystery here. When you pedal uphill, you have to grunt and manouver more because the 26 inch rear wheel just doesn't grip like a 29"er. Sure, it accellerates a bit more easily, but, (and this is the thing 69er folks don't talk about) it loses momentum more quickly as well. The 29"er rear wheel takes a bit more effort, but when you have better climbing traction and a momentum conserving, "flywheel" effect, you can learn to use that to your advantage on rollers and downhills where I feel the 29"er has a huge advantage.
Travis Brown told me, (as did a couple of other 69er advocates) that they like the 26 inch rear wheel because they can get shorter chainstays and have the rear wheel tucked underneath them more. I didn't hear anything about weight, acceleration, or other purported 69er benefits. My conclusion is that racers, elite level racers, like their bikes to feel a certain way, regardless of advantage/disadvantage in regards to the 29"er/26"er debate. It would be just too difficult for them to have to relearn a new platform.
They seem to be a little more flexible when it comes to front wheel size and since that bigger wheel is #1. more comfortable, #2 gives better control, and #3 doesn't upset the overall physics of pedaling a bicycle for them, ( ie: years of training on a specific wheel size, learning it's traits and tuning yourself to that) they seem to be okay with the 69"er. I am speaking purely from an elite racing standpoint, and that is what the Trek lineup of 69"ers is designed for, per Travis own words.
So, that leaves us "mere mortals" to determine if what they are using makes sense for our riding. My opinion is this: I'm not an elite racer and I don't have thousands of hours of fine tuning at risk if I choose a completely different wheel platform. So I look at what enhances my trail experience best. The 69er isn't it.
For me, it's the full on 29"er. At least that's my experience so far. I am in the works now trying to obtain a 69"er for testing, (not necessarily a Trek....actually probably not a Trek) to A/B test against a 29"er on my trails to determine if my hypothesis is correct. I am quite confident that I will find a 26 inch rear wheeled bike to be just that. A 26 inch rear wheeled bike, regardless of front wheel size.
Sorry about the rant!
Carry on now.
I don't see anything on the web. Do you have a link please?
flyyyyyyyyyyyyy being the operative word. WORD!
Hey GT, I have been riding a Fetish Fixation as a 69er and as a Mountain Bike and I am starting to notice some differences. I am riding rigid with a 20t in the rear.
The 69er definitely rolls over stuff smoother but I find the climbing, especially from a deadstop harder than having two 26er wheels. As a regular mountain bike, it seems to accelerate faster.
I have to agree though, the 29er, especially as a rigid bike, out performs a regular mountain bike.
The 69er definitely rolls over stuff smoother but I find the climbing, especially from a deadstop harder than having two 26er wheels. As a regular mountain bike, it seems to accelerate faster.
I have to agree though, the 29er, especially as a rigid bike, out performs a regular mountain bike.
I'm not exactly sure how changing the wheel size would affect how one pedals a bike. Is there something I'm missing?
I have seen Travis being quoted saying he likes the acceleration of the 26" wheel, but he also likes how the 29 rolls, so they created the 69'er.
Keep in mind I'm referencing top level pro athletes here. The difference between first and tenth place is a fraction of a percent. Anything that is "radically" different, (ie: going from a 26 inch wheel to a 29 inch rear wheel) is going to negatively affect muscles that have been trained to react and work within very specific parameters. Most pros can tell you if something is off by a millimeter or two on their set up. Going three inches bigger and somewhat heavier on the rear wheel? Yeah, that's something you're going to feel in your effort on the pedals. It's percieved as a negative only because it's so different from what they are used to turning over. Make sense?
Yeeeeaaah......... and that's also why he doesn't like a 29 inch rear wheel. You seem to be agreeing with me here by including this statement. You just are missing the reasoning behind that choice.
Yes, that makes sense. But nothing needs to be relearned. An increase in wattage is what's needed(which is why they percieve it as negative). Muscles working within certain parameters is not applicable to MTB racing, the range in power output ranges greatly during a race.
Pros, as you said, like their setup to feel a certain way, which is why you don't see most of them running a 29" front wheel either.
Um, no. That statement was in response to you saying this:
and me reading this: