Joined
·
1,188 Posts
From the cyclingnews website. Uses a 29" front 26" rear combination. Limited details, but a few pics...
Attachments
-
80.6 KB Views: 3,278
-
71.9 KB Views: 2,985
Afraid or relieved?Cloxxki said: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.
I dont think a 69er will ever go out of date.Cloxxki said:One day we'll say "69ers are SO 2005".
...Things that make you go..."hmmmm"...endure26 said:From the cyclingnews website. Uses a 29" front 26" rear combination. Limited details, but a few pics...
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.toddre said:What's going on here?...no more kevlar tires...no wonder no one takes the 29er seriously
Guitar Ted said: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!
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.Guitar Ted said: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?
How long before the 29er board becomes the 36er board?Appendage said: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...
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!x-wing fighter said: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.x-wing fighter said: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.