Talk to me about 29ers

Tarckives Bikes
1

Where I am in Santa Cruz, general consensus amongst the mountain bikers that I know is that 29ers are for pussies and road riders who can’t bunny hop. Everyone on this forum seems to cream their pants over 29ers. So tell me about them. I want to know what they offer you versus a 26" bike. How do they ride? Do you feel limited at all by the big wheels? Do you feel limited by 26" wheels? Are they mostly for very tall people?

I just feel like most things I’ve read about 29ers come from unreliable sources (i.e. people who are trying to sell them to me or who don’t know anything). I just want to know more.

2

[quote=deadforkinglast]
I just feel like most things I’ve read about 29ers come from unreliable sources [/quote]
go ride one.

3

/thread

4

Put 29er fork on 26" mtb, get best of both worlds with sweet 69er action.

5

Isn’t that a 96er? Or is it how its read from the drive side?

6

Uhhh… trek called their bike of this nature the 69er. 96er brings pleasant visions of this, though:

great_outdoors.jpg513×755

7

would handlin change from the change to a taller fork coz different hta?

8

Yeah, makes it more like monster truck.

9

No I meant is a 69er a 26 inch wheel up front or in the back?

One way is a 69er and the other way a 96er atmo.

I always thought of it as a front to back theory so a 69er would be a 26 inch wheel up front and a 29 inch wheel out back. A 96er would be the opposite.

But now, I wonder if the bicycle should be “read” in a similar fashion to the way we rad a line of text. So… as viewed from the drive side a 69er would be a 26inch wheel in the back and a 29er wheel up front.

Hmmm…

10

20in BMX [/end thread]

11

I thought 96er was some shit they made up so it didn’t have the sexytime connotations of 69er.

12

[quote=EivlEvo]No I meant is a 69er a 26 inch wheel up front or in the back?

One way is a 69er and the other way a 96er atmo.

I always thought of it as a front to back theory so a 69er would be a 26 inch wheel up front and a 29 inch wheel out back. A 96er would be the opposite.

But now, I wonder if the bicycle should be “read” in a similar fashion to the way we rad a line of text. So… as viewed from the drive side a 69er would be a 26inch wheel in the back and a 29er wheel up front.

Hmmm…[/quote]

trek had a model called the 69er with a 26" rear and 29" front. the opposite of that doesn’t really make any sense and gives you the worst of both worlds.

think bmx dirt bikes (or motorbikes) that have a fat tire in the front and skinny in the rear for the best combo of traction and speed.

13

what?

14

…and the need to haul two tubes, etc.

15

The Trek was terrible.

For XC I’m totally sold on the 29er after building my Titus last year. All mountain and beyond you need the additional travel of a 26.

16

I would also ride the hell out of a rigid 36er but they cost too much right now.

17

36er geo has to be goofy. Would ride, but I can’t imagine it would work out well on tight trails. Do you have an MTB now? We could hit up JMP.

18

But it would look like a dragster and that’d be kinda cool.

19

Awesome. This video shows stark contrast why bigger wheels are better for rolling over obstacles.

69ers and 96ers are all the same thing. 26 in the back, 29 in the front, shorter wheelbase, shorter chainstays, lighter rear wheel, with the benefits of the 29 front.

20

[quote=halbritt]

Awesome. This video shows stark contrast why bigger wheels are better for rolling over obstacles.

69ers and 96ers are all the same thing. 26 in the back, 29 in the front, shorter wheelbase, shorter chainstays, lighter rear wheel, with the benefits of the 29 front.[/quote]
so… 69er>29er and 26er?