Trek’s Trail Less Traveled
April 18th, 2007 by Guitar TedThe recent product launch of Trek’s new “69er” line up signals a major departure from what was expected by them. Many had guessed that Trek would jump into the 29″er market to reap even more of a growing market than they could with just the Fisher brand. Instead it seems that they have struck out on a maverick course.
To be sure, the bicycles are well done. The frames are high tech marvels of aluminum, forged under hydraulic pressure into multi shaped tubes. The graphics are subtle, the paint spot on. Even one of the models drive trains reflects modern tastes in it’s 1 X 9 configuration. The bikes are going to look great on dealers floors, no doubt about it.
However; these race level steeds are going to have an uphill battle right out of the box. Not only are they $1400.00 and up, but they are in a market segment that faces stiff competition from lots of traditional and big wheeled bikes. The traditional bikes; bikes that are “safe” in racers and consumers eyes and the 29″ers which have a growing number of curiosity seekers based upon years of grassroots growth and evangelism, for lack of a better term. The 69er concept enjoys none of these benefits in the eyes of the public.
Then you have the dealers, who have just barely gotten on board with the 29″er concept and are now asked to stock yet another type of mountain bike with another wheel format altogether. Getting the dealers on board will be a challenge. See Gary Fisher circa 2002 for a great example of how dealers have traditionally been slow to accept a new format in mountain bikes.
Finally, you are looking at a concept largely driven by one company that has a minimal existing support base and a huge lack of understanding by most of the mountain biking public. Not to mention the fact that history doesn’t paint a very bright picture for Trek, judging from the failed attempts of the past to bring mixed wheel formats to the mainstream. All one can say now is, “what if ?” What if Trek had introduced a 29″er? I’m guessing it would have been wildly successful right out of the box.
The 69er? All I can say is, “God bless it’s pointy little head!”
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
I’m still not sure that their battle is as steep as you say. I believe, first of all, that the dealers are softened to new platforms. If Trek had released the 69er four or five years ago they would definitely have a fight on their hands, but just the fact that 85% of the 69er order is pre sold to dealers shows they have some openness to new stuff now.
Also, Travis Brown races them. While I don’t think people will buy them just because this is his bike, I think the fact that he races one will be enough to make people think there is something to this.
Finally, I think this will be a bike that people will buy when they don’t want to go all the way to a 29er. As we both noticed while riding the 69er, it plows over stuff with no problem and I think that it’s going to be enough to make people buy them.
Remember, with a 29er there are a couple perceived disadvantages while adding a big wheel on the front of 26er only gets you upgrades (albeit not the best one imo).
I think a 29er will be the bike people choose when they want to try something different but won’t go all the way to a 29er.
Will this be enough to sell a lot of them? Not sure on that one. But I don’t think they have such a huge uphill battle as you make it seem.
Time will tell.
First time poster, long time reader..
Firstly, Im not happy at all about these new products from Trek because I was hoping to have the only 1×9 69er. I have been continuously thinking about the ultimate bike, considering all the options out there and my dream to have one bike, not three or four. By ultimate, I mean one that is raceable, but also simple and fun to ride everyday.
I think the 69er is a great idea. The shorter chainstay is a huge benefit in my eyes. I think the increased acceleration and ability to manuever quicker are even greater benefits than the weight savings.
As far as the sales for Trek’s bikes…I think their battle will be very, very steep. People are extremely eager to ride 29ers, but I think having all these options under the trek umbrella is really “bastardizing” the product. I do not have all the info. but would venture to say those who would buy a 69er would already have ridden a 29er. Thus, only discriminating, experienced riders who have ridden many different bikes would consider this format, and these types of riders are aware of so many different offerings (including the ever expanding entries from smaller name manufacturers). I think this alone will make it difficult for Trek to sell the volumes they hope.
However, I think these bikes are a great idea, just like lots of other products that don’t sell =)
Not sure how this format will workout for Trek. However Chris Eatough raced his 69er to A respectable result in the xc event at seaotter. As A semi pro racer I am allways looking for and edge and I saw A white Trek 69er armed with A Fox Fork out at seaotter. Intresting indeed.
Also checked out the fisher 29er HiFi with the Fox Fork. Just wish I could have thrown A leg over that bad boy.
Anyone get A chance to try out the new fox 29er fork?
I tend to agree with G-Ted. Regardless of the merits, or lack of merits for 69ers, Trek has chosen a pretty bold path with the expansion of their 69er line.
I suspect it’s not going to get far, sales-wise. They’d have been better off launching a full-29er, IMHO.
My opinion is that the 69er format will eventually find its traction in the downhill market, where the added stability of the big front wheel will combine with a smaller rear wheel, which will eliminate the ‘packaging’ issues designers will have designing an 8-inch travel rear suspension system around the bigger rear wheel.
It’ll be fun to see what happens…
Cheers,
MG
I disagree that Trek is making maverick move, or that shops will be disinclined to carry a 69er, or that they’ll face an uphill battle in sales.
1) Offering a 69er instead of a 29er makes sense. If a customer is interested in a 29er, all the salesperson need do is point them to the established bikes from Fisher, the profits go to the same place anyway. It’s the same reason that for years Jeep didn’t have a vehicle larger than the Grand Cherokee…because Dodge had the Durango.
2) going back almost 30 years, the bicycle industry has relied on innovation and, yes, gimmicks to get potential new customers in the door and keep us technogeeks coming back for the latest thing. A somewhat weird looking 69er in the front window could help drive traffic, it doesn’t mean every dealer will be forced to carry a full stable of 69ers.
3) 29ers and 26ers each have their advantages and disadvantages. Offering a 69er on the showroom floor gives any decent salesperson another arrow in their quiver to make sure that a potential customer walks out the door with a new bike they love.
I’m just hoping for a demo bike somewhere in my vicinity… I’d love to give one a whirl on the local trails. My homemade 69er (Surly 1×1) handled great but exhibited a flip/flop vibe at slow speed and during standing climbing. I’ve been wanting to get some time on a proper 69er for a while.
I hope the Best for the 69er’s,We are big advocates of the 29er’s we carry Fisher, Trek, Specialized and Niner at our shops, I predict we will sell alot more 29″ Stump’s than 69ers in 2008…..
Tim: While I respect your opinion here, I must say that the trails we were on were basically down hill runs with little in the way of off camber and switch backs. Also, there weren’t many rooty sections and zero rock gardens. I think our impressions would have been entirely different on flatter, rougher terrain. Just a hunch though. As far as sales, keep in mind that the dealers, and more importantly, the sales people have to be on board with the program. What would you sell? A 8000 that you know inside out, or a Trek 69″er 1 X 9 that has a funky drivetrain and weird, mismatched wheels. I still say the curve is steep for Trek.
Ryan:
(1) Well, you seem to be saying that Fisher and Trek exist side by side in bike shops everywhere, which isn’t the case all the time. Secondly, I don’t think too many will be coming in and asking to buy a 69′er so the salesperson can “clerk” the sale. It’s going to take alot more than that in the majority of instances in any retail setting.
(2) Going back 30 years I see two failed attempts at mixed wheel format bikes for mountain biking. And while you are correct about dealers not having to carry the entire 69″er line up, the “weird bike in the window” better sell, or dealers won’t be re-ordering any at all. The whole 69er line ups success is resting on two things. See #3.
(3) “..any decent salesperson…” Well, here’s one thing that alot of shops have problems getting. Decent sales help is tough to find anywhere in any business, but when you pay on the same level as the local McDonalds, you aren’t going to get stellar sales help. At least in a large percentage of bike shops across the nation. At any rate, the whole 69″er concept is resting on the “best of both worlds” argument, which for alot of consumers isn’t going to be enough to get them to part with their 1400 plus dollars worth of cabbage. (The $1400.00 one is the least expensive one in the line up. The others are in the $2000.00 range.) Racers are a funny bunch too, and if Eatough and Brown can post results, well then they might turn a few heads, but the fact remains, ( and I believe it’s a pretty reasonable statement) Trek would have had no problems selling all the 29″ers they could have made. Fisher is always short on stock, so it stands to reason that Trek would have done well.
Look, either way you look at it, Trek is taking a harder road to sales success than they needed to. Whether or not you like 69ers is of no consequence to this fact. Will they be successful? Not in the first year, I don’t think.
No, the road for the 69er goes up. And yes, it’s steep.
I saw the spec sheet for the SS 69er. 421mm chainstays, is that short? 4 whole mm’s (a fingernail thickness) les than the world standard in 26″ hardtails, be it cheap or expensive. Expensive ones (Litespeeds, Merlin) tend to be 430mm+ from what I remember.
I’m all for solving problems other folks don’t see, but this is a bit over the top for me. Just now on this very website I read a report from a 5′4″ pro race lady that noticed her 29″er rear wheel especially is overly heavy, and an issue for racing. I have not even heard the biggest of 29″ haters come up with that statement. All they can b*th about is how slooow and wiiiide it will turn. More comfortable, no-one disagrees with that. Faster rolling, everyone knows the rear is the key tire to have slick and big for hat.
A singlespeed is often climbed out of the seat. Mine are at least. With a small rear wheel, you may indeed need shorter stays to keep sufficient traction back there. Sure it will be better for manuals and dropping off sweet bus stops. Then, my XC’s never get that sort of action.
Trek’s losing out on some great sales keeping the 69 frames 69-specific, not accepting an optional 29″ rear wheel, if just for asphalt training marketing bla bla (we all wanted a Merlin Newboy with that concept, admit it!).
More importantly they may be losing customer confidence. A much as racers prefer a small rear wheel in their 29″er, no-one will ever score a single UCI point aboard a 69er, UCI will just not allow mismatching wheels for performance sports anymore. Time Trialists had 650c front, 700c rear sometimes when it was still allowed.
Trek currently has their bikes ont he most successful worldcup team (Dolphin), a costly hobby. As said, 69ers they will not ride for UCI rule reasons. The team did win a National -23 title in 2004, a Dutch guy on Nano’s and a 26″ rigid fork took it aboard a very so-so Nishiki frame.
Hey Ted and Tim, doesn’t one of you have the Raleih IXXX? Do us a favor, swap the fork for a 30-35mm longer one, and stick in a 26″ wheel? Mis-matching wheels the other way without killing geometry, will it accelerate slower than a 69er? Will it climb badly? Or just ride like a capable 26″er with a plusher, more grippy rear end? Honestly, I’d love to know, but I lack a 29″er with a short fork to work from.
Ok so everyone thinks Trek is crazy for bringing out the 69er for production. I remember not so long ago thinking Gary Fisher was crazy for trying to sell us on Big wheels.
I doubt Trek is going to make A massive production run of these bikes, which just might qualify as crazy. My guess is that demand will quickly outstrip Treks Initial production numbers. Just like GF didnt just quit making 26 wheeled bikes Trek wont either.
Its all about confort and the experience. If people have A good experience with 69ers and feel that A minimal gain in rear wheel speed is worth running two different tires they will buy it. I read A really good article in an issue of Mountbike Action where they built A custom titus 69er racerx. They loved it.
Who cares if racers can use it in UCI events, Most racers never compete outside of North America; and arent going out for Uci points.
The bottom line is two fold.
1. Will people feel how 69ers ride and have A great experience, like the first time I did when I rode A twentyniner? Or will they even be able to look past the wheels and give it A try?
2.Will trek be able to make enough money from these bikes to make it worth their time.
I would love to throw A leg over one of these bike, and give it a spin. I reserve my opinion about them until such time. If they suck Im sure Trek will get the picture, and start making twentyniners
29″ wasn’t Gary’s idea, although he did relentlessly push it within Trek. Many liked the idea very much even (I did) if they didn’t line up to buy one of his (both) XTR spec’d bikes of the 2002 model year. I got a frame+fork used end of 2002.
I have to carry two tubes minimum now? Weight savings negated. Just kidding, but it is kind of annoying.
If Trek is serious about their 69ers, they’ll be pushing for UCI rule changes. Traditional marketing has been putting your bikes underneath really good racers and getting wins on them. This marketing angle falls apart if your lead riders can’t compete on them.
On an XC bike for average sized adults, I don’t think the 69er concept has anything to offer. But for shorties and for bikes with a LOT of rear travel, I can see how the smaller wheel would eliminate a few problems.
I do welcome the 69ers with open arms. Each 69er has a 29er fork and that adds to the user base which will ultimately add to all our fork options. And of course, they’ll each bear one 29er rim, tire and tire.
I think 29ers have “made it” and we don’t have to worry about whats going on with 69ers, or 650c bikes. Virtually EVERY large bike company is on board now. The last holdouts seem to be Santa Cruz and Giant. I fully expect we’ll be seeing something from Giant soon.
Off the Subject but I just went to my local Bontrager Dealer here in the valley of the sun, and ordered A pair of 29er ACX tubeless ready tires which will be here next monday. If your intrested Contact your Bonty dealer.
You won’t need two tubes Drunken Man? While you sober up, try stretching a 26 tube around a 29 rim. ta da….it works!