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.

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

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.

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.