A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I don't understand - what is this for?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 4th 07, 11:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


Hi there.

The smaller rear wheel gives a slightly lower gear than the bike would
have with a 29 rear wheel.


Why not accomplish the same thing with a smaller chainring or larger
sprocket?

It looks like a trials bike not a mountain bike,


I thought this was a trials bike:
http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/26ghz-trials.html - not much like
the 69er is it? Do US trials differ a lot from UK trials?

Market? People who like to ride over obstacles.


I usually crash over obstacles [1] in a demonstration of my sub-Barney
riding skills.

[1] No Sorni, this is on my ATB [2], not one of the 'bents!
[2] ATB seems more appropriate than MTB, since there are no real
mountains in most of the Upper Midwest.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ads
  #12  
Old August 4th 07, 11:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Fred Clydesdale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote:

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

....
Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and
a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless. i pass at least 5 fixies
a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things
happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's
sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me
up those hills. i had somebody on one of those ultra hip surly
fixies chase me DOWN a hill one time, but he disappeared
at the halfway point when it threw its chain. i have no idea if
he hurt himself but it made an extremely entertaining noise.

sometimes technology marches on for no apparent reason, but the
derailleur was invented to fix a very real problem. so the whole
derailleur/shifter/cassette system adds a couple of pounds to
the total: it gets you where you're going faster and with less
effort.

i'm sure there are a few very specialized areas of competition
where these things are used. i, however, use my bike for
recreation and transportation.
  #13  
Old August 4th 07, 11:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
A Muzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,551
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?
What is the deal with single-speed anyway?
Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?
Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?
Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


Cannondog made a 26/24 bike at one time.
Bill Boston built small front/large rear, much copied.

Target? PT Barnum observed the effect long ago.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #14  
Old August 5th 07, 12:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:27:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller
rear wheel provide any real advantage?

Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a
smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he
used to ride trials and the like.


Dear Tim,

Sorry, but we fooled you.

Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly
insist that their front tires are bigger.

After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear
rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right?

Nope.


Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not
thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like
having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is
just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different.


Dear Tim,

Exactly--fat or thin, they end up awfully close to the same height.

Incidentally, high-level bicycle trials riding rarely involves tires
"rolling" over obstacles or even pedalling. It's mostly acrobatic
hopping with locked wheels and motionless cranks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAUQrQVTTk&eurl=

In contrast, motorcycle trials still rolls up and over wet rocks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwzykvxNeCY

This is closer to bicycle trials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QJCXkYea8&NR=1

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #15  
Old August 5th 07, 12:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
DougC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,276
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

wrote:

Dear Tim,

Sorry, but we fooled you.

Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly insist
that their front tires are bigger.

After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear
rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right?

Nope.


(-It's a different matter I realize but-) The Cannondale MTB that was
26/24 F/R did not use a fatter tire on the back, both were the usual 2.2
inches. You could tell just by looking, that the front rim and tire was
visibly taller than the rear.

I remember because I was shopping for a MTB when they were in shops, and
I remember looking at it and thinking "WTF?". It wouldn't automatically
turn me off now, but not wanting the hassle of buying 24" tires and
tubes back then--I disregarded it pretty quickly, without even a test-ride.

I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was
more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear
because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a
24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26.

I dunno if I believe the long chainstays wasting energy business, but
somebody important must have thought it made sense.
-----
With motorcycles, the reason I was told was precisely because using a
smaller rear tire allows the tire to be mounted closer under the
rider+frame, contributing to level-ground traction. On-road motorcycles
don't bother with it because for them it's not a significant advantage.
~

  #16  
Old August 5th 07, 12:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:36:01 -0500, DougC
wrote:

[snip]

With motorcycles, the reason I was told was precisely because using a
smaller rear tire allows the tire to be mounted closer under the
rider+frame, contributing to level-ground traction. On-road motorcycles
don't bother with it because for them it's not a significant advantage.


Dear Doug,

Sorry, but they told you wrong.

The thick rear 18 x 4.00 tire on a trials motorcycle isn't smaller.
It's just as tall as the skinny 21 x 2.75 front ti

http://i16.tinypic.com/4pl4yhk.jpg

And level-ground traction is not a problem on a trials machine.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #17  
Old August 5th 07, 01:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale wrote:
personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and
a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless.



We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses.

i pass at least 5 fixies
a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things
happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's
sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me
up those hills.



C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
loaded with punks and poseurs.

JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass

  #18  
Old August 5th 07, 02:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
JeffWills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 3:36 pm, DougC wrote:

(-It's a different matter I realize but-) The Cannondale MTB that was
26/24 F/R did not use a fatter tire on the back, both were the usual 2.2
inches. You could tell just by looking, that the front rim and tire was
visibly taller than the rear.

I remember because I was shopping for a MTB when they were in shops, and
I remember looking at it and thinking "WTF?". It wouldn't automatically
turn me off now, but not wanting the hassle of buying 24" tires and
tubes back then--I disregarded it pretty quickly, without even a test-ride.

I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was
more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear
because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a
24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26.


IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale
MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the
"eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear
end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were
all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping
over roots. Cliques are nothing new.

Jeff

  #19  
Old August 5th 07, 02:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Ozark Bicycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,591
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 7:45 pm, JD wrote:
On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Fred Clydesdale wrote:

personally, i've never gotten the whole single/fixie thing, and
a singlespeed mtb seems beyond useless.


We can't all be closed-minded dumbasses.

i pass at least 5 fixies
a week on the various hills of my weekday ride, never had things
happen the other way around. and i'm a CLYDESDALE, for heaven's
sake. i'm carrying 3 pounds more bike and 20 pounds more of me
up those hills.


C'mon out and ride with me sometime. I'll show you just how
inefficient singlespeed bikes are. Your weekday ride sounds like it's
loaded with punks and poseurs.

JD 225lbs and can still kick your ass


No one talks smack quite like a SS or fixie freak.....


  #20  
Old August 5th 07, 02:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
datakoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,793
Default I don't understand - what is this for?



once lived upstream from a village had giardia from dem rascally
beevuh. bad news

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I don't understand - what is this for? Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_5_] General 181 October 22nd 07 04:46 PM
Anyone understand Hungarian? GPW Australia 5 August 4th 06 12:38 AM
i dont understand... cruisecontrol Unicycling 24 November 5th 05 05:38 AM
What you hosers don't seem to understand about LWS x1134x Mountain Biking 67 September 6th 05 03:40 PM
?? I Don't Understand Scammers CycleFit Marketplace 0 January 9th 05 05:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.