# Trek 69er



## KeepItSimpleSpeed (Sep 25, 2004)

Has anyone ridden this bike yet? How's it ride? I love the maverick fork, but does the front end seem heavy with a 29" wheel on a SS?

It sure does look sweet though!


----------



## MTBFreerideCT (Jan 13, 2004)

As far as I know not out yet... but we shall see! We're getting one in.. looks really cool! Smaller sizes get the SC maverick fork, larger sizes get the DC maverick fork.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

Should be out in January, quick question though, did Trek put the price up in the USA even pre-launch? They have over here it was going to be £1299 and now its going to be a whopping £1500!!!


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

Just J said:


> did Trek put the price up in the USA even pre-launch?


The US Trek site says MSRP $1650 less a penny 

http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?f=17

Ali


----------



## FrontRanger (Apr 28, 2004)

So are the small sizes going to be cheaper?


----------



## mboeder (Nov 12, 2004)

that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!


----------



## Riding for Sanity (Mar 18, 2006)

*Re*



mboeder said:


> that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!


Travis Brown doesn't think so, he's the one that asked Trek to build it. And now he kicks everyone's butt at the SS Races with this bike.


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

mboeder: *that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!*

What exactly is so "stupid" about it?


----------



## Espresso (May 13, 2004)

*Thinking of getting this 69er*

Playing around with the idea of getting Trek's 69er, makes sense to me ( the 69er aspect), My first reaction was Fugly! but I kept looking back.
I will convert my 1FG to a commuter rig, (a more child trailer friendly bike).
If you plan on using a regular fork mount rack with Treks 69er, then you will need an adapter for the Maverick fork ($50)


----------



## tier (Sep 4, 2006)

While it may be expensive, at least you have the option of not buying it. TREK aren't even releasing it here in Australia. We just have to make do with odd, but expensive, SPOT, ON ONE and (rare) GUNNAR frames.


----------



## dangomushi (Oct 22, 2005)

I gotta say,
I'm eyeballing that thing pretty hard, and with my bonus coming in January..................
Here's hoping my wife won't notice another bike.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

If the bike would have been equipped to accept a 29" rear wheel for those that prefer that, it would have been a huge seller. As is, the bike can't even be raced in most of the races I take part in. Perhaps with a 7" fork and 26" front wheel...


----------



## rattmobbins (Sep 14, 2006)

FrontRanger said:


> So are the small sizes going to be cheaper?


The 15.5" is the only size that comes with the SC, and I would think it would be a tad cheaper. Not sure though.

Anyone have an idea of what a 17.5" will weigh? That thing looks cooler and cooler the more I see it! :thumbsup:


----------



## cyclodan (Feb 15, 2004)

mboeder said:


> that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!


Hmm why is it that the "69er/96er/reverse mullet" bike elicits such strong negative reactions from people who have most likely never thrown a leg over one?
On another forum a mention of a 69er garnered the response that it doesn't make sense.
"Why would you only want half the benefits of a 29er?"
Well couldn't one ask why ride a hardtail, you know, only half the benefit of suspension?
Here's the closing line from a recent review of a custom 26/29 bike in a certain bike mag...
"all this 29" stability and smoothness, but without losing the snappy, quick get-up-and-go climbing bite of a 26" bike". 
Personally I think the Trek bike looks BADA$$. I want one!


----------



## mcoco01 (Sep 29, 2005)

Yeah, I was interested in one of those and the guys at the local shop said they're going to be really limited edition so almost impossibe to get, especially in my size. But a few of them rode it up in Wisc at Trek and they said it was sweet. About 21lbs and rode great.


----------



## rattmobbins (Sep 14, 2006)

21 lbs??? :eekster: 

Wow, that is CRAZY light!


----------



## rocpyro (Feb 7, 2005)

mboeder said:


> that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!


Looks like it needs a nosejob or something.


----------



## Bicyclelist (Sep 5, 2006)

I WANT ONE! or five :madmax:


----------



## erol/frost (Jan 3, 2004)

Thinking of doing something similar to my Chameleon... The concept sounds very intruiging in theory. Finding a 29"-fork is the easy part, but parting with my 26" Gazza 3.0 will be hard. Maybe if we all mail the Finns and demand a 29" Gazza 3.0 they`ll custommold a few for us...?


----------



## robkhoo (Jun 28, 2005)

*my 69er*

Just done this to my Rumble - 100mm 29er Rebas, Bontrager Race Light front wheel, Jones tyre. The angles are quite slack, but I like it like that.


----------



## onegearqueer (Nov 5, 2006)

*Check this out....*

Siren 55'r baby!
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=234253


----------



## walter (Jan 12, 2004)

This isn't really that new of a concept, Carver bikes has been doing it for a while, but since its Trek, it will get alot more attention.

walter


----------



## cyclodan (Feb 15, 2004)

BTW that $1649.00 price tag turns out to be for the frame and fork only. Complete bikes will be well in excess of 2 grand. And yes probably very limited numbers. I'm bummed as I was hoping to get an employee puchase and it doesn't look like there will be any available to EP.


----------



## RustyBearings (Feb 7, 2005)

robkhoo said:


> Just done this to my Rumble - 100mm 29er Rebas, Bontrager Race Light front wheel, Jones tyre. The angles are quite slack, but I like it like that.


Do you ride xc with that bike?

looks sweet


----------



## 24601 (Aug 25, 2004)

cyclodan said:


> BTW that $1649.00 price tag turns out to be for the frame and fork only. Complete bikes will be well in excess of 2 grand. And yes probably very limited numbers. I'm bummed as I was hoping to get an employee puchase and it doesn't look like there will be any available to EP.


You sure about that? The site shows nothing fo the sort. Shows the complete bike at that price with all the components listed.


----------



## robkhoo (Jun 28, 2005)

RustyBearings said:


> Do you ride xc with that bike?
> 
> looks sweet


Yup, XC all the way for me. It's not as heavy as it looks, 25lb or so, and it certainly isn't likely to break soon.


----------



## one1spede (Aug 5, 2005)

Looks like it would be unstable. As it sits, the BB is actually higher than the rear hub. Well, if it works, then enjoy!


----------



## one1spede (Aug 5, 2005)

I'll admit this looks strange. I have no problem with the general concept. Ride what you like. But it looks like the geo needs to be tightened up. The chainstays look really long, and a 69 degree head angle? Looks like this is make for riding fire roads and such.


----------



## robkhoo (Jun 28, 2005)

one1spede said:


> Looks like it would be unstable. As it sits, the BB is actually higher than the rear hub. Well, if it works, then enjoy!


The BB is actually a bit below the axle, the chainstays are slightly dropped, and run to a point below the axle. Doesn't feel particularly high off of the ground. Any unstability is generally down to me.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

doesn't anyone remember the beast of the east?

dumb bike. you have to have two types of tubes with you, two different spare rims on hand, plus the 29" front wheel makes it really suck for riders under 6' tall.

the question is, why? when they could have built a solid 26" single bike that they lack in their lineup. does trek have to screw up every dirt bike they make?


----------



## one1spede (Aug 5, 2005)

Cool, I'm glad it works for you. Sounds like you're enjoying it, which is all that matters.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

pvd said:


> doesn't anyone remember the beast of the east?
> 
> dumb bike. you have to have two types of tubes with you, two different spare rims on hand, plus the 29" front wheel makes it really suck for riders under 6' tall.
> 
> the question is, why? when they could have built a solid 26" single bike that they lack in their lineup. does trek have to screw up every dirt bike they make?


i remember

it was actually pretty cool, for its intended purpose.

why you allways bashing everything dude?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

hollister said:


> why you allways bashing everything dude?


...because most of the product development on the stuff that works has been done, so now all we can worry about the color it comes in. The "wild and zany" new stuff is usually rehashed crap that can originally be seen in Sharp's _Bicycles and Tricycles_ originaly publish in 1896. in over a hundred years the fittest has survived.

we will really only see suble evolutionary changes as matirial technologies allow expensive or previously impossible designs to be made affordable for the bicycle market. from what i see, most of the market cannot do math well enough or understand design well enough to make decisions that arn't anything more than religous in nature. take the fisher suger as an example; i wonder why all those seat stays kept snapping? or why race face hollow tech II bb's freeze solid? simple explainations exist, but are rarely discussed.

we did the _Beast of the East_. it didn't survive because the problems it solved were either non-existant or created more than it solved.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

> we will really only see suble evolutionary changes as matirial technologies allow expensive or previously impossible designs to be made affordable for the bicycle market. blah blah...


too bad there's no substance behind your eloquance.



> simple explainations exist, but are rarely discussed


ok, put it simply for us. i'm 5'6", my 29er fits fine...explain please.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

ferday said:


> ok, put it simply for us. i'm 5'6", my 29er fits fine...explain please.


do you understand what comprimises were made to the frame geometry to prevent catastrophic TCO? or did they just keep a dangerous TCO to make the bike handle correctly?


----------



## RustyBearings (Feb 7, 2005)

robkhoo said:


> Yup, XC all the way for me. It's not as heavy as it looks, 25lb or so, and it certainly isn't likely to break soon.


nice bike


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

pvd said:


> do you understand what comprimises were made to the frame geometry to prevent catastrophic TCO? or did they just keep a dangerous TCO to make the bike handle correctly?


TCO = ???????


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

AndrewTO said:


> TCO = ???????


TOE CLIP OVERLAP. It is an old term that framebuilders use to describe the relationship between the front wheel and the foot of the rider. while it can be somewhat bad on some performance bikes, it gets really bad when a 29" wheel is put on an MTB. this can be desasterous in slow speed technicle or hard turning where the foot and wheel crash together.

i just wrote a detailed explaination of my case on my wiki: https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=29_Inch_MTBs

here is the graphic that i use to explain myself:


----------



## mainemud (Oct 19, 2004)

*Beast of the east...*

I had one. Pretty cool bike. 26" front and back with a wicked high bottom bracket. Not so hot downhill at speed (ouch) but great for hopping around and your pedals NEVER hit.

26" tubes work great in 29" tires.....



pvd said:


> doesn't anyone remember the beast of the east?
> 
> dumb bike. you have to have two types of tubes with you, two different spare rims on hand, plus the 29" front wheel makes it really suck for riders under 6' tall.
> 
> the question is, why? when they could have built a solid 26" single bike that they lack in their lineup. does trek have to screw up every dirt bike they make?


----------



## robkhoo (Jun 28, 2005)

Just measured my bb height - 13 inches. Bombs downhill quite nicely, thanks very much.


----------



## None (Oct 31, 2005)

pvd said:


> TOE CLIP OVERLAP. It is an old term that framebuilders use to describe the relationship between the front wheel and the foot of the rider. while it can be somewhat bad on some performance bikes, it gets really bad when a 29" wheel is put on an MTB. this can be desasterous in slow speed technicle or hard turning where the foot and wheel crash together.
> 
> i just wrote a detailed explaination of my case on my wiki: https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=29_Inch_MTBs
> 
> here is the graphic that i use to explain myself:


You, are an idiot! 
Have you ever ridden a 29er or did you just put a 29" wheel on your kiddy bike and found it did not work, so the is no way anyone under 6' or who has toes could possibly ride a 29er! 
There are so many assumptions wrong with your echa sketch I will not bother further.
Idiot!


----------



## bigwheelboy_490 (Jan 2, 2003)

pvd said:


> TOE CLIP OVERLAP. It is an old term that framebuilders use to describe the relationship between the front wheel and the foot of the rider. while it can be somewhat bad on some performance bikes, it gets really bad when a 29" wheel is put on an MTB. this can be desasterous in slow speed technicle or hard turning where the foot and wheel crash together.
> 
> i just wrote a detailed explaination of my case on my wiki: https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=29_Inch_MTBs
> 
> here is the graphic that i use to explain myself:


Looking at your diagram, I guess small road riders using 700C wheels are ineffective, so really, unless someone is over 6", they should be using a 650C road bike?

Everyone likes different things. Yes, you may give up a bit on CERTAIN aspects of fit when riding a 29'er, but you also gain some benefits too. Riders on 26" may get a fit benefit, but loose performace in other areas.

Ride your bike and be nice to strippers. They could be giving you your next lap dance.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

awsome!

give a proof and people that have no understanding of it make corrections.


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

pvd said:


> TOE CLIP OVERLAP. It is an old term that framebuilders use to describe the relationship between the front wheel and the foot of the rider. while it can be somewhat bad on some performance bikes, it gets really bad when a 29" wheel is put on an MTB. this can be desasterous in slow speed technicle or hard turning where the foot and wheel crash together.
> 
> i just wrote a detailed explaination of my case on my wiki: https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=29_Inch_MTBs
> 
> here is the graphic that i use to explain myself:


Ah, I get it now. I actually heard the ol' TCO in effect from a fellow rider a few days ago ..... totally freaked me out because it's been years snce i've heard the sound of a tire rubbing against a shoe. :lol:

Thanks for the explanation, Peter.


----------



## tozovr (Jul 26, 2006)

mboeder said:


> that is the stupidest bike ive ever seen!


...and you are an ignoramus... "most stupid" is the correct way to put it. In using poor grammar you debase your own opinion.

Ass.

I'm only really pointing this out because I disagree with your opinion. You gave me some ammo and I used it. Thanks.


----------



## tozovr (Jul 26, 2006)

Have a nice day.


----------



## LIV2RYD (Jan 17, 2006)

How would a guy who is 5' 5" tall factor into this equation? I ride a 96er with a 16" frame and have no issues with toe overlap......


----------



## 24601 (Aug 25, 2004)

See, that is the huge hole in pvd's theory. His picture is just a picture. I could draw one up too that shows your left cheek will impact the handlebar on 30 degree turns made on Tuesdays. Without a real world, bike to bike comparison, the diagram is useless. The 69er is based on the 9.8, I believe. Lets see an overlap of equal sizes of both bikes, or equal size of any two bikes based on each other, and see if anything makes a difference. And then, if it does, lets see whether that difference matters at all.

pvd, you blow a lot of smoke, but that is all we are seeing. Hubris wrapped up in conjecture.


----------



## mainemud (Oct 19, 2004)

*Beast of the east....*

You still have an original "Beast of the East"? Rigid Pepproni aluminum fork???

If you ever get bored with it.......let me know!



robkhoo said:


> Just measured my bb height - 13 inches. Bombs downhill quite nicely, thanks very much.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

24601 said:


> See, that is the huge hole in pvd's theory. His picture is just a picture. I could draw one up too that shows your left cheek will impact the handlebar on 30 degree turns made on Tuesdays. Without a real world, bike to bike comparison, the diagram is useless. The 69er is based on the 9.8, I believe. Lets see an overlap of equal sizes of both bikes, or equal size of any two bikes based on each other, and see if anything makes a difference. And then, if it does, lets see whether that difference matters at all.
> 
> pvd, you blow a lot of smoke, but that is all we are seeing. Hubris wrapped up in conjecture.


I would love it if you could present your arguement as i have. undoubtedly, you have the understanding, skill, and vocabulary to pull it off.

I have made my argument and presented evidence. if you could show me specifically where i am wrong and why (using math, diagrams, dynamics theory) , i think that you would be helping everyone out.

why not just start with a discussion of what 'trail' is, then go from there?


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

> have made my argument and presented evidence. if you could show me specifically where i am wrong and why (using math, diagrams, dynamics theory) , i think that you would be helping everyone out.


oh geez, let me guess another engineer who feels his education qualifies him over everyone else in the world.

29er have been solving the trail and toe overlap problems with fork offset, and the suspension travel thing is bogus (see 29er forum, 130mm forks and 130mm rear travel is now available). and this, from your own wiki...


> note that the 29" frame will handle like a truck compared to the 26" version


handle like a truck eh...sounds like a lot of math, diagrams, and dynamics theory to me....


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

ferday said:


> 29er have been solving the trail and toe overlap problems with fork offset..


really?

did you check your facts?

Rockshox Reba, both forks use 39mm offset:

http://www.sram.com/_media/techdocs/Reba US4-308763-010_C.pdf

http://www.sram.com/_media/techdocs/Reba 29er US4-309182-010_C.pdf

Rockshox Tora, both forks use 39mm offset:

http://www.sram.com/_media/techdocs/Tora US4-310058-010_A.pdf

http://www.sram.com/_media/techdocs/Tora 29er US4-311524-000_A.pdf


----------



## serious (Jan 25, 2005)

pvd,

What exactly is you point? You act as if the front-center distance is sacred. It is not. According to you a large bike, with a longer front-center would be inadequate, yet that is what a large person has to ride. With 29ers, the average front-center may have to increase a little and the offset may have to increase a little. Big freaking deal.

Your diagrams are pointless. We know the old argument, yet there are plenty of 29ers that handle just fine. They may not be desired by all racers for one reason or another, but to think that 29ers are not a feasible alternative is ridiculous.

The only valid reservation about 29ers (IMHO) has to do with the increased effort required to rotate a larger wheel. And you can always gear down to compensate.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*So lemmie get this straight...*



pvd said:


> I would love it if you could present your arguement as i have. undoubtedly, you have the understanding, skill, and vocabulary to pull it off.
> 
> I have made my argument and presented evidence. if you could show me specifically where i am wrong and why (using math, diagrams, dynamics theory) , i think that you would be helping everyone out.
> 
> why not just start with a discussion of what 'trail' is, then go from there?


are you saying this TCO is true for all 29ers, or just the 69er (which is funny, because the 9 should be in the front. I guess Trek liked having 69 in their model names. Sex sells, I guess). I don't know why this is unique to the 69er vs a front and rear 29er.

In that case, that means you came into a 29er forum telling us that we are all a bunch of pinheads, and we are all going to die in some horrible accident on the trail because of our defective or poorly designed bikes.

You go to church and yell out 'there is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!' ?

If anybody has a 29er, they are fully aware of any issues you think they may or may not have. The TCO issue is not that big a deal. It does exist on some bikes, but any competent rider can deal with it, if the front end of the bike is so short it's an issue in the first place.

Look, you go on riding your 26" bike, and we'll ride our 29ers, and just STFU as we roll past you. I mean 'we' figurtively, of couse. I don't have a 29er in my stable yet, but that will change in the next month. I've ridden them, and love them so far.


----------



## mud'n'sweat (Feb 16, 2006)

pvd said:


> doesn't anyone remember the beast of the east?
> 
> dumb bike. you have to have two types of tubes with you, two different spare rims on hand, plus the 29" front wheel makes it really suck for riders under 6' tall.
> 
> the question is, why? when they could have built a solid 26" single bike that they lack in their lineup. does trek have to screw up every dirt bike they make?


wow, you are incredibly uninformed!


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

pimpbot said:


> In that case, that means you came into a 29er forum telling us that we are all a bunch of pinheads...


this is not a 29 inch MTB forum. this is a singlespeed forum.


----------



## mud'n'sweat (Feb 16, 2006)

pvd said:


> awsome!
> 
> give a proof and people that have no understanding of it make corrections.


If you are replying to my response, you haven't provided an ounce proof. Toe overlap has nothing to do with a persons height. FYI- you can use a 26" tube in a 29er wheel.

Again, you are seriously misinformed.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

mud'n'sweat said:


> If you are replying to my response, you haven't provided an ounce proof.


Ha, ha, ha!

why don't you give it a try? it's easy to act like a moron. why not prove you're the real thing?


----------



## mud'n'sweat (Feb 16, 2006)

pvd said:


> Ha, ha, ha!
> 
> why don't you give it a try? it's easy to act like a moron. why not prove you're the real thing?


You may want to consult your nearest english grammar book. I have no clue what you are trying to say.


----------



## Vecsus (Apr 17, 2004)

quit feeding the gimp. It's obvious that a regular poster has created a new forum account just to get people riled up. why play into his hand?


----------



## oneupcake (Oct 2, 2005)

pvd...indeed maybe the TOC stuff has some validity...but your diagram is still screwed...if you add a larger front wheel (same frame)...the rake should increase...


----------



## CollegeCatholic (Mar 23, 2005)

tozovr said:


> ...and you are an ignoramus... "most stupid" is the correct way to put it. In using poor grammar you debase your own opinion.
> 
> Ass.
> 
> I'm only really pointing this out because I disagree with your opinion. You gave me some ammo and I used it. Thanks.


"Stupidest" is the proper superlative form of "stupid." Be careful when calling someone ignorant. :nono:


----------



## BicyclePhD (Oct 29, 2004)

pisket said:


> The US Trek site says MSRP $1650 less a penny
> 
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?f=17
> 
> Ali


Trek just uped the price to $2400


----------



## worpheus (Aug 4, 2006)

*Trek pulled a fast one.*

:madmax: I had a 69er on back order up until i had the Shop in town call to check to see if the Shipping date was still around the end of January. Not to my surprise they did push the date back until the end of March. Not only that they jacked the price up alot. It was going to see for $1650.00. That is no longer the retail price. That is close to what a shops cost is now. The retail price will be close to $3000.00. So i said screw Trek and ordered something else. They didn't even call shops that had the bike on back order to let them know that the price went up. So they could inform the consumers that the bike almost double in price. Once again SCREW trek!!!!!!!!.:madmax:


----------



## tozovr (Jul 26, 2006)

http://treksandiego.com/itemdetails.cfm?catalogId=39&id=1391


----------



## djdub (Jan 12, 2006)

Are there any updates on this bike? Please post pics if you have received yours. Or is the bike still scheduled for release in March? I'm really considering this bike, I hope the price doesn't go up again...

P.S. Anyone know if you can buy just the frame?

peAce,
Devin


----------



## long hazy daze (Oct 19, 2005)

shorter people have shorter feet....


----------



## long hazy daze (Oct 19, 2005)

.....


----------



## fatad (Oct 5, 2006)

*No Toe Overlap for me*









I have no problems with toe overlap on my homebrew 29/26. BB is high and I like it. Head angle is 69.5degrees and it works for me in xc. It zips downhill and climbs well. It fits me and weighs in about 23lb.


----------



## MrAnderson (Jun 3, 2004)

BicyclePhD said:


> Trek just uped the price to $2400


It kind of defeats the purpose of a single speed to spend that much money. I love the idea but I cannot warrant spending $1300 or 2400 on a single speed. Perhaps I should get a job at Trek dealer to reap the benefits. :thumbsup:


----------



## pooka (Jul 16, 2006)

Besides all this toe overlab thing, wich would really suck me on slow technical terrain, ( a bunch of 29er geos proofs, that it is solveable) why does trek build their beautiful 69er with a wheelbase as long as a roadtrain?

Is travis brown hammering at a speed of 30mph all the time?


----------



## tozovr (Jul 26, 2006)

CollegeCatholic said:


> "Stupidest" is the proper superlative form of "stupid." Be careful when calling someone ignorant. :nono:


you are incorrect.
*



Adjectives which have three or more syllables, such as intelligent, beautiful, difficult, do not take -est. To form the superlative for adjectives with three syllables you must use "most": the most intelligent, the most beautiful, the most difficult.

But what about adjectives with two syllables? If the word ends in 'y' such as happy, dirty etc, then the adjective takes the -est form. For example, "I am the happiest man in the world!" If the adjective with two syllables does not end in 'y', the superlative takes the "most ..." form. For example, stupid, then we must say: "That is the most stupid question I have ever heard!"

Click to expand...

*


----------



## djdub (Jan 12, 2006)

Do you guys even ride bikes? This forum is starting to scare me...bleh*


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

Get laid, it will help with your bickering and pointing fingers and disqualifying and "I'm right, you're wrong" general *****-ass attitudes. Now go out and get some. In otherwise, get on and ride, dammit.


----------



## tozovr (Jul 26, 2006)

I'm sorry, was I wrong?


----------



## SlowSSer (Dec 19, 2003)

pvd said:


> ...you have to have two types of tubes with you...


um, no you dont- the usage of 26" tubes in 29" wheels has been discussed frequently over on the 29er bored. actually, it works pretty good!


----------



## RC51_Texas (Jan 13, 2007)

mcoco01 said:


> Yeah, I was interested in one of those and the guys at the local shop said they're going to be really limited edition so almost impossibe to get, especially in my size. But a few of them rode it up in Wisc at Trek and they said it was sweet. About 21lbs and rode great.


Anymore updates???

Are we sure that it's only 21 lbs? That's crazy light, but would be great if it is!

Haven't seen one in any of the dozen or so Trek Dealers here???


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MrAnderson said:


> It kind of defeats the purpose of a single speed to spend that much money.


huh????? what exactly do you mean by that?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

the carver 96'er frame has been around for some time AND comes in ti.

http://www.carverbikes.com/

hard tail msrp:
400 for a painted frame.
450 for ball burnished frame
1000 for ti frame built in china
1900 for ti frame built in us.

squishy msrp:
1000 painted
1100 ball burnished

either hang the stuff you already have on it, or for $2400.00 you could spec it WAY nicer than the factory trek 69'er.

for example, for the price of the stock trek you could build a carver hardtail with a king/stans wheelset, king headset, carbon bars/seatpost, reba race fork, white bros or bontrager ss cranks, and juicy 7 brakes.

you can also just stick a 29er wheel in most any 26" disc rigid fork and it will work fine.


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

worst. thread. ever.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

dusthuffer said:


> worst. thread. ever.


lol... i see you havent read through very many here


----------



## RC51_Texas (Jan 13, 2007)

*Price Check*

The Trek 69er is $1,649.99 at my local Trek Dealer.


----------

