quintonb Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Putting my flame suit on right now...????It kinda does make some sense. I mean motocross bikes have been designed with a bigger front wheel and smaller back wheel for just about ever. Bigger front wheel to get over obstacles easier and a smaller rear wheel to allow for better power transfer. The only real difference is that on a MX bike you have a motor to apply the power and not legs. I'm not saying I like how it looks or even think it will take off, but the commonly accepted setup of an off road cycle should look like that. Just an observation. Hackster 1
DJR Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Putting my flame suit on right now...It kinda does make some sense. I mean motocross bikes have been designed with a bigger front wheel and smaller back wheel for just about ever.Bigger front wheel to get over obstacles easier and a smaller rear wheel to allow for better power transfer. The only real difference is that on a MX bike you have a motor to apply the power and not legs. I'm not saying I like how it looks or even think it will take off, but the commonly accepted setup of an off road cycle should look like that. Just an observation. Penny Farthings did too quintonb 1
DJR Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Driven via the front wheel though. I always thought that they must have been nearly as tricky to ride as a unicycle.
quintonb Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I always thought that they must have been nearly as tricky to ride as a unicycle.Agreed, but at least you have handle bars. Although sitting right above the "steering" wheel must be a bit of a nightmare to handle.
CrimsonWolf Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 The Boneshaker made from 1867 to 1869. nathrix 1
DJR Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 The Boneshaker made from 1867 to 1869. With lightweight racing saddle!
DR ◣◢ Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 One wheel will always roll faster causing the frame to break. Do not want
Flowta Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 One wheel will always roll faster causing the frame to break. Do not want LOL!!!
Wyatt Earp Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Lets not forget the first foray into 29ers only included the back wheel. The front was still 26inch Really ?
Ed-Zulu Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Really ?Was so that you could ride down hill all the time
Wyatt Earp Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Was so that you could ride down hill all the time Ok, I just don't ever recall seeing them.
Ed-Zulu Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Ok, I just don't ever recall seeing them.Ja, they were soon discontinued due to pressures from the cycling community saying the oukes were getting soft and all...that's when they 'published' those 69'ers with the big wheel in the front so everyone could HTFU. We all know what happened after that
Wyatt Earp Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Ja, they were soon discontinued due to pressures from the cycling community saying the oukes were getting soft and all...that's when they 'published' those 69'ers with the big wheel in the front so everyone could HTFU. We all know what happened after that I still rememberer selling Gary Fisher 29'ers before the launch of the 69'er. The 96'er must have survived a day.
NODOPE Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Yes Treks 69er had a 29 front wheel with 26 rear.It didnt take of. Edited June 21, 2014 by NODOPE
DJR Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Yes Treks 69er had a 29 front wheel with 26 rear.It didnt take of. Yea, the marketing men must have thought that calling it that would have 69% of the planets population rushing out to buy one. They sure got it wrong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now