View Poll Results: Which version of the 575 would you prefer to own?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Prefer the Carbon Swingarm 575

    18 45.00%
  • Prefer the Aluminum Swingarm 575

    19 47.50%
  • Don't Have a Preference

    3 7.50%
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,416

    Carbon or Aluminum 575

    So if you were to buy a new 575, would you buy a Aluminum or Carbon swingarm version?

    I will not sway your vote by presenting my own pros and cons but please post your reasons if you have a distinct preference one way or another. Don't let price be a factor. Let's assume they cost the same- $1,400 MSRP.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer
    So if you were to buy a new 575, would you buy a Aluminum or Carbon swingarm version?
    Carbon. Half a pound lighter.

    The risk with carbon stays is taking a shot from a sharp rock that would poke a hole. This is certainly possible. There is no other scenario where the carbon fails before aluminum. The carbon might even be stiffer - its on the ASR-SL, too.

    Yeti charges $300 to replace the rear triangle if you poke a hole in it.

    Half a pound lighter...Colorado....climbing...half a pound lighter. .

  3. #3
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,761
    Not sure.. would like the lighter weight of the carbon, but prefer the better clearance of the alu one.... In my personal case I would take the alu one I guess... since the weight difference is not that important for me....

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flipnidaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Has there been confirmation that the carbon stays will not fit a 2.5 (or a 2.35 Kenda)? If it will, my vote is carbon all the way...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by flipnidaho
    Has there been confirmation that the carbon stays will not fit a 2.5 (or a 2.35 Kenda)? If it will, my vote is carbon all the way...
    I didn't realize that there was a "clearanace issue" with the carbon stays. That could change my vote depending on what it is.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: goog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    149
    I wanted the carbon but my funds wouldn't allow at the time so I went for the aluminium, and how glad am I that I did.

    A few weeks ago while testing the limits of my Yeti on the trails a rock got caught between my rear 180 Hope M4 rotor and swingarm, it locked the rear wheel up for about 5 meters but passed through by the time I'd stopped.

    I now have a nasty 4" gouge between the rotor and the inside of my swingarm, if I had a carbon swingarm I dont think It would have survived.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,416
    I think 2.3 may be the max tire for a carbon- I THINK. Anyone know for sure?

  8. #8
    Who is John Galt?
    Reputation: Big Jim Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    FWIW, the MB Action review of the 575 said they didn't see any benefit to the carbon other than a slight weight savings.
    What, me hurry?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,416
    I believe that weight savings was the primary goal. It's almost a 1/2 lb lighter than the Aluminum frame and that should make it easier to bunny-hop and drag up those long climbs- a good option for those wanting a really light, long-travel bike.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer
    I think 2.3 may be the max tire for a carbon- I THINK. Anyone know for sure?
    LBS says 2.35. Once you get to that size, the tire won't rub, but it'll be close enough that mud or something hanging off the tire could score the stays which is bad news for carbon.

    I've been running 2.3 in front and something smaller (2.1ish) in back. But, if you ever planned to go big, this might be an issue.

    In fact, if you ride lots of guey mud, it could be an issue with any tire, I suppose. Just put me on the fence on this one...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,416
    Good point. This isn't a big issue for me since I absolutely detest riding in mud or any level of muddy conditions but some riders may not have a choice in this. If I need bigger than a 2.3 tire in the back, I probably need a burlier bike and wider rims anyway. I currently run either a 2.3/2.1 or a 2.3/2.3 combo.

    So the carbon will take a 2.3 or 2.35 depending on the brand of tire since similar sizes do differ between brands but I think the Aluminum will take upto a 2.5.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4

    No mud up here in desert-dry Beijing/China, so not really a clearance problem....but,

    is it be possible to interchange my current alu rear triangle with a carbon one? Or do these not fit each other for any reason? Their happen to be some pretty steep mountains around here and I would be looking into this as part of a long term bike diet plan...

  13. #13
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,761
    Yep, you can replace your alloy rear tri with the carbon one... I guess you just need to contact a Yeti dealer for a price quote.

  14. #14
    Positive Vibe Technician
    Reputation: ShanerPVT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    73
    I like the durability of the aluminum rear. At 200lbs - i just like my rig alittle more heavy duty.

    but, the carbon looks SWEEEEEEEEEEET.
    If you are gunna be dumb, ya gotta be tough

  15. #15
    Who is John Galt?
    Reputation: Big Jim Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by ShanerPVT
    I like the durability of the aluminum rear. At 200lbs - i just like my rig alittle more heavy duty.

    but, the carbon looks SWEEEEEEEEEEET.
    Shaner, can I ask what psi you are running in your shock? Just realized I weigh a lot more than I thought, 200 and some change, plus wasn't factoring in the Camelback full of water and a camera or two...I hit the trail with 205 and it seemed about right.
    What, me hurry?

  16. #16
    stay thirsty, my friends
    Reputation: LBmtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,131
    Anyone know how much the carbon rear goes for?
    "With that said, until you have done a STR group ride- YOU HAVE NOT LIVED!"
    - dino brown

  17. #17
    EDR
    Reputation: eatdrinkride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,032
    Al for me.

    I use this bike hard and there is absolutely no advantage of CF over Al for me. The weight is a non factor. In fact, my bike is about 30lbs and if it were 27lbs I think it would handle less favorably in the nasty stuff than I would like. No CF stays on a trail bike for me thanks. Now if I had the ASR of course I would want mucho CF!

  18. #18
    Positive Vibe Technician
    Reputation: ShanerPVT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    73

    sure

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Jim Mac
    Shaner, can I ask what psi you are running in your shock? Just realized I weigh a lot more than I thought, 200 and some change, plus wasn't factoring in the Camelback full of water and a camera or two...I hit the trail with 205 and it seemed about right.
    I only check it every couple of months - I have the set-up written down in my tool box - I'll check it out & get back to you.
    If you are gunna be dumb, ya gotta be tough

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •