Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 104
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    555

    Santa Cruz sues Yeti!!

    Claiming switch technology is VPP.

    Get your SB before they are discontinued.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    80
    Haters gotta hate, sorry Scruz.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE View Post
    Claiming switch technology is VPP.

    Get your SB before they are discontinued.
    link?
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    323

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    315
    Ahhh lawyers . . . . Looks like frame prices will be going up again real soon!!

  6. #6
    Int'l Sales Mgr. - Yeti
    Reputation: John P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE View Post
    Get your SB before they are discontinued.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phatass View Post
    . . . . Looks like frame prices will be going up again real soon!!
    And in other news, the sky is falling.

    We're aware of the suit and very confident we don't infringe, based on the massive amounts of IP research we did before we developed the technology and applied for our own patent. Additionally, we're reorganizing some things on the supply chain side to actually reduce prices for 2013.

    Feel free to e-speculate all you want though . . . It's always interesting to throw out hypotheticals.

    --JP
    Yeti Cycles// Ride Driven

    Please Email rather than PM: johnp AT yeticycles DOT com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,889

    I hope Specialized, i mean Santa Cruz loses

    SC going all Specy on the industry. Next thing you know they will withhold frames from bike shops with Yetis on the floor.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    315
    And in other news, pigs are growing wings . . . . Would love to see frame prices come down, but I will believe it when I see it. Kind of scared to see what pricing will be on the carbon SB95 next year. I'm guessing close to 2800.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dkr82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    85
    Related cases show a company called Dual Lever Suspension filing against Santa Cruz in October and again in November for patent infringement... Swings and roundabouts Santa Cruz...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    43
    I wonder if this stems from the fact that one of the designers of the "switch" technology used by Yeti on the SBs used to work for Santa Cruz?

    I hate to see bike companies sue each other like this. It's not good for either company and drives up costs.

    I will support Yeti and "vote" with my dollars since I had been considering a Santa Cruz as one of the three bikes I've been looking to buy.

  11. #11
    Int'l Sales Mgr. - Yeti
    Reputation: John P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Phatass View Post
    And in other news, pigs are growing wings . . . . Would love to see frame prices come down, but I will believe it when I see it. Kind of scared to see what pricing will be on the carbon SB95 next year. I'm guessing close to 2800.
    I think a pig just flew past my window!

    2011 575 frame MSRP: $1,900
    2012 575 frame MSRP: $1,800

    Regarding the never-confirmed-to-be-in-development SB95 Carbon, it's not really possible to reduce prices on a bike that has never technically existed.

    -JP
    Yeti Cycles// Ride Driven

    Please Email rather than PM: johnp AT yeticycles DOT com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    315
    Ya got me on that one JP Just for reference, when I bought my Tallboy for $2100 I thought that was a lot. Now it is close to $2700. Crazy. Of course it seems that the lawyers over at SC have been more active than most

  13. #13
    D93
    D93 is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    111
    Prices are going down. I paid $3100 for my 575. Two weeks later Yeti dumped the build price by 1/3. Tough pill for a recent Trek convert to swallow. Something I'll consider when replacing my XC in Feb.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    80
    That's just a timing issue. To not have that happen to someone, somewhere they would either have to never lower the price or send a refund to everyone.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KrisRayner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    445
    Kinda rediculous to me. Why aren't they going after Niner for their CVA suspension or any other number counter-rotating twin link suspensions.....
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.
    This. ^^^ Serious competition from the Switch 26/29" bikes.

    Weagle *sounded annoyed* on the boards too, just about when that beautiful Ibis 9'er came out a few weeks after the Sb.

    Even Steber from Intense was lurking here on the Yeti board when the bike was introduced.

    I'm sure it was all the Interbike/outerbike attention that pissed 'em off. That's the grand showcase.

    Imo, if DW didn't/couldn't go after Giant's Mastro (DW link), or Trek's ABP (DW split pivot), SC has zero chance.

    *edit
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-11-2011 at 07:57 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    Kinda rediculous to me. Why aren't they going after Niner for their CVA suspension or any other number counter-rotating twin link suspensions.....
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.
    Actually, CVA suspension is a co-rotating mini-link suspension design, as are most mini-links on the market.

    Regardless, I was curious to see what Santacruz's basis for the lawsuit might be and so I went back to read the VPP patent (US 6206397). Interestingly, the first principal claim of the patent does not mention anything about counter-rotating links. It's a broader claim asserting rights to a suspension design which results in a larger radius of curvature of the axle path to provide a "chain lengthening effect" (as referred to in the patent) at the beginning of the travel to enable efficient pedaling, followed by a smaller radius of curvature of the axle path deeper in the shock stroke to reduce pedal feedback.

    The first dependent claim (claim 2) then expands on this concept to define a predetermined position in the travel and split the axle path in a lower curve segment extending generally below said position at which there is an increasing rate of chainstay lengthening with increasing compression and an upper curve segment extending generally above said position in which there is a decreasing rate of chainstay lengthening with increasing compression. In the second principal claim (claim 14), the concept of counter-rotating links is introduced and the first principal claim is narrowed to this embodiment of the design.

    Here is another interesting tidbit from the detailed description of the invention:

    "... [T]his allows the system to employ what is known as a "chainstay lengthening effect" (i.e., an effective increase in the distance between the bottom bracket shell and the axle of the rear wheel) at selected points in the compression cycle. In those phases where the chainstay lengthening effect increases, tension on the drive chain causes the suspension assembly to provide an upward force on the frame in response to the application of downward force on the pedals. Below the position (referred to herein as the "preferred pedaling position") to which the suspension is compressed by the mass of the rider resting on the seat tube, there is a lesser chainstay lengthening effect, with the result that there is a lesser or minimal effect of chain tension on the suspension below the preferred pedaling position so that it remains compliant to unpowered vertical inputs by the rider (i.e., rider weight) and to bump forces caused by the terrain. The net effect of this is that the system is able to "isolate" pedal inputs from terrain inputs, i.e., the suspension will not compress/extend due to pedal forces which are exerted by the rider, but will remain compliant to irregularities of the terrain."

    From the Yeti literature and the
    Pinkbike article on the release of Switch technology and the SB-66 we learn that:

    "Pedaling Efficiency -
    In the early stage of travel the micro link is guiding the lower pivot of the swing arm rearward. This rearward direction counteracts chain forces and gives the bike excellent anti-squat characteristics.

    Plush, Controlled Travel -
    As the bike moves past sag, the micro-link rotates in the opposite direction. This switch in direction controls the rate of chain stay growth, which is necessary to eliminate pedal feedback and allows for uninhibited suspension performance."

    So to summarize: rearward axle path early in the travel (larger radius of curvature) followed by a tighter radius of curvature to reduce pedal feedback. You have to admit, the two inventions don't sound completely unrelated. Of course the reduction to practice as laid in the detailed description is very important in patent arguments and that's where Yeti may have an out with the whole eccentric link thing (not counter rotating mini-links).

    It'll be interesting to see how this one unfolds. Maybe it'll go the way of ABP/Split Pivot where each party has been allowed to practice their invention.


  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Good Stuff Nyb'71,
    Here is a quote from DW himself from the Ibis forum during the late Summer of this year.


    Question Originally Posted by rodeoj 8/31/11
    2 - The new pivots, and the eccentric, seems really close to Yeti's new Switch. Now obviously DW link has been around a long time and Yeti's work I think is to be taken as a compliment to your engineering skills. Does Yeti's direction pay homage, and is there play back and forth in a friendly competitive way between these two designs?

    // This probably belongs in the suspension forum but since Dave is posting here I couldn't help myself. Though Yeti just came forth with their sb-95 5 inch 29er switch bike.

    DW's Answer:
    Eccentric pivots are nothing new, I mean, one of the best selling line of bikes ever, the GT I-drive used one, that was my first real experience with the design. Also there is the Decathlon NEUF bike from France in production from 2001 to ???? that is strikingly similar to the Yeti. The dw-2XC design has been around for some time in testing, well before David Earle made the Yeti design public, but I'm sure people who have been paying attention to my work saw this coming a while ago. I mean, it's kind of telling when the dw-DHR has ~40mm long links and 210mm of travel that things can get a lot smaller.

    If anything, to me, the Yeti design seems a heck of a lot closer to a VPP in terms of performance, and almost nowhere near a dw-link. It relies on a very low leverage ratio in the early travel (regressive in the beginning travel) to force a lot of oil through the shock and develop a lot of low speed compression damping.

    dw-links don't need to do that, the linkage effectively counteracts the effects of acceleration on the suspension, so I can concentrate on getting the most traction out of the shock as I can. The goal is as little compromise as possible, and that's an absolutely huge distinction, I believe in the favor of my design.

    Also, as a funny side note, almost every dw-link bike since 2005 has a link that "switches" directions. I have never seen it as a notable distinction becuase it has absolutely no direct bearing on performance. All of the old Marin Quad bikes and I believe a couple of the really old VPP bikes did as well. I'm sure there are more that I'm not remembering off the top of my head (been working for 15hrs, I'm beat). It's always interesting to read the marketing fodder thrown out there. I try to keep discussion about my designs to the facts, it's safer that way, and for sure I feel better about it... It's a weird world though.
    __________________
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    If anything, to me, the Yeti design seems a heck of a lot closer to a VPP in terms of performance, and almost nowhere near a dw-link. It relies on a very low leverage ratio in the early travel (regressive in the beginning travel) to force a lot of oil through the shock and develop a lot of low speed compression damping.
    Hey B,

    I had not seen this discussion in the Ibis forum. In fact, I had completely forgotten about the eccentric pivots in the Ibis Ripley (tells you how much attention I have been paying to full suspension 29ers ). I think _dw's statement quoted above reinforces what I posted earlier about the similarities between Switch and VPP from the Klassen patent and Yeti literature.

    Enough with the lawyer speak. You have extensive riding time on three bikes all in the same rough range of travel (5.5in to 6in) with VPP, dw-link, and Switch technology. What do they feel like? How do they compare uphill, downhill, and in technical riding? Obviously geometries and frame build are vastly different and this colors the attitude of the bike, but could you take a swag at the feel of the suspension and if you noticed any similarities or differences?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Hey B,

    Enough with the lawyer speak. You have extensive riding time on three bikes all in the same rough range of travel (5.5in to 6in) with VPP, dw-link, and Switch technology. What do they feel like? How do they compare uphill, downhill, and in technical riding? Obviously geometries and frame build are vastly different and this colors the attitude of the bike, but could you take a swag at the feel of the suspension and if you noticed any similarities or differences?
    I would love to know too as I am currently struggling between a SB-66 and a DW Turner 5.SPot.

    Thanks,

    Tejas

  21. #21
    Huckin' trails
    Reputation: David C's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,847
    All this is BS. Yeti's SB technology is a bad replica of GT's original i-Drive system. I'm gonna file up a claim against them in the name of GT and I'll get the filthy money for taking back to GT the technology
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    topless. that's what all mtb girls do. we go ride, get topless, have pillow fights in the woods, scissor, then ride home!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KrisRayner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Actually, CVA suspension is a co-rotating mini-link suspension design, as are most mini-links on the market.

    Regardless, I was curious to see what Santacruz's basis for the lawsuit might be and so I went back....
    I stand corrected. I made the statement without ensuring technical accuracy of it.

    What I was trying to get at was the seeming pointless nature of going after Yeti when there's so many other suspension designs that SEEM similar.

    As far as Yeti being the "next best to impact their business", it wasn't meant to be a reference to the size of Yeti as a company, but rather the marketing and perception impact. The mountain biking business/industry is very much about the next "big thing" and given the amount of press the SB-66 has gotten, it would seem to be taking some of the marketing luster off VPP.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    I stand corrected. I made the statement without ensuring technical accuracy of it.

    What I was trying to get at was the seeming pointless nature of going after Yeti when there's so many other suspension designs that SEEM similar.

    As far as Yeti being the "next best to impact their business", it wasn't meant to be a reference to the size of Yeti as a company, but rather the marketing and perception impact. The mountain biking business/industry is very much about the next "big thing" and given the amount of press the SB-66 has gotten, it would seem to be taking some of the marketing luster off VPP.
    Hey Kris,

    I get your point and agree with you: the SB-66 and 95 definitely stole the show at Interbike this year and it may have ruffled a few feathers. I edited my original response right after posting it because it was just nitpicking and unnecessarily confrontational.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    217
    we're reorganizing some things on the supply chain side to actually reduce prices for 2013.
    Good news!


    About this notice.... JP you and the rest of yeti people will be glad, this SC movement confirm a good job :-).


    And off topic question. when we can see the the info about sb-66c in the web? (final spacs, prices...)

  25. #25
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Lots of people saw this lawsuit coming. Even the guys from Intense were saying they were surprised that Yeti was cranking out a carbon version already, but Yeti's confident...

    Off-topic, but does the SB-95 have one of those modular BB caps that allows for ISCG tabs, since it technically can be ridden like a 6" 26" bike? Rode the SB95 pro-production demo in small and it had front shifting prob and suffered from chain drop. The rear triangle wasn't as stiff as I would've liked too. The front end was surprisingly solid and dialed feeling though. If it had a firmer rear, it'd be one sexy bike that I wouldn't be able to wait to ride.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,900
    I call bogus BS by SC on this one. The SB-66, in my opinion, rides totally different than a VPP bike, whereas a VPP really stiffens up early on an then lets loose in the travel mid to end, relying on chain growth/tension to control the rate of suspension, thus causing some pedal feedback as a side effect.
    I have been hammering my new 66 and the suspension rate or feel does not behave like this which is much more controlled mid-stroke and plusher at the end. Not saying it is superior to VPP or other designs, it is in fact different in suspension performance and feel for sure. I do feel a VPP type bikes climbs slightly better (roads) cause the suspension really firms up (no suppleness early on like "Switch"), coupled with inherent stiction from most air shocks makes a really stiff pedalling, high anti-squat platform with zero bob when added some LSC to it. At least that is the case of the last bike I owned and VPP's I have ridden. Actually, the VF4b (Banshee) is much closer to VPP in performance and feel than the "Switch link", IMO for sure.
    Ride On!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,846
    here's some e-speculation:
    my list for next new bike: SB66c, Mach 5.7 carbon, carbon nomad

    the nomad just got crossed off because of this. Same reason I'll never again own anything specialized.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    here's some e-speculation:
    my list for next new bike: SB66c, Mach 5.7 carbon, carbon nomad

    the nomad just got crossed off because of this. Same reason I'll never again own anything specialized.
    Cool, the SB66c should be a ripper for sure. More capable than I imagine the Mach 5.7 to be. My only quimble with the 66a (alloy) is that the frame feels a bit heavy underneath me (8.0 lbs for a medium with RP23, rear axle kit and seat clamp and updated quad bearings, must be due to the heavier bearings?). Which isn't a bad thing for me, since I am pretty hard on bikes going down and weigh >200lbs. But, I can only imagine the 66c to be a total super D machine and give the Ibis HD a run for its money . If I was aimed at being competive in CAT1 SD's, either of those bikes set-up <30-32lbs whould be my ride. For Sport "cowboy category", the SB66a should do me just fine at 33-34lbs!

    I rode a NomadC on my fav local trails and wasn't all that stoked, but had a DHX air which felt like pooh on it, whereas I imagine a coil to feel much better on VPP type bikes. I actually think a DHX air "should" be good on a SB66 due to all the mid-stroke support of the suspension design, corretly some of the wallow or "dead spot" of the DHXa, but shock could add more bottom out support than the RP23, whereas I am usually all of my rear travel any time the tires or off the ground with stock SB66 set-up.
    Ride On!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,412
    Considering the essence of rear suspension has been about the requisite degrees of freedom, axle path and shock actuation since [oh let me see] FOREVER and everything since has been diddling with pivot locations and practicalities. If SC had actually achieved their desired curvature characteristics without whoring their leverage ratio I'd maybe believe the claim had merit.

    So the lawyers will churn money and the consumer will lose.

    Funny how I learnt about instantaneous centres at uni in the 80s (not that it seemed to be a radically new or complicated topic at the time). I used an instantaneous (VPP) analysis to build new brackets for adjusting the position of the seat in my race car in about 1998 - my inspiration at the time was the humble "up and over" garage door. The wheels of the same racecar are attached to uprights that articulate on unequal length double wishbones and actuate coil over shock damping systems. Some racecars use push rods and linkages for packaging issues and to control the leverage ratio. All such systems have parallels in mountain bike suspension, which means that none of the mountain bike arrangements are novel.

    The only patent jurisdiction I know of in which such false protection is offered is with the US patent system. Other patent authorities have much higher expectations for proven novelty of invention. A system is broken when it cannot distinguish the competing claims of novelty of the genuinely new from the simple matter of two pivoting links and a bunch of bearings controlling planar motion and shock actuation.

    There is nothing novel in the engineering of mountain bike suspension at all apart from whacked out ideas like Kona's magic link. If every single pivot location between one manufacturer's design and its competitor's design were eerily coincident across all bike sizes, then maybe I would be inclined to assess the level of original work performed during the analysis, but that is not this case.

    When people ask me about my SB-66 on the trail and whether "the linkage does what 'they' say it does", I reply that the Yeti is made from all the latest and greatest shiny marketing. This always raises a smile and it gets down the nub of the matter that nuance in setup and differences between rider have much more to do with it than a magic mm here or there in a suspension path.

    Stupid Santa Cruz. You've just given a really good reason for people to favour your competitor's products.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Hey B,

    You have extensive riding time on three bikes all in the same rough range of travel (5.5in to 6in) with VPP, dw-link, and Switch technology. What do they feel like? How do they compare uphill, downhill, and in technical riding? Obviously geometries and frame build are vastly different and this colors the attitude of the bike, but could you take a swag at the feel of the suspension and if you noticed any similarities or differences?
    I'll do my best, but I'll warn you, I'm not very (small) detail oriented.

    IMO:

    All three suspension platforms pedal most terrain with perfection, with the DW (Mojo) and the Switch (SB-66) having a much firmer platform throughout the entire range of travel. My DW edged the Switch mainly because it had a Factory Push'ed rear end, so I'll have to post back after Pushing the rear end of the Sb-66. It could turn the tides. The Ibis handled technical climbing better, but again, could've been the Push tuned rp23.

    The VPP bikes (Blur LT and 5.5) felt better pedaling up/down/through gnar, and I'da kept either one but both had issues (mostly wagging rear ends). The VPP bikes handled pedaling *through* and *up* rough technical trails better than the DW and Switch. They just ate it up, whereas the DW and Switch feel like less travel bikes. I usually have to look down at the rp23's (preload setting o-ring) to confirm full travel was used. All rear ends descended about the same, pedaling or not.

    I'll try and keep this post regulated solely to quality of rear travel. Flex, bearing issues, frame stiffness, geometry, quality control, and customer service issues between the four different bikes and their respective companies will be saved for another day. Some bikes felt great on large jumps and drops, where others just feel/felt wrong....for mostly geometric reasons.

    I've also spent time on first generation I-drives, which I think are incredibly underrated platforms. Some saddle time on both Horst link and single pivot bikes too.
    Most bikes had a Lyrik 160mm mounted to the front and an Rp23 underneath.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  31. #31
    Huckin' trails
    Reputation: David C's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,847
    I'm still rocking an original i-Drive from my '00 GT XCR 3000 and I have to say that climbing roots and XC level rocks/gnar stuff is like a dream. Using the original Judy Race with 100mm plus a rear SID Dual Air, also the original. Now I bet having a perfectly tuned/valved RP23 and a nice Fox also well tuned would be close to a perfect 100mm FS climber. Rear wheel just track around rocks, leaving you floating on a cloud and steady thanks to no more pedal kickback. 2 downsides however are slow action of the rear end in gnarly descents and seems to suck up pedaling power on flat pavement, but like I said, a shock from today's might make all the difference.

    So how does the SB technology compare to the i-Drive action on both ups and downs plus flat pavement ?

    I really do like how Yeti's managed to create a more compact i-Drive type eccentric suspension design with their SwitchBox, but I feel like they basically copy the main i-Drive idea and claim it theirs. But at the same time, GT did left out the i-Drive and went for their Independent Suspension design, and I would guess it was due to the i-Drive being kinda heavy back then ?

    I'd love to test ride a SB-66... But chances might be close to none in my area having only 2 Yeti dealers and usually those bikes are orders to customers and not sitting in a showroom collecting dust.
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    topless. that's what all mtb girls do. we go ride, get topless, have pillow fights in the woods, scissor, then ride home!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    217
    Really... an eccentric it's only a little link with a housing arround :-).

    In my opinion we have 2 options in the suspension systems. Fixed CIR based system and mobile CIR based system. the rest is "lastnames" and patents to protect developments :-)

  33. #33
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Which Mojo, b? MojoHD is pretty good while the SL is laughable. The Yeti ASR5 inspires far more confidence than the SL--SL just felt like poo with its flex and poor pedaling. Didn't ride the SB66, since the SB95 was the show stealer and anyone who rode both was more impressed by the 95 over the 66. The SB95 feels like it's really limited on travel, but is extremely smooth through its travel. Maybe a bit too linear for me. I didn't take it on asphalt, but it was pretty active on climbs, but not in a bouncy way. On drops, the SB95s travel really felt like it was 5". It didn't bottom out harshly, but the rear twisted and chain dropped each time, making for kind of sketchy landings. Does better than my other 29er, Superfly 100, in that regard though, which feels more damped but flexier. I wish I could have some damping setting to make better use of it without needing to add more air. It felt balanced with the Fox 34 120 up front though. I reset the o-ring on both ends 3 times and got at least 115mm travel out of the fork and full out of the rear. The front of the SB-95 really inspired you to go as fast of you could, but the rear's flex kind of made it hard to follow through. It was fun using the flex to sort of sling it, once you got a feel for the flex. I guess that's Yeti's style, is to go for the drifty rears. They don't too bad in off-cambers and ruts, but in corners, they slide and lock into ruts and encourage you to do cutties. Might just be the behavior of the tires. I mentioned a shifting problem which was caused by the direct mount location on the pre-production bikes being too high. I couldn't even shift into the big ring and spun out the 32-11 on any slightly downsloping fairly straight trail.

    That all said, the SB95 is the only one on my list of possible bikes that could replace my SF100, but just not enough for me to fork up the cash. I'll wait for the SB95c to see it it's any better.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Which Mojo, b? MojoHD is pretty good while the SL is laughable. The Yeti ASR5 inspires far more confidence than the SL--SL just felt like poo with its flex and poor pedaling..
    It was a classic Mojo built close to an HD with a Lyrik, thru axles, and a solid parts spec.
    I tried to ride it like an HD too; with it's lopes link and CrossLine wheels, flex actually wasn't terribly noticeable.
    It handled the occasional 10' double or 8' drop without to much fuss, right NYB'71?

    As for my previous post, I was trying to just review the rear ends only. Tons of other variables led me to love or hate each bike, but usually it wasn't quality of rear wheel travel.
    I mean, we're talking three world class suspensions here after all, aren't we?

    I haven't spent a minute aboard the sb-95. I would, as it looks great, but it's not my cup o'tea.
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-13-2011 at 07:45 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by bpnic View Post
    I tried to ride it like an HD too; with it's lopes link and CrossLine wheels, flex actually wasn't terribly noticeable.
    It handled the occasional 10' double or 8' drop without to much fuss, right NYB'71?
    I still can't believe what you put that poor Mojo through!

    Now that you have a real bike, you should come out to Plattekill again. There are some new race tracks from this Fall that are just rough, steep, and stellar. You can really put that SB-66 through its paces. Can't wait until the lifts start spinning again in the Spring, even though the last day of riding at the mountain this year was December 4 (and conditions the last three weekends were unbelievably good).

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    I still can't believe what you put that poor Mojo through!

    Now that you have a real bike, you should come out to Plattekill again. There are some new race tracks from this Fall that are just rough, steep, and stellar. You can really put that SB-66 through its paces. Can't wait until the lifts start spinning again in the Spring, even though the last day of riding at the mountain this year was December 4 (and conditions the last three weekends were unbelievably good).

    If you promise to leave the 303 at home this time and shuttle the Knolly instead, I'll go.
    I can't spend a another day picking your kicked up stones( actually, shale) and dirt from my full face.

    Let's hit Highland this Spring too, ehh?
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-14-2011 at 10:39 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  37. #37
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    Boo Santa Cruz, never will I buy one of your products now. Too bad, the Tallboy sure sounded like the bike for me.

  38. #38
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by edgerat View Post
    Boo Santa Cruz, never will I buy one of your products now. Too bad, the Tallboy sure sounded like the bike for me.
    Now you'll just have to get a SB-95
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  39. #39
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    As long as it isnt SC i am open to anything.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,399
    Why is everyone so against companies defending their IP? This is business pure and simple. I have no idea whether their suit has merit, but DW pointed it out as soon as it was released. BTW I have never owned an SC product and have no allegiance to them.

  41. #41
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    What I abhor is litigous companies. Yes, they have a right to defend their patents and to be successful. I don't know enough about the two technologies to really have a valid argument, I just hate litigous people.

  42. #42
    I wasn't Kung Fu fighting
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    152
    No one likes litigious people, but it was litigious people that ended child labor, sweat shops, carcinogens in the work place, etc.

    I hate lawyers as much as everyone else, until my toaster oven blows up and burns my house down... the company denies any culpability. Then my lawyer is my best friend, because he is the person who will help my family have a place to live.

    If a company makes a large investment in R&D and testing and product development only to have their design stolen, should they sit idly by while the other company prospers on the shoulders of their work? Don't forget the enormous investment in the VPP design SC made when they resurrected it.

    I suspect the outrage here is due to the fact that SC is suing a similar company. If they were suing a large Chinese mass producer, I doubt anyone would be upset. They have the right to defend their IP regardless of who stole it.

    I'm not an engineer, so I have no idea if Yeti stole the design or not. I like both companies. I own a SC and the only reason I don't own a Yeti is that they've never fit me well... but several friends who have happily been riding them for years.

    I'll let the engineers, lawyers and judge decide if this case has merit, and refrain from making short sited and myopic claims about the ills of all litigation.
    Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you are abusing the priveledge.

  43. #43
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Yeti had a former SC engineer on their team, I think. Yeti markets Switch as a "dual-link" done differently. It is done differently because of that switch. The lower link swings back with the upper link swinging forward, which is similar to VPP's counter rotating links, but the Switch has its lower link swing forward again.

    I wonder if the other chainstay pivots infringe on Specialized patent or are licensed from Specialized but given a different name, like Rocky Mountain's XC design. Or how about Orbea's concentric pivot at the axle?

  44. #44
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Just get a 29er - it rolls over stuff better - and whatnot -
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,454
    Quote Originally Posted by bpnic View Post
    I've also spent time on first generation I-drives, which I think are incredibly underrated platforms. Some saddle time on both Horst link and single pivot bikes too.

    As someone who has spent significant time on HL, vpp, single pivot, and dw linked bikes, I agree with this statement 100%. Busby was and is a genius. He was talking about "suspension squat" and ways to counteract it in 1998-2000. Guy was way ahead of his time and realized that the suspension systems that worked with 2" of travel would not be the same systems that worked with 4+" of travel.
    Last edited by Vespasianus; 12-18-2011 at 08:18 AM.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs

  47. #47
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie D View Post
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs
    Prices will likely go up by a lot, due to paying royalties/licensing fees and they'd need to recoup the cost of their defense in the case somehow as well. I doubt they'd drop the platform, after investing so much into it. SC's prices have already gone up, while Yeti's been making some of their stuff more affordable.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,412
    You'd hardly have to give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of welding rigs to come up with bike suspension.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie D View Post
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs

    We'll pay slightly more and we'd see this on the chainstay....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Santa Cruz sues Yeti!!-vpp.jpg  

    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Why is everyone so against companies defending their IP? This is business pure and simple. I have no idea whether their suit has merit, but DW pointed it out as soon as it was released. BTW I have never owned an SC product and have no allegiance to them.
    Agreed. It must be close if SCB has filed suit, no company would go through the motion just to be d!cks.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. santa cruz or Yeti
    By samurai75 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 03:14 PM
  2. Santa CRuz 575 vs yeti asr 7
    By Will963 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 10:35 AM
  3. Yeti vs Santa Cruz
    By jay12 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-22-2009, 08:05 AM
  4. Yeti vs. Santa Cruz
    By 25lbs&counting in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 01:56 PM
  5. Yeti DH Vs. Santa Cruz DH?
    By cocopuffberman in forum Yeti
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-12-2004, 10:20 AM

Posting Permissions

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