Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51

Thread: SB 75 vs SB 95

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45

    SB 75 vs SB 95

    I've demoed both bikes, and had fun on both. The SB 75 was more playful on the trail. On the same trails I was faster on the SB 95, and cleared much more on a difficult trail than I did on the 75. Also, the people I ride with are all on 29" and while I am just as fast or faster downhill on my old 575, I'm slower on the climbs.

    So more flickable SB 75 or clear more/ride faster to keep up with group SB 95?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,189
    Fun or speed? Two bike solution with a 29'r for XC rides and keep the 575 for fun rides?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    552
    Really glad I read this. I have wanted a Yeti for many years. I currently own a Ventana El Padrino 29er HT and a Ventana El Bastardo FS 27.5". I love both bikes but really enjoy the 27.5" wheel set. I don't want to pull the trigger on the SB75 because I'd want either the full carbon version or one with a Alum front and Carbon rear triangle. However after reading this article am thinking of just pulling the trigger on the SB95. It already has the carbon rear triangle and by the sounds of it will be a faster bike. I ride in Michigan and don't really need the flickability. However I do like my bikes to handle really well so am on the fence about getting a 29er FS. I am only 5'6" so the 27.5" wheel size really fits me nicely. Just wish Yeti would have released the SB75 with the carbon rear right away. Unfortunately I can't test ride either because my LBS that sells Yeti does not get in any demo bikes.

  4. #4
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,780

    SB 75 vs SB 95

    The SB75 should have been the 76 or even 77. OP - I agree with the suggestion. Keep the 575 and get the SB95.

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    319
    absolutely love my sb95c... plenty "flickable"

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    128
    I think the notion that a 29er can't be "playful" is a bad one--the bike's top-tube and stay length have as much to do with it as wheel size. Once I put on a light (but wide!) set of rims (Carver carbon AM rims) and set the fork to 130 (which balances the front to the rear and gives you a 68 degree HT angle), the bike became plenty play-worthy while retaining the roll over anything-ness.
    Keith in Corvallis

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FirefighterMTN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    242
    Thanks for posting this.

    I was getting ready to ask what people thought, but decided on a search instead.

    SB95 for me!
    www.getbusylivin.org
    http://www.prairiefireapparel.com

    Guardian 2.0
    Redline Monocog Flight 29er SS (for now)

  8. #8
    oot & aboot in Colorado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    absolutely love my sb95c... plenty "flickable"
    +1

    ..and it climbs over stuff like this far easier than my 575 ever did.




  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,364
    I was a yeti demo today...I owned a 575 and currently own a sb66c. I did the same loop today on a sb95c, my sb66c, and sb75.. This is the first time I did this trail on my sb66c but have many times on my 575....

    Sb66c vs 575...sb was better climber and carbon frame was a better damper. My 575 was push rp23 and 36/160rc2 fork.. Descending 575 feels more plush and sb feels more efficient but did decide I didn't miss my 36 and enjoyed my xfusion slant on my sb66.

    Vs. sb75. 75 did all you expect from a 650b. Same as sb66 but with a bit noticeable better roll over and climbing vs the previous two bikes.

    Vs sb95c...this was my last ride of the day and I was the most tired getting on it... Loved the fit, fell, faster uphill than all bikes mentioned and also down. I did my fastest loop with this bike...maybe fall in love again with it and second guess having bought the sb66c vs the sb95c..

    Trail was fire road,smooth and rocky single track climbing and downhill with tight switch backs....

    I am 6'4 235lbs geared up..rode all bikes in XL except sb75 was lg

    For me since owning 26 already if I was going to buy just one bike...sb95c would win..stiff,relative light and a good fit for me...

    Btw..sb95c was in yellow which I had never seen before..

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikesinmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Geek View Post
    +1

    ..and it climbs over stuff like this far easier than my 575 ever did.



    These pics just sold me on the 95c, sections like this where the 29er will float through. Glad I'm due for an upgrade of the entire stable this winter.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,986
    The big wheels definitely roll better and the 95c is a fun, fast bike.

  12. #12
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,780

    SB 75 vs SB 95

    Yeti575inCa - sounds like you were far more impressed with the SB95 than the SB75... Your comments and lack of enthusiasm about the SB75 are interesting... To me it might hint at how Yeti took forever to get the 29er to market but got it very right- aka the SB95 that people still rave about 2 + yrs after it's been released... But seemingly rushed the SB75 to market because every other bike maker is doing so too and nine of them want to get left behind like the early 29er days...

    SB75 - jack of all trades, master of none??

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,364
    LCW - SB75 jack of all trades master of none is probably a good way to put it.
    By no means is it a bad bike. I would wait for the SB75c, since the carbon frames seem to improve so much over the alum frames it replaces...

    66a vs 66c = weight, ride and stiffness
    95a vs 95c = all the above plus wider rear triangle, and lighter than 66c frame, and imho a better "raw" finish vs matte finish

    I am happy to ride my 66c and wait till next year and compare it to a 75c and 95c

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45
    Thanks for all the input. After demoing both the SB 75 and SB 95 (as well as about 10 other bikes) I purchased a SB 95c last week. It's been great so far. Pics to come.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    You know I just really like the 95C , the dam thing just really does work good .
    I can not believe how quickly I can cover really nasty ground on the thing .

    I have some demos coming and I will be riding many of the 27 and 29 inch bikes in the next few months , so it will be fun fun

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45
    SB 75 vs SB 95-image.jpg

    Here is my new SB 95c! I'm absolutely loving it.

  17. #17
    Long live the ASR-7
    Reputation: Doba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    269
    Beautiful ride.

  18. #18
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,780

    SB 75 vs SB 95

    Looks good in the gloss black!

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikesinmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Getting a black one myself, ordered up the turquoise CK bits since I'm really fussy. Yeti should have a deal with CK so that we could buy the turquoise hubs, headsets, bb's in the online store, 'cause you know when the limited edition door closes at CK, they will be gone!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eric Peden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    22
    Wow, I was all set to order a SB75 until I read this and now I'm wondering if I should go with the SB95. I thought being 5'5" tall I would have a hard time riding a 29er but again after reading this I am having second thoughts.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    LCW - SB75 jack of all trades master of none is probably a good way to put it.
    By no means is it a bad bike. I would wait for the SB75c, since the carbon frames seem to improve so much over the alum frames it replaces...

    66a vs 66c = weight, ride and stiffness
    95a vs 95c = all the above plus wider rear triangle, and lighter than 66c frame, and imho a better "raw" finish vs matte finish

    I am happy to ride my 66c and wait till next year and compare it to a 75c and 95c
    Yeti575inCA, I am currently on a 160mm travel GT Force 1.0 and am looking to purchase a Yeti and move to 650b or LT 29er.....I am also a bigger rider at 6'3" and 215 lbs and have had my eyes on a SB-95 after riding one in Colorado (I live in MA). First off.....trying to figure out if I should be on an XL or L since I am on the edge per Yeti's size chart (the one I demoed was a Large and felt ok, but not sure). Most of the time I demo and ride XL cause the Larges feel too small.

    Also, how are the wheels on the Yeti SB-95C.....have heard from a few people that the wheels were really really weak. Thinking of getting X01, but can't believe they would put Crests on that build. I want to get the carbon for the weight savings, but am worried with how hard I ride and the rocky/rooty tech on my local trails.

    Let me know your thoughts.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    319
    I have xx1 and derbys wide carbon rims on my sb95c. I've beat the **** out of them, they're pretty scratched up but are still true. Took them to my wheel builder yesterday after putting 200 miles or so on them and he was very happy with how they're working.
    Front Range, Colorado
    Yeti SB95c
    Yeti ARC c
    Surly ICT

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9
    How much does the bike weigh with xx1 and carbon rims? What size is it? Running tubeless?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45
    Mine is a medium with XX1, roval traverse SL carbon wheels, tubeless, and added weight from a dropper post. With pedals it is right around 27lbs.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FirefighterMTN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    242
    Any short dudes able to complete the same test? SB75 vs SB95?
    Preferably 5'4"-5'8" .
    www.getbusylivin.org
    http://www.prairiefireapparel.com

    Guardian 2.0
    Redline Monocog Flight 29er SS (for now)

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by FirefighterMTN View Post
    Any short dudes able to complete the same test? SB75 vs SB95?
    Preferably 5'4"-5'8" .
    As the OP, I guess I never stated that I'm only 5'7" and that I was sure I would feel to small on the 29" but then after riding both went with the SB 95

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    mtbmike that SB is one nice looking bike , good Lord .

  28. #28
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike View Post
    Mine is a medium with XX1, roval traverse SL carbon wheels, tubeless, and added weight from a dropper post. With pedals it is right around 27lbs.
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbmike View Post
    As the OP, I guess I never stated that I'm only 5'7" and that I was sure I would feel to small on the 29" but then after riding both went with the SB 95
    What is your inseam? Did you try a small 95c? And what length stem is that you're running in the pic you posted?

    I'm around 5'10" but my inseam, when measured barefoot, is just under 30". Based on that and finding clothes that fit I guess I have a longish torso.

    My 95c is a medium with the stock stem. I'm pretty happy with the cockpit size but I do slide the saddle all the way back in the rails and I find the front end gets a bit light while climbing.

    Shop has offered me a few options to get me on a large but I'm not sure if I want to do it. Curious to hear from you and others who are in between frame sizes and went with the next size up.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    632

    SB 75 vs SB 95

    I'm 5'10" and tend to ride medium bikes. I demo'd a medium 95a a few times from my local dealer and after reading a bit here, was given the recommendation to try a large.

    The result - picked up the large to demo but never even rode it. The thing was ENORMOUS. I've got about a 30 inch inseam also (maybe a bit longer) and there is no way could ever comfortably ride the large. I'm ordering a medium 95c this week.

    Do you have the stock post? If so, why not go with a setback?

  30. #30
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by trumpus View Post
    I'm 5'10" and tend to ride medium bikes. I demo'd a medium 95a a few times from my local dealer and after reading a bit here, was given the recommendation to try a large.

    The result - picked up the large to demo but never even rode it. The thing was ENORMOUS. I've got about a 30 inch inseam also (maybe a bit longer) and there is no way could ever comfortably ride the large. I'm ordering a medium 95c this week.

    Do you have the stock post? If so, why not go with a setback?
    That's good information. Thanks.

    I swapped out for a Thompson set back post after just a handful or rides on the bike in the stock configuration. I think it has 16 mm offset. Even with the set back post I slammed the saddle back in the rails.

    It felt better on my knees but the light front end issue was even worse.

    Since I had been away from mountain biking for a while I eventually went to a non-offset Reverb dropper post when I thought my knees were feeling better. Now after several rides on the Reverb my knees are aching enough that I think I need to try to get the saddle a bit further back, whether it be with a long railed saddle or going back to the offset post.

    As far as the size of the large, my medium with 120 mm fork has 16.3" reach and a 44.9" wheelbase. If I went to a large and extended the fork to 140 the reach would be 16.7", only 0.4" longer than the medium at 120.

    But the wheelbase would go from 44.9" to 46.3". The extra 0.4" of reach could easily be made up for with a shorter stem but I'd be getting almost 1.5" of extra wheelbase which supposedly is significant when trying to keep the front end under control while climbing.

    An added bonus would be that the longer fork would slack out the effective seat post angle and add slightly to the rearward pedaling position my knees seem to require.

    Of course I could extend the fork on my medium and get the same effect, but I'd only get a 0.3" increase in wheelbase and would likely have an overall lighter feeling front end vs. the current set up.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    14
    I ordered a sb-75 site unseen or tested. I've been a very happy as 29er rider, but I ride a hard tail 29. The decision is eating at me, as things like this make me think the 95 is the right bike. I did get a very short demo on a friends sb-95, and I though I might be happier with the lighter and more flick-able 75. His was an XL, but for me at 6'1" I would likely get the large in both 75 and 95. Perhaps riding an sb-95 large would have convinced me.

    I do think this whole 27.5 thing, is creating more confusion for the consumer. I would never have chosen 26 again, and would have stuck with 29, with those two choices. I am not sure the 75 is really that much different than the 26. I really have no idea though. Seems like every one that chooses, comes from a predisposition of 26 or 29.

    And advice for me?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gumboriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by epictrail View Post
    I ordered a sb-75 site unseen or tested. I've been a very happy as 29er rider, but I ride a hard tail 29. The decision is eating at me, as things like this make me think the 95 is the right bike. I did get a very short demo on a friends sb-95, and I though I might be happier with the lighter and more flick-able 75. His was an XL, but for me at 6'1" I would likely get the large in both 75 and 95. Perhaps riding an sb-95 large would have convinced me.

    I do think this whole 27.5 thing, is creating more confusion for the consumer. I would never have chosen 26 again, and would have stuck with 29, with those two choices. I am not sure the 75 is really that much different than the 26. I really have no idea though. Seems like every one that chooses, comes from a predisposition of 26 or 29.

    And advice for me?
    Another newbie here, but my 2c.

    I recently had the chance to demo the SB75 and SB95a, along with the Bronson and Solo from SC. Coming from a 26er hardtail anything felt good, but between the 75 and the 95, I prefered the 95 more.

    The 2 bikes felt nearly identical (and were both same spec - XT), slight slight nod to the 75 for flickability, but the 95 just felt more planted and stable, but didn't feel like it needed any extra muscle to chuck it through turns over the SB75, and certainly didn't sacrifice any of the fun. Both bikes were my first rides on a 29er and 27.5 so I didn't have any real bias over wheels, but thought I would like the 27.5 more going in.

    I prefered both Yetis over either the Santa Cruz bikes as well.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,364
    I have ridden the sb95a and c and own a sb66c. My vote is 95c by far since it also comes in a carbon frame vs 75 alum

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumboriginal View Post
    Another newbie here, but my 2c.

    I recently had the chance to demo the SB75 and SB95a, along with the Bronson and Solo from SC. Coming from a 26er hardtail anything felt good, but between the 75 and the 95, I prefered the 95 more.

    The 2 bikes felt nearly identical (and were both same spec - XT), slight slight nod to the 75 for flickability, but the 95 just felt more planted and stable, but didn't feel like it needed any extra muscle to chuck it through turns over the SB75, and certainly didn't sacrifice any of the fun. Both bikes were my first rides on a 29er and 27.5 so I didn't have any real bias over wheels, but thought I would like the 27.5 more going in.

    I prefered both Yetis over either the Santa Cruz bikes as well.
    Thanks for the reply Gumboriginal. This thread seems to be high on the 95, another on mtbr seems to be opposite and more for the 75. Yeti SB 75

    My 75 is back ordered from Jenson, and they keep pushing the date back. So I could still switch to the 95. Still not convinced that it will have the trail manners i'm looking for.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: giantdefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by epictrail View Post
    Thanks for the reply Gumboriginal. This thread seems to be high on the 95, another on mtbr seems to be opposite and more for the 75. Yeti SB 75

    My 75 is back ordered from Jenson, and they keep pushing the date back. So I could still switch to the 95. Still not convinced that it will have the trail manners i'm looking for.
    I currently have a 29er and have a SB75 on back order w jenson. The 29er is great through rock gardens, way smoother than my 26. The things I don't like is that when you pick up speed through fast single track, the bike doesn't switch directions as easily as a 26. Requires more trail braking and more body movement. With my 29er, I noticed that I always aim for the larger rocks just to get my thrill back and I stopped picking my lines coz the 29er just rolls over just about anything. Hated my 26 for getting jammed on rocks where the 29er would roll over like it wasn't there. Hopefully the 27.5 will give me that happy medium!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gumboriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    13
    Honestly I don't think you can really go wrong with either one, as I said to me they were both very similar bikes. Obviously your size, local trails and preferences come into play as well.

    The fact that the SB95 also comes in carbon, where the 75 doesn't (yet) swings me as well. If the 75 was in carbon right now, I think i'd have a tougher choice on my hands...

    I was also a little dirty that the 75 doesn't even come with the carbon swingarm like the alloy 66 and 95. I think we all know its coming, but it annoys me none the less.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumboriginal View Post

    I prefered both Yetis over either the Santa Cruz bikes as well.
    I had been a long time SC fan, but have a 575 coming...I know your looking at different bikes here (I am a single-pivot fan), but could you comment on the comparison between brands?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gumboriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie View Post
    I had been a long time SC fan, but have a 575 coming...I know your looking at different bikes here (I am a single-pivot fan), but could you comment on the comparison between brands?
    Hope you're not looking for anything too in depth, I'm not up on all the technical stuff, just what I 'feel' when riding, but I liked the Bronson a lot, I rode it at a demo day and it was a carbon one with xx1 and a pike so probably not completely fair to compare it to the other 3 which were all xt specced non-carbon. For me it was just more bike than what I think I need, and the rear didn't feel quite as plush as the yeti's. If I was going to get a bike with a bit more travel, it'd be high on the list though, and it made me 100% sure of getting a pike on my next bike.

    The 5010 (Solo) was actually a disapointment for me. Suspension (front and rear) felt quite harsh, and tracking at speed down rocky, rutted trail it was quite twitchy, something both yeti's handled much better. It did pedal efficiently, with a little less bob out of the saddle over the yetis though, but I'm a bit more of a sit and spin kinda guy so wasn't a big issue either way for me.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by giantdefy View Post
    I currently have a 29er and have a SB75 on back order w jenson. The 29er is great through rock gardens, way smoother than my 26. The things I don't like is that when you pick up speed through fast single track, the bike doesn't switch directions as easily as a 26. Requires more trail braking and more body movement. With my 29er, I noticed that I always aim for the larger rocks just to get my thrill back and I stopped picking my lines coz the 29er just rolls over just about anything. Hated my 26 for getting jammed on rocks where the 29er would roll over like it wasn't there. Hopefully the 27.5 will give me that happy medium!
    Agreed, looking for the same thing.

    To gumboriginal, I think carbon tooling is more expensive and takes longer. I've heard 100k for new carbon forms, so I bet yeti is gauging response on the 75 alum first, and working on Carbon now. I'm sure it will be along shortly, I would certainly prefer carbon also.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    757
    im interested in purchase the SB95 out of the three version SB95c, sb95 comp or sb95 which one is better?

    has anyone here smashed their sb95c on rocks?

  41. #41
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,613
    "better" - I think that's a "wallet decision" rave81, more about choosing your cost level.

    I haven't heard anything objectively decisive that the carbon version is anything other than lighter than the alloy versions, with the side effects of that (e.g. lighter rear triangle may allow the rear suspension to be more active, maybe; lighter bike overall is nicer always, for the same ride otherwise).

    IMO if money is no object then 95c with stiff/sturdy carbon rims.

    For the rest of us it becomes a balance of cost vs weight.

    The only drawback on the 95comp is the lack of options for build kit/suspension components...but it's less costly for those reasons I am sure.

    Of course, I'm opinionated, I have a '12 95a which is basically what the 'comp' frameset is. At this point mine is very non-stock though, the only stock parts from Yeti on the bike at this point are frame, cranks, headset, stem, h-bar, and rear shifter.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    128
    I own the same '12 95a as Bear (Race build with XT, but with carver carbon rims and king hubs), and I still love the bike a lot. The comp is the same frame, but now with a budget parts spec (i'm not too keen on the fork they have on that thing in particular).

    I actually have a lot of miles on the carbon version from riding one all three days at Outerbike this last year. I've heard people claim that it's stiffer, but at 162 lbs the aluminum version feels extremely stiff to me (and I hate noodley frames). The big advantage is the weight, and you notice it! Theoretically, the carbon should be just about as impact resistant, with the added benefit that you can actually repair a puncture (aluminum tubes with a fold go in the trash).

    The new A version with the carbon back end might be a good compromise and a way to save a few bucks (for new wheels!).
    Keith in Corvallis

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by rave81 View Post
    im interested in purchase the SB95 out of the three version SB95c, sb95 comp or sb95 which one is better?

    has anyone here smashed their sb95c on rocks?
    I really only have rocky nasty terrain with alot of loose shale to ride in where I live ,

    I generally would have to re-fab and weld up my aluminum bike main frame at least twice a year ( along with my buddies bikes ) and I would constantly be re-welding my rear section also to keep riding.

    I watched over the last 3 years as all my buddies got carbon bikes and I really thought they would not last 2 months here , I was wrong , the carbon has been really really tough , we have so far broken two rear sections on Santa Cruse Tall Boys and that has been it for alittle over 3 1/2 years .

    I have taken many really hard hits on the bottom of my Yeti's main frame and I have slammed it into the rocks on both sides and hit the rear section hundreds of times and the chassis is still straight and there is no carbon damage , I have ruined the finnish on the bike ( The Turquoise finnish is easy to chip and shows up badly , get the Black Raw finnish if you can ).

    But I have to say that the carbon is way stronger than I originally thought.


    There are several other failures I have seen out here on Ninner bikes , The main frame will break on some of the Ninners , I ride with one buddy that has the RDO and he has not had any problems with his and he absolutely beats the every living **** out of his and has no problems .

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    The Yeti Demo day is here in AZ this Saturday and Sunday and I will get some time on the 66 and the 75 and see how they work for me , so.. any of you guys on here that are close to AZ should come out and lets ride in some cold 60 degrees weather

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    955
    General question about the 95 that kinda fits this thread: Is the 95 meant to be a more upright-positioned bike (in terms of the rider)? I did a ton of measurements tonight comparing my current 26 machine against my 95 in order to better figure my sizing questions, and the only difference I found is that I'm a full inch higher at the bars on the 29, where surprisingly many of the other dimensions are very close.

    Without going into it more, just curious if the bike is meant to have a more upright position.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    Thats about right with the taller 29er wheel , this is one reason you will see racers have their stem flipped upside down or even small girls will have their bars upside down to lower their body down to be like it was on their 26er for pure XC racing.

    It feels to me that I am lower in the front on the 95 than my 26er AM bike , I had to raise my bars 1 1/4" and run 150mm travel fork to feel like I was sitting upright where I thought I needed to be .

    So you are correct in the 29er being taller in that measurement .

    I also had to raise the bars of my 26er and add 15mm of travel come to think of it to get it where I could kinda fit that bike also .

    If you have to go lower your way better off , going taller on any bike or increasing travel is really not the way to go ( ask me how I know)
    you raise the CG and lengthen the WB and can really make the bike a handful if your not carful.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    955
    Quote Originally Posted by kelstr View Post
    Thats about right with the taller 29er wheel , this is one reason you will see racers have their stem flipped upside down or even small girls will have their bars upside down to lower their body down to be like it was on their 26er for pure XC racing.

    It feels to me that I am lower in the front on the 95 than my 26er AM bike , I had to raise my bars 1 1/4" and run 150mm travel fork to feel like I was sitting upright where I thought I needed to be .

    So you are correct in the 29er being taller in that measurement .

    I also had to raise the bars of my 26er and add 15mm of travel come to think of it to get it where I could kinda fit that bike also .

    If you have to go lower your way better off , going taller on any bike or increasing travel is really not the way to go ( ask me how I know)
    you raise the CG and lengthen the WB and can really make the bike a handful if your not carful.
    Ok thank you. I did a ton of comparison measuring last night between the Large Reign that I spent all '13 on, a new Medium 66 that I recently scored, and my Large 95. Amazingly, they are all very, very close (top tube, wheelbase and a few other general measurements - which made me realize that the big 29 wheels ARE messing with my perception). I also measured the center point of where my bars are, from the ground, on all three (which is why I asked about the general height of the 95). The Reign has a huge head tube, so my stem was all the way down, but the Medium 66 is spaced up, to acquire the same bar height. Etc. Etc. As I said, the 95 is a full inch higher than the other two, and that stem is all the way down as well, but facing 6 degrees up.

    I may grab a 0 degree stem to get down a little more.

    Thanks for the info.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    14

    My SB-95 Build

    I ended up getting the 95c. Jenson hooked me up with a custom build after all the delays on the factory build. I only have 3 rides on it due to crappy weather. Easily the fastest and nicest bike I've ever owned.

    SB 75 vs SB 95-myyetisb-95carbon.jpg

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    268
    I didn't see if the OP got off the pot and decided on one or the other but after looking real close at a SB75 and SB95 it sure appears the SB75 uses the same rear swing arm because there is a lot of clearance between the yoke of the SB75 and the tire face where there is not on the SB95 or SB66 for instance. I'm not buying the new fad with the 27.5 personally, I have had a '08 575, 12 ASRc and now both the SB95c and ARCc. I'm a bigger guy and love the 29'r for rollover and climbing but am now keeping an eye out for an SB66c to add to the stable for the heck of it. Never spent enough time on the SB66 and would like something I can feel better thrashing on at 250lbs geared up (26" wheel will always be stronger then 27.5 or 29 on same hub)

    My vote is definitely for the SB95 over SB75, better roll over and still carves exceptionally well with barely a weight concession.
    SB5.5c XL M70HV EagleGold
    BearGrease Bluto XL XTR 2x10/1x
    SB95c L EnveAM Pike140 XTR 3x10
    ASRc L RS-1 120 EnveM60 XTR 1x11

  50. #50
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,613
    Quote Originally Posted by some dude View Post
    ... it sure appears the SB75 uses the same rear swing arm because there is a lot of clearance between the yoke of the SB75 and the tire face where there is not on the SB95 ...
    Interesting assertion.

    Somebody good at measuring frame components and with access to both ought to be able to establish the veracity.

    I kind of doubt it though. The Geom # posted show the SB75 as 0.1" shorter on the chainstay.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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