Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 369
  1. #251
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    I find people that sometimes forget (or don't know) that the star-nut + top-cap is merely for pre-loading the bearings, to take out slop, and that it is the stem which actually holds everything together.

    Don't forget to properly torque the stem bolts down on the steerer or it'll gain slop over time no matter how correctly set initially.

  2. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23

    Question

    Curious - what made you switch from a Tallboy to a 95? I rode the 95 and liked it. I haven't demo'd a Tallboy yet but wanted to for comparison.

  3. #253
    bike weenie
    Reputation: RWGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by lwalton View Post
    Curious - what made you switch from a Tallboy to a 95? I rode the 95 and liked it. I haven't demo'd a Tallboy yet but wanted to for comparison.
    Not sure who this is directed to - but I'll bite since I have both bikes. The Yeti didn't replace the tallboy for me, it was in addition to. Was looking for a longer travel 29er (I have the 100mm original tallboy with 110mm fork). I wanted the long-travel tallboy, but at the time Santa Cruz was completing full bike orders first, so it wasn't really available as a frame only, and they also didn't product the XXL size, which is what I ride on the original tallboy. Last - I hate both color schemes on the tallboy LT.

    In terms of differences - handling is the biggest. I have a 140mm fork on the Yeti, and with its slack headtube, it handles significantly differently than the tallboy. I use the TALAS setting on climbs, which helps, but once Push is able to work on 34 forks, I may convert it to a float at 130mm. Might also consider an "angle set" to steepen it slightly. Other than that - Yeti is maybe slightly more efficient suspension design, but that is offset by the heavier weight vs the tallboy IMO (my Yeti is light - around 27lbs, but my tallboy is 24). Travel feels bottomless compared to the Tallboy, and pedal strikes are more rare.

    If/when the carbon SB95 comes out, it could end up replacing both bikes.

  4. #254
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by lwalton View Post
    Curious - what made you switch from a Tallboy to a 95? I rode the 95 and liked it. I haven't demo'd a Tallboy yet but wanted to for comparison.
    Never owned the tallboy but had a chance to ride the Tallboy C, Tallboy LTC, Kona & SB95 all back to back. Then a few weeks later test rode again before laying money down. In my opinion it seemed as if the SB95 was the most balanced out of the group.

    Very short impression of each.
    Tallboy C - Really liked the handling but wanted long travel.

    Tallboy LTC - Steering felt slow & unbalanced

    Kona - Liked the ride, suspension felt soft for climbing, very similar to my old bike I was replacing

    SB95 - Pedaled well, felt balanced and suspension followed the trail no matter how poorly I ride it.

    Again this was only one individuals impression of a few bikes, others may like another model over another. It is all a personal choice on what bike feels better.

  5. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23
    Thanks for the reply. Curious - how'd you get your 95 down to 27 lbs? If I go with the Yeti, I'll swap out for the carbon frame later this year when the arrive. I talked to corp and they guessed mid-summer -> Interbike...

    Quote Originally Posted by RWGreen View Post
    Not sure who this is directed to - but I'll bite since I have both bikes. The Yeti didn't replace the tallboy for me, it was in addition to. Was looking for a longer travel 29er (I have the 100mm original tallboy with 110mm fork). I wanted the long-travel tallboy, but at the time Santa Cruz was completing full bike orders first, so it wasn't really available as a frame only, and they also didn't product the XXL size, which is what I ride on the original tallboy. Last - I hate both color schemes on the tallboy LT.

    In terms of differences - handling is the biggest. I have a 140mm fork on the Yeti, and with its slack headtube, it handles significantly differently than the tallboy. I use the TALAS setting on climbs, which helps, but once Push is able to work on 34 forks, I may convert it to a float at 130mm. Might also consider an "angle set" to steepen it slightly. Other than that - Yeti is maybe slightly more efficient suspension design, but that is offset by the heavier weight vs the tallboy IMO (my Yeti is light - around 27lbs, but my tallboy is 24). Travel feels bottomless compared to the Tallboy, and pedal strikes are more rare.

    If/when the carbon SB95 comes out, it could end up replacing both bikes.

  6. #256
    bike weenie
    Reputation: RWGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    582
    Biggest thing is I haven't yet added a dropper post

    There's a recent pic in this thread: Slik Graphics - Yeti Edition Fox Forks Decals

    It's pretty much an XC build with a few expensive parts, but nothing super crazy weight weenie. Here's some component highlights:

    Fox 34 talas
    SRAM XX drivetrain - run as 1x10
    RaceFace SixC cranks
    Thomson masterpiece post / x4 stem
    Easton bar
    Specialized Roval carbon wheels
    Hope race evo m4 brakes
    Specialized captain control 2.2 tires
    Crank bros eggbeater 3 pedals

    I'll need to throw it on the scale again. Haven't weighed it in a while and a few odds and ends have changed since I weighed it before. Maybe a hair under 27. Will post an update after work today.

  7. #257
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,583
    27 lbs? Really? It's 29 lbs stock in the Race/XT setup. Would assume tubeless, wheels, no dropper, maybe an XCish front tire, light pedals, and maybe lighter fork. I know adding pedals and a dropper offset any weight saving changes I made, winding up back at 29.

    Here's my first-hand thoughts on the comparisons:

    I thought the Tallboy had more a bottomless feel, but the Yeti has smoother predictable travel. I don't feel like I have more than 5" of travel, especially when landing flat, but it feels like a quality 5" of travel, in regards to finding traction and smoothing out the trail, and doing so without interfering your rhythm and flow nor requiring you to work with it to get the most out of it. Yeti has a more refined and more efficient pedaling in the saddle feel--it ain't for out of the saddle mashers and therefore lacks the want to mash steadily out of the saddle, but it's no worse than any other "long travel" Yeti model. There's plush, and then there's smooth and controlled. It's like the difference between a beginner's squishy RockShox fork and a skilled rider's Fox fork to me, with the Yeti sort of in between with a "coil feel" and the TB on the old Fox air fork end. It doesn't disagree with short intense accelerations to get up to speed, though it tells you to sit back in the saddle once your speed starts to plateau. Totally agree on lack of pedal strikes compared to the TBc. Yeti is also a more capable technical climber for sure; I've cleared climbs I never have before on any other bike, even with a lower fitness level than ever. It still gets pedal strikes though, but I feel they're more my fault than the bike's, since I'm used to worse.

    The TB LTc's biggest pluses are its out of the saddle pedaling feel, combined with its lower weight, for me. It feels responsive and made the Yeti feel like a dog, at least when trying to copy the same out of the saddle and on the gas riding style as the TB LTc, but the Yeti felt better all around. Impressed me how well the SB95 handled things over the TB LTc, making me a better rider. Feels like the LTc tries to be a "hare" and the SB95 is the turtle, except the TB LTc doesn't compare to other bikes that do a better job as being a hare, and it wasn't what I was looking for in a longer travel 29er. The pedaling on it made it feel awkward on the climbs, when in the saddle. If I were in a group and were behind someone, it'd have a seriously hard time trackstanding if the rider in front decided to stop and dismount, and its steering would flop so much when trying to go around that you'd be zig-zagging up without too much hope for recovery, esp if it were a steel singletrack climb with ruts; it's not bad on gentle fireroad climbs though. It's what I call a bike with personality--editors call it a bike that's not for everyone for a good reason. Feels much more fun to ride when not mixed in a group, as it likes to have room to go at its own pace; you can group ride it, but it will gravitate to wanting to be in front or chasing riders much faster and skilled than you.

    That all said, the Intense Spider 29 Comp is like the in betweener of the TB LTc and SB95. Kinda wish I went that route instead, but it came out after I bought the SB95. Can't say anything really bad about it--it seriously is the only bike that I find is above the SB95 for SoCal trails, erasing thoughts of the 66c and 27.5 bikes. It basically is like the SB95 but feels more responsive, lighter, and encourages out-of-the-saddle stints without really compromising on anything else.

  8. #258
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,583
    Ah, 1x10 and XX and fancy cranks (over XT) helps explain the low weight. My wheels aren't that light either, at 1650ish, due to the portly Chris King hubs.

    bear, I broke my Bionicon guide, despite the 3rd zip-tie. Those things are just fragile, I guess. Didn't even do anything really rough to make it break off, but I did ride really rough after it broke off and didn't miss it having it. The SB95 doesn't seem to benefit from it much at all, judging from that experience. You're still riding without one, right?

  9. #259
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    I found that my SB was really noisy without the bionicon.

    But that could be my trails speaking.

    I am in the middle of winter refresh with the bike, and am switching to a Zee rear derailleur so am going to try w/o the bionicon first.

  10. #260
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    I see no need for a guide with a 1X10 set-up on a SB-95...that is unless the noise bothers you. Never had a problem with that set-up.

  11. #261
    bike weenie
    Reputation: RWGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    582
    [QUOTE=Varaxis;10124134]...fancy... helps explain the low weight. QUOTE]

    Yes! Fancy always explains it!

    It's 27.35. Must be the 142x2 rear axle and lock ons that pushed it over the top.

  12. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23
    Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I liked that in the 95 I never got out of the saddle on climbs. I want to do some racing and my past experience I know getting out of the saddle always lead to fatigue. I'm coming from a '96 GT hardtail.

    I'm going to try and ride a TB next week. Impossible to find an Intense, Pivot, Transition, etc. in ATL. Also trying to rule out 650 but cant find one of those either. I think the high travel FS 29er is right for what I'm doing - N Ga trail riding and racing...

    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    27 lbs? Really? It's 29 lbs stock in the Race/XT setup. Would assume tubeless, wheels, no dropper, maybe an XCish front tire, light pedals, and maybe lighter fork. I know adding pedals and a dropper offset any weight saving changes I made, winding up back at 29.

    Here's my first-hand thoughts on the comparisons:

    I thought the Tallboy had more a bottomless feel, but the Yeti has smoother predictable travel. I don't feel like I have more than 5" of travel, especially when landing flat, but it feels like a quality 5" of travel, in regards to finding traction and smoothing out the trail, and doing so without interfering your rhythm and flow nor requiring you to work with it to get the most out of it. Yeti has a more refined and more efficient pedaling in the saddle feel--it ain't for out of the saddle mashers and therefore lacks the want to mash steadily out of the saddle, but it's no worse than any other "long travel" Yeti model. There's plush, and then there's smooth and controlled. It's like the difference between a beginner's squishy RockShox fork and a skilled rider's Fox fork to me, with the Yeti sort of in between with a "coil feel" and the TB on the old Fox air fork end. It doesn't disagree with short intense accelerations to get up to speed, though it tells you to sit back in the saddle once your speed starts to plateau. Totally agree on lack of pedal strikes compared to the TBc. Yeti is also a more capable technical climber for sure; I've cleared climbs I never have before on any other bike, even with a lower fitness level than ever. It still gets pedal strikes though, but I feel they're more my fault than the bike's, since I'm used to worse.

    The TB LTc's biggest pluses are its out of the saddle pedaling feel, combined with its lower weight, for me. It feels responsive and made the Yeti feel like a dog, at least when trying to copy the same out of the saddle and on the gas riding style as the TB LTc, but the Yeti felt better all around. Impressed me how well the SB95 handled things over the TB LTc, making me a better rider. Feels like the LTc tries to be a "hare" and the SB95 is the turtle, except the TB LTc doesn't compare to other bikes that do a better job as being a hare, and it wasn't what I was looking for in a longer travel 29er. The pedaling on it made it feel awkward on the climbs, when in the saddle. If I were in a group and were behind someone, it'd have a seriously hard time trackstanding if the rider in front decided to stop and dismount, and its steering would flop so much when trying to go around that you'd be zig-zagging up without too much hope for recovery, esp if it were a steel singletrack climb with ruts; it's not bad on gentle fireroad climbs though. It's what I call a bike with personality--editors call it a bike that's not for everyone for a good reason. Feels much more fun to ride when not mixed in a group, as it likes to have room to go at its own pace; you can group ride it, but it will gravitate to wanting to be in front or chasing riders much faster and skilled than you.

    That all said, the Intense Spider 29 Comp is like the in betweener of the TB LTc and SB95. Kinda wish I went that route instead, but it came out after I bought the SB95. Can't say anything really bad about it--it seriously is the only bike that I find is above the SB95 for SoCal trails, erasing thoughts of the 66c and 27.5 bikes. It basically is like the SB95 but feels more responsive, lighter, and encourages out-of-the-saddle stints without really compromising on anything else.

  13. #263
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    I found that my SB was really noisy without the bionicon.

    But that could be my trails speaking.

    I am in the middle of winter refresh with the bike, and am switching to a Zee rear derailleur so am going to try w/o the bionicon first.
    I swapped stock rear der for an XT Shadow Plus- really quieted the drive train down (as in virtually no chain slap) and have not had an issue dropping chain since (knock wood). Ride the SB mostly on BCGB, City Park, etc, so plenty of chunk and ledges.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  14. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23
    I rode the enduro kit and it was pretty quiet. The race kit builds are using the plus derailleurs now which should quiet the ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    I found that my SB was really noisy without the bionicon.

    But that could be my trails speaking.

    I am in the middle of winter refresh with the bike, and am switching to a Zee rear derailleur so am going to try w/o the bionicon first.

  15. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23
    I got a chance to sit on a 650 yesterday. Hard to notice the difference in a 26. The more I ride the SB, the more I realize the advantages of the big wheels out-way the disadvantage. My only issue is getting the bike around on tight switchbacks like I do on the 66. I have to slow it down sometimes and force the wheel a bit more. Training and new technique will help I'm sure. Also I've read moving the fork to 140 to slack the HT angle can help that. I do like flicking the big wheels though.
    Quote Originally Posted by lwalton View Post
    Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I liked that in the 95 I never got out of the saddle on climbs. I want to do some racing and my past experience I know getting out of the saddle always lead to fatigue. I'm coming from a '96 GT hardtail.

    I'm going to try and ride a TB next week. Impossible to find an Intense, Pivot, Transition, etc. in ATL. Also trying to rule out 650 but cant find one of those either. I think the high travel FS 29er is right for what I'm doing - N Ga trail riding and racing...

  16. #266
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    I've clocked fair mileage on my '95 with the fork at 140 and at 120.

    I like the slightly increased flickability at 120, it's not a huge difference but it is there. I think climbing switchbacks are a bit easier at 120, i'm not sure there's a material difference downhill. If the turn is VERY short then the "fall into the turn" technique works well for me - starting out wide on the outside and leaning/turning-in abruptly to cut the corner. If the front tire hangs up i'm on my face (at 1 mph), but that doesn't often happen.

    Come spring I am thinking of making a 10mm spacer and setting my fork to 130 and splitting the difference. ;^)

  17. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    29
    I am thinking of pressing the button on a SB95 which will be my first Yeti after a test ride yesterday.

    At the moment I am looking at my build spec and I would love to know how you get a Large frame to get anywhere near some of the weights quoted on this thread!! 30lbs I can almost believe but anything around 28lbs is surely just imagination?

    Would someone post some pictures of the bike in size Large with pedals on actual digital scales to prove these claims and tell me the spec?

  18. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Atomik Carbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Worm0898 View Post
    I am thinking of pressing the button on a SB95 which will be my first Yeti after a test ride yesterday.

    At the moment I am looking at my build spec and I would love to know how you get a Large frame to get anywhere near some of the weights quoted on this thread!! 30lbs I can almost believe but anything around 28lbs is surely just imagination?

    Would someone post some pictures of the bike in size Large with pedals on actual digital scales to prove these claims and tell me the spec?
    Absolutely possible. I got mine down to 28 pounds WITH a dropper post, this means around 27 pounds without. I could even go less, but ther are certain things I am not going to do with out.

    Here is how I could go less:

    Lighter Disc Brakes like Formula.
    Carbon Fiber Riser bars and lose close to 1/4 pound.

    Here is a photo and thread:

    FINALLY.....Yeti SB95 at 28 pounds WITH KS adjustable 125mm Post...

  19. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    29
    Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.

  20. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Atomik Carbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Worm0898 View Post
    Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.
    No, I weighed mine 3x on a bathroom scale that registers in.10ths.

  21. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Worm0898 View Post
    Have you got a picture on actual scales? The build on your bike is very serious and you have a medium frame which will equate to being a little lighter my post was aimed at the more normal builds with Stans wheels and XT groupset etc.
    if you want an SB-95 (large) to come in at 27-28 lbs you're probably gonna have to throw some money at it. average build/average cost = average weight. i threw a little money at mine, but mainly i got the weight down by doing a 1x10 set-up and using light-ish weight wheels. no Ti bolt kits, didn't cut my seat post down, etc... i'm also not running a dropper post... but i'd like one.

    i'm sure you could get an SB-95 down under 25 lbs, but would it be really rideable/durable/practical? is the extra several grand worth the few pounds saved? if spending your way to a much lower weight is what you're looking at.. you need to look at the carbon version, or a different bike altogether. good luck!

  22. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,518
    There are plenty of documented builds here in the 28lb range. Mine is right at 28lbs with a basic 1x10 build, a light set of wheels/tires (400g rims/600g tires), and a Reba fork. Seriously, people need pictures of scale readouts??

  23. #273
    Snapper
    Reputation: johnd663's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    489
    Hoping to pick up an XL frame. Coming off an XL Yeti 5 and worried the top tube is too short on the 95. Any tall bastards riding 95s without concern and long stems. I am 6.4 and normal proportions

  24. #274
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    You'll be great on an XL- I'm 6'5" and all torso (34" inseam), and the XL with stock stem is perfect.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  25. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    87

    SB 95 Build Thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnd663 View Post
    Hoping to pick up an XL frame. Coming off an XL Yeti 5 and worried the top tube is too short on the 95. Any tall bastards riding 95s without concern and long stems. I am 6.4 and normal proportions
    XL should be perfect. I'm 6-2 on a Large (more leg than torso and arms though). The wide handlebars compensate for the shorter stem and top tube.

  26. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,359
    I demo an XL and ride an XL 575 and it was a good fit

  27. #277
    Snapper
    Reputation: johnd663's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    489
    thanks for the big bloke thoughts - I have pulled the trigger - so excited - now 1 x 10 or 2 x 10?

  28. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,971
    I'm 227lbs and I've decided that I'm going 2x10 XTR Trail as it gives the perfect spread of gears. At least until I get SRAM XX1.

  29. #279
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by johnd663 View Post
    thanks for the big bloke thoughts - i have pulled the trigger - so excited - now 1 x 10 or 2 x 10?
    1x12

  30. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23

    The carbon upgrade -

    This bike isn't the same going from a to c. It's unreal

    SB 95 Build Thread?-419597_10200682107991565_174299424_n.jpgSB 95 Build Thread?-968896_10200682108031566_526385115_n.jpg

  31. #281
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Is the seat at the same height (to pedals) in both the above shots? Looks like less post exposed on the carbon frame, which would mean I need a different dropper to make the switch.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  32. #282
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    y'all are dropping 2# by spending $$$ on your ride, I'm looking at doubling the weight of my shock by spending $.

    I dunno who is crazier.

  33. #283
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    y'all are dropping 2# by spending $$$ on your ride, I'm looking at doubling the weight of my shock by spending $.

    I dunno who is crazier.
    We're all a little bit crazy.
    At least for me, going to a CF frame is about feel, nothing else. And no, who can financially justify this stuff?

  34. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23
    Same seat post - it was just further down when the pic was made. I only got the carbon frame - I put everything from my alloy on the carbon - same geometry.

    So after I sell the alloy w/ a CK headset I'll net -$1200-1300. But it's not the weight (although climbing on the carbon is like nothing I could have imagined. I don't even feel like I'm working my legs, so yeah that 2 lbs is complete ride changer). I race 30-40 mile races in GA so that alone is worth the cash. But the stiffness is insane. I've never rode carbon, but I can say the wash-out feelings of the 29er are gone. It rails through corners, and flicks like I remember the 66 feeling.

    But can I justify the cash out? Only to myself, no one else would get it

  35. #285
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Oh, I "get it" too ... just no way I can get it.

    I'm "banking on" the carbon upgrade for when I break the alloy.

    It's only a matter of time.

  36. #286
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    Oh, I "get it" too ... just no way I can get it.

    I'm "banking on" the carbon upgrade for when I break the alloy.

    It's only a matter of time.
    BTW Bear...you have to change your moniker to "Destroyer of shocks".

  37. #287
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post
    BTW Bear...you have to change your moniker to "Destroyer of shocks".
    Oh gawd, I hope not.

    Although, I have spent enough on tires to buy a CCDBAir at this point.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

  38. #288
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post

    Although, I have spent enough on tires to buy a CCDBAir at this point.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    Money spent on tires is a seriously depressing thought. Given my fondness for Schwalbes, I am thinking I have spent about 1k on tires since buying the bike.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  39. #289
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bacon Jr View Post
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    .

    Are both of you running 140 Floats? I'm thinking of remodeling, and trying to find a better fork. I'm afraid the 140 might be a bit lanky, but maybe not. The new Formula Thirty-Five or the Pike looks like good candidates, but the Pike is at 140, the Thirty-Five is adjustable.
    Nirvana for me would be an 1800gm 130mm coil.

  40. #290
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    simplemind, I've been a coil+oil guy for a LOONG time.

    but.

    I really REALLY like how my 29 Float 34 works. It's great.

    That said, my '13 model is currently at 140mm travel. It was 120mm as I received it, it had a 20mm travel limiting spacer in the bottom of the air chamber. Truly easy to pop out.

    I am planning on putting in a 10mm spacer the next time I'm in the fork, to try it out at 130mm travel.

    I've run it at both 120 and 140, and wasn't unhappy either way, so I think at 130 I'll end up with that happy medium of "maximun DH-ish-ness" vs "most agile".

  41. #291
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    I've run my '12 model 29 Float 34 at 120mm for it's entire life (about 2,700 miles) and have really liked it. Have been setting the bike up a bit plusher lately, and it still rails. Have thought about doing the 140 mm setting for a while, but left it as is when I rebuilt the fork at 2k miles.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  42. #292
    oot & aboot in Colorado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    It was 120mm as I received it, it had a 20mm travel limiting spacer in the bottom of the air chamber. Truly easy to pop out.
    Can you describe the procedure or is there an online guide or something for doing this conversion? I spent a couple of hours playing in a rock garden on my sb95 on Sunday and a little more would have been fun to play with...

    tia,

  43. #293
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Geek View Post
    Can you describe the procedure or is there an online guide or something for doing this conversion?
    - drain air from air spring
    - drop lowers off (you should be able to find oil service info on the ridefox.com or related site)
    - rotate fork so legs are horizontal, or pointing slightly up (otherwise you'll need float fluid to replace in air spring)
    - using c-clip pliers to take clip off bottom of air spring
    - GENTLY pull the bits out the bottom of the air spring until the travel spacer is visible
    - snap the travel limiter off
    - reassemble

    you'll want to get oil for the lowers, takes 30ml per side if I recall correctly, 10wt

    again, there's service info on the fork on the fox site, also lists tools needed.

    disclaimer: I've heard that the late model forks may have changed, so I can't say for SURE your fork has the spacer, but it is easy to find out. My fork is a '12 34 Float 29.

    have fun, good luck!

  44. #294
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    CTD model forks have significantly different internals, I am told. Check for the Fox service videos on YouTube- very helpful.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  45. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post
    Are both of you running 140 Floats? I'm thinking of remodeling, and trying to find a better fork. I'm afraid the 140 might be a bit lanky, but maybe not. The new Formula Thirty-Five or the Pike looks like good candidates, but the Pike is at 140, the Thirty-Five is adjustable.
    Nirvana for me would be an 1800gm 130mm coil.
    I have seen first hand a Pike 160 on a 29'r. Just an FYI.

  46. #296
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bacon Jr View Post
    CTD model forks have significantly different internals, I am told. Check for the Fox service videos on YouTube- very helpful.
    Mine is CTD.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

  47. #297
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    Mine is CTD.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    Ahhhhh- yours was delivered during the switchover. I ended up with pre-CTD model.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  48. #298
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bacon Jr View Post
    Ahhhhh- yours was delivered during the switchover. I ended up with pre-CTD model.
    I got lucky on the fork, unlucky on the shock, life is a balance.

    OTOH, I've always felt that my rear shock was "this" much "behind" the DH capability of the fork (in D mode), maybe I'll finally have Complete Bike Balance with the new damper that I'll be getting. My RP23 felt nicely balanced against my fork, with the fork in T-0, but with the fork D it was out paced, now and then obviously.

  49. #299
    Dab-O-Matic
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    I have seen first hand a Pike 160 on a 29'r. Just an FYI.
    Did it look like this?

    SB 95 Build Thread?-long-bike2.jpg

    Of course, that's my concern. The SB handles so well at 120mm, I'm really leery of going too slack plus the added BB height, but it wb interesting to ride a 160mm.
    I'm in the Bear's camp regarding 130mm being an ideal compromise, until someone convinces me otherwise.
    I did notice the Ripley (yes, considering that one as well) is stocked with a 140mm, has pretty similar specs, and an even lower BB ht @ 13.25.

  50. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridetheridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    354
    Just picked up my Turquoise SB95 w/ Race Kit. Man it is a nice bike ! The color in pictures doesn't do it justice when you see it in person. Next to my 575, the wheels are huge ! Yes.. it is a 29er. I see why they call them "wagon wheels". I installed a 60mm stem and will have to order some black pedals. My gray pedals off my 575, just don't cut it. I'm sure the next rides will be tweaking the suspension etc. Hope to ride it tomorrow.

    BTW...Everyone in this Yeti forum are very helpful and knowledgable. Reading through this thread along with replies to some of my own postings, help formulate my decision in getting this bike.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
  •