Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35

    SB 95 turning radius

    Been on a large about three months now and I love it. Coming off a fisher paragon and have gotten used to the wider bars. Climbs better on the loose and technical and no comparison on the descent. One thing I am having a hard time with are climbing turns and switchbacks. Not sure if it is the shorter cockpit (shorter stem), wider bars or maybe there is something to the genesis geometry on the fishers? Any ideas on what I could do to improve the handling on those tight turns?

  2. #2
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Are you on one of the stock builds or a custom build? I have a standard Race build and have no issues with tight switchbacks. Did have a bike fit done which made a huge difference.

    What is drop between seat and bars?
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  3. #3
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,311
    Also, running fork at 140 or 120?

    I spent the first 900 miles at 140, but with my pre-winter check of the fork I had a random act of wierdness make me put the limiter back in so the fork is at 120 now. I also reduced my suspension sag from 25-30% range to 20-25%. The bike is decidedly more "xc-aggro" and "turny" than before and my weight is significantly if slightly forward-shifted. I'm sure downhill-at-speed has been compromised but I doubt I'll find out by how much until March or April. General "couch-ness" is reduced but I'm not sure that true plush has been compromised as at-speed or with significant air time the suspension seems to feel about the same.

    The Fisher is an "XC" bike, the Yeti a "Trail" bike, so there's definitely an intended-use difference which I'm sure plays out in significant geometry changes.

    I had to do some digging to get a better understanding of the Genesis geometry thang, and it's basically a precursor to the current "progressive" geometry bikes minus maybe two factors - head tube and seat tube angles.

    My understanding of Genesis is "short chainstays, long top tube, short stem, slack seat tube angle, conventional head tube angle". The saddle gets put pretty far back over the rear wheel is also part of my understanding.

    You could similarly characterize the Yeti as "short chainstays, long top tube, short stem, conventional seat tube angle, slack head tube angle".

    Both these characterizations are gross oversimplification.

    Both bikes apparently use 51mm offset forks, so that's pretty similar (at similar travel).

    Note that the Yeti has short chainstays for a 29er FS 5" bike, but probably not as short as the Paragon.

    At a wild guess, the major difference you may be feeling is the difference in head/seat tube angles, along with wheel-base difference.

    I've ridden some bikes that make it easy/lazy in the turns ... the Yeti responds better to a more aggro approach - it it with speed and your weight forward towards the bars/front. I've never ridden a Paragon so can't say, but that's a difference.

    BTW, the Yeti *really* rewards you for being aggressive ... but the rear wheel *will* drift ... it's controlled though, nothing to be afraid of.

    Just spit-ballin' as it were.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    I am on a race build as well. I'll have to check and get back to you but I would guess it is pretty much even. I'm thinking I may need a set back seat post as I can see the front hub on my SB but it is pretty much out of view on my Paragon. So set back seat post or longer stem?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    Also, running fork at 140 or 120?

    I spent the first 900 miles at 140, but with my pre-winter check of the fork I had a random act of wierdness make me put the limiter back in so the fork is at 120 now. I also reduced my suspension sag from 25-30% range to 20-25%. The bike is decidedly more "xc-aggro" and "turny" than before and my weight is significantly if slightly forward-shifted. I'm sure downhill-at-speed has been compromised but I doubt I'll find out by how much until March or April. General "couch-ness" is reduced but I'm not sure that true plush has been compromised as at-speed or with significant air time the suspension seems to feel about the same.

    The Fisher is an "XC" bike, the Yeti a "Trail" bike, so there's definitely an intended-use difference which I'm sure plays out in significant geometry changes.

    I had to do some digging to get a better understanding of the Genesis geometry thang, and it's basically a precursor to the current "progressive" geometry bikes minus maybe two factors - head tube and seat tube ang

    My understanding of Genesis is "short chainstays, long top tube, short stem, slack seat tube angle, conventional head tube angle". The saddle gets put pretty far back over the rear wheel is also part of my understanding.

    You could similarly characterize the Yeti as "short chainstays, long top tube, short stem, conventional seat tube angle, slack head tube angle".

    Both these characterizations are gross oversimplification.

    Both bikes apparently use 51mm offset forks, so that's pretty similar (at similar travel).

    Note that the Yeti has short chainstays for a 29er FS 5" bike, but probably not as short as the Paragon.

    At a wild guess, the major difference you may be feeling is the difference in head/seat tube angles, along with wheel-base difference.

    I've ridden some bikes that make it easy/lazy in the turns ... the Yeti responds better to a more aggro approach - it it with speed and your weight forward towards the bars/front. I've never ridden a Paragon so can't say, but that's a difference.

    BTW, the Yeti *really* rewards you for being aggressive ... but the rear wheel *will* drift ... it's controlled though, nothing to be afraid of.

    Just spit-ballin' as it were.
    Thanks for the input. I'm running 120. As i mentioned in the response to the other post. I may try a set back post as I'm feeling a little cramped in the cockpit being able to see the front hub over the top of the bar. Yeah, I've had to adapt a bit on the tight twisty trails we have in Dallas especially with the wider bars. The only thing I haven't figured out is how to whip that front wheel around on the hairpins.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tangyman View Post
    Thanks for the input. I'm running 120. As i mentioned in the response to the other post. I may try a set back post as I'm feeling a little cramped in the cockpit being able to see the front hub over the top of the bar. Yeah, I've had to adapt a bit on the tight twisty trails we have in Dallas especially with the wider bars. The only thing I haven't figured out is how to whip that front wheel around on the hairpins.
    Interesting. I as well am a Dallas (primarily) trail rider and Yeti owner, Big Top in my case though. Just curious, which trails are you having the most challenges with regard to switchbacks?

    On the handle bar subject, I can definitely feel your pain there. The stock bars were a good 28.5" wide (straight across) or so, which for the likes of Boulder Park, Oak Cliff, Grapevine and Cedar Hill is farrrrrrr too wide. Immediately at bike pick up I had them lop off 1" from either side and I still was nickin' trees on occasion. I'm now down to about 25.5" wide and am finally feeling fairly comfortable navigating the tightest tree spaces. If you haven't trimmed your bars yet, for most of the trails around the metroplex I would highly recommend doing so

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by icelt View Post
    Interesting. I as well am a Dallas (primarily) trail rider and Yeti owner, Big Top in my case though. Just curious, which trails are you having the most challenges with regard to switchbacks?

    On the handle bar subject, I can definitely feel your pain there. The stock bars were a good 28.5" wide (straight across) or so, which for the likes of Boulder Park, Oak Cliff, Grapevine and Cedar Hill is farrrrrrr too wide. Immediately at bike pick up I had them lop off 1" from either side and I still was nickin' trees on occasion. I'm now down to about 25.5" wide and am finally feeling fairly comfortable navigating the tightest tree spaces. If you haven't trimmed your bars yet, for most of the trails around the metroplex I would highly recommend doing so
    Well the only trail that has switchbacks- Big Cedar LOL. Actually Cedar Hill has some but I haven't been out there yet on the new bike but I don't think it will be as big a problem.

    Regarding bar width, they are a good 3" wider than the bars on the Paragon, but I was advised to leave them as is as they would help on the rocky stuff I ride out in Ruidoso, Santa Fe and Colo. I've kinda gotten used to them at this point, but if they would help in navigating the tight switchbacks then I would gladly whip out the hacksaw.

  8. #8
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,311
    wider bars will in fact feel slower, cutting is not unreasonable, this would also let you sit back more comfortably - either by raising your body a bit or by also using a setback post.

    you can also change your technique a little, throwing the front wheel a little more to the outside to get some carve + turn + more bike lean on your windy stuff.

    sadly, I have nothing smooth enough and turny enough local to try it out.

    sometimes, rarely but sometimes, even I miss Walnut Creek.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    wider bars will in fact feel slower, cutting is not unreasonable, this would also let you sit back more comfortably - either by raising your body a bit or by also using a setback post.

    you can also change your technique a little, throwing the front wheel a little more to the outside to get some carve + turn + more bike lean on your windy stuff.

    sadly, I have nothing smooth enough and turny enough local to try it out.

    sometimes, rarely but sometimes, even I miss Walnut Creek.
    Thanks, I'll talk to the bike shop and see if he'll let me trade out a seat post. Can't go back on the bar reduction effort. Yeah, I hear WC is a beast.

  10. #10
    Lucky...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by bear View Post
    sometimes, rarely but sometimes, even I miss Walnut Creek.
    Gotta admit- on the SB-95, the Nut is ok, but nothing to go out of your way to ride. On the Big Top at speed, it is fun as hell. Really has helped develop my skills at flicking the bike hauling a$$, which has translated well to big trail rides on the SB.
    Yeti SB-95a Black

  11. #11
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Bacon Jr View Post
    Gotta admit- on the SB-95, the Nut is ok, but nothing to go out of your way to ride.
    You gotta remember, the last time I rode the 'nut it was on a Titus SuperMoto with 7" travel front and rear and a 66d HTA ... I have a perverted view of that trail network to be sure ... and the '95 is a "xc beast" in comparision!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tangyman View Post
    Well the only trail that has switchbacks- Big Cedar LOL. Actually Cedar Hill has some but I haven't been out there yet on the new bike but I don't think it will be as big a problem.

    Regarding bar width, they are a good 3" wider than the bars on the Paragon, but I was advised to leave them as is as they would help on the rocky stuff I ride out in Ruidoso, Santa Fe and Colo. I've kinda gotten used to them at this point, but if they would help in navigating the tight switchbacks then I would gladly whip out the hacksaw.
    Still haven't road BC on my BT. Need to do that. But now that you mention it, yeah I recall a few tight switchback's on the Texas Sunset (IIRC) trail.

    Although FWIW they have very recently modified one of the Red loops at Boulder Park to include a tight downhill switchback (the very best kind right?). Tight downhill SB are just a pain in the arse in general in my experience though.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by tangyman View Post
    Been on a large about three months now and I love it. Coming off a fisher paragon and have gotten used to the wider bars. Climbs better on the loose and technical and no comparison on the descent. One thing I am having a hard time with are climbing turns and switchbacks. Not sure if it is the shorter cockpit (shorter stem), wider bars or maybe there is something to the genesis geometry on the fishers? Any ideas on what I could do to improve the handling on those tight turns?
    I definitely had to modify my style for super tight ascending switchbacks. I generally feel that most 29'ers feel less stable at low speed than 26'ers. I attribute this to the little bit of play that you get from the natural flexing of the bigger wheels.

    For the tight stuff where you only have maybe a couple of inches of potential forward movement of the rear wheel I basically unweight the front of the bike and lean into the turn. Let the front wheel move quickly around the turn and then apply power once you've straightened out.

    I'm running the front at 140 also and this only exacerbates the low speed instability.

  14. #14
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,311
    BHR: i use that too, i call it "falling in to the turn"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackHillsRider View Post
    I definitely had to modify my style for super tight ascending switchbacks. I generally feel that most 29'ers feel less stable at low speed than 26'ers. I attribute this to the little bit of play that you get from the natural flexing of the bigger wheels.

    For the tight stuff where you only have maybe a couple of inches of potential forward movement of the rear wheel I basically unweight the front of the bike and lean into the turn. Let the front wheel move quickly around the turn and then apply power once you've straightened out.

    I'm running the front at 140 also and this only exacerbates the low speed instability.
    I'll give that a try. Anybody have a portable mattress I can throw done at the crux of each turn? ;-)

  16. #16
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by tangyman View Post
    I'll give that a try. Anybody have a portable mattress I can throw done at the crux of each turn? ;-)
    661 makes those, they're smaller than you think, but work well.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Well I added a setback seatpost and cut the handlebars on eac h side about an inch and it helped some. Got out a tape measure and it really bills down to a difference in geometry. The sb wheelbase is 2" longer than the paragon. A half inch llonger in the chainstays and an inch and a half in front of the cranks. The paragon cockpit is an inch and a half longer than the sb. Practicing tight turns on the paragon it is almost impossible turn the wheel under not so on the sb. I'll just a have to work on falling into the turns without falling on my side and just realize there is a tradeoff for having the stability on the descents. Thanks for the input.

Posting Permissions

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